The Selective Service System
The Selective Service Act of 1940 was the first peacetime conscription for military service
in the United States. It was instituted in September of 1940 in order to require all men
between the ages of 21 and 35 to register for the draft. Those who were selected for the
draft were required to serve a minimum of one year. As World War II progressed, the eligible
age range and length of service requirements were expanded. By the end of World War II in
1945, 10 million men between the ages of 18 and 45 had been inducted into service out of the
50 million men who registered for the draft. Active conscription continued until 1973,
supported by extensions of the Selective Service Act of 1940 and others like it. Deferment
was the postponement of military service for men who had been selected for the draft but
were exempted from service, either temporarily or indefinitely, based on certain criteria.
Deferment might be granted based on student status, occupation, or dependents who relied on
the registrant. A mixture of special interests, industrial needs, and army demands
influenced the deferment decisions. Local draft boards made the initial selections and
notified registrants through a notice in the mail. If ordered to report for service, the
registrant could apply for reclassification according to a scheme wherein each registrant
was classed as I, acceptable for military service, II, deferred because of occupation, III,
deferred because of dependency, or IV, unacceptable for military service. Student
registrants could also request a delay in induction in order to complete a degree or a
current academic term. If denied by the local selective service or military board, the
registrant could pursue a series of appeals to plead their case. If granted, the registrant
was reclassified to reflect their new status.
Formation and Organization of the Committee
Clarence A. Dykstra, President of the University of Wisconsin--Madison from 1937-1945,
appointed the original three-person Occupational Deferment Committee in 1940. Dykstra was
also the first Director of the national Selective Service System, which inspired the
committee to adhere strictly to the directives of the system. The committee worked closely
with the State Selective Training and Service Headquarters to establish its scope and
purpose, and later to consult on policy matters. Its primary goals, however, were to
establish University policy, to distribute information about draft and deferment procedures,
and to provide documentary materials to local boards. The scope of the committee included
the Madison campus, the Milwaukee campus, University Centers around the state, and the
University Extension Division. In 1944 the original three-person Committee on Occupational
Deferment was expanded into a larger body (nine additional members that year) who better
represented the wide range of university areas and had the ability to settle University
deferment policies. The chairman and secretary of the original small committee remained and
became known as the administrative branch of the special committee on occupational
deferment, while the larger body was called the policy branch. This division between
branches remained until July 1956. A special Committee on Research was formed to determine
whether a particular research project was sufficiently related to the war effort to justify
the deferment of necessary personnel, consisting of a number of specialists. If the project
was judged essential, the committee provided a certificate to be submitted to the draft
board alongside the other documentary materials for the case. This special committee
remained active until a national system was established for the purpose of making
determinations about the importance of registrants' research for the war effort. In 1965, 25
years after the committee's inception and after significant growth and reorganization of the
university, escalation of the Vietnam War caused a surge in conscription and a subsequent
reevaluation of the committee's duties. The Office of the Registrar took responsibility for
providing students with military information and for sending student documentation to draft
boards, while the Occupational Deferment Committee continued to handle employee cases
(including employees who were also students). The employee cases came from University
Centers all over the state as well as the Madison campus, Milwaukee campus, and Extension
Division. Each of these units were represented by at least one member of the committee. By
September 1968, committee members were 16 in number with two members representing Milwaukee,
two for University Center System, one for University Extension, and one new member each to
represent Parkside and Green Bay.
Committee Workload and Responsibilities
The committee distributed information about draft and deferment procedures and provided
advising services to registrants throughout the process from registration to induction. The
greatest part of its function was to provide documentary materials to local boards when
registrants requested deferment. Documentary materials supplied to draft boards included
forms and statements of fact concerned with the registrant's program, progress, and academic
standing; a College Student Certificate issued by the Office of Records; letters from
faculty or employers; the committee's recommendation for deferment in specific cases; and
certificates regarding the importance of a registrant's research to the war effort.
Beginning in 1951, students were also encouraged to take the Selective Service College
Qualification Test. The test scores, like the registrant's class ranking, were another way
for the local board to quantify a student's academic performance. The university carefully
refrained from recommending a student's deferment on educational grounds, except in the case
of Medical students, but the University submitted statements of fact for any student upon
request and even without the University's request, most students were able to delay their
induction until the end of their academic term. However, university employees, including
student employees, could request that the committee recommend deferment to the draft board
on occupational grounds. In those cases the dean, departmental chairman, or other
administrative department head decided whether the registrant qualified as a necessary
person in an activity related to the war effort or to the maintenance of the national
health, safety, or interest. The administrative head prepared the statement of fact and, if
necessary, met with the committee to review the case and reach consensus. The committee
would then either withdraw the recommendation for deferment or submit the recommendation and
documentation to the draft board. The entire committee met to consult on difficult or
unusual cases as the chairman recommended. The committee did not request or recommend
extended or indefinite deferment for any registrant, so essential staff had to apply to
renew their deferment at intervals. The committee also did not consider any employee
essential until they had been in their current position for at least a year. As World War II
progressed and the demand for draftees grew increasingly urgent, the age range for induction
grew and other considerations, such as fatherhood, became less likely to result in
deferment. The Occupational Deferment Committee worked hard to keep the campus community
informed about fluctuating requirements and procedures. The heavy caseload meant that the
committee sometimes met as often as three times per week to review employee cases. With the
end of World War II in 1945 came the end of war-related projects, but not the end of the
draft; registrants employed in those projects quickly lost support for their deferment and
were called for induction. Combined with the record post-war enrollment numbers expected in
the next few years, this meant demand for teaching staff, including graduate assistants, was
at an all-time high. Consequently the university abandoned its wartime reticence and began
requesting deferment even for part-time employees, particularly in engineering and the
physical sciences. The number of cases brought before the committee continued to slow, and
by the 1950s the committee seldom handled more than ten cases or met more than a few times
each year. The university had little trouble securing deferments for employees despite
increased tensions associated with the Korean War and the Cuban Missile Crisis. The
committee's main concerns during this time were the activation of reserve units and policies
surrounding reemployment of staff members called to service. The next turning point came in
1964-1965. The committee handled only three cases for the deferment or delay of essential
employees that year, but U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War escalated sharply. The
induction age dropped from 23 to 19 the following year and use of the Selective Service
College Qualification Test, which had been suspended in 1964, was reinstated in 1966. The
committee submitted over 500 statements regarding employment or educational status, made
deferment requests on 34 cases, and reported an 837% increase in its military counseling
load. The committee's policies remained virtually unchanged from 1940 until 1966 when it
ceded responsibility for cases involving students to the Office of the Registrar. The next
major policy revision was a response, in part, to the Military Selective Service Act of 1967
and Selective Service Memo 96 to Local Boards, a directive from the National Director of
Selective Service in April 1968. Both of these discouraged local boards from granting
occupational deferment to first-year graduate students or to full-time graduate students
with part-time teaching assistantships. The revision was finalized in May 1968. It made
departments responsible for sending statements of fact to a registrant's draft board
directly. It also removed the requirement that an employee hold their post for a year before
being considered essential; the committee would immediately consider requests for essential
full-time faculty and would consider requests for other essential full-time staff only if
they were already on duty with the University. A great deal of the committee's attention was
occupied that year by corresponding with department heads and national bodies about the
availability, essentiality, and policies surrounding graduate teaching, research, and
project assistants. Some departments reported difficulty in recruiting graduate students to
these positions and reorganized part-time appointments into full-time positions in an
attempt to attract and retain graduate student employees.
