Breaking the Law

TALK OF HARVARD'S obligation to provide aid for all students in need cannot obscure the fact that nonregistrants are violating federal law and Harvard should not subsidize such violators. To do so would stand as a statement of disrespect for the law, in a free society, maintenance of any semblance of social order depends on just such respect between a government and citizens who voluntarily submit to its structures. Harvard does not stand above the law, and should not lend its institutional dignity and status as an important opinion-making entity to an attempt to subvert federal legislation.

Equally important, providing aid money to nonregistrants to replace lost federal loans is subverting the policy of registration itself. Although The Crimson is on record in its opposition to draft registration, we do not agree that filling out a postcard is a particularly onerous imposition of government authority.

Indeed, it is difficult to see any great moral or philosophical issue in registration. Traditionally, for those who object to military service on such grounds, registration has been the first step to Selective Service classification as a conscientious objector. For those who failed to register because of a genuine commitment of conscience, this latest federal measure should serve to sharpen the moral issue of conscription--after all, an integral part of civil disobedience is acknowledgement of a violation of the law, and free acceptance of punishment for that violation.

For other nonregistrants, the new law may provide an incentive to overcome indifference, or oversight, or vague, shallow objections, and comply with the law. In the end, the federal action is legitimate way of enforcing Selective Service law--by denying government financial support to those who defy the government's laws--and it is an effort in which Harvard should not meddle.