University counseling information
Two sources of local counseling report students are seeking help in their offices
At tfiis point in the history of the
draft, it is most important to get any
deferment for which one qualifies and
keep from being drafted.”
That’s the opinion of University Draft
and Military Information Center (DMIC)
director Dave Walruth, who is looking
forward to possible large-scale reform of
the draft or even repeal for the entire
Selective Service System.
And in expectation of changes that may
make them no longer vulnerable at all,
Walruth feels that students should play
it safe for now as far as the draft is con
cerned.
A junior in English and only recently
appointed as director of the student
funded counseling center, Walruth be
lieves that even with the lottery, students
are still unsure as to their draft status
and future, and are still asking for advice
on very much the same problems.
“There has been negligible change in
draft problems since the lottery was initi
ated,” he commented. “The only real dif
ference is that now you ask an individual
who comes in for counseling what his
lottery number is first.”
“People are trying to get the same de
ferments, are asking the same questions,
and are having the same problems with
their boards as before,” he continued.
Operated jointly by student govern
ment, the Counseling Center, and the
University School of Law, and funded by
the ASUO, DMIC includes a staff of four
paid and about 20 volunteer counselors
who serve on a part-time basis.
It is located in facilities in the EMU
basement.
xmnother member of the University
community involved in a draft work, Dean
of Students Robert Bowlin, expressed a
similar view when queried on the subject of
student problems with the draft this year.
“In terms of uncertainty,” he said, “it
depends pretty much upon one’s lottery
number. I think that (the lottery) has
definitely alleviated the pressure for some,
but it has not done so for others.”
Bowlin’s Office of Student Services is
in charge of “official contact between the
University and draft boards,” and also
serves students in a counseling capacity.
Bowlin said that there are live individ
uals in his office authorized by the Selec
tive Service System as “advisors to regis
trants" on draft matters.
He estimates that each of these five
persons sees about five or six students
per week about draft problems, and that
taking seasonal fluctuation into account
this year has not been significantly busier
or less busy than most.
Alternatives...
I Continued from page II)
EMIGRATION
The majority of American emigrants are already in
violation of Selective Service regulations. Leaving the
country is, in itself, not illegal. The illegality follows
as a matter of course- from extended residence in
Canada. A man is in violation of SSS regulations if he
fails to inform his local board of changes in his address,
if he fails to report for examination or induction, or if
he procures his SSS "Permit for Resident to Depart
from the U S." and decides to stay in Canada. Upon
indictment, there is warrant for his arrest should he
return and the threat of multiples of both five years
imprisonment and $10,000 in fines.
Canada offers few restrictions for entrance. In gen
eral. anyone failing to qualify for immigrant status in
Canada would have, for the same reasons, failed to
qualify for the draft in the U.S. Most emigrants try to
establish permanent residence in Canada, which, if the
emigrant stays within certain legal boundaries- pays
taxes, procures certain Canadian documents and doesn't
commit any serious crimes is relatively easy to estab
lish.
Extradition treaties between the U.S and Canada
have stipulated that the crime for which a man is
extradited must lie a crime in both countries. Thus, a
draft refuser, although he may be subject to prosecu
tion whenever he returns to the U.S whether he re
Bowlin explained that when an individ
ual comes in to see him for advice on the
draft, he will counsel that person on how
the system operates, what his legal rights
are, will refer him to more specialized
authorities where appropriate, and can
“establish communication” with his draft
board to clear up any University-related
problems.
For example, he continued, any student
who wishes to provide information to his
draft board on a deferment for which he
might qualify, must do so through Stu
dent Services or the Registrar’s Office.
More specifically, he said, his office has
handled problems with students involved
in special University programs such as
HEP, and with students who lack suf
ficient hours to claim that they are main
taining normal progress toward gradua
tion, and therefore are having problems
with student deferments.
He added that draft counseling at Stu
dent Services is a declining activity, at
least partly because of the growing role
of the two-year-old DMIC.
Bowlin, who said that he would per
sonally be against elimination of the draft
because of the threat of a professional
army to democratic freedoms, does feel
that ending student deferments would be
a more equitable manner in which to run
the draft.
“And much as I’m involved with stu
dents,” he said, “I’d like to see the draft
on a more equitable basis.”
And if they were eliminated, Bowlin
said that he would expect to see “many
more persons trying to get their military
service over with before coming to col
lege.”
ROBERT BOWLIN
nounces U.S. citizenship or not, can never be extradited.
Even a man who commits two crimes in the U.S.. e.g.
drug abuse and draft refusal, although he could be
extradited for drug abuse, could not be prosecuted for
draft refusal.
Any emigrant to Canada can be deported only if he
gains entrance by false statements, violates the terms
of his entry, commits certain crimes or goes on welfare.
Deportation, however does not necessarily involve a
trip back to the U.S. Legally, the emigrant should have
few problems in Canada. The Canadian government has
announced publicly that it will accept emigrants, draft
refusers, draft resisters and deserters.
