The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; Student Aid and the Draft

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. Last Thursday a federal judge in Minnesota ruled that a new law denying federal aid to college students who have not registered for the draft may be unconstitutional. The judge issued a preliminary injunction forbidding enforcement of the law, known as the Solomon Amendment. It was passed overwhelmingly by Congress and signed by President Reagan last September, and it comes into force on July 1st. The law has promoted active resistance by some universities who object to being made the enforcers of federal draft registration. Some private colleges even say they will make up aid lost by students who have not registered. Other opponents say the law discriminates against poor male students needing aid. Supporters of the Law say it is reasonable that any young man who wants financial help from his government should prove he is registered for the draft.As the new student aid year approaches, the issue gets hotter, sharply dividing the academic community. So tonight, linking college aid and the draft. Jim?

JIM LEHRER: Robin, the effort to kill the student aid/draft registration requirement is alive in Congress as well as the courts. It centers on trying to repeal the Solomon Amendment, named for its author and sponsor, Congressman Gerald Solomon, Republican of New York. The repeal legislation is known as the Edgar bill, named for Congressman Bob Edgar, Democrat of Pennsylvania, and both are with us. Congressman Edgar, you have called Mr. Solomon's amendment misguided and unfair. How so?

Rep. ROBERT EDGAR: Well, it's very misguided and unfair because it sets up a specific class of people for punishment who are already punished if they fail to register for the draft by giving a five-year prison sentence or a $10,000 fine. And it does not focus in on all students. It does not focus in on a specific group. It simply says that those who fail to register cannot get basic educational opportunity grants.

LEHRER: What's wrong with that?

Rep. EDGAR: Well, I think that it would be like, in the area of Social Security, saying a woman could not receive Social Security benefits if she failed to file her income tax over the last five years. The two reasons for the Solomon Amendment are (1) for compliance of registration, and the director of the selective service system has indicated that only 2% of young men between 18 and 19 fail to comply, and this particular rule would not help that very much. Secondly, the second part of it is to deny benefits as some kind of a sign of patriotism. And I think it's a very unfair sign of patriotism when wealthy students would still be able to go to college when others would be able to utilize these same benefits, but those who fail to simply put their name and address on a postal card would be denied.

LEHRER: Congressman Solomon, I assume that you think the Solomon Amendment is fair, is that right?

Rep. GERALD SOLOMON: I think it is guided in the right direction. I think it's very fair. The original intent of the legislation was to, first of all, to educate all of these young men who are eligible for draft registration to the fact that there is a law and there is a serious penalty if they violate the law. The second reason was to encourage these young men, who were unintentionally or intentionally in violation, to live up to their obligation as American citizens and live up to the law and come out and register. We have already accomplished that because, back in 1981, there was a widespread coverage on the news media for one day only that we had passed the reinstatement of draft registration. And after that one day nobody heard of the law. And consequently 900,000 young men were intentionally or unintentionally in violation of that law. Since the introduction of my amendment, hundreds of thousands of young men have been educated that there is a Class A felony attached to the violation of that law, which means, for instance, in most states you cannot become a doctor, a lawyer, a stockbroker, a banker, hold any kind of a license, and it would haunt them for the rest of their lives. We've done over 400,000 young men a tremendous favor by educating them to the law, and they have come out and registered.

LEHRER: Well, what about Congressman Edgar's point that it selects just one segment of the student population to double punish, is really what he's saying?

Rep. SOLOMON: Well, really, we don't hold them in punishment of the registration act itself. We simply are saying to these young men that if you want federal loans and grants, then you must fulfill all of the qualifications of the existing education law.You must state what your parents' income is. You must be academically qualified. And most of all, you know, 40% of all of the young people today attending college under federal loans and grants have incomes in their families of over $30,000, and if you have an income of $75,000 you still qualify. I hardly think that's discriminating against the poor.

LEHRER: Good point, isn't it. Congressman Edgar?

