When Congress opens its next session it will have before it the president's bill on Universal Military Training as a long-range solution to this country's manpower problem. But this plan will probably not go through, since it cannot provide what the military now considers the minimum number of men necessary to the services. Congress will have to find another plan.

And the nation's educators as well as its generals are now arguing over what that plan should be. Basically the debate is one between proponents of programs providing deferments for some men, and those who firmly believe that all men should be drafted together, that no one should be allowed to postpone or avoid service. Two plans have so far emerged as successors to U.M.T.

On October 5, the six Scientific Advisory Committees, appointed by Major General Lewis B. Hershey to work with Selective Service, made their report. Since December, 1948, they had been considering recommendations made by General Hershey relating to a long-range manpower program. "With certain minor modifications," the Committee said, "we have unanimously reaffirmed these recommendations."

The plan involved in this report is generally referred to as the "Trytten plan," for the chairman of the Committee, M. H. Trytten.

Later this fall, a group of educators met in New York. They discussed, among other things, memoranda written by President Conant concerning the draft. Worried by the international situation and about certain aspects of the Hershey-Trytten proposals, Conant backed a plan for Universal Military Service, and the educators decided to put the proposal forward under his name. At the request of Gardner Cowles '25, editor of Look Magazine, Conant agreed to explain his position in the issue of Look which will appear December 5. President Charles Cole of Amherst will write for the opposition.

The Trytten Plan

While there are other proposals on deferment policy, none differs much in principle from the Trytten report. As originally released on October 5, it called for test of all men, probably something like the present Army Classification examination. Those receiving a score over 120 would be eligible for deferment if they were going to enter or were in college. At the end of the first year in college all men below the top 50 percent of their class would be subject to draft. In third year the student would have to stay in the top 33rd percentile; the senior must maintain a record above the 25th percentile to avoid service.

Recently, the CRIMSON has learned, there have been modifications made in this plan which will soon be announced. The Committees have recommended that a man deferred for college be made liable one year beyond the regular age limit for every year he spends in school after deferment, and that such men not be eligible for deferment on grounds of dependency. Thus, a man deferred for a four year college course would, under the present age limit rule, be subject to drafting until he reached 30, and could not avoid service by marrying.

The amended plan may actually persuade many men to take their service before college to avoid the trouble the new regulations entail. By writing in the amendments, the Committee hopes to end the objection that there will be discrimination in favor of the man with good education and background, men who can pass the test with a high score.

The Hershey Committees also considered and rejected two other proposals on the draft of college students. The first of these would have inducted no college students; the Committee termed it "unrealistic and inflexible, and therefore, impractical."

Another deferment proposal was recently put out by a committee of the American Council on Education which asked for a national test, but one with a lower "cutting" score, (110 as opposed to 120.) It also asked that men be taken on the basis of nationally determined state quotas.

Opposed completely to this, President Conant has recommended Universal Military Service. He has asked that all men be drafted at the age of 18, and spend two years in the Armed Services. There would be no deferments; even 4-F's would have to serve in some capacity. This program would take effect after all draftable 16 to 26 year olds had been taken into service.

Drop Universal Training

This plan differs from Universal Military Training, the Administration's program now being discussed in Congress, in several ways. First, U.M.T. would not be controlled by the Military alone; there would be civilians in its administration, and training would not be the same as that in the usual basic training course. After completing a basic U.M.T. course, men would go into the Army.

According to reports received by the CRIMSON, the Administration will drop U.M.T. in favor of either U.M.S. or a deferments plan like that proposed by Trytten. Both the Army and many Congressmen feel that U.M.T. will not get men for the Army fast enough, and is cumbersome in administration.

On the side of a deferments plan is a strong group of the country's educators, including Presidents Leonard Carmichael of Tufts, former chairman of the National Security Resources Board, and Charles Cole of Amherst. It has also been learned that President Detlev W. Bronk of Johns Hopkins, advisor to several important government agencies, also will take issue with President Conant and will favor something like the Trytten plan over U.M.S.

Carmichael Explains

Carmichael points up the problem of getting educated men, and trained experts--doctors or radar men--into the Services. "Our strength as a nation is based on a diversity of skills," he says. "We need men in the army who are trained and can improvise and invent . . ." He thinks, along with Cole and Bronk, that U.M.S. would not be a success in keeping Services standards high.

