How did college and occupational deferments shape who served in Vietnam?
Executive summary
College and occupational deferments during the Vietnam era materially reshaped who went to war by providing legal, administrable routes out of the draft that were far more accessible to men with resources, education or certain jobs, producing a socio‑economic skew in the conscripted population [1] [2]. Changes in policy — notably the late‑1960s restrictions and the 1971 reforms that curtailed student deferments — along with the 1969–70 lottery, eventually reduced that advantage, but only after years in which deferments functioned as de facto exemptions for many [3] [4].
1. College deferments expanded a path out of service
For most of the Vietnam War full‑time college and graduate students could obtain II‑S student deferments that postponed induction, and because deferments could be extended through graduate study or by “making satisfactory progress,” enrollments became a practical avoidance mechanism [5] [4]. Empirical work finds a rise in male college attendance in the mid‑1960s that scholars attribute to draft‑avoidance behavior—men who might otherwise have been at risk of induction instead stayed in school, and unlike World War II cohorts, few Vietnam‑era draftees returned from service to complete college, strengthening the argument that the draft drove the enrollment bump [1] [6].
2. Occupational and dependent deferments insulated some professions and family situations
Beyond students, the Selective Service system awarded occupational deferments and “hardship” (III‑A) deferments for men with dependent children or critical jobs, which insulated middle‑ and upper‑class occupations and those able to document family hardship, with measurable demographic effects such as altered birth rates tied to paternity deferments [7] [4]. Commentators and historians argue occupational deferments tended to favor “upscale fields,” meaning that the pool of frontline draftees was disproportionately drawn from lower‑income men who lacked access to these legal protections [2] [8].
3. Administrative discretion and inequality: who could use deferments
Local draft boards exercised substantial discretion—deciding student status, evaluating academic standing, and judging hardship claims—creating opportunities for variability and influence that advantaged those with institutional support, better lawyers, or social capital [9] [4]. Contemporary reporting and later analysis emphasize that draft resistance “almost always paid off for those who could pay,” whether via college tuition, legal counsel, or occupational credentials, which produced a classed pattern of who served and who didn’t [2] [5].
4. Policy shifts narrowed the gap but arrived late
Public outcry and perceived unfairness prompted reforms: the lottery implemented in 1969 changed the order of call and in 1971 Congress moved to limit student and many other deferments, and the draft itself effectively ended in 1973 as the U.S. shifted to an all‑volunteer force [3] [4]. Scholars and encyclopedic accounts note that by the time deferments were curtailed, the selective calling of men earlier in the war had already produced an uneven burden of service and casualty exposure across socio‑economic lines [3] [1].
5. Measuring the impact: evidence and its limits
Quantitative studies link draft‑avoidance to increased male college enrollment and to demographic shifts (fertility, marriage timing) attributable to deferments and the paternity loophole, but researchers caution about identification challenges and the changing institutional rules across years—meaning estimates are robust about direction and sizeable effect but vary in magnitude depending on model and timeframe [1] [7]. Where reporting or popular narratives simplify the story into a single “class war,” academic work provides nuance: deferments were powerful and unequal, but their operation changed over the course of the conflict and was mediated by local boards and evolving federal policy [2] [10].
6. Political and cultural implications: why it matters
The selective application of deferments fed perceptions of inequity that helped catalyze antiwar sentiment and later draft reform; critics framed the system as “legalized class privilege,” while defenders pointed to policy complexity and changing military needs—both perspectives are rooted in the documentary and empirical record [2] [4]. Reporting shows that beyond statistics, the deferment system left a political legacy: debates about fairness in conscription informed the move to end the draft and shaped public memory of who bore the costs of Vietnam [5] [3].