Washington Makes It Hard To Take A Stand

Here is what the San Francisco Chronicle says about Proposition I:

Military recruiting ban. NO. We share the authors' disdain for the military's discriminatory "don't ask, don't tell" policy -- as well as their disagreement with the war in Iraq. This policy statement is nonbinding, but if its call for restrictions on military recruiting in public schools were carried out, it could cost city schools $40 million in federal funds, a sacrifice that no one who cares about education would advocate. In our view, if you're going to make a "policy statement" on principle -- you must be willing to accept the consequences of the stand ... or it's not really a statement of principle at all.

So should people vote against the proposition because it could cost city schools millions or because it doesn't have the guts to risk the money? This doesn't make any sense. In fact the statement of principle that we are trying to put forward is that military recruiters should not be in our public schools, but as an obvious extension of that we believe that no schools should lose money for taking such a stand. Backers of Prop I didn't create the policy that could strip funding from public schools, so why should our statement of principle have to accept those consequences.

While a local ballot measure doesn't have the power to change federal law, it can be a powerful statement against federal laws and policies. If the Chronicle Editors aren't opposed to using a ballot measure to simply take a stand, and they're opposed to the war, the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, and the Solomon Amendment, then it is baffling that they have chosen to endorse a No vote on Prop I.