BOOK REVIEWS
LITTLE GROUPS OF NEIGHBORS: THE SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM. By James W. Davis, Jr. and Kenneth M. Dolbeare. Markham Publishing Co., Chicago, 1968. Pp. 268.
reviewer: William L. Shaw
====================================
THE SUPREME COURT AND THE NEWS MEDIA. By David L. Grey, Evansville: Northwestern University Press. 1968. Pp. 194. $5.95.
reviewer: Cephus L. Stephen

Shaw, William L.

Stephens, Cephus L.

English

Vanderbilt University Law School: Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law

Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 22 Issue 2 Issue 2 - March 1969 Article 8 3-1969 Book Reviews William L. Shaw Cephus L. Stephens Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr  Part of the Military, War, and Peace Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation William L. Shaw and Cephus L. Stephens, Book Reviews, 22 Vanderbilt Law Review 445 (1969) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol22/iss2/8 This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact mark.j.williams@vanderbilt.edu. BOOK REVIEWSLITTLE GROUPS OF NEIGHBORS: THE SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM. ByJames W. Davis, Jr. and Kenneth M. Dolbeare. Markham PublishingCo., Chicago, 1968. Pp. 268.The derisive title, "Little Groups of Neighbors," was apparentlychosen as a basis of ridicule of the Selective Service System in thematter of the local boards, numbering approximately 4,000throughout the United States. The descriptive term, "Little Groups,"which is obscure in meaning and random in origin, seems hardlysuitable as a title for a work which purports to be an analysis of theoperation of the Selective Service System.Throughout the publication the term "conscription" is usedextensively, yet nowhere is the expression defined by the authors. Thisis a definite omission, as the word lends itself to various meaningsand, interpretations. Apparently the authors .were unaware that inAmerican military history, the term "draft" is used to signify theenforcement by the government, either federal or state, of' aconstitutional right in the government to require all citizens andresident aliens of requisite age and capability to enter the militaryservice if called. One who is summoned to military service is usuallytermed a draftee or selectee. A "conscript," on the other hand, is onetaken by lot from a conscription list and compelled to serve as asoldier or sailor.' In the European military conscriptive systems,conscription is usually administered by the military authorities.However, in the United States, in the systems of 1917 and 1940 andfrom- 1948 through the present time, Selective Service is the civilianmode of registering, classifying, and forwarding for induction theselectees. The system is administered by local boards composedgenerally of citizens dwelling in the county where the registrant claimsresidence. The reiteration of the term "conscription" throughout thevolume seems to be an effort to create an impression of duress orcoercion in the minds of readers toward the workings of the SelectiveService System.Nearly hidden in the book is a statement which perhaps bestexplains the purpose of the work and may indicate the motives of theauthors (pp. 217-18).These seem to us reasons for considering the integration of Selective Servicewith manpower and employment activities of the Department of Labor . . ..Further, we see no reason for the continued emphasis on employment of1. Lanahan v. Birge, 30 Conn. 438, 443 (1862).2. Kneedler v. Lane, 45 Pa. 238, 267 (1863).445VANDERBILT LA W REVIEWNational Guard and Reserve officers in the National and regional (state)headquarters of the System. The skills requisite to manpower management are aslikely to be developed in the civilian sector in today's world . . . .We do notmean to nominate the Department of Labor particularly for a potentiallyonerous and perhaps unpopular task; we suggest that any civilian agency withdata processing and analysis experience . . . wotild be appropriate- theVeteran's Administration might be an equally practical choice.In other words, transfer the Selective Service functions anywhereaway from the System, just so there results a change from the presentmethod. This is a difficult theme to justify; namely, uproot selectiveservice despite almost 30 years of satisfactory experience andthereafter select any other federal agency to handle the project. Thisnotion by the authors is whimisical and unrealistic; furthermore, itdisregards the fact that we are now engaged in a period of activehostilities which may continue indefinitely and the Selective ServiceSystem as now constituted is producing the men needed by theDepartment of Defense.The book in a very brief discussion attempts to outline thedevelopment of the Selective Service System in the United States. Theresult is a superficial treatment of the evolution of the SelectiveService System. The authors state that "[c]onscripts