Today, the NUT Conference will debate a motion banning the military from going into schools. (Do they have the power, or is this a Government or L.A. decision?)
The claim is that the military are presenting an over-glamourous view of army life. What of all other would-be recruiters? Do banks, or police or teachers show an objective "warts and all" view of life in their institutions?
So long as the military subsequently provide full and honest counselling, perhaps recruits experience a short period of army life in a summer school before signing on, what is the problem?
Military life in peace time is a very attractive one - camaraderie and team activity, sport, travel, all meals found, learning a useful trade, etc. So are the "lefties" complaining that young people will be cannon-fodder? (They may be if a Government embroils them rashly in an illegal war, and fails to supply them with the proper and adequate equipment, but this is hardly the fault of the military.)
The supporting evidence is that provided by the (lefty) Rowntree Trust research, that there is a high drop out at age 22. The drop-out could be caused by many things but 22 is the age at which the recruits reach the end of their four year contract, and would concentrate any "resignations".
Most of us would be concerned if the military told lies, but I suspect that some teachers would have ample time to redress the message.
So are the NUT ultimately ashamed of the military, ultra-pacifist, or merely weighed down by their own political ideology?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment