Conscious Choice: Less Education Funds Equal More Military Recruits

May 2006 | Editor’s Note

Less Education Funds Equal More Military Recruits

A couple years back, some of my journalism students at Columbia College told me about being “harassed.” (Their word, not mine.) They said military recruiters were relentless in trying to get them and their siblings to sign up for military service, particularly around the time they graduated from high school. The interesting thing here was that the students who experienced this harassment were predominately lower-income and/or minority students.

Recently, I went to an event at Loyola University that featured U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) sounding the alarm about federal cuts to higher education financial aid programs.

As a result, Durbin said, “48 percent of low-income high school graduates who qualify for college don’t go to a four-year school because they don’t have the money.” And, he added: “The deficit-reduction bill approved earlier this year included $12 billion in cuts to student aid — the single largest cut in the history of financial aid programs.”

Now I can’t help but wonder if there’s a connection between these two things: The war in Iraq, which doesn’t seem to have an end in sight, and the federal cuts in higher education funds.

What a genius way to boost military recruitment: cut off educational opportunities for lower-income young people in order to funnel them straight into the military. That way, the elite, rich class can be certain that its children will become all the more richer and all the more elite. This plan removes the threat of upper-class children being drafted because there will be a big crop of other young people volunteering to join the military since they don’t have any other options such as college.

Consider some highlights from Durbin’s press release and statements:

President Bush’s 2007 budget froze the maximum Pell grant at $4,050 for the fourth year in a row. Twenty years ago, the maximum Pell grant for low-income and working-class families covered about 24 percent of the average cost of attending a four-year private college. Today’s maximum only covers about 14 percent.

Bush also proposed elimination of Perkins Loans, which provide low-interest loans to low-income families. Eliminating Perkins Loans means that more than 40,000 Illinois students will not have access to $95 million in low-interest loans.

Durbin also dropped this financial aid bombshell: “As of July 1st, regardless of whether market rates are lower, student loan interest rates will be fixed at 6.8 percent for student borrowers and 8.5 percent for parents who borrow for their child’s education. According to the Project on Student Debt, these new interest rates will result in payments that are 20 percent higher compared with the 2004-2005 rates — doubling the total interest paid over the life of the loan. Students will no longer be allowed to consolidate their loans while in school in order to lock-in low rates.”

Durbin had a lot of other disturbing statistics and observations, but I think you get the idea. So what’s the answer here? Durbin said higher education funding needs to become a major issue in upcoming election campaigns. He also suggested flooding our federal legislators with letters, emails, calls and complaints. And we need to get on the Internet to spread the word and get organized.

That already may be happening. Recently, an email popped into my inbox with a subject line urging me to “Connect & Organize for Education Reform.” It came from a group called Campaign for America’s Future, and it contained more disturbing statistics similar to Durbin’s. For instance, it said that “in 2005 alone, 200,000 students did not enroll in college at all because of financial barriers.” Check out their website.

— Marla Donato

Recommend this page to a friend

Top Ten pages recommended to friends: