SUGGESTIONS FOR SCHOOL BOARD ADVOCACY ON ASVAB AND OPT-OUT POLICIES

By Pat Hanson with Jeanne Turner, Lynn Hamilton and Macgregor Eddy

Two Monterey County school districts successfully passed policies recently, requiring that recruiter release option 8 be applied district-wide when the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) test is given to students. That option protects families from having students’ personal information -- including name, address, phone number and social security number -- sent to military recruiters. Salinas Union High School District (SUHSD) -- an area heavily targeted for military recruitment because of low academic achievement, high levels of poverty and ethnicity -- passed this policy in September 2008, and Monterey Peninsula Unified School District (MPUSD) did the same in February 2009.

The MPUSD Board of Education is also currently working to alter the emergency contact card that parents must sign in order for students to be registered in district high schools. Three YES/NO check-boxes are being proposed in addition to two existing categories that require permission for a child to be interviewed or to be photographed for media purposes. These check-boxes would give or withhold permission for students’ personal information to be sent to military recruiters, institutions of higher education and/or prospective employers.

What steps did local peace and social justice activists take to accomplish this? What did they learn that could be useful in other communities? Below is a synthesis of the major lessons and suggestions they would make for other communities.

PEOPLE:

Sometimes clichés are true. “Do your research,” “It’s not what you know, it’s who you know that counts,” and “Befriend the secretaries and the custodians” -- these tactics actually work if you do careful relational organizing as part of your strategy.

Find activists who know the inside of school districts. In MPUSD, Jeanne Turner, a recently retired teacher, was the leading ASVAB policy change advocate. During her 37 years in the district, she’d known and even worked closely with some of the present board members, so she could predict who would be helpful or obstructive. Lynn Hamilton in Salinas was also retired with more than eight years of experience in the district and another ten years in a nearby district. Both were able to get critical information about the time, energy and money it could take to implement changes. Turner’s former school secretary provided critical information, as did the data entry person.

Understanding school board members' needs and concerns can help you achieve what you want. Remember, they are elected officials who volunteer for the often overwhelming amount of work they do for a variety of personal and political reasons.

Find the best spokespersons to approach specific board members.

Work through friendly teachers first. Even if principals may be allies in principle, they tend to be more cautious. Experienced teachers and former board members can suggest tips for reaching difficult board members and may know which ones to avoid.

Put yourself in the shoes of school counselors, administrators and superintendents. Remember, they’re just doing their job.

TIMING:

Get materials out early, especially when board members are not pressed with deadlines on other major issues. MPUSD letters and information packets went out in the slow time between Thanksgiving and the holiday season. This was done purposely, knowing that they would most likely be put aside and not read immediately, but could be referred to later.  SUHSD materials were delivered to board members in mid-spring, with the target time for board meetings in June through August.

Don’t press for a specific date -- let the board determine the timeline. Choose the time allotted for testimony on non-agenda items as your first entry point. The MPUSD activists did not mention a specific date that they wanted their item to be placed on the agenda. They read a carefully constructed three-minute statement at the December 15 board meeting that reminded them of the packets they had received two weeks earlier.

Listen at board meetings first before deciding what to ask for and when. Observe and learn how to speak and get on the agenda. Jeanne Turner was the only advocate in the audience for the first meeting after she’d sent packets to the board. “When I looked at this (referring to the first proposed policy change) I thought, I have accomplished nothing! Silly me. I thought I had done such a great job of sending everything out with my November 14th letter, that the whole thing (policy) would be approved at once. I had no idea what this was going to entail. However, I did listen to the board discussion. That pointed me in the direction I had to go.”

It will take time for your message to make an impact. Be patient and persistent and commit to following through.

Devise strategies for specific impact. Have several speakers, each covering one aspect of your issue at each meeting you sign up for. If well rehearsed, they can provide a powerful, coherent presentation supporting your points.

Re-inform board members often and incrementally. Phone follow-up is best done by activists the board members know and can trust.

Schedule a meeting with the superintendent only after you are well prepared with anticipated arguments. Have specific, one-liner points of what you want, why, and how this will help him/her. Many superintendents worry that federal funding from the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) will be suspended if ASVAB test results and/or personal student information are not sent to the military and institutions of higher education. They need be able to visualize, perhaps with an annotated copy of the NCLB law itself (such as MPUSD used), the provisions for opting out so they fully understand that this is not the case. (Note: “prospective employers” is not a category for receiving student contact information under NCLB, but many districts include it among opt-out categories.)

Be fully informed on legalities, including specific annotated copies of laws or board policies and referral numbers of an attorney for back-up. SUHSD advocates had an attorney that worked with them pro bono.

