Submitted by Greg Alderete.
In our schools, where young minds are meant to learn the art of questioning authority and embracing the complexity of human experience, the presence of Junior ROTC is a stark contradiction to these ideals. This program, designed to inculcate a militaristic mindset, pushes the notion that violence is an acceptable solution once diplomacy fails—a notion that has been used to justify brutal acts of killing throughout history.
By introducing teenagers to a worldview where the defined enemy must be eliminated, we risk teaching them that conflict can only be resolved through violence. This black-and-white perspective, one where under some circumstances killing is sanctioned and under others it is not, undermines the moral and ethical development that education should foster. Instead of nurturing critical thinking, empathy, and an understanding of the power of nonviolent resistance, Junior ROTC reinforces obedience and the glorification of force.
History is replete with examples where such uncritical acceptance of military ideology has led to devastating consequences. As students, who are still forming their values and beliefs, are exposed to these lessons too early, they become susceptible to accepting authority without question. The mature citizenry that democracy demands should be cultivated through thoughtful discourse and reflection, not through early indoctrination into a system of violence.
I believe that military training and ideology, in any form that endorses killing as a means to an end, should be reserved for adulthood—when individuals are fully capable of critical self-reflection and can bear the moral weight of such choices.
JROTC is a character development, life skills, and leadership program. The military provides a vehicle for students to attain graduated leadership positions where they can test their leadership knowledge and abilities. Critical thinking is a core ability in the curriculum, and students learn to be productive citizens through questioning, discourse, teamwork, and performance.
The primary mission of the U.S. Army is to engage and defeat enemies in defense of national interests. However, integrating Junior ROTC into schools raises ethical concerns. While proponents argue it instills discipline and leadership, critics see it as premature military indoctrination. Teenagers, still developing cognitively and emotionally, may not fully grasp the gravity of military service or warfare’s consequences. Encouraging patriotism and civic responsibility is valuable, but exposing minors to a structured path toward combat before they can make informed decisions is questionable. Education should prioritize critical thinking over recruitment, ensuring students understand all their future options.
“In our schools, where young minds are meant to learn the art of questioning authority”? I am 100% certain that is NOT what school is supposed to be. Teaching critical thinking, (analyzing, questioning, and evaluating information) is much different than questioning authority. Unless they are being harmed or abused, do want them questioning the authority of teachers and school administration?
Not sure what your participation level was in ROTC but mine, even though short, did not push the mindset of violence. The quarter I took, my freshman year of college, mainly focused on Air Force history.
I assume this was meant as satire.
That’s true—Junior ROTC programs, and military recruiting in general, often draw from lower-income and minority communities. The military presents itself as a path to education, job training, and upward mobility, which can be appealing to those with limited opportunities. However, this also means that those most likely to serve—and potentially sacrifice the most—come from backgrounds where other options may be scarce. That’s why it’s even more important that they hear the unvarnished truth from combat veterans. If they’re going to make a life-altering decision, they should do so with a full understanding of both the rewards and the harsh realities.
I think you also inhaled while smoking
ROFLMAO
Taking Greg at face value, I’ll disagree at the margins on this one. For perhaps too many, JROTC is a much needed path providing for a more disciplined life with well defined career options. The failure to provide a broad and balanced foundation for critical reasoning abilities, which is certainly lacking in the USA, is on those who instruct and lead. The world is an ugly place in too many ways. I wish it were much less so in our own Country.
Greg, what alternates do you know of to resolve difficulties when diplomacy fails? And, if there are any, what do you recommend when those alternative measures fail? I think you may have not recognized that military capabilities can be used defensively rather than assuming they are only used aggressively. For a real world example, how would you have advised Ukraine to deal with Russia?
When diplomacy fails, nations typically turn to economic sanctions, strategic alliances, cyber warfare, intelligence operations, and, ultimately, military deterrence or defense. The goal is to pressure an adversary without direct conflict while maintaining national security. If those measures fail, military force may be the last resort—ideally used in a defensive capacity to protect sovereignty and deter aggression rather than as an act of expansionism.
