The Conscientious Objector at Harvard: More Are Making the Difficult Decision

"I weighed my responsibility to help preserve my community in war-time; I considered in what manner I might effectively rationalize killing; I questioned whether I could subordinate myself to the authority of the state in making moral decisions; I considered the financial and emotional consequences of my decision for those personally close to me and for myself; I consulted the teachings of Christ and Augustine and the writings of Franz Jaegerstadter, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Franziskus Stratmann, O.P. [Dominicans]. I weighed all these considerations--shot off my mouth about each of them several times to friends and advisors and often got shot down--and finally I decided. I applied for CO status."

This account of intellectual struggle exemplifies the individualism and sophistication which characterize conscientious objection by Harvard students. As one draft counselor in the Square said, "We don't get many around here who say, 'I'm a CO because God told me not to go.'"

Whether for individualistic or orthodox reasons, more and more persons in the United States are deciding to seek CO status. The number of CO's who have obtained their I-O status and are embarking on the required alternative service each month is 400--twice as many as two years ago.

It is impossible to tell if there is a parallel increase in conscientious objection at Harvard because there are no statistics. But Stephen Hedger, a staff worker at the American Friends Service Committee Draft Information Service in the Square, said that five to ten Harvard students a week contact the AFSC for information on conscientious objection. He estimated that about a third of those go on to file a CO form, but other observers believe the number is considerably less.

Few, if any, Harvard CO's are members of religious sects traditionally opposed to war--Quakers, Mennonites. Jehovah's Witnesses, Brethren, and Seventh Day Adventists, for example. Few, if any, base their conscientious objection on any orthodox creed. Few, if any, have an orthodox conception of God. These are by no means insuperable drawbacks. However the selective service system's attitude toward unorthodox CO claims is probably best characterized as highly suspicious. Harvard CO's must make up for their lack of orthodoxy with the clarity, consistency, and sincerity of their thoughts. And that's where the struggle begins.

The Challenge

One Harvard CO expressed the challenge this way: "SSS Form 150 requires you to do in ten days what most people haven't done in a life-time--decide your ethics and the implications your ethics have for the conduct of your life."

Selective Service System form 150 is the questionnaire which must be filled out and sent in to the local board (within ten days of receipt) to claim CO status. It is only the first step in the classification procedure for CO's. Draft boards usually require CO's to come before them for questioning before deciding on classification. If the draft board denies him the status he seeks, the CO then begin the appeals procedure which usually entails another hearing before his draft board, Justice Department hearing, and a non-criminal FBI investigation. If after running the gamut of appeals within the Selective Service System, the CO is still denied his status he can take his case to the courts.

The thorough investigation by the government, which every CO anticipates, puts a real premium on a thoughtful handling of the difficult questions and moral and logical problems which Form 150 poses.

The first dilemma posed by 150 is whether to seek I-O or I-AO status. I-O status exempts the CO from all service in the armed forces. The CO classified I-AO is eligible for non-combatant duty and usually serves as a medic. It is much easier to get a I-AO than a I-O because I-AOs count toward fulfilling local boards' quotas. Draft boards often bargain with CO's seeking I-O status and try to get them to settle for I-AO. A stock question which draft boards pose is "Would Christ help civilians and refuse to help soldiers?" The implication is that the I-A-O medic is an independent agent of mercy on the battle-field.

Most CO's reject this interpretation. A sophomore CO pointed out that the Army Field Manual describes the primary duty of the medic as no different than any other soldier--to contribute to the victory of the command. "If I were a medic," he continued, "I'd feel obliged to aid the most seriously injured first, regardless of whether they were friend or enemy. The army doesn't allow that." Another CO said, "If I patch someone up just so he can go back and kill some more, I might as well do the killing myself."

The CO who decides to seek I-O classification signs a statement on Form 150 which reads in part: "I am. . . .conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form." The absolutism of "war in any form" poses another big problem for many Harvard CO's. Some Harvard CO's are unabashedly opposed only to specific wars. One junior stated, "I will go to jail before I'll go to Vietnam, but I would have fought against Hitler." Another admitted that he can conceive in theory a just war which he would support.

But the law does not recognize select objection as a valid basis for a CO claim. Consequently, these Harvard CO's try to state their objection to war in terms absolute enough to satisfy the draft board while preserving enough of their situational ethic to satisfy their own integrity. This is a trick which involves sophistications of logic which most draft boards won't appreciate.