INFORMATION/THEMES/LANGUAGE:

Make educational packets thorough and clear. Early in the process, present board members with paper copies explaining the NCLB opt-out requirements and options for the ASVAB. This lays the groundwork for discussion at future board meetings during which confusion is sure to take place and can then be addressed. MPUSD activists hand-delivered packets to the home address of each board member that included a personalized cover letter.

Right to privacy is THE essential talking point. Both conservatives and liberals think that providing anyone with social security numbers is dangerous. Conservatives are just fine with sending personal information to the military, but not social security numbers. As it turned out, the most convincing items in MPUSD’s packet were the actual student forms that were included, especially the first two pages of the ASVAB scantrons with columns soliciting students’ personal information and social security numbers.

Don’t in any way come across as anti-military. Your purpose is to make sure that privacy is protected and personal information is given only to those entities approved by the parents.

TACTICS:

Be low profile. Go very low-key on publicity, especially at first. Avoid the media.

Hand-deliver packets of materials in person if possible -- if not, by first-class mail -- to board members’ home addresses. One-on-one contact is best, conducted by trusted, trained allies. Follow up with phone calls to make sure the materials were received.

Research policies and procedures used in other school districts, especially those nearby. Obtain materials used by them as examples. When working with the president of the board who happened to be on the policy sub-committee, concerns arose about the legality of separating the categories on the opt-out form. Before her appointment with the board president, Turner spent time calling school districts in California who already had their categories of options separated. By the time they met, she was able to hand the committee and the superintendent multiple copies of the opt-out forms being used in Whittier Union HSD, Santa Cruz City USD, Berkeley USD, Los Angeles Unified, Santa Rosa and the policy passed in nearby Salinas.

Evaluate and pick crucial entry and delivery points. Work with school board policy subcommittees first to obtain their clarity and perspective. Convincing them can make approval at vote time a slam dunk.

Carefully weigh options for getting information to parents that they are sure to see. The “blue jeans express” -- a term for when students deliver materials home -- is highly unreliable, and mailing is prohibitively expensive, especially right now with budget cuts. In proposing a method for notifying parents about the opt-out right, activists referred to the AB 2994 legislative model that was passed twice by the state assembly, but not signed into law by the governor. This bill, which would have mandated placing the opt-out information on emergency contact cards for each student, was referred to directly in MPUSD’s presentation to the board on December 15.

After the policy is passed, remember to follow up and check on implementation. When Jeanne Turner learned that her superintendent wondered exactly how schools could keep track of the various categories of opt out, she discovered (again from her data entry informant) that there is a section in the district data software system wherein this data can be recorded.

AND FINALLY . . . .

Remember: after the policy is passed, your work is not yet complete! There may need to be a high-level directive that designates someone to be responsible for posting this information. Suspecting that nobody at the high school level had been directed to enter opt-out data that is currently being returned by parents, Turner strongly doubted that anything was being done to keep pupil directory information from going to military recruiters, colleges or prospective employers. She checked with two high school secretaries. Indeed, one school had the opt-out slips that were returned, sitting in a drawer at the high school. Another sent them downtown but doesn't remember to whom!

Don’t take setbacks as a defeat. Remember that once school policy is passed, it can be revisited. Reapply these same principles and keep on keeping on.

The above article originally appeared in the April-June 2009 issue of Draft NOtices, published by Committee Opposed to Militarism & the Draft, www.comdsd.org.

Various documents and letters presented to the Monterrey Peninsula Unified School District are available at www.comdsd.org/Monterey.htm

VICTORY!

By Paula Hoffman-Villanueva

A truly monumental victory against militarism in our schools has been achieved! And for this victory to come from the city of San Diego makes it even more amazing. The Education Not Arms Coalition, after a 1½-year campaign, has succeeded in moving the San Diego Board of Education to ban rifle training on 11 high school campuses. At the board meeting on February 10, after 90 minutes of testimony and discussion, the vote was 3-2 in favor of banning JROTC weapons training. More than 200 students and local activists filled the auditorium with their now-familiar, bright orange “No Weapons Training” signs.

In the summer of 2007, the San Diego-based Project on Youth and Non-Military Opportunities (Project YANO) was supporting students and others in a struggle to stop the opening of a Marine JROTC program at Mission Bay High School. At the same time, people were learning that a rifle range was to be part of the newly built Lincoln High School campus. When it was discovered that more high schools in San Diego had shooting ranges as part of JROTC, teachers, community activists, parents and students formed the Education Not Arms Coalition (ENAC). Community organizations that supported the coalition included Project YANO, UJIMA Institute for Civic Responsibility, Association of Raza Educators, MEChA and AFSC, among others.

The Education Not Arms Coalition chose three initial goals:

• Stop the placing of students in military science (JROTC) classes without their informed consent.
• Stop schools from telling parents and students that the class will help them qualify for college, when it won’t.
• Ban weapons training and JROTC gun ranges in San Diego schools.

