Display Ad 166 -- No Title, pg. B21
Boston Globe (1960-1982);
Jan 7, 1968
Job Listing
Effect on Daily Life
Display Ad 166 -- No Title
Boston Globe (1960-1982); Jan 7, 1968; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Boston Globe (1872-1982) pg. B21
“training director
for international construction organization
location
republic of vietnam
program…
Boston Globe
Bertram Waters, pg.2
Boston Globe
Jan 20, 1968
Effect on Daily Life
Waters, Bertram, pg.2
Boston Globe
Jan 20, 1968
“patrick j king of 32 bigelow st., brighton, was automatically removed from the board because he missed four regular meetings in the last calendar year. he was in vietnam when three of the meetings were held.
king is the first involuntary casualty on any of the boards reorganized by the willis-harrington act of 1965.”
Boston Globe
Display Ad 166 -- No Title, p.B21
Boston Globe
Jan 7, 1968
Job Listing
Effect on Daily Life
Display Ad 166 -- No Title
Boston Globe (1960-1982); Jan 7, 1968; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Boston Globe (1872-1982) pg. B21
“training director
for international construction organization
location
republic of vietnam
program…"
Boston Globe
Father Takes Up Son's Card, pg 2
Klarfeld, Jonathan
Boston Globe
Jan 30, 1968
Draft Resistance
Father Takes Up Son's Card
Klarfeld, Jonathan
Boston Globe (1960-1982); Jan 30, 1968; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Boston Globe (1872-1982) pg. 2
Boston Globe
Other 40 -- No Title, pg. 8A
Boston Globe
Jan 1, 1968
Other 40 -- No Title
Boston Globe (1960-1982); Jan 1, 1968; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Boston Globe (1872-1982) pg. 8A
“Globe Santa Thanks You All”
“Paul K. shiel, somewhere in Vietnam……..3.00
Boston Globe
BOSTON protestors
26 in Hub Inducted as 2 Protesters Are Sent Home, pg. 1
Murphy, Jeremiah
Boston Globe
Jan 11, 1968
BOSTON protestors
26 in Hub Inducted as 2 Protesters Are Sent Home
Murphy, Jeremiah
Boston Globe (1960-1982); Jan 11, 1968; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Boston Globe (1872-1982) pg. 1
“Twenty-six young draftees pledged their allegiance to the U.S. at the Boston Army Base Wednesday, then quietly marched off to military service. But two others who attracted the most attention were sent home for ‘security reasons…’
Boston Globe
Draft Indictments Spur Calls for Strikes, Sit-Ins, pg. 1
Yee, Min
Boston Globe
Jan 7, 1968
Draft Resistance
Draft Indictments Spur Calls for Strikes, Sit-Ins Yee, Min Boston Globe (1960-1982); Jan 7, 1968; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Boston Globe (1872-1982) pg. 1
Boston Globe
In Support of Draft Resisters
NO WRITER ATTRIBUTED
March 6, 1968
Draft Resistance
<strong>In Support of Draft Resisters </strong><br /><strong>NO WRITER ATTRIBUTED </strong><br /><strong>March 6, 1968</strong> <br /><br /><br />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.
<a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1968/3/6/in-support-of-draft-resisters-pbib/" target="_blank">In Support of Draft Resisters</a>
Draft Union: Success and Failure
Brass Tacks
By NICHOLAS GAGARIN, April 19, 1968
University Protests, Draft Resistance
<strong>Draft Union: Success and Failure Brass Tacks </strong><br /><strong>By NICHOLAS GAGARIN, </strong><br /><strong>April 19, 1968</strong> <br /><br /><br />WHEN, two months ago, 150 Harvard students held a long, fiery meeting to form the Harvard Draft Union, there were tangible signs that a broad based. campus anti-draft campaign had begun. The Draft Union would offer Harvard students a positive way of responding to the prevailing national mood of crisis. A CRIMSON poll had shown that as many as 22 per cent of the senior class were ready to flee the country or go to iail rather than serve in the armed forces. In other words, the potential for resistance was there. The Draft Union promised to work in two ways. It would work first on an individual basis, canvassing and counseling seniors and training draft counselors who could organize similar projects in their own communities over the summer. Second, it would unite students who opposed the war into an effective political force, rallying them around the issue which threatened them with most immediacy. The Union also sought to present a fresh image. It consciously disassociated itself from the hardened radical types at SDS. The Union was an "autonomous affiliate" of SDS, but only to get University office space and a Harvard telephone extension. IN ITS first weeks of existence, the Draft Union organized more than 200 volunteers into decentralized units in the Houses, the Yard, and 13 Graduate departments. These workers canvassed the entire senior class and held several small sessions in draft counseling. And, as a show of strength, the Union collected more than 1150 signatures on a petition in support of Rolf Kolden, a teaching fellow in Government, who was planning to refuse induction. Since that time, however, several problems have beset the Union. Most important has been the play of events themselves. McCarthy's unexpected success in New Hampshire, Kennedy's entry into the presidential race, Johnson's withdrawal, and the apparent progress of peace talks with Hanoi have led many people to believe that although the fighting may drag on, the