8The Daily Tar HeelThursday, October 29, 1981
Jim Hummel. vJim
11
Susan Mauney. Mugm& e&k
Jonathan Rich. Associate Editor
John Drescher. Associate Editor
EDWINA RALSTON, University Editor
John Royster. cuy Editor
CHARLES HERNDON. State and National Editor
Beth Burrell. n Edim
Clifton Barnes. Sports Editor . .
Tom Moore; Arts Editor
KEITH KING. Features Editor
SCOTT SHARPE, Photography Editor
Ann Peters. swa Editor
CHUCK JAMES, Ombudsman
lath
Sfar Mnl
89th year, of editorial freedom
Fee finagle
For the past three years, students have been required to pay fee in
creases to cover the rising operational costs of the Student Health Service.
The SHS Administrative Advisory Board's unanimous approval of an $8
increase Tuesday, bringing the fee to $142, raises serious questions on the
uses of the SHS.
By basing their information on University-controlled studies, an ade
quate and objective evaluation of students' needs and the possibility for
alternate sources of revenue were once again postponed.
Last year, a $4 per year increased was approved, following increases of
$20 and $35 the two previous years. In the presentation of the 1983
budget, SHS director Judith Cowan projected a deficit of more than
$300,000 if a fee increse were not approved. Because an $8 per year in
crease would generate about one-half of what was needed, Cowan cor
rectly proposed the expenditure of more than $159,000 from a surplus
which has stood untouched for several years.
Clearly money is needed. Yet, before assigning the burden to the stu
dents, administrators must conduct a thorough evaluation of what stu
dents want in a health service. An effort to assess this need was completed
this summer when the Office of Student Affairs surveyed one-sixth of the
student body on student health care now provided.
But in dealing with a service that operates with a $3 million budget, a
more comprehensive study is needed. Students must be given the oppor
tunity to state specifically what they need in a health service. Students
should decide whether to avoid fee increases or to cut several specialty
clinics with low user rates.
Another solution to the problem may be to find alternate sources of
revenue as suggested by consultant Paul Rupprecht of the American Col
lege Health Association. He and members of Student Government sug
gest the billing of third parties for inpatient care. Because a majority of
UNC students are insured with their families, the heatlh care would be
paid by the student's health insurance instead of the SHS. fee revenues.
Cowan and other administrators have recognized the need for such
comprehensive studies, but maintain that time is needed for the evalua
tions. Yet, when dealing with the payment by students. for student ser
vices, the time for those studies is before the fee increase, and not after.
Missiles muddle
The wave of anti-nuclear demonstrations that engulfed European capi
tals last weekend signaled a growing distance between the United States
and Europe over the issue of nuclear missiles. Although NATO has not yet
altered its plans for deploying medium-range nuclear weapons in Western
Europe, the Reagan administration must demonstrate a new understanding
of European nuclear fears if those plans are to succeed.
The protests, which numbered more than 150,000 people in both
London and Rome, were directed against the planned installation of U.S.
cruise and Pershing II missiles in the European theatre by 1983. In 1979,
NATO agreed to the missiles' deployment in order to counter the Soviets
new SS-20 missiles in Eastern Europe.
Most military analysts agree the U.S. missiles are required to balance
the nuclear advantage the Soviets now hold over Western Europe. The
Reagan administration, howeverfhas failed to communicate this need to
most Europeans.
Reagan's anti-Soviet rhetoric and demands for increased military strength
have not convinced European allies that the United States is interested in
peace and arms limitations. Meanwhile, the Soviets are actively encourag
ing European fears that the introduction of theatre nuclear weapons are
part of a U.S. strategy to fight a nuclear war in Europe rather than
America. Reagan's recent statements about limited nuclear warfare do
little to refute this.
The European anti-nuclear movement is a powerful political force with
a broad base of support. Already, its popular activity has made the
Netherlands' and Belgium's acceptance of the missiles unlikely. The
governments in Britain, Germany and Italy also face considerable pres
sure from opposition groups as well as within their own parties.
If the United States is to reverse this tide, it must convince its NATO
allies that it .is serious about nuclear arms controls and limitations before
the actual deployment of the missiles in 1983. Limitation talks with the
Soviets will reduce the dangerous level of European nuclear arms as well
as dampen European criticism. Without such U.S. commitment, it is hard
to blame the Europeans for their anti-nuclear opposition.
