Abolish the 2-S

Like some great Gothic cathedral, the draft system continues to grow and complicate itself. All the while, however, its two characterizing features are maintained: inequity and confusion. For an astounding number of years. Congress has politely averted its gaze and allowed the Selective Service System to construct an incredible edifice of unreasonable, bewildering, and unfair rules and sanctions. Congressional apathy continues, but the whole rotten draft structure is finally beginning to heave and high under its own weight. Student groups are staging little Berkeleys: civil rights organizations are protesting; corporate recruiters are voicing perplexity; college deans are wondering aloud; some professors have even stopped grading. A consensus is forming that the draft must be reformed, both radically and soon.

But there is no agreement about the type of reform needed. Some wish to abolish the draft altogether, replacing it with either a professional army or nothing at all. Others support the concept of universal service, which would encompass a whole range of military and non-military programs. While such "total" solutions have their merits, discussion of them should be postponed. Abolition of the draft and universalization of the draft would both require truly massive bureaucratic alterations. Congress would understandably hesitate to ask such changes from a military establishment already occupied with other matters. The Selective Service System should be reformed now, but for the present it must remain a selective service, a compulsory but non-universal draft.

This qualification obviously limits the appeal of any proposed reform. By definition, a selective service system involves elements of coercion and arbitrariness. No such system can be comfortable to live with. But the present system is more than uncomfortable; it is shockingly unjust, a scandal in a nation which pretends to be democratic. The injustice has its source in the 2-S deferment, and reform efforts should center on the abolition of this feature. The 2-S deferment means in practice that most of those with the money to go to college do not get drafted. The provision makes the present draft code one of the clearest examples of class-privilege legislation in American history.

The National Interest

That the society has so long tolerated this legislation reveals how easily Americans are seduced by the facile identification of one bright abstraction. Education, with another bright abstraction, the National Interest.

The reasoning is simple. Since Education is in the National Interest, those being educated should not be drafted. This argument -- which has some weight, but not much -- represents a very crude extrapolation from two sound proposals: (1) Formal education generally benefits, in an economic and "cultural" sense, both the student and the society he eventually serves. (2) There are times when a democratic government must act unjustly to preserve itself, must place short-run "national interest" before the long-run goal of building and preserving a democratic society. Though defensible in themselves, neither of these propositions justify the 2-S deferment.

The deferment does not protect Education per se; rather it protects the privilege of some to get an education. Abolishing the 2-S would not abolish education. It would merely mean that present non-students would have a chance to fill the places and use the scholarship funds of those students who are drafted. The "national interest" in education would be preserved; only the special interest of those now receiving that education would be removed.

Three objections are commonly raised to this argument.

*First, some claim that the present students are better students than those who would replace them, and thus that the national interest would be impaired by wiping out the special interest of the academic incumbents. This objection has little, though some, merit. Money is not the sole criterion dividing students from non-students in American society, and abolishing the 2-S might lower the general standard of education somewhat. But this unverifiable and hardly earth-shaking possibility cannot counterbalance the gross injustice of the present system. Concern for national interest should override concern for equity only when the national interest in question is urgent and substantial. This objection also overlooks the fact that most drafted students will return to their studies in several years. We are discussing here chiefly the distribution of inconvenience, not selective genocide.

*Second, some argue that abolition of the 2-S would make education difficult for anybody; without the deferment, the whole learning process would lie under a pall of uncertainty, for no student could be sure of his future. This objection overlooks many things. The present system, with its welter of criteria (class standing, board location, test ranking, etc.) casts a similar pall of uncertainty. Physical disruption of one's education need not be a disadvantage, as anyone who has taken a leave of absence can testify. In fact, the life of a student, neatly partitioned into semesters and marked by tangible and postponable goals, is probably less disrupted by military service than the lives of many non-students. Finally, the abolition of the 2-S would not preclude the continuation or expansion of programs, such as ROTC, which ensure a continuous four-year education.

*Third, some contend that the 2-S deferment serves the national interest not by protecting either education per se or those now receiving education but by providing a general social incentive toward education. Unlike the other objections, this one is totally without merit. If this compulsively ambitious society ever needed such an incentive, it no longer does. The fetishistic attachment to grades and degrees in this country long ago became a National Neurosis. The 2-S, and the newly-instituted exams, merely accelerate the tendency to equate education with a collection of glittering honors and badges. To foster this disease is the opposite of furthering the national interest, however the latter might be construed.

The Lottery

How would the draft work without the 2-S? The names of all men of eligible age would be put in a large hat, and that frowsy, grandmotherly creature, the Clerk, would withdraw as many names as General Hersey suggests. A simple lottery -- it is the only equitable method. Ideally, the selection could be made but once a year, thereby guaranteeing the non-selected twelve months of security. But under war conditions, man-power needs fluctuate erratically, and more frequent lotteries would no doubt be needed. Still, it would be possible to continue the 1-S deferment, providing most of the selected students a term to put their affairs in order. A similar mechanism should be devised for non-students.

Deferments and exemptions untainted by class-privilege should also be maintained, and some extended: physical and mental disability, family dependency, conscientious objection. Some occupations and types of training may still merit deferments or exemptions in the national interest, but the criteria of national interest should be very carefully and conservatively defined. The draft code should not serve as a general social incentive, pushing young men back and forth between large occupational fields. If we are to have rational economic planning at the national level, let us use a more responsible and objective agency than the Selective Service.

Finally, a man should have a choice of alternate means of service: Peace Corps, Teachers Corp, Vista, and selected private agencies of social action. Since a universal draft is not envisioned here, these non-military organizations would not have to alter their admission standards. The only bureaucratic shuffling required would be the establishment of ROTC-like programs, so that students accepted by non-military agencies might complete their education before serving.

The draft has finally entered the university to the detriment of the university, and it is now incumbent upon students and educators to lead a nation-wide lobbying campaign for reform of the Selective Service. On most campuses, the students have been ahead of their administrations and faculties in recognizing the importance of reform. At Chicago and CCNY, the split between students and administration has provoked the former into employing singularly inappropriate tactics. To protest military intrusion in the academy, the students themselves set a dangerous precedent by using brute force to dramatize their position. A whole host of milder methods, from petitions to orderly boycotts, should have been exhausted before force was even contemplated.

But if students have over-reacted at some universities, they have under-reacted at Harvard. Dean Monro long ago recognized the need for reform, and he has now joined in a national effort to convince other educators, and Congress, of that need. His proposals closely parallel those outlined here. He deserves, and has not yet received, the active support and help of all students who agree that class-privilege legislation will eventually undermine the integrity of the university and the society it serves.