ag5@pucc-k (Henry C. Mensch) (11/06/84)
<>
Lifted from the Chronicle of Higher Education 7 November 1984:
Universities Need Not Verify the Draft Status of Students who get aid
in 1985, U.S. says
Washington, D.C.: Colleges and Universities will not be required to
verify the draft-registration status of students who receive federal
financial aid next year, education Department aides say.
Most male students will still have to certify to the government
that they have registered for the draft in order to receive aid, however.
Financial-aid officers pressed the department to drop the
verification requirement because they said it would force them to become
"policemen."
Under a 1982 law -- often referred to as the Solomon amendment,
after its chief sponsor, Rep. Gerald B. H. Solomon, Republican of New
York -- young men are not eligible to receive federal aid unless they
have signed up for the military draft.
Originally, the Education Department planned to ask financial-aid
officers to begin providing proof in the 1985-1986 academic year that they
disbursed aid only to young men who had signed up with Selective Service.
This year, students must simply sign a form certifying that they have
registered or that they are exempt from registering because, for instance,
they are female or too old.
Concerned that the current system might make it too easy for
students to say they had registered when they actually had not, Education
department officials had planned to ask colleges to follow stricter rules
for making sure financial-aid recipients were complying with the law.
However, a survey by the department found that over 95 percent
of the students who signed the certification form had provided accurate
information, so officials decided that the stricter enforcement measures
were unnecessary. They said the regulations were being revised accordingly.
In addition, colleges and universities that can easily identify
students who are exempt from registering for the draft will no longer
be asked to require them to sign forms certifying that fact. For example, at
women's colleges, where all the students are exempt, financial-aid officers
would not be expected to follow the Solomon amendment regulations.
"We're delighted," said A. Dallas Martin, Jr., executive director
of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators.
"That's exactly what we were asking them to do. We still feel it's an
unnecessary paperwork burden, but this gives us the flexibility we need."
In July the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the
controversial law by a vote of 6 to 2.
<end of item>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry C. Mensch | User Confuser | Purdue University User Services
{ihnp4|decvax|ucbvax|purdue|sequent|inuxc|uiucdcs}!pur-ee!pucc-i!ag5
{allegra|cbosgd|hao|harpo|seismo|intelca|masscomp}!pur-ee!pucc-i!ag5
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"It's a radio for deaf-mutes!"slf@panda.UUCP (Scott Fisher) (12/05/84)
In article <577@pucc-k> ag5@pucc-k (Henry C. Mensch) writes: ><> > > Lifted from the Chronicle of Higher Education 7 November 1984: > > Most male students will still have to certify to the government >that they have registered for the draft in order to receive aid, however. >... > Under a 1982 law -- often referred to as the Solomon amendment, >after its chief sponsor, Rep. Gerald B. H. Solomon, Republican of New >York -- young men are not eligible to receive federal aid unless they >have signed up for the military draft. > > Originally, the Education Department planned to ask financial-aid >officers to begin providing proof in the 1985-1986 academic year that they >disbursed aid only to young men who had signed up with Selective Service. >This year, students must simply sign a form certifying that they have >registered or that they are exempt from registering because, for instance, >they are female or too old. ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ |||||| Why are men the only ones to be drafted if there is a war? I'm not suggesting the women go into combat (unless they want to) but there are other jobs where they can serve their country too. Such jobs might include (but not restricted too ) comunications, electronics, and any desk jobs. If healthy young men can be made to help the fight for their country why not women? No flames about being sexist please, I personaly wouldn't mind seing them do any job currently being done by a man.
adolph@ssc-vax.UUCP (Mark Adolph) (12/08/84)
*** YOUR MESSAGE *** > Why are men the only ones to be drafted if there is a war? I'm not suggesting > the women go into combat (unless they want to) but there are other jobs where > they can serve their country too. Such jobs might include (but not restricted > too ) comunications, electronics, and any desk jobs. If healthy young men can > be made to help the fight for their country why not women? No flames about > being sexist please, I personaly wouldn't mind seing them do any job currently > being done by a man. Sorry, but the Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue. Women don't get drafted because they said so. So go to your room and no dinner for you. I haven't figured out how they fit that ruling into the same country as our constitution either, but it's done and the matter is dead. (Uh, oh, now I've gotten started...) Of course the popular arguments are that women are too weak to fight against men (very difficult to move the stick of an F-18 1/4 inch) or that women would be raped if they became POWs (whereas, we all know that male POWs play bridge and drink Kahlua & cream while in captivity). -- Mark A. ...uw-beaver!ssc-vax!adolph "Computers are like preppies: they just boil around in their own way and you have to do things their way or they blow you off." "Everything that was different was a different thing..."