The campaign achieved the first two goals when they were incorporated into a directive issued to schools by the district superintendent in the fall of 2008. The third goal was achieved by the school board’s action on February 10, 2009.

The shooting range victory on February 10 was made possible by the election of two new board members, Dr. John Lee Evans and Richard Barrera, who had promised during their campaigns that they would vote to remove shooting ranges. They, along with John de Beck (who had already supported the ENAC demands), constituted the three necessary votes.

An hour prior to the February 10 board meeting, a student-led rally was held outside the board meeting auditorium. Over the past 1½ years, the most exciting aspect of the struggle has been the transformation of a group of energized and inspiring young student activists. In their speeches to the board that evening, after patiently waiting through hours of other agenda items, several students calmly took to the podium (this was their fourth or fifth board meeting). They made incredibly powerful statements; for example:

Anay Barajas, Mission Bay High: “You don’t realize the consequences that gun ranges bring to our communities. We are not here as teenagers looking for trouble. We are here as students looking for the education we deserve. We are looking for action from you, the people who are supposed to care about our education!”

Jonathan Flores, Lincoln High: “A school that teaches students to shoot weapons seems clearly ironic. Our books are the ultimate weapon to succeed, not guns. I also expect the board to uphold the idea that no guns in school means no guns in school!” 

After listening, the school board was generous in its praise of a truly amazing show of student activism:

Board Member John de Beck: “This is one of the best experiences I’ve had. I’m really proud of the leadership you guys have shown and your ability to keep coming back and coming back. It’s been a movement that has grown and it’s very peaceful and you’re very clear in what you’re saying.”

Board Member John Lee Evans: “I am extremely impressed by this fine group of young people. I have an immense amount of respect . . . a group of young people who are committed to education, committed to non-violence and who are also committed to the democratic process in terms of organizing themselves in the community and speaking out.”

Board Member Richard Barrera: “I feel honored as well. I think this was the best political science class I ever sat in. Knowing the students here from the Education Not Arms Coalition are standing up for something bigger than just individual programs. You’re standing up and saying ‘enough.’ You are teaching us. You are giving us hope that despite everything we do up here, we’re going to have a great country going forward because of what I see here tonight.”

In the days leading up to the February 10 vote, and for many days after, hate mail poured in from National Rifle Association members and from military/JROTC supporters. School board members, Project YANO and ENAC all received hate mail. Visits to the Project YANO Web site went from an average of 175 a day to over 1,000 a day. This only made the victory sweeter, having stood up to powerful pro-military and pro-gun forces, like the NRA, and won!

On February 24, under pressure from the JROTC program, the board of education again discussed the shooting ranges. Two board members, Shelia Jackson and Katherine Nakamura, succeeded in convincing John Lee Evans to vote to postpone the closing of the ranges until June, 2009, based on the argument that students need to complete competition commitments the rest of this school year. Once again, for this discussion, ENAC rallied. Speakers came forward with their usual enthusiasm, eloquence and conviction. And although the closure of the ranges was postponed until June, the ban will happen. Of course, the coalition will remain vigilant and monitor the situation, in case there are attempts to reverse the ban.

The ultimate success of the entire Education Not Arms campaign came only after incredible work by all involved -- petitions, community meetings, speeches, rallies, marches, press reports, interviews, letter-writing and many planning meetings. To enjoy the photos, read up on the history of the coalition, hear the speeches, and share in the feeling of pride, please go to www.projectyano.org/educationnotarms/

The above article is excerpted from the April-June 2009 issue of Draft NOtices, published by the Committee Opposed to Militarism & the Draft, http://www.comdsd.org/

War Resistance Today

In the past few years, tens of thousands of service members have resisted illegal war and occupation in a number of different ways—by going AWOL, seeking conscientious objector status and/or a discharge, asserting the right to speak out against injustice from within the military, and for a relative few, publicly refusing to fight.

According to IVAW, 10,000 soldiers deserted in the first four years of the Iraq war.   According to the Army, the number of deserters has increased every year of the war: 3,301 active-duty soldiers deserted the Army in 2006, compared to 2,543 in 2005, and prosecutions for desertion has likewise increased.  Many of the soldiers speaking out have already served one or more tour in Iraq or Afghanistan and are refusing to return.  This is a crucial moment to build the GI resistance movement to push from within the military for a complete withdrawal of troops from Iraq and change our national priorities away from militarization.

As the the U.S. shifts its focus from the occupation of Iraq to Afghanistan, it is essential that we call into question the conception of Afghanistan as a "just war". The occupation of Afghanistan is just as illegal, traumatizing, and unnecessary as the occupation of Iraq. We must continue to support troops who are forced into active duty in Afghanistan; and most importantly, we must continue to support their acts of resistance.

Source: Washington Peace Center

Here are some recommended links available to better inform you about GI Resistance. This is a work in progress and NNOMY will be adding new documents as they are prepared and as policies change that effect enlistment. Check back periodically.