were soughtunder the provisions of the Federal Enrollment Act of 1863 during theCivil War, with results which are celebrated under the title of the NewYork Draft Riots" (pp. 19-20). There is no mention of theConfederate Conscription and Exemption Acts of April, 1862, whichauthorized the Confederate Bureau to pass on the military liabilitiesof about 360,000 men within the Confederate States The authorsalso overlooked the Monroe Plan of 1814, wherein a proposal for afederal "draught" of men was tabled in the United States Senate ofDecember 28, 1814, by a 14-13 vote because the two Houses could notagree upon the term of service to be performed by drafted men.4The authors are unduly critical of local board members who arecharacterized as a local "elite" in their communities (although theterm "elite" has not been defined by the authors). This labellingavoids an objective review of the local boards and substitutes a subtleform of name-calling for actual appraisal and discussion.Although the authors intended the book to be a "systematicexamination of the structure, personnel, and operations of the3. See Shaw, The Confederate Conscription and Exemption Acts, 6 AM. JoUR. L. HIST.368-405 (1962).4. I American State Papers, Military Affairs 514 (1832). See also J. F. LEACH,CONSCRIPTION IN THE UNITED STATES: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 116-117 (1952).[ € OL. 22BOOK REVIEWSSelective Service System," several important areas were not discussed.In purporting to analyze the Selective Service System and present dayproblems, the authors have either overlooked or ignored thecontroversial subject of "ministers of religion," a statutory exemptionwhich has led to extensive litigation since 1940.' Another area ofomission is the matter of divinity students. This type of registrant ispreparing for the ministry, priesthood or rabbinate and is placed inClass IV-D rather than Class II where the majority of students fallYThe authors have also disregarded that vital phase of SelectiveService operations involving the Active and the Standby Reserves.7Entirely apart from the forwarding of registrants for induction intothe military, the Selective Service System records the transfer into theStandby Reserve of ready reservists whose status has altered and whoare comparatively inactive. This is not a minimal task nationwide, asthere were 513,964 standby reservists at the end of December, 1967,reduced from a peak of 1,655,172 in September, 1959.8 Standbyreservists, those who have completed military training and arepermitted to return to civilian pursuits, are classified by the localboards into four catagories. The Selective Service has the task ofkeeping track of these reservists, of inventorying their skills, and ofreviewing their status annually. Thus, the local board records savewhat would amount to many weeks of time in the event of a generalmobilization.Finally, the book contains no discussion of special calls fromlocal boards for the induction of professional medical, dental andveterinary personnel. At the end of December, 1967, there were193,319 physicians, dentists, osteopaths and veterinarians who wereregistered with Selective Service. In February, 1967, the Departmentof Defense requested and obtained from the Selective Service System2,200 physicians delivered from July to September, 1967.1Continually repeated throughout the book is the contention thatselective service has imposed an undue burden upon the lower incomebrackets and the relatively uneducated. This conclusion by the authorsis debatable and has been challenged by other authorities. 05. 50 U.S.C. App. § 456(g) (1964).6. "One claiming exemption under the Act as a student preparing for the ministry mustbe *satisfactorily pursuing' a 'Full time' course of instruction in a recognized theological ordivinity school." U.S. v. Bartelt, 200 F.2d 385, 388 (1952).7. SEL. SERV. RLG. § 1690, 32 C.F.R. § 1690-1690.23 (1968).8. DIRECTOR OF SEL. SERV. SEMI-ANN. REP. 15-17 (July-Dec. 1967).9. Id. at 14-15.10. See. e.g.. Ihe Dralt Ssiem: .Ire Relorms . eede?. Newsweek leature Service F-3(December 22, 1968). which concluded that "The truth seems to be that the present draft laws19693VANDERBILT LA W REVIEWAnother shortcoming of the book is that it devotes less than twopages to the Department of Defense Report of 1966," which in factconfirmed "the essentiality of the draft, both to supply the residualnumber of men needed to man our forces, and to encourage a largernumber of volunteers.' ' 2 The report offers proof that without the draft,the armed services and their reserve components would be seriouslyhandicapped in obtaining men. With regard to the 11.3 million menreceived into the armed forces between September, 1950 and June,1966, the Defense Report concludes: "Only 29% would havevolunteered in absence of the draft.'13The conclusion of this critic is that the book reads like a firstdraft which should be rewritten in the interest of simplicity ofexpression, avoidance