war is effectively over. But even in February, when the national mood seemed glummest, the Draft Union was having trouble getting through to people. "Most seniors still don't believe that they will be drafted after graduation," sophomore Barry A. Margolin, undergraduate coordinator of the Union, said recently. "Seniors think their draft boards are different-but 70 per cent of them are going to end up in Vietnam." The psychological impact of recent events has been to confirm these seniors' hopes of legally avoiding the draft. The immediate threat now seems less dangerous. Leaders of the Draft Union dismiss these hopes as foolish. They cite the recent callup of 60,000 reservists, the continued bombing 225 miles north of the Demilitarized Zone, and the President's refusal to accept Hanoi's proposed sites for peace talks. But whether or not the chance for peace is real, it has drawn people away from the Draft Union. Recent meetings have been badly attended, and most of those coming are the familiar SDS faces. HOWEVER, the Draft Union continues to work well as a service organization. It has, through its canvassing and counseling programs, reached a large number of people, giving them valuable help with their individual problems. A series of workshops next week will explore in detail the alternatives to military service and the possibility of resistance within the armed forces themselves. The Union is also valuable in maintaining communication between draft resisters, their supporters, those who enter the service, and those who emigrate to Canada. The Quincy House chapter, most particularly, has shown initiative by sending out a letter to parents of Quincy House students asking for support of the Draft Union's work. But what the Draft Union has failed most conspicuously to do is to create an anti-draft movement which, in some small way, could be politically effective. Events have robbed the Union of some of its potential support. But the Union, in its turn, has failed to provide the tangible political program that might have given it cohesion. Two points stand out. First, although the draft itself is the focus for the Union's work, and the Union has called for "no draft for an unjust war," it has not put together a program of its own for an end to the draft altogether, for a different system of deferments, a volunteer army, etc. There were reasons for this-the Union probably never could have agreed upon a program. It feared, for example, that by calling for an end to the draft altogether it might alienate large segments of its potentially broad-based support. But this, in turn, has made the rallying point an essentially negative one and the basis for the Union's political stand-opposition to the Vietnam war-is eroding. Second, the Union has not solved the question of membership. There is, at the moment, no formal membership in the Union, and it now seems unlikely that a form of membership will be settled. The trouble is that with no program for action and no membership criteria, the Union has alienated no one-but neither has it attracted anyone. It remains an amorphous body, which has acquitted itself well in the limited area of draft counselling, but which has left its more important work-the creation of a unified and politically effective antidraft movement, still up in the air.
<a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1968/4/19/draft-union-success-and-failure-pbwbhen/" target="_blank">Draft Union: Success and Failure</a>
How to Beat the Draft Legally (and illegally)
The Resistance is the most romantic part of the anti-draft movement
By JEFFREY C. ALEXANDER, February 12, 1968
Draft Resistance
How to Beat the Draft Legally (and illegally)
The Resistance is the most romantic part of the anti-draft movement
By JEFFREY C. ALEXANDER, February 12, 1968
IN THE late evenings of the second week of October, peaceful insurgents stalked Boston's colleges posting four-page white pamphlets entitled "RESIST OCTOBER 16." On the second page of the pamphlet, a photostat of a ripped draft card framed a quote from Camus.
"The Resistance begins on October 16," the third page began. "No matter what their government threatens, members of the Resistance will work together, confronting the government as a community, working to make their community grow, bringing to a halt the system of war."
It reminded one of those 95 theses Martin Luther nailed on the church door in Wittenberg. On October 16, 280 New Englanders broke with an old faith and returned their draft cards to the U.S. Attorney General's office. After four months, more than 1400 young men have become lowercase protestants.
The October 16 rallies around the country made the Times' front page and notified those concerned that the anti-war movement was changing directions. Ask any serious radical today, and he'll tell you that the draft should be the main focus of any serious anti-war activity. Students for a Democratic Society gave up the idea of mass marches after they started them in 1965, but in the two years since they have found no popular alternative. For non-student radicals, organizing over the price of potatoes in ghetto communities was satisfying, but it did not provide the same vivid insight into the "crumbling society" as the Vietnam War did.
