The second major criticism, heard less around colleges, is directed at the system of student deferments. The inequity of deferring those whose family background and financial status have led to their college attendance has been pointed out by groups as disparate as U.S. Senators and black militants. The result of these deferments is historically interesting: upper and middle-class males have managed to avoid military service altogether (until recently), while the lower classes provided almost all the regular soldiers. By-passing students is, of course, said to be in the national interest, but many contemporary critics have viewed the procedure primarily as a very effective means of forestalling the potentially unified criticism of the SSS by college students--forestalling it until after graduation when unity is gone.

Recently, the middle and upper-class escape has been selectively blocked. The major means for avoiding military service until after the 26-year cut-off, graduate school deferments, has been threatened for all non-science students. The conservative logic runs as follows: A particular cultural approach--in this case, technological, specialized, scientific--has led to America's position of political and economic power in the world. In order to maintain and further that position, the same attitude must be enforced by the SSS on this generation to ensure the future of our nation.

The third criticism of the SSS, and in many ways the most crucial, is directed against its overtly military interpretation of "national interest." Again, the encounter with outmoded attitudes reveals that a once necessary, primarily militaristic, stance towards the world has been institutionalized in many arms of the government and the economy.

The SSS has interpreted service in the "national interest" to include only military service and related "defense" endeavors. For example, linemen for civilian telephone companies who work at bonus salary for the benefit of foreign-based military installations are often, thereafter, permanently deferred. The SSS considers their work to have furthered the "national interest." On the other hand, a college student who works on a volunteer economic development program in South America is not considered by the SSS to have performed any service in the national interest.

This criticism had not been widespread prior to the war in Vietnam, because the non-military service was at least allowed to continue. But now the issue has become crucial: college students and graduates wishing to work in nonmilitary, international service have been unable to do so for fear of being drafted. Countless individuals have been refused deferments for educational, agricultural, or technical work in underdeveloped countries, and so returned to the once-safe haven of academia. By default, we are leaving the leadership to others. And, as in Vietnam, others who take the defaulted leadership might well be considered "enemies" in the future.

III

Vietnam itself is not the subject here. Because of the very questionable nature of the war, criticism is often exclusively directed against immediate events without any consideration of long-range effects. Allowing the opinion to prevail that our Vietnam policy is not in itself a tragic mistake in foreign policy, it is nevertheless clear that the war is causing a frightening series of mistakes. By its power to "channel" young men into the "essential" industries, the SSS is forcing this college generation to continue its lopsided manpower emphasis on technological science at the expense of social science, and on the industrial-military complex as opposed to peaceful, humanistic endeavors.

It is perfectly clear that technological science and the industrial-military complex have accomplished much: they have propelled this nation to the position of power it now holds; and have enabled this nation to be a potential force for world peace and progress. But it is equally clear that a forced emphasis on those endeavors is not going to solve the problems which beset the future. Only rarely is the cause of a condition also its cure.

Technological science and the military-industrial interests have protected and preserved the values of our country. But now they seem to determine those values--and, more immediately, the careers of this generation.

The manpower of this generation, to use the SSS's terms, is being "channeled" into the "essential" endeavors. Essential for what? one asks; and the SSS itself answers most articulately. In an SSS document entitled "Channeling," recently cautiously withdrawn by the SSS, the organization shows it is proud of "developing more effective human beings in the national interest." The SSS document repeatedly mentions that by manipulating deferments it has the same control which "foreign systems" achieve by means of coercion. Still quoting the SSS's own document: their goal is to make the individual feel as if he is "standing in a room which has been made uncomfortably warm (i.e. hot). Several doors are open, but they all lead to various forms of recognized, patriotic service to the Nation."

Later referred to as the "club of induction," this method "has been used to drive out of areas considered to be less important to the areas of greater importance... those individuals who did not or could not participate in activities which are considered essential." The SSS adds that it "anticipates further evolution in this area...."

This channeling is the expression of a technological, military approach to the world situation which constitutes, in many ways, a self-fulfilling prophecy. Our funds and personnel are channelled into war and science, and are channelled away from economics, psychology, history, and international relations. The potential role of this country as a force with wealth and manpower which could be devoted to aiding the indepedent, nationalist development of the underdeveloped world appears to be a role which is notbeing fulfilled. Nor does it seem that it will be fulfilled in the near future because this college generation is not able to develop academically the methods to meet the problems of the future, but is being forced to orient itself towards methods of the past. This is not defaulted leadership; it is bad leadership.

If a mother teaches her daughter a strict moral code and yet encourages her to walk in a mini-skirt and tight sweater around Harvard Square on Saturday evenings, she is likely to have trouble with her daughter. In the same way, this society tells its sons of American values; of their obligation to help the poor both inside and outside its borders. At the same time, however, the SSS encourages America's sons to pursue methods which do not support these values or fulfill that obligation, and actually prevents them from developing methods which can better achieve these ends. Thus it is not surprising that this society is having "trouble" with its youth. What is surprising is that it is not having more.

Trouble Shooter

Because of the power the SSS was given decades ago, it is well equipped to deal with "trouble" now. Its power to discriminate against whom it pleases is evident on the local board level. "That there is significant opportunity for local board members to discriminate is demonstrable," says the ACLU. "Specifically, the great discretion of local boards lies in their power to determine (1) classifications and (2) procedures." In some parts of the south, where draft boards have systematically excluded Negroes from draft boards, this discrimination, primarily against civil rights workers, has been the most blatant.