Seventeen Law School Professors Ask That Draft Study Oppose 2-S

Seventeen Law School professors have expressed opposition to student deferments in particular and the draft system in general in a letter to the National Advisory Commission on Selective Service.

Echoing the proposal debated yesterday by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, the professors said that merely being a student is "insufficient to justify the deferment of persons otherwise qualified for military service."

They proposed scrapping the present deferment system in favor of some form of lottery -- "a less objectionable method of selecting those who will serve."

The letter represents the first time Harvard faculty members have written directly to Washington to oppose the draft. Previous opposition has been limited to inter-Faculty debates and magazine articles.

The letter's author, Charles Fried, professor of Law, said yesterday afternoon that Commission Chairman Burke Marshall and President Pusey (to whom he sent a copy) had sent "perfunctory replies," thanking the professors for their interest.

Specific Recommendations

In addition to their stands on student deferments and the lottery, the 17-cosigners made four specific recommendations:

* Under the lottery only those students in courses of study shown to have a direct relevance to national defense should receive deferments.

* Certain hardship cases should be recognized as a basis for deferment, but these cases don't justify deferments, for all students.

* During the transition period from the present system to a lottery, those students already in college or graduate school may be allowed temporary deferments.

* Exemptions or deferments should not be used, even indirectly, to encourage volunteering in service organizations like the Peace Corps or VISTA. Military conscription must be used, they say, solely to satisfy national defense needs.

Fried explained that all 50 Corporation appointees at the Law School had the opportunity to sign the letter. The 17 who agreed to participate did so, because "as university teachers," they felt it "appropriate to consider the problems raised by the present draft system and the student deferment," the letter said.