The Faculty will face the prospect of a debate on student deferments for the second consecutive month when it meets again next Tuesday.

John Rawls, professor of Philosophy, will introduce a motion asking the Faculty to express opposition to the 2-S deferment as "inequitable." Last month, after Rawls had offered a similar resolution, the Faculty tabled the motion on the ground that it was an "abstract" matter--something that should not be considered by the Faculty as a collective body.

This time, however, Rawls has rephrased the resolution in an effort to meet the objections of last month's action. The resolution is longer and, by implication, argues that deferments are an appropriate matter for Faculty consideration.

When he introduces the motion, Rawls will also try to make strong case for a discussion of the issue. He said yesterday he would base his appeal primarily on three arguments: the University's practice of computing class rankings that can be used by local draft boards to determine whether or not a student should be deferred; Harvard's association with some organizations--principally the American Council on Education--which have supported the present system; and the fact that the draft law will be up for review by Congress this spring.

Assure Discussion

But Rawls also emphasized that he "respects the right of the majority [of the Faculty] if they feel they don't want to vote yes or no on the resolution itself." He will try, therefore, to assure discussion without denying the Faculty the right to decide on the appropriateness of the resolution. The means, he hopes, will be the introduction of a motion to "postpone indefinitely."

Under a motion to postpone indefinitely, Rawls said, debate would be allowed before Faculty members actually voted. Last month, there was virtually no floor discussion, because the motion to table is nondebateable. Both motions require a majority vote.

"My guess is that there is a better chance of having discussion this time than last, though I could be entirely wrong," Rawls said.

Supporters Agree

Last month's motion was introducted on behalf of 16 members of the Government and Philosophy departments, and most of them, Rawls said yesterday, support the new effort. Those who don't he continued, have not changed their minds about the fairness of the 2-S deferment, but feel they "don't he continued, have not changed their minds about the fairness of the 2-S deferment, but feel they "don't want to force the issue" after the large vote to table. The tabling motion passed 141-88.

The New Resolution

The following is the the text of the new Faculty resolution on the draft:

Whereas, The existing system of student deferment and preferential treat ment for university teachers makes use of the decisions of the members of the Faculty in such matters as undergraduate and graduate admissions, junior appointments and course grades; and

Whereas, It is the sense of the Faculty present and sitting that this system is to be opposed as one which involves the University in an arrangement that is inequitable and attaches alien consequences to the conduct of academic affairs; therefore, be it.

Resolved, that the President and the Dean are requested to make known the Faculty's opposition to the existing system of student and teacher deferment to whatever agencies, public or private, may consult them about this matter.

Unlike the presentation of the last resolution, the new motion is not accompanied by a detailed "explanatory note." Rawls believes the last note was sufficient to explain the case against the deferments.

"Conscription," the note declared, "is a drastic interference with the basic liberties of a free society and cannot be justified by any needs less compelling than those of national security...The present system grants deferments on a large scale for weak reasons of social interest [and, as a result,] the hardships and risks of compulsory military service fall disproportionately on the poor, the less intelligent, and the less well educated."

This new resolution, in contrast to the old, does not limit itself to student deferments, but also attacks deferments for teachers. A number of junior Faculty members, primarily from the Economics Department, are responsible for this addition, Rawls said. They felt it was unfair to criticize only student deferments when local draft boards rely on much the same logic to defer teachers.

The current Faculty controversy over the draft was stimulated last Spring by students, who collected 1500 signatures on petitions asking for a referendum on the College's policy of ranking. The Administration resisted the referendum, but Dean Ford promised the ranking issue would be raised before the Faculty in the Fall. The concern over deferments grew from it