Search

In the mid-1970s, many U.S. citizens who had not complied with the requirement that they participate in the military of the United States during the Vietnam War faced a dilemma. In the preceding decade, tens of thousands of them had immigrated to Canada—both legally and illegally—to resist compulsory military service. Richard Nixon refused to allow these resisters to return to the United States. His successor, Gerald Ford, allowed expatriates to return if they agreed to do alternative service. Jimmy Carter attempted to resolve the crisis with an amnesty. Canada did not participate in the Vietnam War and refused to extradite American men to the United States for violations of most conscription and military laws. However, in 1973, in the middle of an immigration crisis, Canada forced the hand of many Americans and others who had entered the country clandestinely by giving them only sixty days to reconcile their residency status with the Canadian government or to risk becoming illegal immigrants and to face deportation. The shifting matrix of laws on both sides of the U.S.–Canada border forced American exiles to decide whether to risk having a status that officially satisfied neither country, to accept the terms of the Ford or Carter repatriation plans and reclaim the perquisites of life in the United States, to remain illegal immigrants in Canada, or to acquire Canadian citizenship. Residency in Canada opened the possibility for a different type of citizenship for American men, one less concerned with their potential contribution to the military might of a nation and more tolerant of their freedom of expression, which might include opposition to war.

In May 1971, in the Admiral's Room of the Detroit airport, 12 miles (20 kilometres) from the U.S.-Canadian border, delegates to a joint conference of the Canadian Council of Churches and the U.S.-based National Council of Churches closed their meeting by speculating whether the groups' cooperation on the handling of draft resisters ana military deserters who had left the United States for Canada could act as any sort of model for U.S.-Canadian relations in general.1 This was a particularly prescient concern about which to speculate. The resister aeserter issue had been a sore point between the two nations for the past several years, particularly the previous two.2 Several denomina tions of churches in the United States, Canada, and elsewhere in the world had provided financial support, shelter, and various forms of counsel to American men who had moved to Canada. The U.S.

men were of draft age, but only 8.7 million men served in the military. Of those, about 2.2 million men served in Vietnam, while 6.5 million served elsewhere in the world. As the historian Michael S. Foley has observed, the Johnson and Nixon presidencies forced draft-age men to choose either to fight in a war that many considered to be illegal and immoral, to go to jail instead of serving in the military, or find a way to avoid both war and jail. These choices, says Foley, "haunt many of that generation and . . . contribute significantly to the cynicism so many American have come to share about the faithfulness of their government." Reckoning with how and whether to serve in the military was such a wracking decision that many popular magazines, such as Time, Newsweek, U.S. News and World Report, Senior Scholastic, The New Yorker and even Better Homes and Gardens offered advice to draft age men and their families. Draft-age men faced myriad possibilities. They could wait to be drafted and serve as told. They could volunteer for a branch of the military, reserves, National Guard, or ROTC (Reserve Officer Training Corps). They could try to get conscientious objector status, which was very difficult during the Vietnam War era. They could avoid service by trying to get deferments for being married, having children, or being in college or graduate school. They could get or act hurt in order to try to flunk the Selective Service System's physical and psychological examinations to determine fitness for military service. They could elect to go to jail for up to five years. Some men entered the military, but later regretted it and chose to desert. Some men were unable to find deferments or could not face jail. Both of these groups were forced to go into exile and went into hiding all over the world, including underground in the United States. Canada and Sweden were the best places to go in order to avoid risk of arrest or extradition for violation of Selective Service or military laws. Foley feels that draft resisters were to the anti-Vietnam War movement what lunch counter sit-in participants were to the civil rights movement. The draft resistance movement started as early as 1967, predating other events that polarized much of the nation about the war, such as the Tet Offensive, revelations of the atrocities at My Lai, and the invasion of Cambodia. Protesting the Vietnam War: The March on the Pentagon, October 21, 1967. (Photo by Frank Wolfe, courtesy of the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library, serial number: 7052-8.)

Microprocessor-controlled audiometers produce, within acceptable variation, hearing threshold levels comparable to those obtained with manual audiometry and within similar time frames. The new generation of audiometers makes it possible for any threshold seeking procedure to be programmed and standardized at all test locations. Moreover, these automated hearing test instruments can also be programmed to provide fault detection algorithms which make it difficult for individuals to falsify the audiometric data. Tentative performance specifications have been identified for the development of an MCA for use in Navy hearing conservation programs. Since none of the instruments evaluated incorporates all of the tentative specifications, it would be premature for the Navy to purchase any off-the-shelf MCAs for use in its hearing conservation programs.

Landing signal officers (LSOs), exposed to high noise levels during carrier operations, do not routinely wear hearing protectors. Noise exposure data obtained during carrier qualifications on the USS Lexington and the USS Forrestal suggested a clear risk for hearing damage. Moreover, a comparison of the hearing of LSO and non-LSO pilots matched for age and number of flight hours, indicated a trend for LSOs to have poorer hearing. Questionnaire data from 225 LSOs indicate they need full access to aircraft auditory cues, which is not attainable with current off-the-shelf hearing protectors. It is recommended that a hearing protector be developed for the LSO which would permit passage of critical auditory cues and, at the same time, provide hearing protection. There should be a redesign or elimination of the UHF handset. If eliminated, a boom-type noise-cancelling microphone in conjunction with earphones integral to the hearing protector should be considered. Additional hearing studies of LSO and non-LSO pilots should be undertaken. Language: en