Several CO's have hit on a common approach, though. They privately interpret "war in any form" to mean "war in any form that it can take, given the international environment while I am eligible for the draft." They proceed to note that the nuclear stalemate makes World War II situations out of the question. The nature of war has changed. The only type of warfare conceivable under present circumstances is in guerrilla or counter-guerrilla intervention, which they say is by nature unjust. If the only possible type of war is the Vietnam form, the reasoning goes, one who objects to that form, for all practical purposes, objects to "war in any form."

Religion Test

After the CO signs the required statement, he faces a series of questions which try to determine whether the basis of his claim is religious. The present Selective Service law requires that conscientious objection be based on "religious training and belief." It then defines religious training and belief: "...in this connection [it] means an individual's belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation, but does not include essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code."

Most Harvard CO's would have been ineligible for CO status under the Supreme Being clause before the Supreme Court handed down the Seeger decision in March, 1965. In that decision the Supreme Court said, "... the test of belief 'in a relation to a Supreme Being' is whether a given belief that is sincere and meaningful occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God of one who clearly qualifies for the exemption. Where such beliefs have parallel positions in the lives of their respective holders we cannot say that one is 'in a relation to a Supreme Being' and the other is not." In effect, almost any strongly held belief can qualify as religious, provided the claimant does not explicitly deny a religious basis for his objection by stating that he does not belief in God.

Form 150, however, asks for a yes-or-no answer to the question "Do you believe in a Supreme Being?", posing quite a problem for the claimant who does not believe in a traditional God. Several Harvard CO's checked neither yes nor no and skipped to the next question. which mercifully allows a full exposition of an individual's beliefs with respect to a Supreme Being and the reasons which prevent him from participating in war. This is the approach which Seeger used. It will be upheld by appeal boards and in the courts, but most local boards, unaware of the Seeger decision, will deny CO status to anyone who does not check yes to God. Consequently, draft counselors advise CO's to answer yes if they can possibly conscience it and then explain what they actually believe in the next question, even if it means a contradiction. Thus, one Harvard CO answered yes to the Supreme Being question and then explained that he preferred "not to designate this force as 'God,'" an unacceptable license before Seeger.

Once they skirt the stark alternatives of the Supreme Being question, Harvard CO's take advantage of Seeger's invitation to individualism, often enlisting the help of philosophers and writers to help them express their objections to war. "It's really amazing the people they bring in to support their objection," a draft advisor in the Square marvelled. "I've just recently seen a couple of Lao-tzu types," he added.

A final problem posed by SSS Form 150 is the question "Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe in the use of force?"

Few Harvard CO's are personal pacifists. "These guys will hit back if someone attacks them," according to an AFSC draft advisor. Although some insist on the absolute sanctity of human life, most believe that even killing is justifiable in some instances. The question is, where does one draw the line on the use of force? At hearings, draft boards pay close attention to the CO's answer to this question and probe for inconsistencies in his position.

The Rape Question

A favorite question asked by draft boards on the use of force is "What would you do if someone were raping your grandmother?" Almost any CO would agree to use force to prevent the crime. Then the draft board asks, "Are you just approving whatever use of force benefits you, and rejecting that which would inconvenience you?" The CO must be prepared to distinguish between the use of force to prevent rape and the use of force in war. He must state clearly why one use of force is acceptable to him while the other is not.

A distinction frequently made is that between force and violence. For example, one Harvard CO wrote on his Form 150: "I feel that the use of force is not necessarily destructive of human worth or human capacities. ... Criminals, rioting mobs, mentally disturbed persons, and uncontrollable children, to cite a few examples, must be restrained lest they harm themselves and society.... It is the use of violence to which I object. Unlike the force employed by police, the violence employed by a state waging war is not used with the consent, or for the welfare, of those against whom it is directed; it does not distinguish between guilty and innocent, but devastates everything within range, destroying infants as well as adults, common people as well as leaders."

No CO tries to get through Form 150 without some help unless he is well acquainted with the intricacies of Selective Service law. The "Handbook for Conscientious Objectors," compiled by the Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors (CCCO) in Philadelphia is the bible for CO's. They praise it unreservedly for its legalistic, unpropagandistic, up-to-date presentation of the facts about procedures, problems, and consequences of seeking CO status.

Draft Counselors

Besides technical advice, CO's need someone to criticize their answers to Form 150's more searching questions. Here's where a good draft counselor comes in. He points out inconsistencies and ambiguities in the CO's thinking. But Harvard CO's have found that most advisors are careful not to put ideas into their heads.

"They don't try to influence you," one CO remarked, "because if they gave you an idea which wasn't completely natural to your thinking, the draft boards would probably notice an inconsistency and your claim would be jeopardized." Draft counselors ask the disturbing questions which draft boards are liable to ask. Indeed, the AFSC has held mock draft board hearings to prepare COs' for the type of cross-examination which they can expect.

