University of Virginia Library

Cold Draft

Reprinted from The Virginia Law Weekly

Shock, disbelief, anger, resignation-these
were a few of the reactions displayed by
law students and other over Friday's announcement
of new Selective Service regulations
which curtailed graduate deferments.
The regulations which were announced by
Gen. Lewis B. Hershey in a telegram to
all local draft boards were based on the
much delayed recommendations of the National
Security Council.

These regulations have been criticized by
leading educators throughout the country.
Mr. Logan Wilson, president of the American
Council on Education, termed the decision
a "short-sighted" one. He also commented
that, "In addition to the handicaps
it places on advanced level education,
its implications for the long-range trained
manpower needs of the nation are alarming."
Dr. Nathan Pusey, president of Harvard
University characterized the decision
as a "disaster." His objections centered on
the two-year hiatus in the production of
college teachers which will result. Mr.
Gustave O. Arlt, president of the Council
of Graduate Schools, stated that he was
"appalled" by the announcement. He commented
that the new regulations "bear no
relation to the realities of the national interest.
The national interest requires that
personnel to serve in Government and
industry," he continued.

These regulations will have drastic effects
on both the present first-year classes
and entering classes of graduate and professional
schools. The normal annual graduate
enrollment of 700,000, by some estimates
will be reduced by 50 per cent to 350,000.
This will impose more than inconvenience
on the colleges which depend on thousands
of graduate students as research assistants
and instructors. This forced mass exodus
will also result in budgetary catastrophics
in these schools since they rely heavily on
these students' tuitions. But these considerations,
as weighty as they might be, are
clearly secondary to the longer-range problems
which will result. The inconsistencies
of the present program, its unpredictability,
its innate unfairness liken it to an instrument
of national punishment rather
than a systematic tool for the pursuit of
national policies.

We find it inconceivable that all the
eminently qualified and experienced experts
the Administration employs-plus the innumerable
highly-paid consultants-that not
one of them could come up with a plan
which would be far more efficient, equitable
and predictable than is the present hodgepodge
of law, administrative rulings and local
prejudices and predispositions.