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (12/10/84)
> that women > would be raped if they became POWs (whereas, we all know that male POWs > play bridge and drink Kahlua & cream while in captivity). > > -- Mark A. > ...uw-beaver!ssc-vax!adolph Yeah, I know a woman who claims to be a feminist but doesn't want to get drafted for the above reason. I find it impossible to take her seriously. Can you say "rights without responsibilities"? Sure you can. -- I'm not a programmer, I'm a hardware type. Phil Ngai (408) 749-5790 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.ARPA
polard@fortune.UUCP (Henry Polard) (12/11/84)
In article <371@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: >> that women >> would be raped if they became POWs (whereas, we all know that male POWs >> play bridge and drink Kahlua & cream while in captivity). >> >> -- Mark A. >> ...uw-beaver!ssc-vax!adolph > >Yeah, I know a woman who claims to be a feminist but doesn't want to >get drafted for the above reason. > >I find it impossible to take her seriously. Can you say "rights without >responsibilities"? Sure you can. >-- How many MEN do you know who want to get drafted (as opposed to volunteering)? Do you know any MEN who would enjoy being a prisoner of war? I suspect that her opinion agrees with that of most men. If you can't take her seriously, that's your problem. You can probably say, "Thinking before writing", but can you do it? -- Henry Polard (You bring the flames - I'll bring the marshmallows.) {ihnp4,cbosgd,amd}!fortune!polard N.B: The words in this posting do not necessarily express the opinions of me, my employer, or any AI project.
hawk@oliven.UUCP (Rick) (12/11/84)
>Of course the popular arguments are that women are too weak to fight against >men (very difficult to move the stick of an F-18 1/4 inch) In a high-G manuever(sp?) strength becomes critical--it can become impossible to lift your hand from where it is. (Even with a power assist, the mass of the stick must be moved) rick
agz@pucc-k (Andrew Banta) (12/11/84)
[] From: polard@fortune.UUCP (Henry Polard) >In article <371@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: >>> that women >>> would be raped if they became POWs (whereas, we all know that male POWs >>> play bridge and drink Kahlua & cream while in captivity). >>> -- Mark A. >>> ...uw-beaver!ssc-vax!adolph >> >>Yeah, I know a woman who claims to be a feminist but doesn't want to >>get drafted for the above reason. >>I find it impossible to take her seriously. Can you say "rights without >>responsibilities"? Sure you can. > > How many MEN do you know who want to get drafted (as opposed to volunteering)? > Do you know any MEN who would enjoy being a prisoner of war? > I suspect that her opinion agrees with that of most men. > If you can't take her seriously, that's your problem. > You can probably say, "Thinking before writing", but > can you do it? > Henry Polard (You bring the flames - I'll bring the marshmallows.) Let me get my mind together here ... ... ... It's beginning to look close now ... ... there, I think we have it Now look! I'm not a big fan of the draft. In fact I probably wouldn7t be registered if someone didn't threaten to yank my loans, but that isn't what we're arguing about. What we are arguing about is whether women should have to participate in some of the more "unpleasant" things men have to take part in. Before you go wild and say "but there is no draft now!", just figure I'm saying (hypothetically) that there is. It comes down to a question of whether women want equal rights. I'm not talking about the (now deceased) ERA. I'm talking about rights, and the responsibilities that come with them. If you want them, and you can get the proper sized majority on your side, fine you'll have your rights. I would expect that with this, you'll also end up having to be in the drafted, and possibly drafted. It comes with the territory. If this isn't what you want (and before I say this, I better specify that "you" is not directly only at women or at all women) SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP! Sorry, but you can't get all benefits and no responsibility in this world. Now, we move on: So the POW camps are going to be rough, eh? I can see that women would worry about getting raped, and with good reason. But the camps that this would take place in are probably the same ones that are going to keep people in cubicles with no light and a minimum of food, beat people to a bloody pulp for no good reason, and other "unpleasant things". Sorry, those are the breaks. I would say it looks a lot like "rights without responsibilty" if we are going to fight for equal rights "with the minor exception of ... " ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Banta {decvax!allegra!ihnp4}!pur-ee!pucc-k!agz Dept. of Mental Instability, Purdue University --- "I'm OK, You're a CS Major" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (12/12/84)
> How many MEN do you know who want to get drafted (as opposed to volunteering)? > Do you know any MEN who would enjoy being a prisoner of war? Uh, I guess I didn't express myself clearly. I mean she thinks being raped is a special horror worse than being tortured and killed and so women shouldn't have to be drafted but it's ok for men to be drafted. With foot in mouth, -- I'm not a programmer, I'm a hardware type. Phil Ngai (408) 749-5790 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.ARPA