Rep. EDGAR: Well, I think it's a point that can be argued. I think the real point is that his amendment, the Solomon Amendment, isn't what has caused people to go back and register. I think it's the prosecutions in the court. And if you're going to talk about registration and setting up penalties on registration, I think you set them up separate from an action dealing with education.

LEHRER: He says this isn't a punishment.He says that it's an educational thing.

Rep. EDGAR: When you give a benefit and then take that benefit away simply because someone has failed either to fill out the registration card or failed to verify whether or not that registration card has been filled out -- and this is the interestng thing: many of the colleges and universities are going to have to become the law enforcers. They're going to have to find out whether a young person actually filled that form out, and they're going to have to have notification.

LEHRER: That's true, isn't it, Congressman Solomon?

Rep. SOLOMON: Well, let me tell you that the colleges and universities are enforcing the affirmative action programs today, and I have never heard one complain about it yet. But let me say that where the --

LEHRER: In other words, if they're acting as policemen, so what? There's nothing wrong with that in your opinion?

Rep. SOLOMON: They're doing it every day under different laws. But my point is this. When you talk about discrimination, I think that the people that are being discriminated against now are my son and the nine million young Americans who have gone out and registered. If we get to a draft -- God forbid -- if we have a national emergency and we have to go back to the draft, that means because 300,000 or a million young men have not registered, my son and all of the other nine million who have lived up to their obligation stand a much better chance of being drafted. I think that is discrimination at its worst.

Rep. EDGAR: And I think that discrimination at its worst is the fact that only 15 people have been prosecuted; only six have been found guilty of violating the registration law. And I think that the large number of people -- 98% of them -- are in fact filling out name, address and telephone number, and giving that information in registration. And that's what we're after.

LEHRER: Basically, what's wrong with telling a student that you cannot get federal aid to go to school unless you register for the draft? They're both federal laws.

Rep. EDGAR: Well, I think it's a bad principle to set up. We ask our young men to serve in the military on the basis of certain principles, and one of those principles is that you're innocent until proven guilty, and what Congressman Solomon has set up is a sign of patriotism in terms of signing that card as a value in terms of getting student benefits. And if you take that into other areas, you're going to ask people with small business loans whether or not, not only have they registered, but have they paid their taxes. You're going to ask senior citizens before they get Social Security whether or not they've complied with other laws. And we can have the proliferation of regulations. And Congressman Solomon, I think, would be the first to want government off people's back and out of their pocketbooks. And I think the regulations that we're going to impose on colleges and universities and young people here is just outrageous for the action that he's trying to cure.

LEHRER: Congressman?

Rep. SOLOMON: I think it boils down to whether you think that college loans and grants are a constitutional right or whether you think they are a special benefit and privilege that is granted to these young people through the Congress on behalf of the American taxpayer. I happen to think that it is not a constitutional right. I've read the Constitution. I think it is a special benefit, and I don't think it's too much to ask these young men that, if there is a law with a felony attached to it, to ask them to obey the law. And we've been tremendously successful with it. I don't think the courts are going to uphold the injunction. Just like the draft was upheld by the Supreme Court and the right for men to be drafted and not women, these were all challenged on the same grounds that Bob Edgar wants to challenge this law on. And they were upheld, and I'm sure that my law is going to be upheld, too, and the American people and the American boys are going to be better off for it.

LEHRER: Thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: Colleges are as divided on this issue as the politicians. The University of Minnesota joined the court case challenging the constitutionality of the Solomon Amendment. Minnesota's president is C. Peter Magrath, who joins us at public television station KCTA in Minneapolis-St. Paul. The most outspoken academic supporter of the idea is John Silber, president of Boston University, who is with us in New York. First of all, Dr. Silber, why do you support this idea that students who want aid should not have it unless they can show they've registered?

