This is a decent explanation
Nguyen 14 [Nicole, Department of Cultural Foundations of Education at Syracuse University, January 21, “Education as Warfare?: Mapping Securitised Education Interventions as War on Terror Strategy,” Vol. 1 No. 1, pg. 20-6]
Since September 11, the US has renewed its focus on domestic education as a critical component of protecting national and economic security. This focus includes shifting instruction and curricula toward preparing students for the military and security industry, infusing ideas of security and safety into school culture, militarising school space through the implementation of techniques like zero tolerance policies and surveillance cameras, and teaching students these dominant representations of the brown Other. In this articulation of the role of schools, ﬁghting the war on terror begins at home in our public schools, which conscript students into the war effort by educating them for war and perpetuating fear and anxiety. Such measures are not new in the post-9 / 11 US security state. Jackson reminds us that “educational policies in the United States have been integrally related to social and economic policies, with domestic and foreign interests linked inextricably.” 112 Following Sputnik , “there was a massive infusion of money to enhance the curriculum of high schools, with a greater emphasis on math and the sciences as well as foreign language instruction” in order to globally compete economically and militarily. 113 Means offers that “connections between public education, crisis, and national security are nothing new in the United States. Cold War anxieties and concerns over national security provided inspiration for Dwight Eisenhower’s National Education Defense Act (NDEA) in 1958 . . . ” 114 Three years later the Fulbright-Hays Act of 1961 promised to bolster language and area studies expertise of American students and faculty and to “increase understanding and mutual cooperation between the people of the United States and the people of other countries” and to “strengthen the ties which unite us with other nations by demonstrating the educational and cultural interests, developments, and achievements of the people of the United States and other nations” in order to “assist in the development of friendly, sympathetic, and peaceful relations between the United States and the other countries of the world.” 115 In other words, by sending US educators abroad, Fulbright-Hays operated as both a diplomacy project and an effort in spreading American ideals, values, market economy and epistemologies. David Austell, while supporting this assertion, argues that these education initiatives work more insidiously in relation to the US war agenda: “International education in the United States has its roots ﬁrmly planted in views of homeland security stemming from the Cold War, and its role and effectiveness as a foil to a purely militaristic foreign policy has changed very little in the intervening sixty years.” 116 Further, Webber, in tracing the genealogy of the use of US domestic public education as a means to warehouse and re-socialise immigrants, argues that “the democratic school [in the US] has always been as instrument of the security state. This is by no means a new idea, pace 9 / 11 . . . . Schools have always been a hegemonic tool of the security state as ‘schooling’ by which Ivan Illich understood it to be a process of training people to believe in the legitimacy of the state’s orders.” 117 The late nineteenth-century warehousing of Native Americans in white boarding schools in the United States also served to assimilate populations wholesale to defuse the threat they putatively posed. In present day, such historical efforts an esthetise contemporary educational projects abroad as purely apolitical aid, and provide the humanitarian veneer necessary to continue such efforts. Following this history, recent domestic school reforms rely on fear and insecurity to justify and legitimise reforms that situate schools squarely in line with the war agenda. Former Chancellor of New York City’s Department of Education Joel Klein and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice explain in their 2012 U.S. Education Reform and National Security com-missioned report that “far too many U.S. schools are failing to teach students the academic skills . . . they need to succeed” and, as such, “ . . . America’s failure to educate is affecting national security .” 118 The Report speciﬁcally calls for a focus on job training in math and science – human capital development – in order to continue to protect and defend the US homeland and economy. This follows The U.S. Commission on National Security / 21st Century report (Phase III: Roadmap for National Security: Imperative for Change, Journeys through the Teacher Pipeline addendum, 2001). 119 This report names education as a “national security imperative” where “[uS] education in science, mathematics, and engineering has special relevance for the future of U.S. national security, for America’s ability to lead . . . ” 120 Such discourses around national and economic in/security, risk, and education do much work to continue to authorise and justify particular school reform efforts intended to train and recruit students for war and work in the multi-billion dollar security industry. Following this logic, schools are transformed from a “public good to a security risk.” 121 Such preparation contributes to the warmachine. 122 Since the Cold War, the US has increasingly militarised schools, reﬂective of the larger push of militarisation – the privileging of the military and military logics in everyday day life – in the US. Militarising and securitising education means that schools adopt harsh disciplinary policies, regulate student movement and mobility, and teach students to value and privilege military doctrine. While fear of nuclear warfare dotted US school curriculum and pedagogy during the Cold War, the global war on terrorism has continued to reshape US public education. Indeed, since the Cold War, US cities increasingly militarise, police, and fortify schools and children. 