Articles
Passing down the
nonviolent tradition
Craig Jacobrown
This article was published in the December 2008 edition Friends Journal, a quaker publication. It discusses Craig's own history refusing to register for the current draft when it began in the '80s, as well as information on the current case.
As a father,
you can never tell just which values you will ultimately pass to your
children. I have been continually surprised and somewhat
horrified to see just which aspects of myself I have seen in my sons
as they have grown.
Over twenty years ago, I made an idealistic
attempt to sue the government over a matter of first amendment rights
pertaining to my beliefs in nonviolence. My case was eventually
thrown out of court, not for lack of merit, but for a legal loophole:
the government simply postponed my case until I was too old to have
standing in court. I could have never imagined then that
someday one of my own sons would take up my abandoned case.
In
1980, the Carter administration launched a mandatory peace-time draft
as a cold war tactic. By that order, every young man in America
was required to register for a military draft upon reaching his
eighteenth birthday, available to be called to fight any future war
as soon as a draft was reinstated.
I was among the first batch
of young men who were required to register under this policy with the
Selective Service System (SSS), the agency that administered the
military draft for the government. I refused. I faced a
potential felony charge, and risked being fined and sent to jail for
up to five years; but I believed that all of this would have been
worth it in order to respect my religious and ethical values.
I
should hardly have been surprised by my son’s actions when I consider that I too had been a son following in the footsteps of my
father.
At the close of World War II, at the age of eighteen,
my father, Jack Brown, found himself entering a newly liberated
concentration camp. He never participated in combat, but this
experience alone changed his life. Jack became pacifist, joined
a Quaker meeting, and studied to be a doctor. He traveled the
world to work in underprivileged hospitals, and brought his family
along. I was born while he was working in Turkey, and was
raised with his pacifist and Quaker ideals.
I would have been
ready to register with the SSS as a Conscientious Objector (CO)
claimant,but there was no way provided. During the years of
the Vietnam War, a young man couldindicate that he would apply for
this status by checking a box on the registration form,but now that
checkbox was taken away. Those with religious objections to war
were no longer being recognized at registration, all were considered
potential combatants by the SSS. I believed that this was
unjust and decided to up my ante against the government: I sued them
for the right to indicate my claim to Conscientious Objector
status.
Of course, the SSS managed to throw me
out of court, allowing them to continue registering all young men
despite their religious beliefs. The SSS never pursued my
felony; after attempting a few of these cases earlier, they realized
that this was giving them bad press, and they adopted a new strategy
of trying to be as unassuming as possible.
In their literature,
they began to deemphasize the consequences of registering, in many
cases eliminating any mention of drafts or military service from
registration cards. On the other hand they passed laws to tie
federal aid for college education to registration, denying those that
refused to register any school loans, grants, work-study or job
training opportunities. In these ways they managed to ensure a
high rate of compliance while remaining outside of the public eye,
and Carter’s registration has managed to continue, unchallenged, up
to the present day.
Two years ago, when my son
Toby turned eighteen he had to make the same decision that I had in
1980. Now he had to factor in that he might be denied financial
aid for college, and potential fines for not registering were now up
to $250,000. I had raised Toby on Quaker values, but this was a
decision that I could not make for him. I will not deny my
pride when he too decided, as a matter of his own conscience, that he
could not register with the SSS.
Now
twenty years old, Toby attends Bennington College in Vermont. Though
he was not eligible for any financial aid according to federal rules
imposed on college students, upon hearing about his reasons for not
registering, the school decided to make up all of his need-based
financial aid from their own private funds. While attending to
his studies, Toby took time this winter to petition the American
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to assist him with his case. After
careful consideration of the merits of his case, lawyers
supported by the ACLU’s Washington, DC office wrote to the SSS
demanding that Toby’s CO claim be formally recognized at the time
of registration so that Toby (and those who share his beliefs) can
register and thus be eligible to receive federal financial aid and
avoid the threat of prison and fines.
I
have made sure to tell Toby that I would be ready to do anything I
could to assist him with his case. Along with his mother, Zann,
a committed Jewish pacifist, and a committee of caring members of his
community, we have initiated a campaign to support Toby, and educate
the public about this issue.
The
precedent for Toby’s case is laid out in the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act, which places the burden on the government to prove
their actions do not unduly interfere with free exercise of religion. They must, therefore accommodate those with pacifist beliefs
unless doing so disables them from serving a “compelling government
interest.” In a concurring decision, Justice Murphy of the Supreme
Court wrote “War power is not a blank check to be used in blind
disregard of all the individual rights we have struggled so hard to
recognize and preserve.” (Murphy, J. Estep v. US)
Compared
to other nations, the U.S. is currently behind the curve in upholding
the civil rights of objectors to war. Many foreign governments
have dealt with their conscientious objector citizenry more
sensitively. Some progressive governments protect the moral
stands of their non-violent citizens through promoting non-military
national service programs concurrently with their military programs.
In Germany, for instance, which has a mandatory draft, more
young people serve the country in non-military functions than join
the military. German hospitals are reliant on this steady flow
of young volunteers.
During the past five
years, as the United States has conducted warfare in the Middle East,
many soldiers have become disaffected and have begun to object to
violence altogether. Hundreds of young men and women in the
military have applied for CO status since 2001, both because they
felt that their ethics were compromised, and because they have
discovered the anxiety, trauma and depression that results from
involvement in war. Although Toby’s case is about
registration and not military service, through his case we are trying
to raise awareness about their plight, and to educate young people so
that they might be able to consider these things before they either
register or enlist.
Over twenty years ago
I became dedicated to securing rights for those who object to war. I
have become a draft counselor, assisting young people to make these
decisions for themselves. I may have lost my own chance in
court, but I am hoping that I have not lost my chance to see this
issue come to justice; albeit vicariously. We are hoping to
locate and collaborate with supporters who agree the SSS registration
policy is unjust, and particularly any young men who might be
interested in joining our suit in Federal court. We also
welcome churches, synagogues, mosques, peace organizations and
individuals to help support the campaign. By working to secure
a way to both register and not to be counted as a potential soldier,
we hope to restore the civil rights of conscientious young men of the
next generation.