of wishful thinking (such as the misuse of theterm "conscription"), the inclusion of such topics as the reserves, anda closer attention to the operations of the Selective Service System,free from the biased analysis of the authors.WILLIAM L. SHAW*are loaded much more in favor of the desperately poor than the ridiculously rich. The surest wayto avoid the Army is to get born into a ghetto family and attend ghetto schools as delinquentlyas possible until the age of 16. Then, when the induction call comes, you won't even be able toread the questions on the mental exam. And that is what has happened. The poorer one'seducation, the less likely one is to have to go into the armed services."1"1. On April 18, 1964, President Johnson, at a specially called press conference, ordered ageneral study of military manpower policies in order to determine whether by the 1970s,Selective Service inductions might be eliminated. Special consideration was to be given by theSecretary of Defense to alternatives to the draft and the possibility of relying upon volunteers inlieu of selectees. New York Times, April 19, 1964, at I: Hearings Bejbre the House ArmedServices Committee, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966).12. Hearings Before the House Armed Services Committee, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. 2 (1966).The following percentages represent those who would not have volunteered without the draft(Defense Dept. Report at 13):All Air MarineGroup Queried Services Army Navy Force CorpsRegular Enlistees 38% 43% 33% 43% 30%Officers 41 48 40 39 27Reserve Enlistees 71 72 75 80 50(Including National Guard)13. Id. at 14.* Colonel, JAGC, CAL ARNG (Ret.) The Judge Advocate, National Guard Associationof California.[N oL. 22BOOK REVIEWSTHE SUPREME COURT AND THE NEWS MEDIA. By David L. Grey,Evansville: Northwestern Urifiversity Press. 1968. Pp. 194. $5.95.Mr. Grey says of his thesis: "This book. . . attempts to analyzeone difficult situation of interaction between government and press"the problem of reporting not only the facts but also the significance ofUnited States Supreme Court opinions in the mass media.Mr. Justice Stone, after he had been on the Court for five years,wrote John Bassett More: "I often wonder whether people at largewill ever grasp what is going .on in the work of our Court." Mr.Justice Rutledge in 1946, in the case of Pennekamp v. Florida, wrote:"There is perhaps no area of news more inaccurately reportedfactually, on the whole, though with some notable exceptions, thanlegal news." Justice Rutledge felt that part of this factual inaccuracycould be attributed to carelessness brought about by the haste inwhich the news is published; a smaller portion could be laid to bias.But to Justice Rutledge, the most significant factor was attributableto ignorance, "which frequently is not all blameworthy," for''newspapers are conducted by men who are laymen to the law."It is the opinion of this reviewer that the author has met andthoroughly analyzed the challenge of his proposed study. His cogentcomments on the cases and situations are clear and thought-provoking.In the chapter dealing with the Court as a communicator, theauthor notes several of the factors which make effectivecommunication to the public difficult. These include: the vaguephraseology of the Constitution; the isolation of the Court andJustices from the public; the general custom that Justices do notexpand upon or explain publicly their decisions; the Justices'presupposition that legal opinions are seldom read by laymen andthus need not be written for the lay reader; the practice of keepingdecisions secret and of withholding the full text of opinions untilannounced in the courtroom; and the practice of handing downnumerous decisions in one day. The abolition of the "Monday-only"tradition for announcing decisions has helped this latter problem, butthe author points out that the Court floods the news media withnumerous decisions on other days.Professor Grey, in his examination and evaluation of the press inits coverage of the news of the Court, is of the opinion that, "[tihe1. 328 U.S. 331, 371 (1946) (concurring opinion).19691VANDERBILT LA W REVIEWCourt job [of the newsman] in many ways is like no other inWashington. The Court is the only part of the federal governmentwhere the newsman is left totally on his own." For example, pressconferences or briefings do not exist.One of the most significant reasons for the poor coverage or theCourt is that the overwhelming majority of the newsmen are nottrained in the law. Justice Douglas, in speaking of the decisions of theSupreme Court, has observed that the decisions "require at times theeconomist's understanding, the poet's insight, the executive'sexperience, the political scientist's understanding, the historian'sperspective." And, one might add, a knowledge of the law. Thisdemands more than can be expected of the newsman on generalassignment to the Court.The author points to the New