123 In 2008, several greater-DC area counties and their school districts formed the Mid-Atlantic Homeland Security Network of Educators (MHSNE) in order to respond to the region’s critical shortage of skilled homeland security workers by working to create a kindergarten to career pipeline aimed at training young people to work in the homeland security industry in public high schools re-designed to meet security industry needs. The Network does so by partnering homeland security and emergency preparedness professionals with educators to develop curriculum together. Such school-industry partnerships engender a neoliberal militarised and securitised form of education aimed at training future workers to defend and protect the homeland from the brown Other. Based on preliminary ﬁeldwork I conducted atone such high school, students built rockets with representatives from NASA, learned to protect nuclear reactors from a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission engineer, and discussed important military weaponry – from AR 15s to Desert Eagles to Remotely Operated Weapons Systems (ROWS). A local base commander congratulated students for their participation in the homeland security programme, citing this passage from Heinlein’s military-science novel Starship Troopers delineating the differences between mere civilian and citizen: “The difference lies in the ﬁeld of civic virtue. A citizen accepts personal responsibility for the safety of the body politic, of which he is a member, defending it, if need be, with his life. The civilian does not.” The commander applauded students: “You are taking a very large step from walking down the road as a civilian in the greatest country in the world to a citizen making a difference.” 124 In this way public schools and staff communicate to students certain versions of militarised citizenship, security, and terrorism that both perpetuate fear and representations of the brown Other and call them to action as “citizen making a difference” by learning to defend the “greatest country in the world” with their lives. Perhaps less noticeably, students learned to valorise the military with the JROTC Color Guard opening meetings, military and security industry banners hanging in the hallway, the encouragement of teachers to discuss guns and weaponry, the presence of military ﬁgures in their school, the valuing of hyper-masculinities noted by a knowledge of weapons and military war history, the continual reference to America as the “greatest” and “freest” nation in the country, the perpetual suggestion of “bad guys” “out there” threatening the US, and the framing of military action as the only means to security. US students in these types of schools are not only drafted as foot soldiers in the war on terror, they are also taught to view the world according to these hegemonic imaginative geographies. For example, while watching a ﬁlm on teen violence, students remarked, “Well, that explains it!” when a young brown boy opened a Qur’an to pray. Students articulated what they had learned in class and in everyday life in the US: Islam and brown skin communicated danger and violence. Nationally, the greater DC area’s public schools are not alone in their current efforts to supply the security industry with skilled workers and, historically, such school reforms merely serve as another node on the longer genealogy of US education’s role in supporting military agendas. While these programmes intend to (and do) engage students with hands-on lessons, ﬁeld trips, and guest lecturers as well as make them marketable for the booming US security industry, the inﬂuence of neoliberal and securitised logic is readily apparent. Students, for example, learned about parabolas by pretending to be snipers needing to ﬁnd and hit their target, North Korea. They shadowed workers at the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) and secured internships at the National Security Agency (NSA). This type of education excited students through these hands-on opportunities and lessons seemingly readily applicable to everyday life and future job opportunities. The heightened attention toward security that has shaped US school reform projects means that children develop securitized subjectivities as they are prepared for the long war. In other words, young people enrolled in these programmes develop a sense of self deﬁned by heightened fear, anxiety, and uncertainty of an unknown threat. This normalised apprehension and subsequent practices of militarism are justiﬁed in the name of US and personal safety and security. 125 Building US public schools around a militarised interpretation of homeland security relies on the aforementioned scenes of legibility that map terror and threat onto brown bodies. Given this putative threat, students must arm and prepare to enter the homeland security workforce. These priorities shift the purpose of education away from fostering critical thinking for democratic participation to training young people for the war on terror. Corporations partner with public high schools, donating dollars and expertise in order to “ensure a pipeline of diverse talent needed for our future workforce.” 126 Northrop Grumman allocated $20.9 of its $28.2 mil-lion philanthropic donations toward the development of STEM education across the nation, its core philanthropic focus according to its 2011 Corporate Responsibility Report. Northrop Grumman argues that “supporting STEM initiatives is critical for our business and for U.S. competitiveness, so we’ve embraced programs that we think will help build a diverse employee pipeline”. 127 For Northrop Grumman, the development of and investment in STEM K-16 education programmes ensure the health and life of the business and the security of the homeland. Such school reform projects follow calls from the US state to improve STEM education. The U.S. Commission on National Security / 21st Century outlines, for instance that “to ensure the vitality of all its core institutions, the United States must make it a priority of national policy to improve the quality of primary and secondary education, particularly in mathematics and the sciences. Moreover, in an era when private research and development efforts far outstrip those of government, the United States must create more advanced and effective forms of public / private partnerships to promote public beneﬁt from scientiﬁc-technological innovation.” 