Monologue
Army’s reasoning for rape equal to prejudice
By Shelley Ball
News Editor
Here’s a trivia question
for those who consider
themselves liberated women.
How many are aware that the
U.S. Army considers rape of
service members to be an in
jury “incident to service,” and
therefore won’t pay claims on
such injuries?
Betty Ann Buckmiller, a
26-year-old soldier, found this
out the hard way last week
when, after she was raped and
beaten by two soldiers in Nov.
1982, sought damages from
the Army. She was told that
rape is one of the pitfalls of
military life, and nothing
could be done for her.
Buckmiller, who is cur
rently living in the Seattle
area, plans to appeal the Ar
my’s decision by taking her
case, if necessary, all the way
to the Supreme Court. She is
seeking $80,000 compensation
for injuries such as a broken
nose, chipped tooth, cut
hands, bruises and a back in
jury, in addition to the
humiliation she experienced
from her attack in a two-story
barracks at Fort Ord, which is
just south of San Francisco.
But it isn’t as though
Buckmiller hasn’t received any
compensation for her attack.
The two soldiers who raped
and beat her were court-
martialed, and one was
sentenced to 40 years in
prison, the other 20 years (on
ly one of the men had actually
raped her before she was freed
from the attack).
Buckmiller has also been
referred to the Veterans Ad
ministration as an eligible can
didate for medical care, her
claims for travel pay and
regular pay (following the
rape) are being taken care of,
and even her eyeglasses, which
were damaged in the assualt,
have been paid for.
With all these compensa
tions under her belt, some peo
ple may think Buckmiller isn’t
entitled to anything else. And
after all, her attackers have
been punished with jail
sentences. What else should
she want? How about a little
recognition from the Army,
whose own servicemen, hence
co-workers of Buckmiller,
were responsible for her rape?
Why did the Army decide
the case the way it did? Joseph
H. Rouse, chief of the Army’s
general claims service, rejected
Buckmiller’s claim to the Ar
my by citing a 1950 U.S.
Supreme Court finding, which
stated under the Federal Tort
Claims Act the military is not
expected to pay claims to ser
vice members who suffer in
juries “incident to service.”
Therefore, Buckmiller, as
THE PRINT, a member of the Oregon Newspaper Publishers Association,
aims to be a fair and impartial journalistic medium covering the campus com
munity as thoroughly as possible. Opinions expressed in THE PRINT do not
necessarily reflect those of the College administration, faculty, Associated
Student Government or other members of THE PRINT, THE PRINT is a
weekly publication distributed each Wednesday except for finals week.
Clackamas Community College, 19600 S. Molalla Avenue, Oregon City,
Oregon 97045.
Office: Trailer B; telephone: 657-8400, ext. 309, 310
Editor In Chief: Doug Vaughan
News Editor: Shelley Ball
Arts Editor: J. Dana Haynes
Sports Editor: Rob Conner
Photo Editor: Joel Miller
Copy Editor: Marco Procaccini
Business Manager: Shelley Stone
Cartoonists: Brent Carter, Ward Moore
Advertising Representative: Jack Griffith
Staff Writers: Judy Barlow, DeAnn Dietrich, Brad Fox,
Kathy Johnson, Kristen Tonole, Heather Wright
Staff Photographers: Duane Hiersche, Russ McMillen,
Wayne Vertz, Jason Webb
Typesetter: Pennie Isbell
Advisor: Sara Wichman
Page 2
well as other women who join
the military, are expected to
believe that rape in the
military is “incident to
service,” and is one of the
prices a woman may have to
pay by wanting a military
career. Nonsense!
It’s ridiculous for the Ar
my to consider rape a claimless
hazard. The women who
choose to serve in the armed
forces are there for the same
reasons there are women doc
tors, lawyers, secretaries -and
nurses: It’s a job, and as such
they deserve to be treated
equally and with respect in
regards to their male co
workers. By not allowing
women to gain some compen
sation for such a devastating
act, the Army is removing a
big part of the respect women
have fought so long for in the
traditionally male-oriented
jobs.