Resources:

• The National Network Opposing the Militarization of Youth 2013 Back-to-school Kit for Counter-recruitment and School Demilitarization Organizing is now available to assist you in understanding the work, your rights, and the challenges to return to the public schools to counter-recruit. Please visit this page and review the materials we have assembled for you and feel free to ask questions as well at Our Contact Page and we will do our best to answer you or your group in a timely manner.
• Find a Group
• Materials/Training
• Iraq Veterans Against the War
• Veterans for Peace
• GI Rights Hotline - Phone: 877 447 4487
• Afghanistan Veterans Against the War (In development)
• Courage to Resist

Documents:

• default GI Rights Wallet Card
• default Sir! No Sir!

Articles on the web:

• Inside G.I. Resistance - Counterpunch - August 05, 2009
• With Lt. Watada's Case, GI Resistance Grows - AlterNet - August 17, 2006
• 1961-1973: GI resistance in the Vietnam War - Libcom.org- Sep 3 2006
• Winter Soldiers Move Toward GI Resistance - Antiwar - March 22, 2008
• Winter Soldier (IVAW): The Future of GI Resistance- Garett Reppenhagen  - bliptv
• GI Resistance Resources and Info - Washington Peace Center
• Winter Soldier Rules of Engagement - Z Magazine - May 2008

The government has the power to make people fight a war. But many young men and women have serious questions about whether it is right to take part in war. That may mean that they are conscientious objectors. They may not know the term, or that there is such a thing as conscientious objection to war.

Fortunately, there is a long tradition that is getting stronger as people with all kinds of backgrounds share the conviction that war is wrong. The Constitution gives the government the power to raise an army and people can be drafted to fight. But, there is an established right to conscientious objection dating from before the Constitution which has been recognized during the periods that people were forced into the military.

Often the beliefs of these objectors to war are well thought out, showing study and detailed knowledge. Sometimes their convictions are simple and uncomplicated. Many have their beliefs as part of their religion. Others have come to their beliefs on their own.

They all have a right to have these beliefs in opposition to war and should be supported in them. They are conscientious objectors (COs) whether or not the government says so.

Once people hear about conscientious objection, they want to know what is necessary to qualify as a CO with the government. That process is sometimes hard. The rules are fairly specific (but not always fair). However, if COs are properly prepared, NISBCO believes they will be recognized.

What Does the Government Say?

"Nothing contained in this title shall be construed to require any person to he subject to combatant training and service in the armed forces of the United Slates who, by reason of religious training and belief, is conscientiously opposed to participation in wsr in any form. . . the term `religious training and belief' does not include essentially politicsl, sociologicsl, or philosophicxl views, or a merely personal moral code. Any person. . . whose claim is sustained by the local board shall, if he is inducted into the xrmed forces. . . be assigned to noncombatant service. . . or shall, if he is found to be conscientiously opposed to participation in such noncombatant service. . .perform ... civilian work contributing to the maintenance of the nxtional health, safety, or interest. . . "-Section 6(j) of the Military Selective Service Act.

What Does That Mean? "Religious"

The statute (above) says that no person "who by religious training and belief is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form" can be required to kill or train to kill in the military. CO provisions like this have been a part of American law since the time of the colonies.

United States courts have interpreted the meaning of religion according to the first amendment of the Constitution. That amendment guarantees the right to practice one's religion and guards against the government favoring a particular religion over another.

For a few years the legal recognition of conscientious objection was limited to those who belonged to religions that believed in a "supreme being." This wording favored certain religions over others.

Earlier, during World War I, the government would only give CO status to people who were members of "peace churches," such as the Society of Friends (Quakers), Mennonites or Brethren. But, this has changed.

In 1965 and in 1970 the Supreme Court ruled that the words "religious training and belief" must now be interpreted to include moral and ethical beliefs that have the same force in people's lives as traditional religious beliefs.

So, the word "religious" here refers to the nature of a person's training and beliefs. That means that the law considers many sincere beliefs "religious" even if they are not a part of what most people call a "religion."

Now, you don't have to belong to any particular religion to qualify as a CO. In fact, you don't have to belong to any religion at all.

Almost all Christian religions, Judaism, Buddhism, Jainism, and many other religions have teachings that support the CO position. If you follow the teachings of a religion, you can use that fact to help show that you qualify for a CO classification. But, remember, mere membership in a religious body does not qualify; a CO claimant must show that he or she personally and truly holds the beliefs.

If you do not follow the teachings of a formal religion you must show the government that your beliefs are like a religion to you and that you hold them sincerely.

To summarize: CO claimants with the Selective Service System and in the armed forces will have to "demonstrate" their moral, ethical, or religious belief in opposition to "personal participation in war." They must also show that their beliefs are sincerely held.