The Bottom Line
Procrastinators' plight
Quick! Hurry! Before it's too, er
... early?
That's what the Tuscon Procrasti
nator's Club after finding itself in
a rare predicament is being forced
to say these days.
Because of the 2-cent postal-rate
increase effective Nov. 1, the procras
tinators say they will have to mail
their Christmas, cards earlier than
they expected.
But they aren't mailing cards for
Christmas 1981, mind you. The procrastinators-
have yet to mail last
year's cards.
The cards will be mailed on Oct.
31, said Stuart Gellman, founder of
the Tuscon chapter. And the chapter
has found itself rushed to meet that
deadline, so people won't think the
cards are early instead of late.
"It would really be bad for the
movement if people thought we were
mailing this year's cards," Gellman
said. VWe better get on the ball, so
people don't think we're early
instead of late."
Trek's end
Vulcan fans unite!
Only you can save the life of Mr.
American military
forces weakened by
volunteer structure
By JONATHAN RICH
Spock, the half-human, half-vulcan
first officer of the Starship Enter
prise. Rumor has it that Spock, played
by Leonard Nimoy, will be killed off
in the new $10 million motion picture
"Star Trek II." The movie is sche
duled for release next month.
The move is illogical to the more
than 10 million Star Trek fans.1 One
trade paper said that in killing Spock,
the producers of the movie are jeo
pardizing $28 million in revenue be- .
cause fans would not go see the
movie twice.
The death of Spock seems to be the
result of Nimoy's frustration with
being identified as an emotionless,
logical creature. To drive home the
point, Nimoy's autobiography was
entitled "I Am Not Spock.''
Currently the script has Spock go
ing out in a blaze of glory, saving the
Enterprise from sure destruction, but
being bombarded by radiation in the
effort. His last words to Captain
Kirk are "I will always be with you,
my friend." ,
Star Trek fans have mounted an
effort to save Spock, but even sym
pathy from the show's creator Gene
Roddenberry does not seem to be
saving him. Spock has reached the
end of his five-year mission.
And that's the bottom line.
Following the final U.S. disengagement from Vietnam
in January 1973, the draft in this country was formally
abolished. Since that time the United States military has
sought to achieve what never before had been attempted
the maintenance of a standing army of more than 2
million men through an All-Volunteer Force.
The AVF has been vigorously attacked and defended
on various military, political and moral grounds. The
debate has heightened with recent reports of the armed
services' personnel deficiencies this at a time when the
Reagan administration seeks an enormous expansion in
the military program. Unfortunately, the debate has cen
tered almost exclusively on the merits of the present
system versus the draft. The problem is not so much with
a volunteer system but the market philosophy on which
it is based.
Despite conflicting reports, it is hard to deny that the
all-volunteer force faces serious shortfalls. From a mili
tary perspective, the armed forces are finding it increas
ingly difficult to maintain their desired level of numbers
or quality. As recruiting stations consistently fall short of
their quotas, many have been forced to accept recruits
who fall on or below the lowest acceptable standards.
On the average, one out of three service entrants does
not complete his initial enlistment obligations, due to
lack of aptitude, discontent or discipline problems. The
desertion rate is now double that of the pre-Vietnam
draft era. These problems have been compounded by a
steady decline in the general quality of military recruits
over the past decade. Less than half of all male recruits
have high school diplomas, while the college-educated
recruit has become virtually non-existent. Average ap
titude levels have sunk so low that training manuals must
now be prepared in comic-book form.
Perhaps the greatest dilemma confronting the AVF is
the racial and social distribution of its soldiers. While
blacks made up 11.8 percent of army personnel in 1964,
they now comprise almost one third of its manpower.
Similarly, the total minority content of the army's enlist
ed ranks reached 41 percent in 1981. While the percent
age is less in other branches of the military, today's arm
ed forces are characterized by a predominantly white of
ficer corp leading a disproportionately minority enlisted
force.
