| OCR Text |
Show Reclassification OK Editor: I was amused by the article concerning con-cerning Mr. Huey's reclassification which appeared in the Chronicle of Nov. 14. Mr. Huey's contention that it is unconstitutional to reclassify reclass-ify him is ridiculous. First of all the student deferment is not a right which one receives merely because one is a student. A student deferment is a priviledge which is granted to a person because be-cause it is in the national interest to have educated people. Mr. Huey's statement that reclassification re-classification is a move to punish those who are morally opposed to the Vietnam war is absolutely absurd, ab-surd, because they are not reclassifying reclassi-fying all who are opposed to the war, but merely those who attempt to physically obstruct the operation of the Selective Service System or the armed forces recruiting system as Mr. Huey did. The attempts by Mr. Huey and others to justify their actions on the basis of the right to protest under the guarantee of free speech in the Constitution are using faulty reasoning. reason-ing. Free speech means just that. The right of free speech. I am sure that if Mr. Huey had merely vocalized voc-alized his protest he would still have his precious H-S classification. His physical actions to thwart the recruiting and inducting of people into the army is the same as if those opposed to prostitution started start-ed shooting prostitutes or those opposed op-posed to liquor went to liquor stores and destroyed the liquor. In other words, physical interference is not free speech. Since this type of interference cannot be justified as free speech, and it is not in the national interest, I cannot see how Mr. Huey can claim he is acting in the national , interest and deserving of a deferment. defer-ment. Edward T. Wells |