INDUCTION REFUSAL
Most men who are tried for Selective Service viola
tions are divided into two distinct groups. There are the
resisters or non-cooperators, those who conscientiously
object to military service and conscription. The second
group, the unsuccessful cooperators, are those who do
not believe that they have been lawfully ordered for
induction. The first group, the resisters, are conscienti
ously outside of the law, usually organized into diverse
resistance groups practicing and professing an certain
philosophy of social change. Their refusal of induction
is usually ceremonial.
The unsuccessful cooperator are those who—simply
to be able to take their case to court have used every
available appeal and cooperated in each step which
precedes the point 6f Induction.
DMIC director Walruth, like each di
rector of that service, seems to have a
philosophy of draft counseling that has
developed to meet the current demands
of student problems.
On the top of his list of concerns, he
says, “is helping other people learn of
'the rights they have under the regulations,
telling people how to negotiate the Se
lective Service System so that they can
use it to the fullest extent.”
Selective Service, he explains, sur
rounds itself with “an aura of secrecy,”
especially evident in the uncertainty sur
rounding the lottery and the significance
of lottery numbers, and under which draft
information is hard for a registrant to
acquire.
The task, he feels, must therefore fall
upon counseling centers such as DMIC.
In fact, Walruth says that he got involved
in wanting to help others “because of an
error I made with my draft board because
I didn’t know the law.”
Another part of this philosophy, he
continues, “is a goal of getting in essence
100 per cent deferments for those seek
ing counseling by means of Selective
Service procedures.”
Walruth explains that almost everyone
can qualify for a deferment of some sort,
depending upon how familiar they are
with the law.
And if everyone who qualified were to
take advantage of the opportunities open
to him, “this would have the effect of
making them either improve the system
or get rid of it.”
Walruth feels that draft counseling
should be conducted on a non-opinion
basis. “We try to keep our personal opin
DAVE WALRUTH
ions out of our draft counseling, ’ he
says. “We have the registrants tell us
what problems they have with the draft,
and we try to tell them what alternatives
they have, and the difficulties and bad
points involved in each.
“We believe that if a student receives
a deferment he should be well aware of
the ramifications of that deferment on his
life and future.
“We also try,” he continues, “to provide
the most recent information we can be
cause in many instances the laws change
and the boards change.
“And if we can’t answer a question,”
he concludes, “we try to send them to
someone who can — physician, lawyer,
clergyman. We don’t always succeed in
these ends, but we’re trying.”
i
Walruth explained that students who
come with problems to the DMIC general
ly fit into two different categories, of
equal importance, and which have
changed little since the initiation of the
lottery.
These, he says, are the student whose
deferment had just ended or is about to
end “and isn’t sure In which direction he
wants to move,” and an individual desir
ing information about conscientious ob
jector status.
“Many students come in unsure as to
what a CO is and whether or not they are
themselves a CO,” he says. “We define
what a CO is for the individual, and talk
to him to see if he is willing to go through
the difficulties of a CO claim.”
what of efforts to change the
draft system?
Walruth says that he see little chance
of success for efforts to eliminate student
deferments. And rf the move succeeds,
despite its obstacles, he predicts that
“there are going to be a large number
of students on this campus forced to con
front the system immediately. This means
problems for the Selective Service Sys
tem.”
Specifically, he says that the campus
would experience a “strong re-emergence
of resistance,” among students who would
otherwise be sitting back with II-S defer
ments.
But Walruth says that his experience
has led him to believe that “the draft un
questionably should be repealed. I am
very afraid,” he continued, “that they
are going to reform the draft; it doesn’t
need reform—it needs repeal.”
But in the interim, while students
await possible but uncertain changes in
the draft system from the federal govern
ment in Washington, the work of the
DMIC, the Office of Student Services, and
others involved in draft-related matters
continues.
Refusal of induction is the final step unsuccessful
cooperators take within the law before they are pro
secuted. The refusal enacted “courteously and quietly”
usually takes the form of a final appeal. Upon refusal,
the draftee may or may not be prosecuted by the state
or national director. Should either choose not to prose
cute, the decision becomes the responsibility of the U.S.
attorney to determine whether the draftee will be
prosecuted. Not every refusal leads to prosecution.
Because, in theory, a man might be rejected by the
armed forces for physical, mental or administrative
reasons at any point short of the brink of induction, the
refusal should be enacted "courteously and quietly”
within the law. And to insure that one is not inadvert
ently inducted, the draftee should be careful not to take
the symbolic step forward which makes him subject to
the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
The draftee should report as ordered bv the local
board. It would probably be prudent to prepare a writ
ten statement of one's intention to refuse induction (as
a precautionary measure against inadvertent induction).
Preceding the ceremony, there is a cursory physical
examination at which, even then, a draftee could be
reclassified I-Y or IV-F. After his refusal, the draftee
will be taken to another room for reenactment, where
he is warned of criminal penalties and the induction
speech is read. After twice declining to step forward,
he will be asked to sign an induction refusal statement
which he may refuse. After an interview with an F.B.I.
agent, with whom it is inadvisable to discuss matters of
refusal, the draftee is usually sent home. From this
point he is at the mercy of the state and national direc
tor, the U S attorney and finally the federal courts.