Also, how many other
careers can be named that
seriously consider rape as “go
ing with the territory?” It
looks as though the Army, in
its decision to include rape as a
military hazard, is saying, in
classic chauvinistic style, that
rape is a form of punishment
for those women who are
believed stupid enough to
enter a career field thought to
be reserved for men only.
Rape shouldn’t be con
sidered a hazard in the Army,
because it shouldn’t be hap
pening there in the first place.
Whatever the Army’s
reasons for making their deci
sion, they’re not out of the
judicial woods yet. Buck
miller, who is now working as
a telephone company sales
woman, has chosen a Seattle
attorney to represent her
fight to appeal her claim rejec
tion. Good luck, Buckmiller.
You’re going to need it.
Silkwood flick misleading
By Doug Vaughan
Editor in Chief
Last Wednesday, the Supreme Court gift-
wrapped a legal setback to the nuclear industry
by reinstating a $10 million punitive damage
judgement in favor of Karen Silkwood, a
deceased laboratory worker of the Kerr-McGee
Corp., a plutonium plant, near Crescent, Okla.’
An appeals court had thrown out the
judgement against the Kerr-McGee plant on the
grounds that such a ruling would infringe on
the federal government’s authority to regulate
nuclear safety.
This decision opens the doors for people
detrimentally affected by radiation, like
Silkwood was, to seek large sums of money
from nuclear operators.
The turnabout fits perfectly with the
release of the film, titled appropriately
“Silkwood.” The rebirth of the actual court
case has stirred controversy, but the accuracy
of the film has even more debate.
Film critics have raved about the box
office hit,“Silkwood’,’ portrayed by Meryl
Streep, as it now is seventh on the list of box
office successes, having grossed $10.8 million in
the first four weeks. The problem? Simply its.
accuracy.
Since the movie is based on an actual
event, the audience is led to believe whatever
happens is the truth. On the contrary, the
movie leads the audience to believe actual non
existing facts, and fails to point out many
known facts.
The basis of the story is that Silkwood died
in a car accident Nov. 13, 1974, on her way to
meet with a New York Times reporter. She had
been contaminated with plutonium days earlier.
The actual cause of her accident was never
determined.
The main concern with critics is that the
movie does not answer the question of whether
Silkwood was murdered. The actual reports
considered her accident a one-car accident. In
the movie it was implied that she was forced off
the road.
Whether it was murder or an accident was
never determined, so it was filed as an accident.
Leaving the movie theater, I thought she had
been murdered.
Along with the accident, all the so-called
evidence that Silkwood was taking to the Times
reporter disappeared. The movie stresses this
point. In actuality, it was not known if she had
the documents that showed health and safety
violations of the plant.
It was union officials’ suggestion that
Silkwood was forced off the road, but police
abandoned that possibility calling it a one-car
accident.
Through the film I was led to believe that
someone was informing the company of
Silkwood’s gathering of information against
the company. Many people I have talked to also
thought her roommate, played by Cher, was the
informant. In actuality, nothing of the kind has
been proved.
Some critics also believe there were factual
errors in the movie. Silkwood claimed that fuel
rods made by Kerr-McGee were faulty. In the
movie, a character said such a defect could
“wipe out a state.” Critics say this is not true.
It’s my belief, even though the film has
been criticized for its misuse of facts, that this
type of movie is positive just because it will
raise the audience’s curiosity. Just as the fic
tional film “The Day After” raised questions.
People need to be concerned about these issues.
It’s true that the audience leaves with the
questions: “Was she murdered?,” “How was
she contaminated?,” and “What nappened to
the documents?” But put yourself in her fami
ly’s and friends’ shoes-they probably are still
trying to answer these questions.
Clackamas Community College