"Training and Belief"

"Training and belief" refers to the source of conviction in a CO. It can include any experience and reflection which leads someone to be against "participation in war." For some COs, their "training and belief" is a lifetime of being part of an organized religion that teaches non-resistance to evil, non-violence, active love for the enemy, or "pacifism."

COs can show the government what their training and belief is by writing down the teachings of their religion, what their family taught them, and what they have done in their life that shows that they agree with those teachings.

For others, "training and belief" can be a significant event or sudden realization of the meaning of their decisions about life. "Training and befief" can refer to books, movies, TV shows, teachers, or speakers which have made you think about whether or not you could fight in a war. It can also be activities that you have taken part in that have had an effect on your feelings about war.

Most COs seem to come to their convictions over time. They reflect on their learning and experience and form a strong commitment to peaceful ways. They grow to hold these beliefs as a central part of their life. They develop an outlook and approach to life that shows other people that they have those beliefs and values.

"Essentially Political Sociological, or Philosophical Views"

The statute states that "religious" as used here does not include essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views, or a merely personal moral code." The Supreme Court, however, has made it clear that beliefs that otherwise qualify as "religious" may include these considerations, also.

Essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views cannot be the sole basis for your conscientious objection. They may well be the result of your deep religious or moral convictions against war.

For example, if your only objection to participation in war is that war is an inefficient and expensive way to solve problems, your local claims board could deny your claim because it is "essentially political or sociological."

A philosophical view, here, is a disinterested view to which you have no strong moral or religious commitment. This does not mean that a claimant cannot hold a central "philosophy of life" which can be thought of as "religious." It means that your objection must be so important to you that it really affects the way you live your life.

"Merely Personal Moral Code"

The law does not accept "a merely personal moral code" as the basis for a CO classification. This is intended to exclude from CO status persons who have nothing but a private, personal preference against participating in war, and who do not feel so strongly about war that it can be said they have a genuine moral or religious basis to the objection.

A person who wants to get out of military service because it is inconvenient or for reasons of "personal expediency" ("it interferes with my school, job, or family plans, etc.") cannot expect to be classified as a CO.

"War in Any Form"

Many, perhaps most people, believe that they should only fight in a war for a just cause. Those who insist that they be allowed to refuse to fight wars that they think are wrong are often called "selective conscientious objectors."

"Selective conscientious objection " uses the "just war" moral teaching and international law to justify some wars and rule out others. Selective conscientious objection is not permitted in the United States.

The current statute says that CO claimants must object to "participation in war in any form." This means that in order to qualify as a CO you must be prepared to say honestly that you would refuse to participate in any war in which you would reasonably be expected to fight.

You cannot say that you could participate in a particular war, but not others. Some COs do think that other people, who do not share their beliefs, should be allowed to follow the orders of the government and participate in war. But no one can qualify who picks and chooses among the contemporary wars they would fight.

Some selective COs believe that the conditions for a "just war" can no longer be met today. By a process of elimination they might qualify as COs under current law by showing that they believe a "just war" is impossible in our time.

Some local boards have tried to trick claimants into seeming to be selective COs by asking them what they would have done if they had been alive during World War II, or other situations.

The courts have stressed that you don't have to know what you would have done in a past war or in some hard-to-imagine future circumstance. If you had been living during World War II, the decision to fight Hitler might have been yours. Or, if you are a Jehovah's Witness you may believe you could be called upon to fight in the final war against Evil.

Neither situation disqualifies someone from being classified a CO. Claimants who are challenged to answer questions about past wars should politely refuse to speculate on what they might have done.

The only conflicts you must refuse to fight are those organized wars in which you might reasonably be called upon to fight in today's world.

Must a CO be Nonviolent?

Although many COs hold absolutely to the principle of nonviolence, to qualify as a CO you don't have to be committed to nonviolence or nonresistance in every situation. The law does not require a conscientious objector to be opposed to all forms of violence, the use of force, police powers, or even to all taking of human life.

It requires only that a person be conscientiously opposed to the planned and organized killing that takes place in warfare. Willingness to use violence against another individual in order to protect yourself or your friends is not grounds for denial of a CO claim.

Alternative Service or Noncombatant Service

Even though conscientious objectors are not drafted to kill in the Army they still must serve the country.

The law provides for two different forms of conscientious objector service. The difference depends on whether or not COs are willing to accept service in the Army that does not require them to carry weapons.

Noncombatants (classified 1-A-O) serve in the Army without using weapons or handling ammunition. They are not trained to use weapons. Noncombatants have usually served in the medical corps.

COs who are opposed to any military service are classified 1-O. When they are ordered to alternative service they are reclassified 1-W. Alternative service workers (ASWs) do "civilian work contributing to the maintenance of the national health, safety, or interest.

Many of these alternative service workers find their own jobs for approval by the Selective Service System. In the past, many COs worked in hospitals and in programs operated by religious organizations.

