In the past few years, the Selective Service System has made explicit much that in the past has been implicit in the regulations. The SSS has shown that it is not merely rereading the old regulations; it now feels empowered to create new ones. As the intensity of the war escalates, the SSS appears to expect a similar increase in its own power. The recent hyperactivity of the organization has attracted unprecedented criticism from many quarters, and, quite understandably, repercussions from its actions have been felt on almost every level of college life.

Graduate school deferments will probably be granted only to students in the exact sciences and related fields. Those planning to do graduate work in urban sociology or in the economics of underdevelopment, for example, will be asked to do the fighting while the chemical engineer and the mathematicians stay home. The SSS has decided that only the latter are in the "national interest."

LBJ's committee on mental health has strongly recommended revision in the draft structure. Psychologists have stressed that draft pressure is a dangerous threat to the mental well-being of college students and has probably been a factor precipitating psychiatric difficulties.

The once traditional leave of absence now means military service. Many who would have taken a year off to work or to "find themselves" have been forced to remain in school. The fantastic increase of drugs on campus coincides with jumps in manpower calls for the war in Vietnam. It is probable that drug experimentation on campuses would not have reached present levels had students been able to escape the confines of academia temporarily.

The intensified enforcement of SSS regulations has not been enough--the rules have been extended to include punitive measures. General Hershey's original directive "suggested" the reclassification of demonstrators and obstructors because their actions were, again, not in the "national interest." The exercise of the right of dissent changed their status from that of a student deferred in the national interest to that of a person in a "nonessential" endeavor.

That a suggestion from General Hershey might be adhered to quite strictly within the SSS is indicated by a state SSS director's remark: "The two greatest men in my life," he told me, pointing to two photographs on his wall, "are the late John F. Kennedy and General Hershey."

Vociferous criticism, ranging from generally conservative newspapers to the ACLU, has probably halted some punitive action that might have followed Hershey's comments. Already, however, a few marchers in Washington have been re-classified; draft resisters were re-classified 1-A from 4-F without a physical examination; a member of a midwestern SDS chapter was re-classified by virtue of his membership; anti-war demonstrators at the University of Michigan have been re-classified; and the list could go on and can be expected to grow. Many guidelines have been thrown overboard by the SSS in its concern to "unify" the nation by squashing dissent.

The Machine

When a machine works mechanically, the young men it works on at least know what to expect. Now, however, when the General in charge of the machine must be reminded of civil liberties; when pressure from other branches of the government cannot cause him to withdraw a statement in clear violation of the freedom of speech; in short, when the machine no longer works mechanically but on the emotions of war, concerned young men have no defense.

The question is forced upon us: when has an institution, with its present structure, outlived its usefulness? Is the SSS (established in its present form during the 1940's in the context of a declared war and national emergency) no longer set up in the interest of the country? Is the SSS itself perhaps not in the "national interest" which it is, paradoxically, empowered to define?

II

Criticism directed at the SSS has focussed on three major vulnerable points. First, regulations concerning conscientious objector status are the most clearly anachronistic. It is still virtually impossible for a CO applicant to receive I-O classification with-out belief in a traditional supernatural being and without some affiliation with a formal religious organization. Unless the CO application states complete pacifism based on "verifiable" religious belief, it is almost certain that his local board will feel justified in rejecting his request.

This causes special concern today for young men because, although the political aims of the present war are complex and hidden behind misinformation, the question as to whether or not the tactical methods of the war are justified is an open issue of individual morality. Many young men are finding our military tactics opposed in every respect to their moral code.

Camus

"The end justifies the means only if the relative order of importance is reasonable," wrote Camus in his Notebooks. Destroying a country allegedly in order to save it from itself does not seem reasonable to CO applicants and many others.