In Support of Draft Resisters

I

As American firepower razes one Vietnamese city after another; as President Johnson indicates that he is not going to re-think this nation's role as a global power; as each day provides new evidence that the war in Vietnam cannot and should not be won; a generation of students has understandably turned its face away from Washington and traditional channels of political protest.

Hundreds of students in this community have decided--and hundreds more are now deciding--to refuse service in the armed forces during the war in Vietnam. This refusal can take many forms: most students first explore the legal alternatives. Then, if all else fails, they choose between fleeing the country or facing five years in prison.

Refusal to serve in the armed forces has been popularly labeled an act of cowardice. In fact it is a courageous political act. It is one man weighing in against his government's war policy, at great potential cost to himself, far more effectively than he could ever weigh in with a vote--if he were old enough to vote. Refusal to serve is also a moral act in the finest tradition of civil disobedience; one man's refusal to serve could not possibly impinge upon the constitutional rights of another. Majority is said to rule in this country, but a minority of men may justifiably refuse to be tapped as a resource in an immoral course of action.

This spring, thousands of seniors and graduate students here and around the country are wrestling with this decision of whether to resist the draft. The CRIMSON supports those students who, for moral reasons, refuse to serve in the Armed Forces during the war in Vietnam.

II

THE Harvard Draft Union, an autonomous organization sponsored by SDS, has begun anti-draft organizing on campus. If successful at Harvard, the Union could easily spread to other universities across the country. But the problems it faces during the take-off stage are no less formidable than its potential.

The Union is wisely attempting to remain within the law--obscure as the law is on the question of conspiracy. To avoid an indictment like the one issued to the Spock five last January, Union organizers have so far been unwilling to make specific statements about the purpose of the Union, or about the kinds of people who can feel comfortable associating with it.

The silence may be a temporary policy necessary because the Union is so little developed, or it may be calculated to circumvent the legal question by keeping the Union amorphous. The Union now ought to admit that it is not prepared to emerge publicly, or, even better, take a stand that all can accept or reject. A legal stance would be best tactically; if the legality of being affiliated with the Union is in question, most students probably will not take the risk.

The Union should seek as broad a base of support as possible. Limiting the organization's efforts to those who refuse to put on a uniform as long as the war lasts would be a self-defeating restriction. One of the Union's announced goals should be to bring together students who are opposed to the war and support people refusing to be drafted for this war.

The broader base would be preferable for several reasons. Though this kind of Union may look like a cop-out to Harvard militants, its impact on society at large would be impressive. Most Americans would be shocked to hear that a vast majority of Harvard students support draft resisters. In addition, a broad-based group would attract many students who shy away from anti-war and anti-draft organizations. These are the students who must be mobilized and counted in the ranks of the anti-war movement, if it is to break with its parochial tradition and blossom into a national coalition with political influence. Finally, the potential of the larger group is obviously greater than that of the more selective Union.

ONCE a broad-based coalition is established, subsections could be organized to distinguish between resisters and supporters. A student involved in this Union would be more likely to transfer to a more radical gradation than one who never joined because the Union excluded those who held his original position.

The Union should not get involved in extraneous issues such as "University complicity" in the war, to avoid alienating large numbers of students who agree about the broad issues but differ over the specifics.

The Union can be especially effective by giving an idea of the numbers of students who are, to one degree or another, opposed to the draft for the war in Vietnam. Many students will make their decision to refuse to serve only if they know that they are not part of an insignificant minority, and that others are acting with them and still others are willing to help them. This knowledge of support would be a long step towards making anti-war politics effective.

III

STATEMENTS this month by University administrators indicate that Harvard is planning not to interfere in the activities of the Draft Union. Dean Glimp has said "we would ask whether a student's illegal act [has any] relation to his responsibility here" before taking any action against him. His own feeling, he said, is that a student who resisted the draft would be reinstated in the College after jail. J. Petersen Elder, dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, has made a similar statement. The CRIMSON applauds this tolerance, and we hope the University's future treatment of the Union and its supporters will remain consistent with these statements.