How did draft deferment policies in the 1960s apply to affluent or politically connected individuals?
Executive summary
Draft deferment rules in the 1960s formally granted postponements for students, fathers or sole supporters, clergy, and certain medical or hardship cases, but in practice those categories and the discretionary review by local draft boards produced outcomes that advantaged men with money, education, or connections while disproportionately exposing working‑class and minority men to induction [1] [2] [3]. Critics at the time and later historians argue the system’s structure and administration — not just the law on paper — created a de facto class bias, a view reflected in contemporary reporting and retrospective analysis [2] [1] [4].
1. The rules that mattered: categories and legal deferments
Selective Service law in the 1960s listed specific deferments: student status, dependency (such as fathers or sole family supporters), certain occupations and clergy, medical disqualifications, and other exemptions; these legal categories determined who could be postponed without ad hoc decisions from local boards [1] [5] [6]. The 1967 amendment and later Nixon-era changes altered eligibility (for example, limiting graduate student deferments and later instituting a lottery), but did not instantly erase the existing deferment categories that advantaged those with certain institutional ties like higher education [4] [6].
2. How wealth and education translated into deferments
College enrollment was one of the most effective paths to deferment: being a student automatically delayed induction, and wealthier families could more easily afford to keep sons in college or push them into graduate programs that remained deferment-eligible until rules tightened in 1967–1968, producing an observable increase in college attendance during the late 1960s tied in part to draft incentives [2] [7]. Historians and journalists note that “men with means—whether that’s actually money, cultural or political capital, or a better education—absolutely could get out of service a lot easier” than poor and working‑class men, a dynamic documented in contemporary accounts and later retrospectives [2].
3. Discretion, local boards, and political influence
Local draft boards held wide discretionary power to adjudicate claims, and those boards were often composed of community veterans whose rulings could reflect local politics or favoritism; contemporaries perceived that this discretion allowed white males with financial privilege or political connections to secure more favorable outcomes [1] [8]. Records and reporting from the era document both legally sanctioned deferments and the role of local adjudication, which critics argued enabled manipulation through social networks, sympathetic physicians, or political intercession [1] [2].
4. Medical, religious and other loopholes often used by the well‑connected
Medical 4‑F disqualifications and conscientious‑objector classifications were legitimate routes out of service, but historians have documented that wealth and connections made it easier to obtain sympathetic doctors or legal advice to secure medical deferments, and that religious exemptions required navigating complex standards that advantaged those with resources to mount claims [2] [8]. High-profile controversies over politicians and public figures using medical or educational deferments underscore public belief that the system was uneven, even when specific cases varied in evidentiary detail [8].
5. Perception, politics, and reform: why fairness mattered
The cumulative effect of deferment categories, discretionary boards, and socioeconomic differentials produced a political backlash: opponents said the draft burden fell on the poor and minorities, and policy makers — including President Nixon — pushed lottery and reform measures partly to address perceived unfairness and to blunt opposition to the war, reflecting an implicit agenda to reduce protest by equalizing risk across classes [1] [9] [6]. Existing scholarship and primary documents show reformers worried that deferment policy, not just selection method, shaped who actually served, prompting reviews and eventual changes rather than wholesale elimination of deferment categories [6].
6. Limits of available reporting and contested interpretations
The provided sources document the categories, contemporary perceptions, and later critiques that affluent or connected individuals disproportionately benefited, but they do not produce exhaustive case-by-case audits of every deferment decision; therefore, while the structural advantage is well attested, assessing individual motives or proving systematic corruption across all boards exceeds the scope of these sources [1] [2] [6].