For instance, he explains, if a man is drafted for two years and then returns to school, he is not likely to go back to the army voluntarily after he has received specialized training. Thus, Carmichael fears, the Army would have to draft doctors and technicians twice--once before and once after training--under U.M.S.

"After all," Carmichael states, "if we are merely interested in getting men into the forces, we may become begged down in infantry, thinking." And when it comes to infantry, Russia will always be ahead of us. We must depend on our skill."

But the most important objection to the Conant plan is that it will seriously hurt small colleges, which might have to go out of business during the first two years of U.M.S. No college official actually uses this argument, since it sounds particularistic, especially if a small college, or a poor one, is involved. President Conant feels that the present situation demands putting the national good before the good of colleges.

Yet as Dean Bender has pointed out, adoption of U.M.S. would mean at first a two year break in enrollment for all colleges. For many this would mean absolute ruin, though Harvard, with its comparatively large endowment, could probably get by. But the entire educational structure of the nation could be changed in that time.

Reject Universal Service

In rejecting Universal Military Service--induction of all college students--the Committee said: "Full scale induction of college students would virtually stop the production of superior scientific, professional and specialized personnel for a period of at least two years.

"This proposal," the Hershey Committee stated, "would lead to a serious hiatus . . . in specialized personnel, and thus constitutes such a great danger to the national security that the Committees cannot subscribe to a policy of no defermentsr fo college students."

President Conant, President Wriston of Brown, and others, however, have said they think that some sort of program would just have to be worked out to aid colleges under U.M.S. Wriston says that he considers U.M.S. as only in the theory stage--"the details will have to come later."

Another Objection

They strongly dislike the Trytten or any deferments plan for several reasons. They feel that the test system would produce an "intellectual elite" in the colleges, and thus is undemocratic. And, of course, the test itself is not so much one of intelligence as it is of education and background. Thus, some groups would definitely be discriminated against--Negroes, low income groups, people in backward rural areas.

Another objection is that the Trytten plan would lead to a grade race at colleges as students strived to stay in the required segment of their class. In pointing up holes in all the programs, Provost Buck, who backs Conant on U.M.S., refers to this result. As he explains, much of what Harvard stands for might go by the boards in a rat race.

Bender also points out that Harvard might suffer if the Trytten plan went into force, since students might be more likely to go to a school where the competition is less tough, and thus assure themselves of higher standing and deferment.

The Dean tends to favor some sort of deferment plan as a workable solution at this time, and feels that of the objections to the Trytten plan may disappear now that it has been amended. The new clauses that make men liable for college years, take away some of the advantages to the college student that may have existed before. Of course, a future Congress might change back a rule, and some men could avoid service. "I would not favor this plan at all," Bender said, "unless I thought all would serve at some time or other."

There are, as Dean Bender says, many points neglected in all of the present proposals. What would happen to the present ROTC programs under them? Would the Services reinstitute the V-12 programs of the war years? What would happen to the colleges and their faculties? It will be up to Congress to work out all the angles.

There is also the question of how many men the government actually needs, or will need in the future. Dean Bender points out that, if the number of soldiers necessary to the defense of the country reaches too high a point, the argument on drafting becomes an academic one: the government will then have to draft everyone anyway.

The highest figure that the army has given out so far on men it needs for defense is 2,600,000 a year. This number was increased to 3,000,000 by the Congress, which authorized drafting of enough youths to make up such an army.

One of the big arguments used against the present deferments system--with local draft boards normally granting leave to men in the top half of their class--is that it can only produce around 750,000 soldiers a year. To keep a 3,000,000 man army more draftees are absolutely necessary. President Conant hopes to raise a larger army with his program granting no deferments.

The Senate Armed Services Committee has already discussed U.M.S. while on the U.M.T. bill. But no U.M.S. bill has been introduced as it would have to be to get the program into effect. Under the present draft law, of course, General Hershey can set up any system of deferments he pleases. Thus the Trytten plan could go through without Congressional approval; but Conant's proposal must go through the legislature, since it is entirely new law.

Those sympathetic to the Conant proposals will not only be opposed by Trytten, Carmichael, Bronk and others; there is much strong pressure on Congress from large industry to work out a system that will insure deferment of engineers. Other groups are also already demanding privileges.

But the military may support U.M.S. The plan would get them many more men per year and be far less complicated than a deferments system. It has been learned that General Eisen supports Conant, and that other high military men may favor him.

One of the most important debates in this country's history is just getting started.