York Times as an example of anewspaper that has a highly commendable record for its reporting ofthe opinions of the Court. No doubt one of the major reasons for thisexcellent record can be attributed to the fact that the Times pioneeredin the policy of using Court newsmen trained in the law. Among othernewspapers which are noted for their comprehensive coverage or theCourt are the Washington Post and the Washington Evening Star.Of special interest is the author's examination in specific detail ofthe news coverage in a selected number of cases. He contrasts the1962 New York Regents prayer case of Engel v. Vitale,2 which causeda public "furor," with the 1963 Bible reading and Lord's Prayerdecision, School District of Abington Township v. Schemnpp,' whichwas accepted with "calm." Although the Engel decision could havebeen predicted by observers of the Court, the shock was traumatic forthe public, which was left generally unaware of the issues. Better newscoverage preceding Schempp resulted in more people being "ready"for that decision.In another instance, the news media confused the public bypublicizing a remark of Mr. Justice Douglas, made in con-nection with another case. Referring to Everson v. Board o/Education,4 a case involving public support for transporting parochialschool pupils to their schools, Justice Douglas digressed in hisconcurring opinion in the Engel case to say, "The Everson case seemsin retrospect to be out of line with the First Amendment. '", The2. 370 U.S. 421 (1962).3. 374 U.S. 203 (1963).4. 330 U.S. 1 (1946).5. 370 U.S. at 443.[\IoL. 22BOOK REVIEWSresulting publicity given the remark raised serious questions in themind of the public concerning a policy previously held by the Courtto be constitutional.Further, the author finds the news coverage of the 1963reapportionment case, Baker v. Carr, to be "prize-winning effort,"but characterizes the coverage of Miranda v. Arizona,7 whichrestricted police powers in interrogation of suspects, as an effort that"fell short." The author notes that Anthony Lewis of the New YorkTimes was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for his distinguished reporting ofthe Court's proceedings during 1962, with special reference to hiscoverage of Baker v. Carr. The author cites the summary analysis ofthat decision which was published by the Times and suggests that theanalysis "does point out what the press can do when full manpowerand other resources are put to work." On the other hand, the authorfeels "that parts of the why were missing in the Time's Mirandacoverage as they were in the New York Regents prayer case cov-erage in 1962."Drawing from his study a number of suggestions for theimprovement of news coverage of the Court decisions, Mr. Greyadvocates that Court newsmen be law-trained, but warns that suchreporters should not fall into the habit of "writing too much forlawyers." The author recommends that the Court release to newsmena case decision headnote when the decision is announced and considerspreading out decision days. In this connection the author feels it isironic that the effort of the Association of American Law Schools toprepare on-the-scene interpretations of the Court decisions in the pressroom was abandoned. The author emphasizes that ". . . the Courtshould not only show more empathy with the real problems of thepress and public understanding but also should consider even moreseriously the full ranges of real, possible, positive steps that could betaken." Likewise, "[t]he Court should be candid in outlining exactlywhat it has and has not decided. It should be careful to distinguishbetween what is law and what is obiter dicta-incidental remarks thatsometimes confuse what the Court said."Other recommendations include the adoption by the Court of apolicy of distributing copies of its opinions to "interested segments ofsociety" and the utilization of a press representative, not thetraditional type of news reporter but "someone who could help6. 369 U.S. 186 (1962).7. 384 U.S. 436 (1966).19691452 VANDERBILT LAW REVIEW ['VOL. 22newsmen and lay publics by providing objective and nonpromotionalinformation about the legal issues."Perhaps the book's merit may best be seen in the author'scompetence in utilizing the case method of analysis. This reviewerexpressly recommends this book to the attention of newspaperpublishers, editors, and court reporters, who should find it valuableself-instruction in the sorely-needed improvement of legal newscoverage. Those who teach courses in constitutional law and in publicopinion should find the book useful as a reference work; it is awelcome addition to the literature of those fields.CEPHUS L. STEPHENS** Professor of Political Science, Denison University.

Book Reviews

https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3456&context=vlr

Book Reviews

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Vanderbilt University Law School: Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law