Regarding Ukraine, my advice would have been to prepare a strong deterrence strategy well before Russia’s invasion. This would include:
1. Military Readiness – Investing in asymmetric warfare tactics, enhancing air defenses, and securing early access to Western weapons systems.
2. Alliances and Intelligence Sharing – Strengthening ties with NATO, securing security guarantees, and leveraging real-time intelligence from allied nations.
3. Economic and Cyber Resilience – Diversifying energy sources to reduce dependency on Russia and fortifying cybersecurity to counter hybrid warfare.
4. Territorial Defense Strategy – Training a strong reserve force and arming civilians, as seen in their resistance efforts.
Once Russia invaded, Ukraine’s response—leveraging international support, sanctions against Russia, and defensive military strategies—was largely the best possible course. If those failed, a prolonged insurgency could have been the last measure, making occupation too costly for Russia.
Mr Alderete is woefully uninformed about what JROTC is and does. JROTC doesn’t indoctrinate, it informs and fosters a spirit of self service, teamwork, and discipline into young persons who very often need a sense of structure and purpose in their lives. Mr Alderete probably could have benefitted from a program like JROTC. Such programs sharpen dull minds.
So it is wrong to teach our young adults that there are rules and you have to obey they them whither you like them or not? It is now wrong to learn to respect those appointed above you? It is wrong to learn how to work as a team? In that case you got to throw out the glee clubs, the chess club or the school paper because they all have rules that pertain those interests and they teach the same ideals.
The military doesn’t wage war just because it can, It wages war if it has to! Your condescending comments show how out of touch you are with the real world.
I am proud that I spent 4 years in JROTC and went on to active duty where I left with a rank of SSgt and was responsible for 21 members providing advanced life support on a military training base.
You are correct that high school years are the years where we learn how to live in a society. The lessons I learned back then still affect the decisions I make today.
1. “In schools where young minds are meant to learn the art of questioning authority…”
2. “…introducing teenagers to a worldview where the defined enemy must be eliminated, we are teaching them that conflict can only be resolved through violence.”
These are not the goals of JROTC.
Also, aren’t you contradicting yourself when you say that your advice to Ukraine would have been to prepare a strong deterrence strategy well before Russia’s invasion to include Military Readiness?
However, I’ll admit that you certainly have guts to make this kind of statement in this particular community!
Not at all. Advocating for a strong deterrence strategy before an invasion doesn’t contradict acknowledging the reality of Ukraine’s situation when the war began. Deterrence is about preventing conflict, but once deterrence fails, the focus shifts to resistance and survival. Ukraine’s military readiness in 2022 was far better than in 2014, but still insufficient to fully deter Russia. The lesson isn’t contradiction—it’s that long-term preparation is crucial. The West underestimated Putin, and Ukraine’s defenses, while improved, needed more. Advising deterrence before war and supporting resistance once it starts are complementary, not contradictory, approaches.
If we’re going to teach Junior ROTC, then combat veterans in the community should have the opportunity to speak candidly with aspiring soldiers about the realities of war—including the grim, often unspoken aspects, like scraping the remains of a friend out of a Humvee after an IED strike. Too often, military service is presented as a path of discipline, honor, and adventure, while the brutal cost—physical, emotional, and psychological—is downplayed. Young recruits deserve the full picture, not just the recruiting posters. If we’re shaping future leaders, they must understand both the pride of service and the weight of sacrifice.
Greg Alderete: NONSENSE.
May you live a long happy life free of violence.
your response is the intellectual equivalent of covering your ears and yelling, “Nonsense!” Dismissing reality doesn’t change it. If you can’t engage with the hard truths of military service—who fights, who dies, and why—then maybe this conversation is beyond your depth. Enjoy your blissful ignorance.
Right on!!!
