Defense spending, already more than a half trillion dollars, will increase by four percent next year. On top of this, spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will exceed $300 billion this year, an amount that is projected to decline only slightly in future years. These two wars continue a trend stretching back over 100 years that has left the U.S. with more than 770 foreign military bases.

As long as our government continues to spend so heavily on war and preparations for war, schools will face inadequate budgets. What to do? Military budgets suggest an answer: programs are ranked in importance so that funding goes first to those with the greatest contribution to the mission of the organization. Schools will need to do the same.

When schools rank their programs, athletics will necessarily be assigned a lower priority than teaching academic subjects. And athletic programs are expensive: coaching salaries, travel, equipment, and maintenance can range from three to five percent of school budgets. As a result, schools and colleges are cutting athletic budgets by eliminating teams, reducing travel, and cutting the number of coaches for remaining teams.

But providing opportunities for physical exercise is important to the health and well-being of students. In addition, athletics provide entertainment for students and their families. One solution is to develop a program of intramural athletics with participation for all students. Intramural programs can be operated with volunteer coaches and without travel between schools.

Each students can be randomly assigned to a Red, Blue or Green team for the duration of his or her school career. In every intramural sport or activity, these teams can practice and compete on as many levels as are needed to give every student the chance to participate.

Before schools cut any academic teaching positions, we need to find creative solutions that will first apply cuts to non-academic programs. This process won’t be easy, but over time we’ll learn to do it well.

John Merson, March 4, 2009

Consider for a moment some of the other complications involved in awarding the Purple Heart. The signature wound of the Iraq War is traumatic brain injury, or TBI. This injury is sometimes difficult to diagnose and often goes untreated until long after it has occurred. When TBI happens together with other physical injuries that cause bloodshed, there is no need to consider TBI for a Purple Heart. But if TBI happens without other injuries, the Purple Heart is awarded without the need for visible proof of injury. We accept TBI as a physical wound even though it may lack an obvious physical manifestation.

Injuries caused by so-called “friendly fire” often involve bloodshed but are not caused by enemy action. Victims of these injuries receive the Purple Heart because it is often impossible to trace the cause of the injury.

A soldier sickened by exposure to Agent Orange or chemicals used during the Gulf War has a physical ailment, but it is one that often does not become apparent until long after the wound has been inflicted. With increasing exposure to uranium-tipped, armor-piercing ammunition used by US forces during the Gulf War, it is likely that more and more soldiers will suffer illnesses that are not immediately traceable to combat action.

What soldiers care about is that all injuries — psychological as well as physical — receive prompt treatment. Most soldiers would rather have proper care than all the medals the military has to offer. Yet often the soldier’s reluctance to ask for help is among the obstacles to treatment. In the idealized Hero Culture that surrounds military service, heroes don’t need help and don’t ask for it.

We understand that psychological injury is just as debilitating as a physical wound. Yet we denigrate psychological injury when we make it ineligible for the Purple Heart. In this way we contribute to the problem of soldiers failing to seek help for psychological injury. We need to look at the big picture. Society’s understand of psychological injury has evolved substantially since George Washington awarded the first Purple Heart.

John Merson – January 29, 2009