(2 of 2)
Most students know that draft exemption for college men tends to put the burden of military service on their non-college peers. Cornell's Professor Douglas Dowd sees no reason "why the fighting should be confined to underprivileged persons unable to get into college." Students who agree mostly "take their principles out for a short walk," as one Notre Dame student puts it, and welcome their immunity. A Harvard senior contends that "the army is good for dropouts, the unskilled, and those who might otherwise fall into the poor of the future." Michigan Senior Richard Bereza contends that people "who aren't quite as capable are better able to endure the boredom of military life."
Saving Intellectuals? Harvard Sociologist David Riesman, however, finds "something morally questionable" in the deferment of students. "If we were an African country with six educated people and needed all of them as ambassadors, the situation would be different." Berkeley's Aaron Wildavsky, a political science associate professor, proposes a random, lottery-like selection among all draft-age men. Berkeley Sophomore Andrew C. McGall says, "I don't think it is fair to keep me in school and draft another kid who is not in school. I don't see why he should die before me. I don't go for the idea of saving intellectuals."
As long as the draft demands only a small part of the nation's manpower, it has to be highly selective, hence "unfair"-and college students can argue that they deserve deferment just as much as the millions of young fathers and men between 26 and 36 who are now exempt. Since only 11% of the total draft-age population is in service -and only 3.7% of all draftees are college graduates-the draft pressure on the campus is still mostly academic.