Harvard does not have a draft counseling service for conscientious objectors. Miss Phyllis Henry, the College's draft information officer, refers CO inquiries to the AFSC Draft Information Service at 44a Brattle Street.

The AFSC has been in the business of distributing literature on conscientious objection since 1917. A little over a year ago, responding to the increase in CO's, the New England office decided to supplement this service by training people to advise prospective CO's. Overnight Cambridge has become the center of the largest draft counseling service in New England. There are 100 AFSC draft advisors scattered throughout the region, 20 of them in Cambridge.

Although AFSC provides counseling on all phases of CO procedure, Harvard CO's have only gotten as far as filing form 150. The draft boards invariably acknowledge receipt of 150 and proceed to defer the student, II-S. CO claimants are eligible for all the usual deferments and draft boards are eager to put off deciding a CO claim as long as possible. In fact, a sophomore with a II-S who wrote his board a letter declaring his conscientious objection and requesting a Form 150 to file was told that he didn't have to fill out the form until he lost his deferment. However, draft counselors advise that it is best to file Form 150 as early as possible as evidence of sincerity. The closer a claim comes to the time of possible induction, the more suspicious a board is liable to be.

Given temporary reprieves from the CO classification system by virtue of II-S, most Harvard CO's expect to have to go through a fight upon graduation. It is unlikely that a Harvard CO would win his case at the local board level because his unorthodox basis of objection is generally acceptable only in the spirit of the Seeger decision, which has not yet pervaded the local boards.

If the local board, on evaluation of a claimant's answers to Form 150, decides he does not deserve CO status, the claimant may opt for a hearing with the board to present his case in person. At the hearing, the board subjects claimants to a cross-examination which is often hostile. If the local board still refuses to classify him I-O, the claimant may take his case to the state appeal board. This entails an FBI investigation of his background and a hearing with a Department of Justice Hearing Officer. On the basis of the hearing the Department of Justice recommends to the state appeal board where to grant CO status. If the appeal board denies the claim, the CO has one last appeal to the President.

The unsuccessful claimant who has exhausted the Selective Service appeals and is ordered to induction has one alternative to entering the army. He may refuse induction and attack his Selective Service order as illegal in the courts. If he loses his case he will be imprisoned, a maximum of 5 years and or $10,000.

The Cost

According to Stephen Hedger of the AFSC, nearly all CO claims, even unorthodox ones, are being won somewhere in the appeal process or in the courts. Nevertheless, there are about 40 CO's now imprisoned because their claims for I-O status were turned down. Others pay for their conscientious objection in different ways. For example, one Harvard CO who had been planning a career in the foreign service was advised by the CCCO that he would have small chance for advancement.

But the United States has come a long way since World War I in tolerating CO's. Not only have the laws regarding who is eligible for CO status been greatly liberalized, but also an alternative service program has been created which allows CO's to pursue interesting and rewarding work. The only limitation on alternative service is that it be for a nonprofit organization.

America has not always been even this tolerant. In World War I 142 CO's were sentenced to life imprisonment. (They were eventually pardoned.) Norman Thomas writes describing the brutal treatment of CO's in training camps: "Men were forcibly clad in uniform, beaten, pricked or stabbed with bayonets, jerked about with ropes around their necks, threatened with summary execution, tortured by various forms of the 'water cure.' In at least two cases men were immersed in the filth of latrines, one of them head downward."

Today, CO's are still a small minority of 20,000 (registered I-O) out of a draft pool of 31 million. But the general distaste for the Vietnam war has made conscientious objection almost acceptable. By and large, Harvard CO's experience no social antagonism because of their stand. One CO who lives off-campus recalls his experience with his next door neighbor who had just returned from Vietnam: "He was a little shocked at first and suspected I was a coward. But after we talked about it for a few months and he began to understand my reasons, he respected my position. In fact, he's not paying his income taxes this year in protest of the war. I think if CO's can just communicate their reasons, people will be tolerant."

But few CO's have any illusions about the extent of the new American enlightenment. They generally agree that if the Vietnam war were declared and escalated into a major war, it would be much tougher on us."

Still, until that happens or until they lose their II-S's and have to fight for their I-O status, the Harvard CO faces little trouble. Those who went through the trials of SSS Form 150 several years ago have even begun to regard it with a touch of affection. One CO recalled, "I really resented having to 'prove' my objection then. But now I'm sort of glad. 150 makes you think, makes you evaluate yourself."

One CO convinced a Vietnam veteran to withhold his taxes in protest against the war.