Persons requesting CO status while in the military must request either discharge or transfer to noncombatant duty. Upon discharge, if they are subject to the draft, they will be classified 1-O-S. Those who have not completed their service obligation may be liable to alternative service for the uncompleted portion of military service only if they are drafted at a later time.

Other Types of COs

Nuclear Pacifists

: There is a growing number of people whose consciences would not permit them to participate in a nuclear war, or what they believe would become a nuclear war. Some nuclear pacifists become opposed to all war because, according to their belief, all wars fought by the major powers could lead to the use of nuclear weapons.

At this time the law does not recognize nuclear pacifists (a form of selective objection) as conscientious objectors. Some nuclear pacifists might qualify on the ground of their opposition to all war. Current policy in the armed forces is to reassign persons who have moral reservations about handling or firing nuclear weapons.

Noncooperators

: Some people will not cooperate with the conscription system. They are conscientiously opposed to participation in war and they conclude that the conscription system furthers war.

Many of them refuse to register for the draft. Others, having already registered, have stopped complying with the requirement to keep Selective Service informed of a change of address. (There is no legal process for "unregistering")

The Selective Service System does not recognize conscientious objection to participation in the conscription system, even though the draft, itself, serves the purposes of war.

Registration for the draft was begun in 1980 to "send a message" to the Russians. The Director of Selective Service called it a "weapon in our arsenal like a bomber or missile;" Others have valued it because they believe it helps "deter" the enemy from attacking us.

Conscientious objection is not acknowledged by the government at registration. Nor are COs allowed to decide not to register.

In previous periods of conscription, too, many refused to cooperate. During World War II over 5,000 went to prison for their beliefs.

In the first six years of the current draft registration hundreds of thousands of people did not register, but only twenty nonregistrants were brought to court. All but one of them had been open about their nonregistration and many of them wrote to Selective Service explaining their beliefs.

The maximum possible sentence for draft violators is now five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Of those finally convicted for nonregistration, most have served short sentences, been ordered to do community service, been put on probation, and/or paid fines of $10,000 or less.

Nonregistrants are denied federal aid for education and job training, and are barred from most employment with the federal government. Some states have enacted similar provisions. A few colleges and religious bodies have arranged to provide assistance to make up for these penalties. A national Fund for Education and Training (FEAT) has been initiated to supplement these programs or provide them where they are not available to individuals. Write to Center on Conscience and War (CCW) for information about the fund.

Source: http://www.scn.org/ip/sdmcc/co.htm

Here are some recommended links available to better inform you about conscientious objection to war. This is a work in progress and NNOMY will be adding new documents as they are prepared and as policies change that effect enlistment. Check back periodically.

Links:

• Conscientious Objection and Alternative Service - Selective Service System - U.S. Government
• Conscientious Objector Counseling
• Are you a Conscientious Objector in the Military Seeking Discharge? - Center on Conscience & War
• Delayed Entry Program / DEP
• Conscientious Objection - Pax Christi USA  (Catholic Organization)

Articles:

• How To Stay Out of the Military - Primer on Draft Resistance - David Wiggins
• Conscience and War - David Chandler - Quaker Action
• Quaker Peace Testimony in Times of Terrorism -  Robert Griswold
• Selective. Conscientious. Objection and. Catholic Teaching (PDF)

Conscientious Objection Currículums and Online Workshops

• Catholic Peace Fellowship - Diocesan Youth Program: Conscience Formation
• No­Conscription League Manifesto, 1917 - (from Records of the Department of War and Military Intelligence Division,
  Record Group 165, National Archives)
• FGC Conscientious Objector Curriculum: A Blessing at Chapel Hill Meeting - Friends General Conference (Quaker) - PDF
  

Books:

• Conscientious Objection: Resisting Militarized Society, Edited by Çinar, Özgür Heval, Üsterci, Coskun, Zed Books, 2009, 268 pages, $34.92 on Amazon as of 5/15/2022
  

Documents:

• Conscientious Objection Discharge - GI Rights Network
• Conscientious Objectors - Department of Defense
• MLTF’s anti-draft program work- The Military Law Task Force- National Lawyers Guild
• default Who is a Military Conscientious Objector?

###

Revised 5/15/2022

ORGANIZING A STATEWIDE CAMPAIGN TO REQUIRE OPTION 8

A tutorial

This step-by-step guide is meant to aid activists in their legislative campaigns to prohibit the automatic release of test results to military recruiters gathered through the administration of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) in the public high schools.

The steps outlined here, largely drawn from our experience in Maryland, can be used as a general template for counter-recruitment activists across the country.

