A proposal by Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., to reinstitute the military draft has generated a great deal of controversy in Washington. As the nation readies for war, Rangel contends it is unfair that the U.S. armed forces are disproportionately composed of minorities. The Bush administration immediately disputed Rangel's claim of unfairness and announced it flatly opposes any change.
There is, however, an overdue draft-related policy change that should not be nearly as controversial: extending the existing draft-registration requirement to women (men 18 through 25 years old already must register with the Selective Service System).
Adding women to the draft-registration rolls would improve the country's civil-defense preparedness, rectify a rare remaining example of institutional discrimination in U.S. law and make a strong statement about Americans' shared societal responsibility at this important time.
President Jimmy Carter reinstated draft registration in 1980, after the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan. Carter's original registration proposal would have required that both men and women sign up with the Selective Service System within 30 days of their 18th birthday.
Carter's decision to include women was "a recognition of the reality that both women and men are working members of our society," he said in a written statement at the time. "There is no distinction possible, on the basis of ability or performance, that would allow me to exclude women from an obligation to register."
But the idea became lost in the DMZ of women in combat; Congress limited registration to men. Initially, that was ruled unconstitutional by a U.S. District Court, but the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the lower court on the grounds that Congress' authority to raise and support armies allowed it to make that decision.
On Thursday, a woman and four men — all of or near draft age — filed a lawsuit against the Selective Service System in U.S. District Court in Boston challenging the legality of men-only draft registration on the grounds that it violates constitutional equal-protection guarantees. They argue that circumstances have changed significantly since the Supreme Court's ruling in 1981, when women made up only about 8.5% of the U.S. armed forces. Now, women comprise 15% — some in air and sea combat positions, many in near-combat support units.
In 1994, a special presidential commission on women and the military stopped short of recommending that women be required to register, largely due to concern about potential political fallout.
But now, at a time when military needs may be at a premium, it is doubtful whether expanding registration would result in much political concern (there hasn't even been much comment about the fact that Rangel's plan for a new draft would cover both sexes). It's difficult to believe that young women would not welcome — if not demand — the opportunity to sign up to serve the nation in case of a major emergency.
The armed forces do not now require full mobilization and conscription. To date, only some 54,000 out of the million-strong National Guard and Reserves pool have been drawn down.
However, it could only be helpful to add the 14.4 million U.S. women now 18 through 25 years old to the available pool of 13.5 million men who have registered. Charles Moskos, a military sociologist at Northwestern University, suggests that pool also could be tapped for important non-military jobs, such as airport security.
Women, who enter the military with better education and skills than males, now comprise about a fifth of new recruits. If registration were expanded, another positive byproduct might be that it would help the military recruit more female volunteers by exposing them to the possibility of such service to their country.
|