JOHN SILBER: I agree essentially with Congressman Solomon's point that it's an educational issue. I don't take the position I take because of the Solomon Amendment. I take it because the registration law is on the books. The universities have eligibility criteria for many things. We have an eligibility criteria for selling beer. If someone can't prove that he's 20 years of age, he can't have a beer. That's not finding him guilty of anything; that's simply asking him to demonstrate an eligibility. Now, the draft registration is an eligibility for student financial aid, and it's a perfectly reasonable one. It says we are going to restrict our financial aid, which is limited, to those students who have demonstrated that they recognize their obligation to return to a society their share of the benefit that they have received. We're going to restrict it to those students who acknowledge that there's a rule of law in a democratic society, and that their conscience does not give them the right to set the law aside. If conscience allowed one to set the law aside, every racist in America would have invalidated the civil rights legislation. If conscience set the law aside, every person who didn't want to pay taxes could get rid of the income tax. We cannot have a rule of law and allow conscience to be the guide simply and alone. Now, there is plenty of opportunity for civil disobedience, but there is one law in which you don't need to be civilly disobedient, and that's the draft law. The draft law is unique in the United States in that it encompasses within itself the right to refuse military service on the grounds of conscientions objection.

MacNEIL: But not at the registration stage.

Dr. SILBER: Not at the registration stage because that doesn't involve anything beyond acknowledging who you are and where you are.

MacNEIL: Let's ask Dr. Magrath why he opposes this idea, and then come back to some of your other ideas. Dr. Magrath?

C. PETER MAGRATH: Well, I don't think the issue is eligibility for beer on a nation's campus. I think the issue is whether or not it's fair, necessary and constitutional to have a double punishment. We have, let's not forget, a very clear simple law that if an adult young male fails to register they are liable to very severe criminal prosecution with some very stiff sanctions -- up to $10,000 in fines, five years imprisonment. What we have here is a double punishment. What we have here is a finding of wrongdoing on the part of the congressional majority that voted for this legislation for students who fail to certify that they have -- whether they have or not registered for the draft. You're adding a set of issues into financial aid administration which is already very, very complicated. We have all kinds of eligibility tests. There's no question about that. They all are related to parental need, to the status of the student, to whether or not they're pursuing a degree. It seems to me that we're mixing things that need not be mixed. We're discriminating against a certain category of students, those that are poorer, those that are male. I think it's a very unnecessary law.It's also going to be very expensive and cumbersome to implement, as recent discussions in Washington have shown.

MacNEIL: Let's take up some of those points, Dr. Silber. First of all, that it's a double punishment.

Dr. SILBER: Well, it's not a punishment at all. As a matter of fact, the reason why it is an inducement to register has to be acknowledged, because it's very easy to implement this where it's very expensive and very complicated to have a criminal trial. The only complication involved is filling out a form that gives the proof of registration. It is as simple as presenting your driver's license in order to have your eligibility for a beer. I used that analogy because I think it is ludicrous that institutions of higher education that are being supported by the taxpayer believe that they can comply with the liquor laws and require an age eligibility for the sale of alcoholic beverages, and then turn around and say but there would be something terrible if we were to make eligibility for student financial aid having registered for the draft. It is very simple; it does not discriminate against the poor. At Boston University, 75% of our students apply for financial aid, and aid goes to students who earn well above -- whose parents earn well above fifty and sixty thousand dollars. So that the argument about it being discriminatory against age [sic] just won't wash.

MacNEIL: What about that, Dr. Magrath?

Dr. MAGRATH: Well, John Silber and I occasionally disagree, and we disagree on this one quite sharply. In the first place, federal financial aid requirements have changed in recent years. The cutoff points have been changed, and students that are in the higher income levels are not in a position to apply for financial aid. They don't need it.Only certain categories of students, the poorer, the middle-middle class, the lower-income students are the ones that apply. It's a very, very big jump, by the way, to talk about financial assistance as a narrow benefit to be conditioned with impermissible constitutional requirements. It's not technically a constitutional right. There are many rights that are important in our society that don't appear literally in the Constitution. But the courts of the United States have held that access to education -- and that's why we're arguing this issue in the first place -- access to education is fundamental in our society, and if you deprive access to education you are tampering with a very significant right.