Recent studies demonstrate that while black soldiers
are fairly representative of their race as a whole, white
soldiers are coming from the least-educated segments of
white society. In addition to its racial imbalance, the ar
my is comprised of an unrepresentative segment of white
youth. From the broad social and racial representation
of the WWII era, the military has evolved into a system
that draws heavily on minorities and lower-class whites.
Such an army contradicts the ideals of national service
and sacrifice on which any military should be based. Na
tional defense and security are burdens that must be car
ried by all segments of the population, not just those
who are forced into the army for economic reasons. If
the predominantly white, upper-class government in
Washington decides to declare war, black and lower-class
youths should not be asked to bear the brunt of the deci
sion. -
The 1970 Gates Commission Report, which establish
ed the basis for the AVF, was underpinned by a
marketplace philosophy. It is this philosophy, and its
reliance on supply and demand variables that are largely
responsible for the military's various shortfalls.
From the beginning, the primary emphasis of the
volunteer force has been on pay and other economic in
centives. Faced with a high military attrition rate, espe
cially among technically-trained soldiers, both Carter
and Reagan raised military pay scales. Although pay is
certainly an important factor, it will not reverse the cur
rent manpower shortage.
The military can never compete with the marketplace
and steadily rising civilian wages. Higher pay is much
more likely to motivate less-qualified men to join the
armed services than the college-bound youth that the
military hopes to recruit. Increased monetary benefits
have also been ineffective in convincing soldiers to re
enlist. Retention rates were higher during the pre
Vietnam era, even though real career force pay was less.
What Reagan and other market enthusiasts must rec
ognize is that the concept of a national military is incom
patible with supply and demand economics. The army is
, not like other businesses, but requires special training,
cohesiveness and morale. By stressing the self-serving as
pects of the army such as pay, travel and technical
training the military has lost its other incentives and
strengths, such as its appeal to patriotism, duty and na
tional service. .
This mercenary approach to recruitment has not suc
ceeded in drawing higher-educated middle-class youth,
who are as interested in prestige and career satisfaction
as pay. Meanwhile, many men who are initially drawn by
the flashy travel posters and promises of on-the-job
training suffer disillusionment when confronted with ar
my reality. Unrealistic expectations and the resultant dis
content are primary causes for the high turnover rate in
today's military.
Given the obvious inadequacy of the volunteer army
on moral as well as military grounds, it is not surprising
that the draft has once again become a definite possibil
ity. Registration for 19- and 20-year-olds was instituted '
under Carter, while several bills for compulsory con
scription have been proposed in Congress over the past .
year. ,
There are, however, alternatives to the highly contro
versial and questionable return to a draft. While recog
nizing the lack of easy solutions, the military must
reorient its recruitment toward a program that stresses
educational benefits and national duty rather than pure
self interest.
Instead of the Pentagon's proposed cash bonuses to
higher quality recruits, Reagan should expand his plans
to implement another GI bill. By promising college edu
. cation benefits after a two- or three-year military term,
the. government would attract more white and middle
class youth. ,
As an alternative to the current career-oriented term
of four years, this dual track would enable men to
receive military training as well as continue with other
. careers. They would also swell the now seriously
depleted ranks of the army reserves.
Such actions possibly would improve the level of racial
and social distribution, as well as the overall quality of
the military. With a more representative, voluntary ser
vice the U.S. government is also less likely to engage this
country is an unjustified foreign war. Until then, the vol
untary service remains an inadequate and unacceptable
force for a nation that prides itself on its representative
and egalitarian nature.
Jonathan Rich, a junior history and political science ma
jor from Quogue, N. Y., is associate editor for The Daily
Tar Heel.
O LJ O UM EMPLOYMENT RECRUITER W
PI y H
Draft represents government
infringement of individual rights
By MARK LANGSTON
Amidst all the recent controversy concerning the in
creased defense budget, the AWACS sale, the MX
missile, and other related issues, one major question has
been left untouched. While President Ronald Reagan
promised in his campaign to end draft registration, sup
port has been quietly gathering in Washington for the re
instatement of the draft itself. Such reinstatement would
be a sad mistake. It is time for President Reagan to put
an end to the draft once and for all.
