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.