I wonder where the idea that more mature adults made better decisions than our youth are capable of, ever originated? The multiple horror stories we live with today were not the result of choices made by highschoolers, trained or not! The Bishop of Hippo developed a Just War Theory some 1500 years ago. While I don’t find it very convincing, there are circumstances where the leaders of governments fail to take actions that prevent violence resulting in wars that cannot be avoided. All without the benefit of JROTC. In short, the presence or absence of JROTC will neither cause nor prevent future wars. Maybe we need a JNVRC.
I find it interesting that Greg, out of one side of his mouth, wants to ban JROTC because of its alleged corrupting influence on our youth but out the other side of his mouth is all for sexually deviant and explicit books remaining in libraries, even school libraries, to not have a corrupting influence on our youth. Inconsistent at best; duplicitous at worst.
I am not aware of any sexually explicit books in schools, with the exception of the Bible. Your attempt to equate literature—whether controversial or not—with a program that teaches violence. Comparing books to training children to kill is such a radically false equivalence that it’s clear you either don’t understand the issues or are deliberately distorting them. If you want to have a serious discussion, at least try to make a coherent argument rather than grasping at nonsensical comparisons.
Clearly you are unaware that such books are in school libraries despite protests from parents. Do some research. The same arguments you make to have them in public libraries, where youth can obtain them, are the the same arguments made by school districts for keeping them in school libraries where youth can obtain them. I’d suggest that youth are far more likely to encounter sexual deviancy rather than find themselves in a military fire fight. So which is the more likely “corruption”?
History books then should be banned as well as human history if full of human conflict and you wouldn’t want youth to get some “corrupt” ideas by reading them. You don’t have to go to JROTC to learn how to kill. As kids we played soldier and “killed” each other all the time: it’s part of human nature. Would you also ban the many combat video games as well? They are much more effective in training youth to kill or be killed. The same kind of virtual warfare gaming has been increasingly used for military training over the last several decades.
I agree wholeheartedly that diplomacy should be used at the first attempt at conflict resolution. I wondered if your suggestion of banning JROTC might promote this concept. Unfamiliar with the actual program I went to https://www.usarmyjrotc.com/jrotc-curriculum-overview/ to learn a bit about the program. I found the curriculum to be quite interesting as were the results of the JROTC Program Survey Results SY 22-23. In response to the question “JROTC program teaches Cadets to be better citizens” both Cadets and percents responded “yes”, Cadets 95%, parents 94%.
So I guess my question is, is JROTC “designed to inculcate a militaristic mindset” and need to be banned? I can say without attending their programs.
I think the debate should be what kind of military and law enforcement do we want in and for this country.
I’ve agreed with this perspective for a long time. The unfortunate and ironic thing is my son ended being in ROTC. He enjoys it but I do wish it had not been an option for our youth. I appreciate your opinion.
This is what I like to see: thoughtful and reasoned comments from people with differing viewpoints. It’s good for the community, good for democracy, and the best reason for not having a list of off-limit subjects in this venue.
I agree 100% with Aaron Arkin. There are pros and cons to the question posed and no right OR wrong answers.
The presence of JROTC in schools is a quiet yet powerful endorsement of militarism, conditioning young minds to accept war as an inevitable part of life. It normalizes the idea that discipline and leadership must be tied to warfare, subtly preparing students to serve the interests of those who wage war, not those who suffer from it. High schoolers, still forming their moral and political consciousness, are led down a path where service to the nation is equated with military service—without full awareness of the costs.
Meanwhile, the Boy Scouts offer an alternative: leadership, community service, and skill-building without the shadow of death and destruction. They teach young people responsibility, teamwork, and survival skills without training them to see others as enemies. Their focus is on service to the community, not the battlefield.
If we truly want to instill values of leadership and civic duty, we should not do so under the banner of war. Schools should be places of critical thought and ethical development, not recruitment centers for the military-industrial complex. Removing JROTC and promoting organizations like the Boy Scouts is a step toward a culture that values peace over perpetual conflict. OUT