To the Editors of The Crimson:

The Student Council resolution to oppose the new federal law that would deny guaranteed federal loans to those who refused to register for the draft is the product of monstrous hubris. In addition, this resolution, passed on Monday, sports several disingenuous arguments that effectively blur the issue.

The basic assumption behind the resolution is that a college student has the right to break a federal law and deny and commitments or duties to the nation but that the government of this nation has no right to deny the student eligibility for a privileged program originally designed to strengthen our nation. In other words, a student should be allowed to enjoy the fruits of a well-intentioned federal program despite his deliberate criminal action. This is absurd.

I stress that the refusal to register for the draft is a deliberate act because the resolution insists the law discriminates against poor and minority students, who will be especially hurt by the denial of funds. This is a fallacious argument Discrimination implies unfair treatment to those who innately belong to a certain group. No one is innately a non-registrant. No one is born into the group of non-registrants. Rather, each individual, regardless of his background, must consciously decide to join that group. There simply is no issue of discrimination.

Also, the resolution asserts that the law is both an undue administrative burden on the University and that it is an unwelcome attempt to link military considerations to financial aid which should be "based solely on need." What is not well known is that military considerations created this program. The National Defense Student Loan Program, as it was intially called, originated in the post-Sputnik scare of the late 1950's and early 1960's. The government established the program under the premise that the country would benefit economically and militarily if more Americans received a college education. Universities gleefully accepted these funds that greatly facilitated an expansion in their student enrollments. It would be unconscionable for our university to forswear the link between "draft registration and financial aid" now that the money will be accompanied by bothersome paperwork.

Finally, the resolution states, incorrectly, that "the Solomon Amendment violates the constitutional guarantee of due process in the courts." This law involves neither prosecution nor incarceration. It simply establishes a new eligibility requirement for the loan. No one has been deprived of his constitutional or natural rights.

These are perhaps more technical points, but it becomes obvious that this resolution stands upon weak ground, especially legal ground. The Council asks the University to intentionally subvert a constitutionally passed federal law because certain individuals would rather not face the consequences of their own civil disobedience. The resolution is both inappropriate and unethical.

Any individual may choose non-violent civil disobedience to protest a law he feels to be un-just. But it is cowardly to expect the University to subsidize one's personal moral decision by nullifying the results of that decision. It is also inexcusably selfish to expect the payer to subsidize one's college education despite one's disregard for the law enacted by the elected representatives of the American people.

Lastly, it is reprehensible to expect privileges and benefits from the government when the individual completely denies any duties or responsibilities to the government that safeguards our rights and provides our benefits. Granted there are many different types of service one could perform for the nation, but no one with a clear understanding of history could deny that military service is the most fundamental. Significantly, the Council refused to address the issues of "duties" whatsoever. When a councillor, Peter Choharis, presented an amendment saying in effect that the Council did recognize that citizens of the United States did have duties to the nation but it felt those duties should be in accord with our private consciences, the Council rejected the amendment.

The basic issue behind the dispute over registration, federal loans and this resolution is between rights and responsibilities. We, as Americans, enjoy many rights., The government asks us that we recognize our duty to serve our nation by registering for a non-existent draft. Never before in the history of civilization has the youth of so great a power borne so light a burden in the maintenance of that greatness. The Council should realize the difficulty of this complicated issue that divides student opinion and not make arrogant proclamations of dubious moral merit Andrew Saxe '84   North House Representative,   Undergraduate Council