Selective Services: Prejudiced or Pragmatic?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/36681541@N02/5629377814 

I never really put thought into the concept of Selective Services, considering the lack of need for a draft in my lifetime; however, a few weeks ago I began researching the process and realized that it was still required of every male to register. I decided that despite the unlikelihood, if the time came when there was a need for a draft, I would want to be a part of the effort. So, I navigated to the Selective Services website and attempted to register. As I clicked “female” I was met with a screen stating that females are not required to register. I continued to try to find a way to register, and everywhere I looked I was met with “Females are not required to register for Selective Services.” The word “require” interests me because it is not that women aren’t required to register, it is that women aren’t even allowed to register. To me, registering was something important. It was a symbol of my civic responsibility to the welfare of my country and to something bigger than myself. Unfortunately, however, I was barred from doing so. 

In 1917, following the declaration of war against Germany, Congress passed the Selective Service Act of 1917. This act enabled the government to rally military force through conscription and eventually required all men aged 18 through 25 to register for Selective Services. If a man neglects to register, he is committing a felony punishable by up to $250,000 and/or 5 years imprisonment. In addition, failing to register prevents you from receiving government benefits like student loans, in addition to barring you from any jobs in the federal government. For many years, the reason why women could not register for Selective Services was because women could not serve in combat. One instance of this is the 1980 trial of Rostker V. Goldberg, in which the Supreme Court rejected a sex discrimination challenge to Selective Service because women could not serve in combat. In 2013, however, the Defense Secretary announced that the ban on women in combat would be lifted, and that female service members would be allowed to serve in direct ground combat roles. Because of this, in 2019, Judge Gray H. Miller of the federal district court in Houston ruled that since women can serve in combat, the 1980 ruling is unjustified. In addition, a 3-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit unanimously agreed that “the factual underpinning of the Supreme Court decision has changed.” This made it so that the Supreme Court could overrule its precedent if someone were to challenge such. Furthermore, the 2022 and 2023 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) proposed provisions to change “male person” to “person,” when discussing the draft requirements in order to require all people aged 18-25 to register. Republican congresspersons harshly opposed this, with most of their arguments stating something along the lines of “though we celebrate our female soldiers, it is wrong to force our mothers, daughters, and sisters to fight in our war.” In only requiring those of the male sex to register for Selective Services, the United States is actively violating the Fourteenth Amendment by discriminating against men, reinforcing outdated stereotypes of female inferiority, and not maximizing their military potential in the event of a draft. 

Requiring only men to register for Selective Services is discriminatory towards men and is thus a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s promise of equal protection. The punishments for not registering range from jail time to being unable to receive any government loans. One example of a man who fell victim to such punishments is Brandon Prudhomme. Prudhomme was in prison between the ages of 18 and 25 due to drug possesion. Brandon eventually turned his life around, starting a landscaping business and applying to business school. Unfortunately, however, because of Brandon's inability to register for Selective Services while in prison, he was subsequently unable to receive any student loans. These punitive measures have the potential to be detrimental to livelihoods, and yet only American males are faced with such measures. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection and has been used historically to abolish instances of gender discrimination. This lack of constitutional validity becomes more important to address when acknowledging the obvious consequences that men are forced to face for such an outdated practice. 

Despite the progress that has been made in abolishing gender discrimination in the United States, Selective Services remains a constant reminder of the gender roles on which this nation was founded. As I went to read the arguments that Republican senators made that ultimately enabled the removal of the proposed amendment to the 2023 NDAA which would require women to register, I aimed to keep an open mind. I assumed that these senators would reference biology and the physical capabilities of men versus women. Instead, I found that the amendment was titled “Don't Draft Our Daughters.” The first argument by Senator Hawley reads, “Forcing our daughters, mothers, wives, and sisters to fight our wars is wrong. We should celebrate the women who have volunteered to serve our country and thank the women who played a vital role in defending America at every point in our nation’s history.” I read on, finding the next argument by Senator Rubio to read, “Women are free to choose if they would like to serve honorably in our armed forces, but no wife, daughter, or mother should be forced to serve against her will. It is wrong and unnecessary.” On and on, arguments from Senators Cruz, Cotton, Marshall, Daines, and Boozman, every single one of which referred to women as “our wives, daughters, mothers, and sisters.” The idea that men have an obligation to protect women is one of the most outdated ideas and yet here, it was used as a legitimate argument in Congress. Furthermore, the fact that women are only referred to in terms of their relationships to men reinforces ideas of women being reliant on men. Women are not independent individuals, they are instead the “daughters, wives, and sisters” of men. These arguments completely disregard the identities of women as their own people and show the outdated and patriarchal ideals that continue to be upheld by the Selective Service system.

The event that the draft is necessary is likely very unlikely; however, in such a situation, the male-only draft would not be ideal for military strength. The draft already limits the pool of eligibility to those aged 18-25, but the physical requirements to serve in the military limit such to an even smaller group. From having glasses to having a neurological disorder to being slightly overweight, the conditions that could prevent people from joining the military are extensive. Due to drug usage, obesity, and mental health problems, 77% of all Americans aged 18-24 are most likely ineligible to serve in the military. This means that only 23% of all Americans aged 18-24 are actually eligible to serve in the military. This 23% includes all genders, and if minimized to just men, it would become drastically smaller. In the event of a war so great that the draft would need to be utilized, our military would ideally be at its full potential. Unfortunately, in its current state, the draft would not be able to maximize such. 

There is no expectation for a draft in the coming years, and many argue that Selective Services should be abolished altogether. This argument stands as a sensible one considering the ways in which the costs outweigh the benefits of such an institution; however, due to its engrainment within American institutions abolishing it would be challenging and costly. In contrast, the requirement for females to register would be less difficult to achieve considering the precedent set by Rostker V. Goldberg and the current failure of Selective Services to adhere to the Fourteenth Amendment. Considering the political feasibility of both solutions, I argue for the abolishment of sex discrimination in Selective Services over the abolishment of the institution as a whole.