Our Catastrophic Draft Policy
W e have hesitated writing about the nroblem of the draft and eraduate school enrollment because the facts, whichuhave been presented so succinctly to President Johnson and to many of his key advisers by so many responsible educators, seemed so compelling; and because a viable solution could he implemented so easily that it appeared to be not a question of if but when the disencumbering directive would be issued. Since no such directive has emerged as of this writing, and since the regulations now in force seem so lacking in wisdom and so short-sightedly inconsistent with our national goals, we seek a t the very least a relevant explanation and we continue to hope for an accommodation. The facts are simple and clear: The available draft pool is 1.2 million men. Pentagon estimates call for induction of 300,000 men in fiscal 1969. Present Selective Service regulations prohibit deferment of first or second year graduate students next year, except in medically related fields and divinity. The current order of calling men is to take the oldest first from among the age group 19 through 25. The result of this order of calling is that nearly all draft liable men between 22 and 23 will be called, and of this group virtually all will he college graduates and graduate students since non-college men of this age group who are eligible already have been drafted. Estimates show about 171,000 inductable potential graduate students in the 22-25 age group. All of this boils down to the fact that well over half of the 300,000 men to he drafted in the next academic year are slated to come from that 14% of the available draft pool which is made up of potential graduate students. The consequences of this are estimated in a survey, "The Impact of the Draft on Graduate Schools in 1968-G9," conducted by the Scientific Manpower Commission and the Council of Graduate Schools of the United States, released in March of this year. According to the report, the entering male enrollment in fulltime graduate school next year will he down 70% from the current school year; total enrollment of full-time graduate students will fall 50% in the first year class and 33y0 in the second year class. In chemistry the class entering this fall is expected t o be 46y0 of normal with the second year class a t G4% of normal. This catastrophe of the graduate school-which will manifest itself in a 12,000 drop in the male PhD production in 1972 followed by a 14,000 or larger drop in 1973-can be avoided either by instituting a lottery to select inductees from the pool of all draft liable men or by issuing a directive requiring local boards to call men from all age groups. I n February the National Security Council ruled that it is "not essential for the maintenance of national health, safety and interest" to extend student defer-
editorially speaking ments for graduate study to areas other than medicine and allied fields. The Security Council position was based in part on the unfairness that would result from exempting men in some fields of graduate study and not in others, and on the inequities resulting from graduate deferments because many deferments can he pyramided into exemptions from military service. I n times of armed conflict such exemptions are unjust to thousands of young men who lack the social and economic advantages to pursue graduate study. The Security Council justifies undergraduate deferments because they produce a substantial supply of military officers and medical deferments because the professionals produced later serve as medical officers in the Armed Forces. The Council advises that appropriate cabinet officers will maintain continuing surveillance over the nation's manpower and education needs to identify areas that may warrant deferment in the national interest. The entire matter, while especially complicated, reveals some startling attitudes relative to national priorities and long term national goals. The National Security Council is certainly justified in holding that in time of armed conflict all draft age men who qualify should he subject to induction. However, its failure to arnelioriate the situation whereby more than half of the draftees for next year will come from the ranks of potential graduate students can only mean that Security Council members place the lowest possible priority on graduate training. This is further supported by the Council's insistence that graduate student deferments are unnecessary in the face of a Labor Department report issued late in March showing a "drastic shortage" of scientists, engineers, and technicians, and indicating that by 1975 the number of scientists and mathematicians must be doubled. It seems ironic that an administration astute enough to recognize the importance of guns and butter in an economic context appears unable to identify the equally important parallels not only between manpower and brainpower in military needs, but much more significantly between what this nation is today and what virtually all of its citizens want it to be in the futurea more just, a more civilized, a more responsible society. That the road to these goals leads through the schools, the colleges, and, very importantly, through the p d u ate schools of this country seems as obvious as the sunrise. And to those viewing things in this light it must be equally clear that in the graduate schools, in their emphasis on research and in their penetration to new vistas of understanding, rests the greatest promise of incisive direction toward these goals. With all the urgency we can muster, we ask President Johnson and the National Security Council to reconsider their unwise and unnecessary position on the draft. WTL Volume 45, Number 6,June 1968
/ 353
