Sending Grades To Local Boards

The blue cards distributed at registration hardly seem worth all the protest and criticism they aroused. Students who signed them merely gave the University permission to send their grades to local draft boards. Before complying with the requests of the boards, University officials will continue to notify students and seek their consent. If the number of requests rises significantly the registrar's office may have to send the grades without prior notification. But it is difficult to imagine a case in which a student would refuse his draft board a copy of his grades--virtually daring the board to reclassify him. And, since signatures may be revoked at any time, they pose little threat to student liberty.

Nevertheless, because the administration failed to explain clearly and candidly the purpose and future use of the cards, confusion and uncertainty persist. Students continue to fear that the University will deal behind their backs with local boards and send information without permission. The cryptic message on the blue card invited misinterpretation and suspicion, and the registrar's refusal to elaborate or explain its meaning provided no reassurance.

When the cards were distributed last Monday, Dean Monro said that the permission granted by students who signed them would be used in most cases only to certify to the boards that a student is enrolled and in good standing. And he insisted that the University would continue to request permission before sending transcripts. But he qualified this pledge by saying that if the volume of requests from boards rises above a certain unspecified level, the registrar would not have the facilities to notify undergraduates before mailing the information. And Monro later admitted that University officials had failed to "think through" the practical effect of the cards, and the possible reactions of students. Students have, indeed, wondered why the registrar should have to rush grades to the boards in response to routine requests (as opposed to appeals) and why the statements from officals should be so vague and evasive.

The lack of candor and foresight displayed in this case unfortunately seem characteristic of the administration's approach to local boards and the draft in general. The administration has not yet announced what kind of system it will use to rank students once the national plan for tests and rankings goes into effect. It has left in doubt the status of Russell Beecher's successor as draft advisor in the office of Graduate and Career Plans. And it has failed thus far to specify what kind of data--and how much--it is prepared to send local boards.

Hopefully, before reaching any final decision on the system to be employed in ranking students, the administration will submit a tentative plan and seek suggestions from students. This system should aim at preventing inequities which would result from a strict application of numerical values to grades without regard for department or individual programs, honors and non-honors. An open discussion of this issue may provide the beginnings of a dialogue on other aspects of the draft problem and dispel some of the confusion and uncertainty which now prevail.

Above all, the administration should continue to disclose, fully and clearly, the requests it receives for information from local boards and should inform students of its dealings with selective service officials. For, despite its recent pledges on this point, students still doubt the administration's sincerity. In an area as delicate and serious as this one, absolute frankness is essential, and the administration will have ample opportunity to prove its good faith in the coming months.