MacNEIL: Let me ask you this, Dr. Magrath. Dr. Silber said a moment ago that the law encouraged students to register, and his position on it encouraged students to register. Does your position not in some way encourage students not to register?

Dr. MAGRATH: No, it does not. My position encourages all to be very concerned about following due process of law and our Constitution and the principles that I think are fundamental in our society. I personally do not believe that the draft is unconstitutional. I have urged, and would urge any male student to register for the draft. I am certainly in favor of registration. It is the law of the land. It is a clear, simple transaction between the government and the citizen on that point. Don't mix colleges and universities in an issue that does not belong there. You might as well burden our financial aid administrations with all kinds of requirements if we want to enforce every federal law that exists.

MacNEIL: What about that fundamental point, Dr. Silber, that other colleges as well have said don't mix university student aid administration with this other aspect of the federal law?

Dr. SILBER: It's a little late for that. We are mixed with so many federal laws it's not funny. The one I have harped on has been the liquor law, but it seems to me it's a reductio ad absurdum of the position. I believe that the rule of law is sufficiently important, and I believe national defense is sufficiently important that if the federal government makes -- passes a registration act, then this university, Boston University, will certainly go out of its way to limit its funds to those students who have complied with that act. Now, this again I say would not be affected by the outcome of the Solomon decision because Boston University's funds are not going to those students who fail or refuse to register for the draft.

MacNEIL: You mean even if the Solomon Amendment got repealed by the Congress, you would still go ahead with your policy?

Dr. SILBER: That's right. We certainly would. We would restrict those -- that financial aid.

MacNEIL: And, Dr. Magrath, if the Solomon Amendment is not repealed, will you continue with your policy of resisting it?

Dr. MAGRATH: Well, I am not resisting, nor is the University of Minnesota resisting the enforcement of any law that is determined to be constitutional. So if the ultimate outcome is that Congress doesn't follow Congressman Edgar's wise counsel and repeal the Solomon Amendment, or the courts don't determine the law to be unconstitutional, as I think it is, then the University of Minnesota of course will comply with the law. We would not want to provide even further deprivation to large numbers of students. Ninety-eight percent of the students of the adult males in our state have registered for the draft.

MacNEIL: Well, thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: Congressman Edgar, you don't have the votes to repeal it now, do you?

Rep. EDGAR: I don't think we have the votes at this point to repeal it. I think the action really is in the courts. We saw all the favorable court decision last week, and I think that injunction will become permanent. We're working on a number of congressmen and senators in hopes of getting enough support in the House and Senate to have a full and lively debate. I'm not sure we had that lively debate when Congressman Solomon attached his amendment to a bill last year.

LEHRER: I assume you would agree with Congressman Edgar that your amendments is not going to be repealed anytime soon?

Rep. SOLOMON: Well, my amendment is not going to be repealed, but I feel that there is a danger that by delaying the implementation date of July 1st that it could be. You know, Dr. Magrath --

LEHRER: You mean delaying it through a court action, you mean?

Rep. SOLOMON: Delaying it through an action of the Congress.

LEHRER: I see.

Rep. EDGAR: I think that it ought to be clear. There are several actions in Congress apart from mine. One is to delay it for seven months. That would put it off for at least another year of implementation.

LEHRER: I see. Yes, Congressman.

Rep. SOLOMON: Well, I was going to say that I think Dr. Magrath made a very profound statement when he stated that the access to education is fundamental. And my question to Dr. Magrath is, is it so fundamental that we must put the future of this country into the hands of those that would break the law? And by the federal government subsidizing their education, we are, for all practical purposes, Dr. Magrath, doing that.

LEHRER: Dr. Magrath?