The Golden Crowbar
Then, in the winter of 1966-67, students discovered their golden crowbar in the fight to prevent the use of college rankings for student deferments. A surprising number of students rallied around that flag.
The campaign was followed by the "We Won't Go" advertisements, signed by almost 200 Harvard students. Students who had been unmoved by the questionable morality of the Vietnam War were stung into activism by the personal threat of the draft. SDS had found a popular alternative. In December, 1967, three Harvard SDS members initiated a twice-a-week counselling service, which has processed 15 students per week.
Outside the university, protest was also turning to the draft. The largest and most expensive anti-war effort of 1967, Vietnam Summer, began with a hard-won cynicism about the worth of marches and demonstrations. The local chapters were to concentrate on door-to-door canvassing. But without expert organizers this effort was hopeless, and across the nation the most effective Vietnam Summer chapters developed anti-draft techniques.
The American Left learned first that it was not enough just to sing and carry signs for Peace. It learned second that it was also not enough to sit down and organize against war. The Left has had to admit that material self-interest must precede material sacrifice.
The best way to convert a poor white or a Harvard student into a political activist is to show him that the anti-war movement offers valid alternatives to a tour in Vietnam. This is what draft resistance is all about.
"If Enough People..."
The Resistance is the most romantic part of the anti-draft movement. It is based on a single moral act--turning in your registration card--and a simple political philosophy, "If enough people do it, we have to win." With its adult support group (Coffin and Spock are among the leaders), the Resistance aims its straightforward acts of courage toward a moral confrontation with the United States Government. The plan was that thousands of resisters would be arrested for not carrying their draft cards. The hope was that the arrests would create national indignation.
The Government, however, did not agree to suffer this embarrassment. Few of the resisters have been arrested; most of them will be re-classified 1-A. Except for the trial of the "Boston Five," any moral confrontations the Resistance creates will occur within the resisters themselves. The situation exposes the central weakness of the Resistance as a political force: individuals do not control the consequences of their acts.
"They went in on a moral basis without thinking what political effects their actions would have," says Mark Dyen '70, SDS co-chairman at Harvard. Dyen and most other experienced organizers consider the Resistance, which is primarily campus-based, an admirable effort, but "politically amateurish."
They maintain that the draft finds its most effective use in community organizing. "It can be used as a tool to reach those people who hear about the war only by reading their newspapers," says Vernon Grizzard, who organizes against the draft in Cambridge.
BDRG Is Broader
The dispute over the most effective use of the draft as an organizing tool is nationwide. In Boston, the broader approach is embodied in the Boston Draft Resistance Group (BDRG). The Resistance wants persons to dissociate themselves from the Selective Service; BDRG just wants them to avoid it.
Although it is not listed in the yellow pages (after "Dowels and Dowel Pins" comes "Draft Controls, see thermometers"), BDRG has a full-fledged and publicly-acknowledged existence at 102 Columbia St., Cambridge, two blocks off Central Square.
It is the only anti-draft office in Boston and is always filled with 30 or 40 heterogeneous people, from white Harvard teaching fellows to black Roxbury drop-outs and elementary school teachers. Somehow, they all work together to handle Boston's four sustained anti-draft activities: counselling, induction center protests, speaking, and high school and community organizing.
Members of the Resistance, like recently arraigned graduate student Michael Ferber, also work through the BDRG office. In fact, the only continuing Resistance activity, a Monday night dinner, is held at the home of Harold Hector, Jr., one of BDRG's three paid employees.
Individual draft counselling is what the BDRG office originally was meant for. There are seven counsellors who confer with an average of 15 persons a day, six days a week. Before the recent Spock indictments, the number who requested advice was less than half that many. According to Hector, a majority of those who come in already have deferments lined up, and most of the rest of them find one through the counselling. "Only two have actually gone on to face induction," Hector said. "We usually never see a person more than once," he added.
But as the draft calls increase, the pressure on potential draftees is more intense. "The first question we ask is whether the person would go to Canada, to jail, or into the army," explains William A. Hunt, a teaching fellow in Social Studies and a regular draft counsellor.
The counsellor's first job is to see if the person is eligible for one of the 13 Selective Service deferments. If not, Hunt recommends a multi-issue approach for several months before the probable induction date: make a claim for conscientious objection (even if it is unrealistic it will waste time and tends to lessen the jail sentence if you eventually refuse induction), begin seeing a therapist and complain about your fears of entering the army, engage in anti-war activities, write a series of indignant and inflammatory letters to your draft board.