For too long, the government repeatedly has let our
defense go unattended to the point that a draft seemed
the only way to restore them to health. Then, invoking
some pretense .of a "national emergency," the govern
ment proceeded to violate the rights of millions of
Americans by forcing them into the armed forces or ex
tremely low-paying civilian menial labor. All this was
done under the labels of "civic duty," "serving one's
country" and "patriotism." As Samuel Johnson said,
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." Joining
the armed forces may be honorable, but there is no
honor in being forced into a kill-or-be-killed situation by
your own government.
Despite the fact support for the draft has stubbornly
endured for years in a country dedicated to the preserva
tion of freedom, the draft violates a great number of
long-cherished American principles and several parts of
the Constitution itself.
First of all, the draft is a form of taxation without
representation. The majority of those drafted are only
slightly older than 18, and therefore have not had the op
portunity to vote in such a way as to have any real politi
cal impact. The draft itself is actually a form of taxation,
not monetary but physical. By drafting those who have
had the least opportunity to be politically active, the
government is imposing a form of taxation without
representation. Such practices were a major cause of the
American Revolution, and if not justified then, it can
hardly be justified now.
The draft also gives the government too much power.
It allows the government to undertake any military action
without having popular support. This is not to say that
the government should not do whatever is necessary to
protect U.S. interests and to promote free democracy.
But if the only way it can persuade citizens to join the
fight is to threaten them with jail, then the government
has hailed to prove to the public that its actions are justi
fied. It makes no sense to try to preserve our freedom by
taking it away from us.
Unfortunately, that is exactly what the draft does. The
13th Amendment states clearly that "Neither slavery nor
involuntary servitude ..." shall exist within the United
States...!' The draft can be understood no other way than
involuntary servitude. It forces people to interrupt their
careers and risk their lives for a cause in which they may
not believe. It makes slaves of people in the sense that it
forces them to live and work under unfavorable conditions.
In the words of Sen. Mark Hatfield, R-Ore., the draft
"(reasserts) the state's godlike perrogative of owning the
lives of its young .... Conscription in any form is objec
tionable because ... it imposes more totalitarian controls
over law-abiding citizen."
A drafted citizen loses partially his rights to free
speech, assembly, fair trial, protection from search and
seizure, and from cruel and unusual punishment. While
national defense may require certain sacrifices be freely
made, the government has no legal right to force such
losses of liberty upon anyone but a convicted criminal,
and certainly not upon its own citizens.
The morality of conscription has been long debated.
Back in 1814, when British troops were actually fighting
us on own soil, a draft bill was proposed in the House of
Representatives. Daniel Webster fought it vehemently,
thundering, "The Constitution is libeled, foully libeled.
Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or
section is it contained, that you may take children from
their parents, and parents from their children, and com
pel them to fight the battles of any war in which the folly
and wickedness of Government may engage it?" Con
gress rejected the draft bill even as the British marched
on Washington.
Not only is the draft unconstitutional, it is actually
damaging to this nation's defenses. In an age where ar
mies rely less on the combat soldier than the military
technician,. a large standing army is virtually worthless.
What is needed are more career soldiers, better equipment
for them, and training that won't be wasted. A draft
provides none of these things.
Too many soldiers will serve their years, receive the ex
pensive training, and leave, fleeing to the civilian job
market to escape military pay scales so low that some
soldiers are actually receiving food stamps. As for intel
ligence levels of inductees, new studies have shown
volunteers score higher on mental aptitude tests and have
more college education than draftees, a far cry from one
uninformed senator's belief that "the army is filled with
a bunch of dummies."
The cost itself of a draft is enough reason to not sup
port it. Registering everyone at age 18 and drafting only
50,000 per year would cost an extra $25-40 billion every
year. By spending only part of that amount on pay
raises, re-enlistment benefits, and improved upkeep of
equipment, the government would be able to keep the
armed forces all-volunteer, at less expense and better ef
ficiency. . America's armed forces may need drastic help to up
grade them to a safe level, but a draft can add nothing to
our security. It is time for the issue to be raised once
more so it can be buried forever with such antiquities as
slavery and divine right of kings.
Mark Langston is a freshman political science major
from Greensboro.
8 If fP
N "ST' I
WMZING -fWDTHS A'JRRCR (DMSS WTH IT, RIGW?'
0$ m&UB-Saet