Committee Opposed to Militarism and the Draft (COMD)

Articles Archive
Hits: 3062

From Draft NOtices, April-June 2021

COMD Settles High School Lawsuit

NOTE: The following article appeared in the May-June 1987 issue of Draft NOtices. We are reprinting it now because of its continued relevance to contemporary efforts to counter the presence of military recruiters in schools.

"The subject of. military service is controversial and political in nature." So stated the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a landmark 1986 decision securing the right of peace groups to have access to student newspapers on an equal basis with military recruiters and Selective Service.

That ruling, won by COMD in its civil rights lawsuit against the Grossmont Union High School District, set the stage for a negotiated settlement with the school district that was made official on April 6, 1987. The comprehensive settlement enforces COMD's right to run ads in all nine of the Grossmont High School District student newspapers. It further requires the district to post copies of the appellate court's decision in its high school journalism classrooms and distribute copies of the decision to district faculty journalism advisors. COMD was also awarded a total of $13,000. The bulk of this sum, $12,000, is going to cover legal costs. $1,000 will go directly to COMD as reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses tied to the lawsuit, i.e., filing fees, xeroxing, postage, and phone calls. Damages were not requested because it was never intended that any money be received as a result of this lawsuit other than for COMD expenses. This position was adopted by COMD so as not to take money away from vitally needed educational services.

COMD believes the settlement also supports the right of high school student journalists to be free from arbitrary interference by school administrators in deciding the content of their publications. 

The original lawsuit was brought in 1983 by COMD, then called the San Diego Committee Against Registration and the Draft, after the Grossmont District banned COMD's ad from all nine of its student newspapers. The ad encouraged students to know their rights and options regarding draft registration. The school district, however, claimed the ad advocated nonregistration--an illegal act. Student journalists who had wanted to run the ad were prevented from doing so.

Articles Archive
Hits: 3147

From Draft NOtices, April-June 2021

Draft Registration Developments

— Rick Jahnkow

As of the writing of this update, we are waiting to see if the U.S. Supreme Court will hear an appeal in an ongoing lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of male-only draft registration. 

Earlier in the case, there were conflicting decisions by a federal district court judge and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The district court judge said that because women were now eligible for combat jobs in the military, a 1981 Supreme Court decision upholding male-only registration was no longer valid. The appeals court, on the other hand, overruled the district court and said that only the Supreme Court itself could reverse its earlier decision. The plaintiff in the lawsuit, the National Coalition for Men, then took the next step and petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case. The ACLU is handling the appeal.

A response to the appeal is now pending from the U.S. government and is due April 14. Afterward, the Supreme Court will decide whether or not to take up the case.

In the meantime, there have been some moves in Congress toward legislation that would require women to begin registering for the draft. Language to that effect is expected to either be included in the annual National Defense Authorization Act or introduced as a separate bill.

Articles Archive
Hits: 3757

From Draft NOtices, April-June 2021

Connecting White Extremism in the Armed Forces to the Military's Culture

— Isidro Ortiz, PhD

The revelation that nearly one in five of those charged in the assault on the U.S. Capitol on January 6 had served or were currently serving in the U.S. military has catalyzed analyses and recommendations by military and political institutions, advocacy organizations, and peace advocates; regrettably, only the last have connected the insurrectionist involvement to the culture of militarism.

The initial institutional action occurred one week after the rioting when the Joint Chiefs of Staff issued an "unprecedented" memorandum informing service members that the January 6 assault on the capitol represented "an attack on the constitutional process of the United States." Going against the hopes of the insurrectionists that the military might support their insurgency, the Chiefs declared that the U.S. military would "obey orders from civilian leadership, support civil authorities to protect lives and property, ensure public safety in accordance with the law, and remain fully committed to protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Eliminating any idea that the inauguration of the president-elect would not occur as scheduled, the Chiefs further declared that President-elect Biden would be inaugurated and become the Commander in Chief. They also urged military members to continue in a state of readiness and observation.

Draft NOtices

Quarterly print newsletter

Subscribe now Learn more

 

Ninth CIRCUIT COURT RULING: CONFRONTING MILITARISM BY USING EQUAL ACCESS TO HIGH SCHOOLS

When the military comes to your local high school, you have a legal right to give students an opposing view. This has been the position taken by federal district courts in Florida, Pennsylvania and Illinois and two federal appellate courts. The most broadly-worded decision came from a case that COMD took to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the 1980s. Here is the background:

Find Out More | Download PDF