Dr. MAGRATH: No, I think that the law is so fundamental that we should follow it, and I think that it's a serious mistake to have a system in which we have a double punishment, because we're not just talking about -- let's not kid ourselves, we're not just talking about education. If the issue is education, there's been enough debate and ferment that presumably all adult males have been well educated that this law is on the books. We're talking about finding people guilty and depriving them of a very valuable benefit. And I think that's a very harsh and a very severe lesson, and not one that I think is appropriate.

LEHRER: Dr. Silber, now, I take it, from what you told Robin a moment ago, that if it is a punishment or is seen as a punishment, then so be it, from your perspective, correct?

Dr. SILBER: But I don't think it's a punishment. I think to say that this is a condition for eligibility is exactly the right language. It is also terribly misleading when someone sits in a state university in which the price of tuition is highly subsidized and he says that financial aid is only needed by the poor. For most universities in the independent sector, and that includes over 25% of higher education in the United States, we find that 75% of the students, approximately, need financial aid because there is no subsidy of the price. Now, there is not enough financial aid to go around, so what more just, what fairer restriction on financial aid could there be than to say we're going to limit to those who have been educated on certain points, namely, that their conscience does not give them the right to set aside the law. It is simply not the case.

Rep. EDGAR: There's not enough small business aid to go around either. There's not enough Social Security aid. There's not enough aid to nutrition programs. And if we start setting up penalties and punishments that are, in a sense, double punishments, we're going to have a whole group of laws put into place which will be putting penalties on top of penalties. Let's remember that someone who fails to register for the draft already is subject to huge fines and a huge number of years in prison. Those fines and penalties were put in place back in the Vietnam area when in fact failure to register for the draft, which was in place, meant very severe impact on the nation's defense. What we're talking about now is failure to simply register -- no draft in place, just to register -- with name, address and telephone number. And I think the penalties already in public law far exceed the kind of penalties that are necessary to make compliance. And the director of the selective service system already indicated that 98% of the people are already complying. Why take this second double punishment?

LEHRER: Congressman Solomon, I want to ask you a question. Do you believe that the attitude that Dr. Magrath and others like him in the educational community have taken actually does encourage students not to register and not to follow the law?

Rep. SOLOMON: I don't think there's any question about it because the largest group of violators have been in the college student area. Many of them have been advised by their peers and by college -- some college professors not to abide by the law, not to obey the law because the government is not going to enforce it. We're doing everything we can do to encourage them to obey that law, to do themselves a favor. But then if they don't we're going to prosecute them.

LEHRER: But I mean the specific attitude that Dr. Magrath has toward this issue, toward the tie-in. Do you think that is encouraging students not to register?

Rep. SOLOMON: I don't think there's any question about it. We just had over 5,000 students here last week, all of them camped outside my door because I'm the major sponsor of the bill, and I spoke to almost all of them, and there was no question in my mind that the attitude of some universities and people like Dr. Magrath, who may be well intentioned, are actually discouraging these young men from obeying the law. And it's hurting.

LEHRER: Do you plead not guilty or guilty to that, Dr. Magrath?

Dr. MAGRATH: Well, I think Congressman Solomon is well intentioned, too, it's just that we have different intentions. In the first place, I happen to favor following the law, and I don't think having legislation that involves a punishment -- and it's a selective punishment -- in both private and public universities, President Silber, have eligibility standards that apply here, and that's the way the federal system works. I don't think that asking our universities to enter into a cumbersome enforcement system -- and that's what we're talking about, which will cost millions of collars and delay financial aid, is necessarily in the best interests of our society in education. I believe just as much as the Congressman does in following the law, and that's what I am trying to promote.

LEHRER: We have to go. Robin?

MacNEIL: Yes, thank you, Dr. Magrath, for joining us in Minneapolis-St. Paul; Congressman Edgar, Congressman Solomon; and President Silber, in New York. Good night, Jim.

LEHRER: Good night, Robin.

MacNEIL: That's all for tonight. We will be back tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.