Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter, YouTube
Memorial Day arrives each year as a national pause—a deliberate interruption in the rush of ordinary life to remember those who never returned from the fight. It is not a holiday of parades alone or barbecues, but a reckoning with the stark arithmetic of liberty: some must accept the possibility of death so others may pursue comfort, debate, and self-expression. In Glastonbury, Connecticut, this year’s observance carries an unintended sting. Two seniors at the local high school, selected through one of the nation’s most competitive scholarship processes for Army ROTC, were denied any public recognition at the annual senior awards event. A serving lieutenant colonel was likewise turned away because of his uniform. Rather than stand alongside classmates whose achievements were celebrated on stage, these students and their families arranged their own modest gathering on the town green. The official ceremony, meanwhile, opened with familiar rhetoric about the importance of inclusion.
This episode is not merely a scheduling oversight or administrative caution. It is a revealing failure of institutional imagination—one that asks us to confront what we truly value when we claim to honor sacrifice.
The young men involved had cleared extraordinary hurdles. Army ROTC scholarships are awarded only after exhaustive review of academic records, physical performance, leadership assessments, and demonstrated commitment to a multi-year obligation that includes active duty upon commissioning. These are not consolation prizes for those who could not secure civilian college aid; they are deliberate investments in future officers who will lead troops, manage complex operations, and, if history is any guide, face danger in unpredictable corners of the world. To withhold the school’s public stamp of approval from such accomplishments while lavishing attention on other paths signals a narrow definition of success. It treats military commitment as an awkward footnote rather than a pinnacle of civic responsibility.
Consider the deeper inconsistency. The same institution that preaches inclusion as a guiding principle drew a bright line excluding students whose chosen future involves an oath to defend the Constitution. Inclusion, in this usage, appears selective—welcoming certain expressions of identity and ambition while quietly sidelining others that emphasize duty, hierarchy, and collective defense. This is not philosophical consistency; it is ideological preference masquerading as principle. Educators and administrators who embrace expansive notions of belonging for some groups yet balk at celebrating young citizens willing to place national interest above personal comfort reveal a blind spot. They have absorbed a cultural habit that views the military as an abstraction best kept at arm’s length, rather than as the living mechanism that has preserved the very freedoms allowing such debates to flourish.
Memorial Day itself was born from a similar tension. After the Civil War, communities first decorated graves of the fallen not to glorify conflict but to acknowledge an uncomfortable truth: the republic’s survival had required ordinary people to make an extraordinary choice. That tradition evolved because each subsequent generation produced volunteers who understood that abstract rights require concrete guardians. The Glastonbury students turned away from the stage are the modern embodiment of that tradition. They are not relics of a bygone era; they are the next cohort prepared to fill the ranks when older veterans can no longer serve. Excluding them from public honor does more than bruise individual pride. It quietly erodes the cultural reservoir from which future defenders must be drawn.
This pattern did not emerge overnight. A decade earlier, another Glastonbury graduate who earned an appointment to West Point received similarly muted recognition. The message across years is consistent: military pathways, no matter how merit-based or demanding, sit outside the preferred narrative of post-secondary success. That narrative—centered almost exclusively on four-year residential college degrees—has crowded out appreciation for alternative routes that build character under pressure. Service academies and ROTC programs do not merely confer credentials; they forge habits of discipline, decision-making under uncertainty, and loyalty to something larger than self. These qualities have produced disproportionate numbers of national leaders across sectors, yet high schools in affluent districts often treat them as vocational detours rather than elite achievements.
The consequences ripple outward. At a time when the all-volunteer force faces persistent recruitment challenges, public institutions that diminish military service send an unmistakable signal to ambitious young people: your willingness to serve may earn private respect but not communal celebration. Families who have already sacrificed—through deployments, moves, and the quiet anxiety of uncertain homecomings—receive the added message that their children’s choices are somehow less worthy of spotlight. This is not neutrality. It is a form of cultural disarmament practiced by those who benefit most from the security others provide.
A community like Glastonbury, with its strong schools, engaged parents, and proximity to a major metropolitan area, has every reason to take pride in producing citizens who choose difficult paths. Instead, the episode exposes a discomfort with any success that cannot be measured solely by test scores, college rankings, or conventional professional pipelines. The lieutenant colonel barred from the ceremony represents living institutional memory—someone who has already walked the road these students are beginning. His exclusion compounds the slight: it tells active-duty families that even their presence at a public school event is negotiable when it conflicts with administrative comfort.
True remembrance on Memorial Day requires more than wreaths and speeches. It demands that we actively sustain the conditions that produce the next generation of volunteers. That means recognizing, without hesitation or special pleading, every student who commits to service. It means rejecting the false choice between “inclusion” and honor for those who accept the risk of ultimate exclusion from life itself. A school that cannot find room on its awards stage for future officers has misunderstood both its civic role and the holiday it claims to anticipate.
The remedy lies with the community itself. Parents, veterans, alumni, and taxpayers must insist that future ceremonies treat military scholarships and academy appointments with the same visibility afforded any other major accomplishment. This is not special pleading; it is consistency. Policies should be written, not assumed—explicit guarantees that no student who earns a service commitment will be relegated to after-hours or off-site recognition. Local veterans’ organizations can partner with the district to ensure military honors are woven into the fabric of graduation and awards events, not appended as afterthoughts. School board candidates should be questioned directly on their view of service as a legitimate and celebrated outcome. When administrators prioritize narrow ideological comfort over equal recognition of sacrifice, accountability follows at the ballot box and in public meetings.
Beyond formal policy, a cultural shift is overdue. We have grown accustomed to celebrating every form of personal achievement while treating collective duty as faintly suspect. Yet the stability that allows Glastonbury families to focus on advanced placement courses, athletic records, and college applications rests on the shoulders of those who still raise their hands. Memorial Day exists because that willingness has never been universal and cannot be taken for granted. When a high school—the primary institution shaping the next cohort of citizens—signals that such willingness is secondary, it weakens the very foundation it claims to serve.
The students who organized their own ceremony demonstrated resilience the adults around them failed to model. They chose a harder road and accepted the consequences without complaint. Their example is the one worth elevating. On the eve of Memorial Day, Glastonbury has an opportunity to correct course—not through empty gestures, but through the straightforward act of public recognition. Every community that benefits from peace owes its defenders, past and future, at least that much. The mirror Memorial Day holds up is uncomfortable precisely because it reveals whether our institutions still understand what sacrifice actually costs and why it must never be sidelined. Glastonbury can choose to look away, or it can choose to see clearly and act accordingly. The fallen cannot remind us. The living who still step forward can—if we let them.
Stay updated with the latest in the Constitution State with The CT Centinal
Thank you- masterfully written!