Curtailing of Student Deferment in the Late 1960s as a Motivation for Violent Student Protests at Columbia University The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Bailey, Lisa M. 2016. Curtailing of Student Deferment in the Late 1960s as a Motivation for Violent Student Protests at Columbia University. Master's thesis, Harvard Extension School. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:33797340 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Curtailing of Student Deferment in the Late 1960s as a Motivation for Violent Student Protests at Columbia University Lisa Marie Bailey A Thesis in the Field of History for the Degree of Master of Liberal Arts in Extension Studies Harvard University May 2016 ii Abstract When President Lyndon Baines Johnson escalated the Vietnam War in 1965, he ordered more man to fight. The Director of Selective Service System, General Lewis B. Hershey, ordered local draft boards nationwide to curtail the granting of student deferment in order to induct more men to the military. In 1965 to 1968, many college students saw themselves being reclassified. In 1966, when General Hershey reissued the dormant Selective Services Qualifying Test (SSQT) for registrants who wanted to keep their student deferments, angry students began disruptive, war-related protests. On October 26, 1967, Hershey sent his “Hershey’s Directives” to local and appeal boards nationwide, in order to punish registrants who protested against the Vietnam War and the changing draft laws. This thesis will address this primary question: Were students at Columbia motivated to take part in demonstrations because of “Hershey’s Directives?” In addition, the secondary questions are: Were student activists motivated to act violently and disruptively because they were suspended for participating in previous demonstrations? Did local boards send disciplined students to Vietnam? This historical case study of student activism at Columbia in the late 1960s focus on four issues such as the loss of student deferments, General Hershey’s attitude toward student deferments, arguments for and against student deferments, and war-related student protests. This thesis concludes that a majority of Columbia students, as well as a majority of students throughout the iii United States, were motivated to take part in demonstrations because of “Hershey’s Directives” and the changing draft laws since 1967. iv Acknowledgements I would like to thank my thesis advisor, Dr. Donald Ostrowski, PhD, of Harvard University Extension School for being available when I needed to see him during his office hours, for ample advice in thesis writers’ meetings, and for quick responses to my emails during the process of my research and writing a thesis. I also want to give thanks to Brett Flehinger, PhD, of the History Department in Harvard University, for agreeing to act as my thesis director, and to Candace Kant, PhD and a Professor Emerita of College of Southern Nevada, for looking at my thesis proposal draft and then giving me advice and tips. In addition, I would like to express gratitude to my friends, Lisa D. Quinlan and Madeline McDownell for agreeing to read my drafts and for their very valuable comments. Finally, I must express my gratitude to my friends, professors, and teaching assistants for providing me with support and continuous encouragement throughout my years of study and through the process of researching and writing this thesis. This accomplishment would not have been possible without them. Lisa M. Bailey Cambridge, MA May 2016 v Table of Contents Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................ v Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1 Methods ...................................................................................................................................... 4 I. Background of Problem and Review ........................................................................................ 7 II. General Hershey’s Flawed Argument for the Selective Service System ........................... 16 Arguments against the Selective Service System and the Draft Laws ............................... 27 Arguments for Student Deferments ...................................................................................... 35 Pentagon Bias Against Volunteers ........................................................................................ 46 III. The Curtailment of Student Deferments from 1965 to 1969 .............................................. 73 Draft Resistance Movement and the Hershey’s Directives ................................................. 89 IV. Mark Rudd's Journey Before the Violent Student Protests at Columbia ......................... 122 Before the Violent Student Protests at Columbia University ............................................ 132 A Week of Crisis at Columbia ............................................................................................. 135 Paul Vilardi’s Side of the Story as a Counter-Demonstrator ............................................ 139 Why President Kirk Refused to Grant Amnesty ................................................................ 147 Disciplinary Proceedings at Columbia ................................................................................ 157 Motivations of Radical SDS Leaders at Columbia ............................................................ 164 Aftermath at Columbia ......................................................................................................... 168 V. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 173 Appendix ........................................................................................................................................ 185 vi Appendix A ........................................................................................................................... 185 Appendix B............................................................................................................................ 186 Appendix C............................................................................................................................ 188 Appendix D ........................................................................................................................... 190 Appendix E ............................................................................................................................ 191 Appendix F ............................................................................................................................ 193 Appendix G ........................................................................................................................... 195 Appendix H ........................................................................................................................... 198 Appendix I ............................................................................................................................. 202 Appendix J ............................................................................................................................. 207 Appendix K ........................................................................................................................... 210 Appendix L ............................................................................................................................ 215 Appendix M ........................................................................................................................... 216 Appendix N ........................................................................................................................... 218 Appendix O ........................................................................................................................... 219 Works Cited .................................................................................................................................... 221 vii Introduction [A]fter a long and fruitless effort at discussion and negotiation by officers of the administration, many devoted faculty members and helpful persons from outside the university, it became clear that either grant student demands, including full amnesty for all participants, or we could request the City police to remove the students by force. We were not willing under any circumstances to grant amnesty for these illegal acts, so we began to make the necessary arrangements for police action.1 Grayson Kirk, June 1, 1968 In 1966, General Lewis B. Hershey, Director of the Selective Service System, ordered draft boards nationwide to curtail the granting of deferments, particularly student deferments. When Hershey reissued the dormant Selective Services Qualifying Test (SSQT) for registrants who wanted to keep their student deferments, angry students began disruptive, war-related protests. On October 26, 1967, Hershey sent his “Hershey’s Directives” as a letter to local and appeal boards,