In Good Conscience

The petition now circulating in the Houses states an important principle that deserves strong support from undergraduates: men who cannot "in good conscience" fight in Vietnam should be offered an alternative form of service.

Many students here and across the country now face the dilemma which this proposal aims to solve. They disagree sincerely and fundamentally with this country's military effort in Vietnam, yet they do not want to break the law by dodging the draft. At present they have only two options: violating the dictates of their conscience by fighting in Vietnam, or violating the law by going to jail.

The American system, as the petition points out, should be flexible enough to accommodate these dictates of conscience within the framework of the law. Individuals should not have to oppose all war -- on the grounds of conscientious objection -- to be excused from fighting. If their objection to a particular conflict is strong enough, they should be allowed to perform some task off the battle-field, that does not demand participation in the immediate conflict.

One of the main weaknesses of the petition is that it fails to specify what form this service should take, and the choice of alternatives will be no easy matter. If an individual objects to contributing directly to the American war effort, how far from the actual war must he be removed for the sake of conscience? (Ultimately, many forms of alternative service will involve some indirect contribution.) And how will the government allocate its manpower to assure that the essential jobs are filled?

In addition to these substantive questions, there are weaknesses in the working and construction of the petion. The first sentence reads: "As Americans of draft age, we face an urgent dilemma because many of us cannot in good conscience support American policy in Vietnam." In spite of the phrase "many of us" (as opposed to all of us), the reference to "we" has led many students to believe that a signature puts them on record against the war.

Signing this petition, however, does not mean that you oppose American policy or that you would request an alternative form of service for yourself. Many of the signers may themselves be in the dilemma they hope to ease; but some are genuinely uncertain of their own position, and their signature means only that they recognize the dilemma for others.

Inspite of its minor weaknesses, therefore, this petition sausfies almost every point of view. Sponsors of the document -- the student body presidents and editors who met with Secretary of State Rusk -- say they'll be satisfied if 25 per cent of the students here sign. But if their past claims about increasing student "concern" and "questioning" have been correct, the proportion must be much higher. The student leaders cannot veil the crucial test of strength this petition represents. If the "mainstream" of American youth is asking sharper questions about the war, this petition is certainly inclusive enough to show the current.