From Draft NOtices, July-September 2021
Draft Registration No Longer Required for Federal Financial Aid
On December 27, 2020, the law that bans federal financial aid for non-registrants was repealed in an amendment to the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021.
Changes have not been made yet in the draft registration-related language of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), but the repeal of the aid ban became effective as of June 17, the date that the change in rules was published in the Federal Register (Vol. 86, No. 115, page 32252). A notice about the repeal was sent to educational institutions nationwide, but because the FAFSA form still says draft registration compliance is required to receive aid, some campuses may wrongly advise aid applicants. 
The FAFSA form will eventually be fully revised, but not until the form published for the 2023-2024 school year. In the meantime, if anyone encounters problems with a campus financial aid office, they should contact COMD for a copy of the letter that was sent to schools by the Department of Education.
It is important to note that this change in law only affects federal student aid. Laws passed by states banning non-registrants from receiving state education funding are currently still in effect. To follow the example of the change made in federal law, state legislation would be needed.
Right now, COMD is talking to other organizations about seeking legislation to repeal the ban on state aid in California. Those interested in campaigning for such legislation in California should email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
This article is from Draft NOtices, the newsletter of the Committee Opposed to Militarism and the Draft (http://www.comdsd.org/).
The court’s inaction now leaves it up to Congress to decide whether to expand the registration requirement to include females, discontinue it entirely, or allow male-only registration to continue.
The general’s testimony did not clarify what critical race theory is. Indeed, it may have added to the confusion for the general claimed that he wanted to understand “white rage,” suggesting that the theory was developed for such a purpose. White rage has existed, as Carol Anderson has documented in White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide. But CRT was not developed for understanding a white backlash to social, economic and political advances by Blacks and other historically oppressed communities. A brief review of its origins and tenets may serve to bring much needed insight to this debate and enable understanding of the general’s stance. It is possible to construct more than one history of the CRT and to identify various definitions of the concept. Nevertheless, there is common agreement that it emerged in the 1970s as a theoretical approach within the field of critical legal studies. Originated by mostly African American scholars, CRT practitioners sought to develop a jurisprudence that accounts for the persistence of racism in American law. By focusing on racism, the scholars challenged the “end of racism thesis,” the notion that racism had ended and that race no longer mattered in American society. This thesis had gained traction in legal and educational circles in the 1970s and ‘80s.