Homosexuality Deferment
The central question is how much indignity a person a person is willing to undergo to avoid Canada, the army, or jail. "I knew a person who after months and months succeeded in getting a 1-Y deferment for homosexuality but in the process just about ruined his life," says Hunt. An individual can move in with a welfare mother to get a III-A dependency deferment.
"This is where we need our subversive ministers and social workers to write the necessary applications," says Hunt. The counsellors also have at their disposal a Psychiatrist Referral Board, which has produced a "substantial number" of sympathetic recommendations to draft boards.
If the worst happens, and an individual is inducted, he can always punch the sergeant in the nose at the pre-induction physical or refuse to sign the loyalty oath at the induction, a move which usually means a five-month delay.
Every month each draft board sends between 30 and 90 of its registrants to be inducted. The BDRG organizes "bussing teams," which meet the inductees at 6 a.m. while they are waiting for the bus in front of their local draft boards. "The first thing we ask is how many want to go to Vietnam," says director Mike Mickelson, "and usually no more than one or two will raise their hands." The BDRG teams advise them on the possibilities of avoiding service and often able to enter the bus with the inductees.
"Disappointingly few have refused induction, but the effort is still having an appreciable effect," says Mickelson, a 21-year-old Dartmouth graduate.
Because there is only one anti-draft office, and so much anti-draft opinion, an enormous speaking calendar is a patriotic duty that BDRG must perform. Neil Roberston, Hunt, Ferber, Hector, and Grizzard meet most of the requests for speakers on the draft.
"We have to let other people know what we're doing," says Grizzard, "and we also want to decentralize BDRG." In one week, BDRG spokesmen addressed the Dorchester Voice of Women, a teenage gang in Allston, students at Northeastern, and neighborhood groups in Providence, Waltham, and Bridgewater.
The most novel part of the BDRG's work, and a completely new concept in student anti-war movement, is community organizing around the draft. Grizzard and John Maher '60 have been organizing since October in two Cambridge working class areas, the neighborhood around the BDRG office and the area between Putnam Ave. and M.I.T. bordered by Mass. Ave. and the Charles.
Each day, Grizzard and Maher divide 10 to 15 volunteers into boy and girl pairs. They work for a few hours and come back and discuss their experiences. A pair will cover from four to a dozen homes per day. The organizers have covered nearly 400 homes so far, Grizzard said. The list of 1-A's is available at local draft boards, and the homes visited are confined to this list.
Inevitable and Natural
The difficulty in organizing working class youths is that they typically regard the draft as inevitable and natural. It is part of growing up and being a man and is an opportunity to leave home and learn a trade, they believe. "It is this propaganda which we must defeat," says Grizzard. "It is a deep feeling and not easy, but it's possible because nobody likes this war. It's gone on too long for them. Nobody believes the government anymore."
The most important thing, according to Grizzard, is getting into a conversation with the people. The organizers represent the Government as an outside force that pushes the people around and represents the draft as a neighborhood problem which must be met by a united effort.
"We communicate this idea, and the people believe us. This is not heresy. It makes sense. They can talk about it," says Grizzard. The idea is that people in the neighborhood should watch out for each other and make each other more secure about the draft.
Thirty persons worked with Maher and Grizzard in the fall. Twenty were students. "Students are a help getting something started but for sustained work you need day-to-day presence," says Grizzard. For these reasons, according to Grizzard, it is better for students to confine their anti-draft work to the campus.
Students can most effectively fight the draft by forming a draft union, Dyen says. Harvard SDS hopes to establish an effective draft union and canvass the entire senior class within the first four weeks of this semester. The union would organize students to resist the draft and provide support for their confrontations with authority, by staging demonstrations at induction centers and possibly boycotts of classes. The Harvard draft union would also be an anti-war organization, distributing films, planning demonstrations.
A Harvard student interested in draft information, after trying the yellow pages without success, finally resorted to telephone information:
OPERATOR: Oh, are we getting a lot of telephone calls for that number!
STUDENT: Yeah?
OPERATOR: Yeah, a whole lotta boys are interested.
STUDENT: Miss, you are a patriot!
OPERATOR: Who am I to believe?
<a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1968/2/12/how-to-beat-the-draft-legally/?page=3" target="_blank">How to Beat the Draft Legally (and illegally) The Resistance is the most romantic part of the anti-draft movement</a>
<a href="http://sociology.yale.edu/people/jeffrey-alexander" target="_blank">Jeffrey Alexander</a>