We recommend you study everything on this site pertaining to the ASVAB (including a cursory examination of military documents) and read through the entire contents of this comprehensive website: http://www.asvabtest.org/ before proceeding.  Study is critical because much of this campaign revolves around educating school officials, political allies, and legislators.  The military, for its part, has embarked on a very clever and persuasive misinformation campaign.  See the "ASVAB in the News" section of the http://www.asvabtest.org/ website for more on DoD attempts to obfuscate the true nature of the ASVAB program in the public schools.
(Update: Not the case in September 2022: See ASVAB Enlistment Testing Program)

The first step is to form a loose-knit coalition of allies and give it a name that has something to do with protecting the privacy of children;  like, "The ________ Coalition to Protect Student Privacy."  "Peace" and "Justice" are polarizing words in statehouses across the country so you'll want to be careful not to associate your campaign with activist groups that might insist on asserting an anti-military or left-wing agenda.

You'll run across school officials and legislators who are convinced the ASVAB is an excellent career exploration tool that has its place in the public schools.  Concede the point.  You can allow that the program might help young people negotiate career paths.  You're not against the ASVAB; however, you feel strongly that test results should not be automatically forwarded to military recruiters.

Once you've formed your "coalition," which may start out as a couple of activists in town (or just yourself), you'll need to begin building your coalition by contacting your natural allies in this struggle. Call your local ACLU affiliate and ask them for advice.  See if they can help you craft legislation.  Ask them who they think might be willing to introduce the bill in your state's House and Senate. Send them the excellent letter written by the ACLU-MD in support of Maryland's legislation.  You should also send them Maryland's new law.

Your state is likely to have some sort of institutionalized progressive political entity like a progressive Democratic caucus.  Contact them and see if they can help.  They're likely to be in a position to know which legislators are the best candidates to carry the water.  Be careful not to fall into the trap of agreeing to have the legislature's most progressive member, the token radical, be the lead sponsor.  You're going to need conservative Democratic votes and even a few Republican votes.

In your conversations with these folks, try to determine the likely path your legislation will have to travel to make it to the governor's desk. Identify the specific committees and subcommittees you'll most likely be dealing with and examine the voting records of members before approaching them or having others approach them.   It's very helpful to have co-sponsors sit on crucial committees.  It's a real coup to have a committee chairperson agree to sponsor or co-sponsor the bill!  Committee chairs are often incredibly powerful and it's tough (though not impossible) getting legislation to the floor if they're strongly opposed.

Call your local NAACP Unit (archived) and ask them for their advice and support.  Do a cursory evaluation of the ASVAB Database of high schools that administer the test in your state. Try to ascertain the racial make-up of schools that administer the ASVAB.  The ASVAB is more likely to be administered in communities of color than in predominately white areas.  Share the testimony of the NAACP-MD urging parental involvement in decisions relating to the release of student information to the Pentagon.

You should call your state affiliate of the National PTA.  In Maryland, the PTA came through in a big way.  During the PTA testimony in the General Assembly, a PTA spokesperson argued that parents, rather than the Pentagon, should be empowered to make decisions regarding the release of student information to recruiters. In contrast, the Army's top recruiter argued that the Pentagon should make these decisions, rather than "influencers," DoD talk for parents.

You should also contact your NEA state affiliate (archived) to see if they'd be willing to support your legislation. The National Education Association has not taken a position on the ASVAB, although a piece in the publication NEA Today describes the controversy and explains Options 1 through 8.  NEA leadership has explained that the issue is not specifically related to the NEA's purview.

It is advisable to send a letter to your state superintendent of schools asking that she immediately select Option 8 for all students across the state who take the ASVAB. See the Template Letter to State Superintendents.  It is unlikely that your state superintendent will act to mandate this change because these types of decisions are typically left to local education agencies. It is important, however, to know where this office stands in relation to your legislation.  Your legislature will be reluctant to enact legislation if it is opposed by the state superintendent.  If your superintendent takes no position on your bill, it may be viewed as a green light in some quarters.

Getting a bill introduced

Throughout this process, you should be seriously considering whom you'd like to ask to submit legislation.  It may be helpful to have a constituent of a legislator make an appointment and have you attend the meeting. Legislators are much more willing to act on behalf of people who live in their districts.  Once you've settled on lawmakers in both houses to sponsor your legislation, it's advisable to hold a strategy session to formulate a plan of action.  Your legislator is likely to ask you to help her find co-sponsors for the legislation.  For instance, see Maryland's House Bill 176 and view the delegates who were willing to sign on to the bill before it was introduced.

Once your bill is introduced, there may be a window of time when you're still able to add additional co-sponsors.  It is best not to have too many legislators from one or two extremely liberal jurisdictions co-sponsor the bill because it may be viewed by moderates to signify a left-wing proposal.  If possible, try to find a few Republicans to sign on.

Leave the press out of it. There's no point in giving your opposition a heads up.