128 In this way, homeland security programmes and schools typify how securitised neoliberal logic, fuelled by corporate dollars, is infused into school reform, curriculum, and everyday (normalised) neoliberal and securitised school subjectivities. While the Obama administration ended the war in Iraq, promised troop reduction in Afghanistan, and increased its use of drones, much of my time in the homeland security high school revolved around talk of the growing “pipeline initiative” to continue to grow the programme throughout the state and to extend it through all grade levels in order to meet the nation’s growing security needs. In a meeting with school administrators and representatives of the defence corporations, students from local elementary, middle, and high schools as well as current college students presented how the homeland security programme was useful to them, how the corporations might get more young people interested in working in the industry, and what they found exciting in the programme. The school also holds several recruiting events at the elementary schools, simulated cyber-security battle labs, and homeland security fairs to spur local interest. The mushrooming number of regional and national initiatives aimed at further institutionalising homeland security education in US public schools indicates that this form of securitised education has drastically shifted public schooling in the United States even as the war on terror strategy continues to morph under the Obama administration. The continued portrayed need to secure US borders, cyber space, and the homeland authorised this emphasis on homeland security in US public schools. The fears of the dangerous brown Other and of ungoverned school space dramatically altered the architecture of school discipline at Wellington. These changes highlight how this fear and anxiety can be used to mobilise school reforms intending to fortify US public schools and control brown bodies, and borrow from the scripts used to make sense of US interventions in Iraq. Further, the US state portrays a lack of skilled workers as a national security risk, demanding US public schools reform their schools in order to meet the needs of the security industry. As the reverberations of September 11 and the long war continue to structure US public schools, children educated in these schools learn to interpret the world and their place in it through a lens of homeland security and war. In this way, US public schools become yet another site of war on terror strategy. Taken together, these militarised and securitised US public school reforms instituting homeland security studies programmes, tactical US engagements with madrassas, and the emphasis on girls’ education as empowerment highlight the critical role education plays in supporting and furthering war on terror strategy both materially and discursively. Though disparately located, these sites of education are connected by larger social processes invested in the reproduction of difference and inequality, the advancement of capitalist imperialism, and the furthering of US warfare through the circulation of speciﬁc geographic imaginaries of ‘here’ and ‘there’ and ‘us’ and ‘them.’ DISRUPTIONS Through this analysis, we can see how the US constructs and mobilises convenient scripts and imaginative geographies in order to perpetuate hegemony, justify war, and humanise US military intervention while refuelling a sense of imminent danger and fear across the US homeland. We see this in looking speciﬁcally at three distinct sites of education: Framed by Orientalist understandings of brown women as oppressed by brown men, girls’ education initiatives mobilised by the United States work to humanise and justify war under the guise of advancing human rights and feminism. The representation of madrassas as incubators of terrorism authorises the implementation of US-style education programmes and military intervention. Lastly, US public schools organise their schools to abate the threat posed by brown bodies and the spaces they occupy, and to prepare young people to defend the homeland either militarily or through their work in the security industry. Gregory proposes that “for us to cease turning on the treadmill of the colonial present – it will be necessary to explore other spatializations and other topologies, and to turn our imaginative geographies into geographical imaginations that can enlarge and enhance our sense of the world and enable us to situate ourselves within it with care, concern, and humility.” 129 As the US continues to invent and invest in new forms of education to service the war industry, the challenge posed by critical geopolitics is to work to disrupt the geographies that enable these education and military practices. Throughout this work, we have seen how the ‘architecture of enmity’ animated through various Orientalist and patriarchal discourses shapes and justiﬁes US engagements with education to buttress war on terror efforts and to revivify the US’s standing as the world’s moral compass. Informed by a longer colonial genealogy long before September 11 noted by various inﬂection points during the Cold War, this analysis recognises that these operative hegemonic discourses and ideologies appear and reappear across time and space – their traces always and everywhere superimposed – and enable seemingly unconnected practices to work together to maintain and extend patriarchal and colonial dominance. 130 Plotting the ideological and discursive routes that link various sites that make up the topography of imperial, securitised education can help us map and, in turn, challenge the contours of US interventions with education. A re-scripting of the Middle East as well as of the United States’ role in putatively promoting global security while risking the human security of millions of brown bodies across the globe acts as one step toward dismantling the prevailing geopolitical imagination(s) that operates on and through brown bodies in dangerous and violent ways. By exposing the patriarchal and imperial investments of dominant geopolitical scripts, this analysis has worked to provide some entry points for reframing the conversation around in/security and education in ways that might de-centre and destabilise US hegemonic imaginings and, in turn, privilege Other ways of knowing.