Coverage of forum on women’s choice one-sided

Marie-Jo Mont-Reynaud’s article, “Forum reflects on a woman’s right to choose” (Feb. 24, 2005) could not have been more slanted or one sided. So many slogans, so little time.

Most interesting is Reynaud’s quote of Maria Moreno, who asked “If we are a pro-choice majority, why is the threat to reproductive rights greater than ever?”

Perhaps it is because so many prospective supporters of abortion have already been aborted.

Mark Nicodemo

Melrose Park, IL

Leifer’s draft column dodges other issues

Kalani Leifer’s Op-ed “What’s more patriotic?” (Feb. 25, 2005) contains factual, logical and rhetorical errors.

Leifer writes, “One of my primary reasons for opposing the draft or needing to register for it is its inherent inequality.” But he does not specify any inequalities in today’s selective service, and even explained in a previous op-ed that a potential draft would not exempt college students. And why does Leifer fail to mention the most glaring inequality of the system—the full exemption of women? Even conscientious objectors must register and would have to serve the country in some respect if a draft occurred, but women are not required to register for non-combat military service or even non-military service.

Contrary to his statement, Leifer’s objections about “inherent inequality” are not related to a potential draft or registering for one. Leifer’s argument is really a red herring, as he subsequently claims that “it is indeed the underprivileged, the uneducated and, in many cases, the minorities who end up fighting these wars.” If true, this situation could not be due to selective service, and so it does not support his critique of “inherent inequality” in the U.S. system of military conscription. Mr. Leifer entirely dodges the fact that the United States has an all-volunteer military!

Moreover, Mr. Leifer unfairly describes those who “end up fighting these wars.” First, Mr. Leifer’s claim about “minorities” is not justified by statistics. The Department of Defense and the national news media have reported throughout Operation Iraqi Freedom that black and Hispanic casualty rates are equal or lower relative to the national makeup. More importantly, Leifer’s concern for minorities being exploited by the military is not shared by service members themselves. Second, it is insulting and incorrect to call our service members “uneducated.” With few exceptions, enlisted service members have at least a high-school education, and officers have at least a college education. Third, the “underprivileged” choose the military as their best opportunity, as all service members do. Without this opportunity they necessarily would be doing something they value less than military service. Leifer should take care to describe these volunteers as they really are —true patriots.

Zachary Haldeman

Class of 2003