marie@harvard.ARPA (Marie desJardins) (12/17/84)
> What we are arguing about is whether women should have to participate in > some of the more "unpleasant" things men have to take part in. 1) Speaking of unpleasant things, I hear childbirth is not such a wonderful experience (as far as pain goes). In other words, there are some things which will *never* be equal. (No, this is not an argument against drafting women, just a comment on the quoted statement above.) 2) In previous drafts, men have been allowed to stay home in several cases: for example, if they were teachers or single parents. Even if there were to be a draft, we would have to let *somebody* stay home with the kids (ok, it could be the man, but I hope you see my point). In addition, you've got to leave at least some women behind to "perpetuate the species." Again, this isn't an argument directly against the draft, just something to consider were a draft for women to be instituted. 3) I personally do not think I'm physically capable of any kind of serious hand-to-hand combat. I know for a fact that I couldn't get through the training program that people joining the army (both men and women!) have to do. This is probably true of some men, but more true of women. I don't think it denigrates the overall equality of men and women to say "men are, ON THE AVERAGE, physically stronger than women." (After all, we're prettier and can have babies besides! :-)) Just a few personal opinions on the idea -- I'm not sure how well any of these really argue against having women in the draft. (For the record, I am against the draft in any case.) Marie desJardins marie@harvard
mark@digi-g.UUCP (Mark Mendel) (12/17/84)
In article <371@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: >> that women >> would be raped if they became POWs (whereas, we all know that male POWs >> play bridge and drink Kahlua & cream while in captivity). >> -- Mark A. > >Yeah, I know a woman who claims to be a feminist but doesn't want to >get drafted for the above reason. > >I find it impossible to take her seriously. Can you say "rights without >responsibilities"? Sure you can. No one (except myself) can foist upon me a "responsibilty" to be party to killing people. Sorry. Those I know, however, that have, tend to suffer pyschological damage quite comprable to being raped.
horton@harvard.ARPA (Nike Horton) (12/18/84)
> 1) Speaking of unpleasant things, I hear childbirth is not such a > wonderful experience (as far as pain goes). Strange. I always heard women who had just given birth gloat about how they had it better over men since they had the joy of creating life. Some even gave this as justification for why women were oppressed in society; men resent the fact that women have it so much better in the respect of propagating the species. Arguing that childbirth is a female sacrifice is silly. But I won't go on, or we should move to net.kids. -- Nicholas Horton Aiken Computation Lab UUCP: {genrad,cbosgd}!wjh12!horton {seismo,harpo,ihnp4,linus,allegra,ut-sally}!harvard!horton ARPA: horton@harvard CSNET: horton%harvard@csnet-relay
bsa@ncoast.UUCP (12/19/84)
> Article <4762@fortune.UUCP>, from polard@fortune.UUCP (Henry Polard) +---------------- | In article <371@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: | >> that women | >> would be raped if they became POWs (whereas, we all know that male POWs | >> play bridge and drink Kahlua & cream while in captivity). | >> | >> -- Mark A. | >> ...uw-beaver!ssc-vax!adolph | > | >Yeah, I know a woman who claims to be a feminist but doesn't want to | >get drafted for the above reason. | > | >I find it impossible to take her seriously. Can you say "rights without | >responsibilities"? Sure you can. | | How many MEN do you know who want to get drafted (as opposed to volunteering)? | Do you know any MEN who would enjoy being a prisoner of war? | I suspect that her opinion agrees with that of most men. | If you can't take her seriously, that's your problem. | You can probably say, "Thinking before writing", but | can you do it? Can *you*? Please re-read the text above. I say that since we have the draft, both sexes should be drafted. She says, according to the note, that since we have the draft, she doesn't want to be involved. Women and men both have one misunderstanding about rape. It's no different from any other form of torture; it's just the only one that MEN think is jolly good fun, and therefore women don't realize that in wartime, it's no worse than any other form of torture. Isn't rationality wonderful? (N.B. I'm aware that P. Ngai didn't provide enough information for me to conclude that; I assumed a reasonable meaning, based on the fact that he said *SHE* didn't want to be drafted, rather than that she found the draft *itself* distasteful; big difference there. Phil, how does your `feminist' feel about the draft in general?) --bsa -- Brandon Allbery @ decvax!cwruecmp!ncoast!bsa (..ncoast!tdi1!bsa business) 6504 Chestnut Road, Independence, Ohio 44131 (216) 524-1416 <<<<<< An equal opportunity employer: I both create and destroy bugs :-) >>>>>>
slf@teddy.UUCP (Scott Fisher) (12/19/84)
