The military performs strategic targeted recruitment in order to coerce low income and working class students into thinking the military is their only option

Research suggests that the military knows exactly where to look when carrying out tactics of targeted recruitment. According to a 2004 Boston Globe inquiry into military WEAPONIZATION OF POVERTY 22 recruitment practices, researchers determined, “recruiters target certain schools and students for heavy recruitment, and then won’t give up easily: Officers call the chosen students repeatedly, tracking their responses in a computer program… eligible students are hit with a blitz of mailings and home visits”68. Analysis of the location of JROTC units in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), the second largest district in the nation, reveals that these military programs are located in schools serving predominantly low-income Latino and African American students69. As of 2004, sixty-one percent of LAUSD high schools (30 of 49) had a JROTC unit on campus with a total enrollment of 6,000 students70. Individual case study comparisons have been explored as well. In 2004, Whitney Young High School, a large selective magnet school in Chicago, had only seven military recruiter visits compared to 150 visits from university recruiters; Schurz High School, which is 80% Hispanic, had nine recruiter visits as compared to a measly ten visits from universities71. On a national scale, Marshall and Brown (2004) found it far more common for young people from rural areas and from the southern USA to join the military than their northern, urban counterparts. Socio-economically breaking it down, Segal et al (1999) found that perceived interest in the military declined as the grade level increased. Eighth graders had a higher propensity to enlist in the military than did their tenth and twelfth grade counterparts. Furthermore, the study also found that young people from intact homes (two-parent families) are less likely to serve in the military than those in single-parent homes72. Young people whose parents had attained high levels of education were least likely to join the military and respondents who aspired to a college education also indicated a very low motivation to enlist73. Similar findings regarding socio-economic factors broken down by race were reported in a now somewhat dated study by Teachman and Call (1993). They report that among Caucasian 23 males, high mother’s education level and high high-school grade-point average (GPA) were predictors of low military propensity. For African American males, father’s education and GPA showed a low propensity to enter the military74. However, among African American males, higher educational aspirations were a major predictor of higher interest in enlistment, suggesting that military service might be viewed as opening educational opportunities. As for whites, they discovered the highest tendency to enlist directly after high school graduation. White males who were working or enrolled in postsecondary school were far less likely to enlist. Finally, for African American men, work and school were insignificant predictors of propensity to enlist75 76. These findings seem to suggest a relationship between enlistment and an understanding of one’s economic security down the line. Given that the quality of one’s education remains a strong indicator for both economic and social security later on in life, it makes sense that parents would find comfort in the military’s pitch to help educate their child. Furumoto (2005) driveshome how it is the military’s exact strategy to instill this mindset in poor and working class school districts where “many parents lack knowledge about military recruitment practices and the implications for their children”77. Military programs, such as the JROTC, are often touted as a “solution to high dropout rates and failing grades”78. However, Furumoto finds fault in this argument stating, “the assertion that the military is the ‘best opportunity’ to get a college education belies the facts”79