Your bill will be assigned to committees in each house that will schedule hearings.  Obtain a list of committee members and send them each a letter similar to the letter sent to the superintendent of schools.  Include in the letter the names of all of the public schools in the legislative district that administer the ASVAB, along with the Recruiter Release Options selected. Most likely, the vast majority of students who took the test in the particular jurisdiction had their test results automatically forwarded to recruiters. Note that you're only concerned with public schools that administer the test.  You'll have to create a spreadsheet of all the schools in your state that give the test and remove the private schools before sorting them into legislative districts to generate letters to individual lawmakers. You should deliver your letter by regular mail, by email, and you should hand carry it to the office of each committee member.

It is also advisable to create succinct bullet points and distribute them to lawmakers on several occasions. You can never overdo it.  Educating lawmakers is your key to success.

At this point, you should schedule appointments to meet with all committee members. This part is time consuming, but it is possible to meet with as many as 10 to 15 legislators in a day.  You'll only need about 20 minutes of their time.  Go over the bullet points with the legislators and discuss how the test is given at such-and-such high school in the particular district.   See if you can find folks from various peace and justice groups or through your contacts with the organizations listed above who would be willing to accompany you in the meetings. Again, it helps, although it is not necessary, to have constituents make the appointments and accompany you to the meetings.

Legislation is made in committees and it is rare for a bill to receive a favorable report in committee and be voted down on the floor.

Lobbying for the bill

We strongly encourage you set up an automated system that allows constituents across your state to click on a link that brings them to a page that briefly explains the issue and guides them through a simple process that generates letters of support to their legislators. Activists in Maryland were able to generate close to a thousand emails, with many directed to committee members whose votes were crucial. Your political allies may be willing to share contact information with some of their membership.  Phone calls from constituents to committee members are invaluable in this process. It helps to regularly send messages to list-serves, blogs, websites, and Facebook, sending people the link to the automated system to generate emails to lawmakers.

When a bill is heard in committee, those in favor and those opposed are invited to provide written and spoken testimony.  Speakers are usually limited to a few minutes. It is possible that the militarists will not be present to oppose the legislation, especially if the measure has stayed out of the press. It's possible your bill may attract a letter from the commanding officer of your local Military Entrance Processing Station, as it did in Maryland. This could be helpful because the military is arguing that the Pentagon, rather than parents, should ultimately determine the release of student information.  Activists in Maryland circulated the letters written by the Maryland PTA, which argued in favor of allowing parents to make decisions regarding the release of information pertaining to their children, and the Lt. Colonel in charge of recruiting, who didn't think that was such a good idea.  Most legislators were convinced the measure was necessary and the law passed.

A good lineup of people testifying in committees hearing the bill would consist of an official from a school or a school system that has selected Option 8 and representatives from the NAACP, ACLU, PTA, your local teacher's union, your state's progressive political entity, a student who has taken the ASVAB without realizing its tie-in with recruiting, and an unhappy parent.  You should lead the parade.

As soon as a committee in one of the houses approves the measure, you ought to distribute a brief statement to all legislators in both houses that includes a mention of the victory along with a few of the most pertinent bullet points.

At this point, the Pentagon and its allies in the legislature may be expected to engage in a behind-the-scenes public misinformation campaign aimed at questioning the necessity of the Option 8 bill.

They may argue that Section 9528 of the No Child Left Behind Act gives parents and students the ability to withhold ASVAB test results from military recruiters. It does not.

The militarists may argue the ASVAB program is completely voluntary and that students who take the test can sign a form that precludes their results from reaching recruiters.

The test may, in fact, be required in some schools and/or strongly encouraged in others, but, in either case, results are being automatically shipped to recruiters.  Also, the bogus Privacy Act Statement found on the ASVAB Answer Sheet in use in schools throughout the country informs students they must sign the form for their test to be graded. Legal experts claim this aspect of the testing regime runs counter to both federal and state laws designed to protect the privacy of students.  Students who take the ASVAB do not select release options — only school officials can do that.

Once the legislation passes its assigned committees and is sent to the floor for a vote, it is crucial to continue sending all members relatively brief items that address the legislation. If there are any new letters in opposition, they should be widely distributed and all misstatements should be identified.  Similarly, erroneous reporting in the press should be immediately challenged with letters to the editor that are shared with legislators.

During this fragile time period, it's important to be working closely with those who've sponsored your legislation. Sometimes they'll ask you to refrain from contacting a particular member or to refrain from sending literature. Generally, you should defer to their wishes.  They know the legislature.  You know the ASVAB.

As soon as the legislation is introduced, you should make an appointment to meet with the governor's legislative assistant to explain the rationale behind the bill and to ask for the governor's support.  When the legislation passes both houses, it is wise to make a second appointment with the governor's office.  If the governor appears to be wavering in her support, you should generate hundreds of letter in support of the legislation.

At any time you may consult with NNOMY for advice.  This is a winnable campaign!

• General ASVAB information

Revised: 09-21-2022