In article <219@harvard.ARPA> marie@harvard.ARPA (Marie desJardins) writes: >2) In previous drafts, men have been allowed to stay home in several > cases: for example, if they were teachers or single parents. > Even if there were to be a draft, we would have to let *somebody* > stay home with the kids (ok, it could be the man, but I hope you > see my point). No I don't see your point. As you stated it could be the man who stays home. Why shouldn't women have just as much of a chance of getting drafted as men? ...In addition, you've got to leave at least some > women behind to "perpetuate the species." Again, this isn't an > argument directly against the draft, just something to consider > were a draft for women to be instituted. Oh, I see your parents never told you about the birds and the bees. Well here's a news flash for you : IT TAKES A MAN AND A WOMAN ! Neither sex can make a baby alone. >3) I personally do not think I'm physically capable of any kind of > serious hand-to-hand combat. I know for a fact that I couldn't > get through the training program that people joining the army > (both men and women!) have to do. This is probably true of some > men, but more true of women. I don't think it denigrates the > overall equality of men and women to say "men are, ON THE > AVERAGE, physically stronger than women." There are plenty of other positions besides hand to hand combat. If you want equal rights you have to accept equal responsibility. ...(After all, we're > prettier and can have babies besides! :-)) But men age more gracefully than women! :-) > >Just a few personal opinions on the idea -- I'm not sure how well any of >these really argue against having women in the draft. (For the record, >I am against the draft in any case.) > > Marie desJardins > marie@harvard =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Scott This message has been brought to you by the Shritz beer company. "You're never to drunk to ask for Shritz"
jpexg@mit-hermes.ARPA (John Purbrick) (12/19/84)
> In addition, you've got to leave at least some > women behind to "perpetuate the species." Again, this isn't an > argument directly against the draft, just something to consider > were a draft for women to be instituted. If you don't leave as many men alive as women, the only way the women would get to have babies is via polygamy. Would you advocate this, even if the number of men were seriously depleted? But here's my main point: I say let's have an all-inclusive draft, if we have any draft, because the legislators who think we need a draft tend to be the same ones who want women left out of it. In other words, if they had to restrict women's freedom and risk women's lives along with men's, they'd think twice and three times before doing it. Anyway, if we were ever in a war so serious that conscription were needed, we'd all be dead before the "Greetings" telegrams went out. Say what you like about nuclear war, it's democratic.
gail@calmasd.UUCP (12/21/84)
We do not "have the draft" -- we have REGISTRATION for the draft.
Not quite the same thing.
Gail Bayley Hanrahan
{ihnp4,decvax,ucbvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!gail
Calma Company, San Diegoslf@teddy.UUCP (12/27/84)
In article <218@calmasd.UUCP> gail@calmasd.UUCP (Gail B. Hanrahan) writes: > >We do not "have the draft" -- we have REGISTRATION for the draft. >Not quite the same thing. > > >Gail Bayley Hanrahan >{ihnp4,decvax,ucbvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!gail >Calma Company, San Diego Why do you think we have REGISTRATION ? News Flash: In case we DO have a draft the government already knows who they can get. Scott Fisher
gail@calmasd.UUCP (Gail B. Hanrahan) (01/11/85)
>>We do not "have the draft" -- we have REGISTRATION for the draft. >>Not quite the same thing. >>(me) >Why do you think we have REGISTRATION ? News Flash: In case we DO have a draft >the government already knows who they can get. > >(Scott Fisher) I haven't heard about anyone getting notices from the Draft Board lately, have you? (I know the Usenet style document says sarcasm doesn't come across well on the network, but I just couldn't resist...) Further responses to this nonsense should be sent to /dev/null. Gail Bayley Hanrahan {ihnp4,decvax,ucbvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!gail
bandy@mit-eddie.UUCP (Andrew Scott Beals) (01/13/85)
Yes, I /have/ been recieving notices from Selective Slavery telling me
that I *M*U*S*T* notify them of any changes of address within N days of
moving (well, that is to say that I've been recieving notices at the
address that I put down on my registration form when I registered (I
wouldn't have done it 'cept for the fact that I was working for the govt
at the time and didn't want to be made an example of (they were doing
this at the time I had to register ('79))).
Also, approx. around my 19th birthday, a letter was recieved at an
address that I hadn't lived at since my 16th birthday telling me that I
had better register or they would get me.
To quote from the fortunes file:
"As for Carter being for registration but against the draft,
isn't that a little bit like being for putting it in and against
taking it out again? Even if it was possible to execute one action
without following through with the other, you'd still be getting screwed."
andrew scott beals
arpa: bandy@{lll-crg,mit-mc}
uucp: {dartvax!bedford,lll-crg,mit-eddie}!bandy