OVER THE course of the past few years, reports of abuses perpetrated by soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan have filled our newspapers and television screens. While some have claimed the media harps on these atrocities, television and print media sources have all but ignored the rape and sexual assault of hundreds of young girls by military recruiters on the home front. Although the media largely failed to take notice, a recently released Associated Press report states that over 100 such abuses occurred in 2005. In order to prevent such abuses in the future, the recruiting system must limit access to high school students' personal information and ensure that no recruiters are left alone with potential enlistees.
The report, produced by Pulitzer Prize-winner Martha Mendoza, found that, in 2005 alone, more than 80 recruiters faced disciplinary action for sexual misconduct with potential enlistees. It also found that since 1996, 722 Army recruiters have been accused of rape and sexual misconduct. It is likely, of course, that the number of reported cases is far lower than the actual number of incidents. While not all recruiters are corrupt, the problem of sexual harassment is neither new nor isolated.
In fact, the unique powers given to a recruiter lend themselves to abuse. First, thanks to a nefarious clause in Bush's "No Child Left Behind" policy, schools are required to provide recruiters with students' personal information, including addresses and phone numbers, in order to receive federal funding. That information, coupled with the position of power that a recruiter occupies, makes it all too easy for a recruiter to prey on vulnerable girls. One Indiana National Guard recruiter has now been charged with raping several girls whom he specifically targeted because their lack of a father figure made them more vulnerable to someone in a position of authority. According to the AP report, some recruiters actually told their victims that if they wanted to join the Marines, they would have to have sex with the recruiters. For lower-income girls who may see the military as their only hope for either college or a successful career, this sort of ultimatum presents little choice.
Furthermore, once victims enter the military, they might fear that exposing their recruiters as rapists could potentially damage their own careers. The requirements and responsiblities of recruiters produce a "perfect storm" wherein prime conditions for abusers and victims meet, creating the perfect environment for rapists. With conditions so conducive to sexual harassment, that fact that only one in every 200 recruiters is disciplined for sexual misconduct is no accident.
The military's reaction to the AP report has been predictable; as with countless other abuse reports, the military insists that it is dealing with the problem appropriately, citing a determination to discipline its own members. Discipline from within the military, however, has not yet prevented such abuse and will not erase the damage already done to countless young girls. There are two obvious steps which should be taken to prevent further cases of harassment.
First, in order to prevent recruiters from targeting specific girls, the "No Child Left Behind" provision requiring schools to provide information must be repealed. No matter how desperate the military is for recruits, such an infringement upon students' right to privacy is not justified. Private employers are not permitted access to such information, precisely because they are likely to abuse it. The military should be no exception. Proponents of the program claim that a student's parent or guardian may opt out of it if they wish.
This argument fails on two counts. First, students are largely unaware of this option, despite a stipulation in the law that requires schools to inform students of this right. Second, even a high school student cannot opt out unless his or her parents or guardians agree. Thus, a student is not really free to make his or her own decision to keep personal information private. Unfortunately, even eliminating the military's ability to obtain personal information would not be enough to protect girls who seek out recruiters on their own.
Even if the government refuses to give up the military's access to personal information, it must implement a policy similar to the one instituted by the National Guard in response to the rapes in Indiana. The National Guard's policy, which forbids recruiters from being alone with female enlistees, has already shown positive results. A "No One Alone" policy, as suggested by Congressman Ike Skelton of Missouri, is simple, but it is a good start towards responsible recruitment. There is no reason for the military not to introduce such a policy universally because it would cost nothing and could only improve recruiting efforts.
Mr. Jefferson himself advised a young United States that a standing army would pose a threat of abuse. Unfortunately, the very standing military against which Jefferson warned has been a reality for over a half-century now. The government must hold the military accountable to the people by removing individuals' ability to abuse the power they are given. The almost systematic rape of young women in recruiters' offices is inexcusable, but so is the military's reluctance to do anything about it.
Daniel Colbert is a Cavalier Daily Opinion columnist. He can be reached at dcolbert@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | YesterdayLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 4 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
