A broader role for women in the military, Selective Service
In this Aug. 21, 2015, file photo, Army 1st Lt. Shaye Haver, center, and Capt. Kristen Griest, right, pose for photos with other female West Point alumni after an Army Ranger school graduation ceremony at Fort Benning, Ga. Haver and Griest became the first female graduates of the Army's rigorous Ranger School. Credit: AP
Some members of Congress, the Marine Corps commandant and the Army’s chief of staff have proposed that women register for the draft. If the proposal is approved, women will join men ages 18 to 25 years in being required to register with the Selective Service System.
No one has been drafted in the United States since 1973, but a list is kept to help hedge against unforeseen threats. The government further explains that, “By registering all eligible men, Selective Service ensures a fair and equitable draft, if required.”
Because women can now serve in combat, it seems fair that women share the draft burden in case compulsory military service is reinstituted. It is no longer tenable to think of military service as a male domain.
If specific roles require abilities that only one sex possesses, it makes sense to limit those roles to the appropriate sex. But how many such roles are there? Women can fly planes, guide drones, target enemies, analyze strategy and perform almost any task required by the military. In fact, in matters of endurance, for example, or in the capacity for detail work, they may on average surpass men. Hence, the refusal to treat women and men equally with respect to a military draft is but a hangover from our historical practices of gender discrimination.
A larger question is raised by the draft issue: Based on the nation’s experience with military service, should the government require some kind of national service from all? When there was a draft, the military brought together men of diverse backgrounds. While this allowed some to skirt serving, it was a great mixer of geography, race, ethnicity and economic status.
The military sometimes failed in its civic function because loopholes allowed the rich and the clever to evade service. But this need not be the case now. By offering alternatives to the military, the government could reduce the desire to avoid national service. A program of mandatory service would have to be developed carefully to avoid undermining existing wages by providing free labor.
But these are details. The main point is that everyone has a responsibility to engage in some form of national service, and that by bringing diverse groups of people together, we would strengthen a sense of identity as a diverse citizenry.
What seems to bring everyone together today is sports. Writing in The New York Times Magazine, Mark Liebovich quotes Roger Goodell, the NFL commissioner, saying the Super Bowl “unites people. It gives people a chance to sort of come together and enjoy people around this country today.”
Uniting around a sporting event brings people together superficially, not in a sustained or deep way. Spectatorship is no substitute for citizenship. Watching a game, even with more than a hundred million others at the same time, is a passive activity. Sports is entertainment and sports fans are consumers. This isn’t bad in and of itself, but in the long run, it isn’t meaningful in the way national service can be.
Abraham Lincoln famously said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” We are at the point where our national house is teetering as it is riven by new division. National service is one important way to counter our country’s fissures. We need a place where we can talk to one another face to face — not in the echo chambers of the niches created by social media, but where we can build a genuine community because we’ve gotten to know one another as we toil together.
Arthur Dobrin is professor emeritus at Hofstra University. David Sprintzen is an officer of the Long Island Progressive Coalition and professor emeritus at LI-CW Post.
