COUNSELING CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS:
COMBATTING THE STEREOTYPES

Stereotypes about conscientious objectors are common. Military personnel often judge their own qualification for CO discharge on the basis of stereotypes rather than the legal definition of objection. Military counselors and attorneys sometimes make assumptions about their clients based on stereotypes. Most problematic is the fact that officers who review CO claims frequently judge applicants' beliefs and sincerity on the basis of their own ideas about what CO's are like rather than the requirements of the regulations.

The stereotypes are not surprising. People tend to assume that CO's are bright, thoughtful, articulate and gentle people who look and sound sincere. CO's are expected to be better educated than their peers, to read a lot and to be eager to talk about their convictions with anyone who will listen. Of course they are expected to be white and middle class. They are usually presumed to be religious -- and Christian, at that -- or to have esoteric moral beliefs based on the teachings of great moral leaders. They are expected to be total pacifists who would no more raise their voice to a sergeant than they would hurt a fly. They should sound sincere and shyly eloquent.

These stereotypes are just fine if your client happens to be an articulate, white, middle-class clerk with a gentle voice and a traditional belief system. But many of our clients do not match these images, and their CO claims may suffer because chaplains, investigating officers (IO's) or others don't think they fit the part. In order to represent these clients well, counselors and attorneys should give special attention to the problems posed by the stereotypes.

This article offers a few practical suggestions for those representing clients--generally those from poor or working class backgrounds -- who don't fit the stereotypes about education, language and style.

TALKING ABOUT CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION

Many young men and women join the military knowing little or nothing about conscientious objection. Many define objection only in terms of the stereotypes mentioned here. Others have heard that CO's are cowards, opportunists, radicals or crazies. Some think that CO's must be life-long members of peace churches and total pacifists, with beliefs grounded in abstract philosophies or complex theological principles.

When counseling new clients seeking discharge, it is important to be sensitive to their and our own stereotypes about CO's. Counselors or attorneys sometimes face the temptation to focus on the discharge clients mention first, or the one that seems to fit them at first glance. Clients who start out by asking for help with a gay discharge, or who say they want out because "I feel like I'm about to lose it," may lead counselors or attorneys to emphasize discharges for homosexual conduct or personality disorder, respectively. The problem may be complicated by the fact that many clients will assert they are not CO's, or appear insulted when the term is mentioned.

However, many of these men and women are conscientious objectors, and CO discharges may be their best option. Clients who don't say they are CO's may not know that they are, may not realize people can still be discharged for this reason, or may ask about another discharge because a friend got out that way. Clients who express hostility or contempt towards CO beliefs may nonetheless oppose killing and war for reasons of conscience. And clients who say they could never get out as COs may wrongly believe that only total pacifists, or life-long pacifists, or peace church pacifists will qualify. Initial discussion with clients should include a detailed explanation of conscientious objection, as is the case with most discharge categories. Clients should be encouraged to describe their beliefs about war, to ensure that neither we nor our clients fall prey to the stereotypes.

WRITING AN APPLICATION

Not every CO can write a clear and articulate claim. Given the qualify of our educational system, many military personnel write at a junior high school level, at best. For some, writing is a painful task, spelling is guesswork, and finding the right word or phrase to express a feeling is agony.

The ability to get words down on paper normally has no relation to the sincerity or validity of beliefs, but it may have a profound effect on the success of CO claims. It is essential that clients who lack strong writing skills have help in preparing applications. At the same time, it is extremely important that the applications are their own, using their language and ideas to get across their beliefs in a way that reviewing officers can understand and appreciate.

For some clients, talking is easier than writing. It may help to have them talk about their beliefs at some length before they begin writing. In addition, they may want to use a tape recorder or dictaphone to talk out their answers to the questions in the application, and to write from their own dictation or hire a typist to prepare written drafts. Particularly if the command has other samples of their writing, clients may want to explain in the application that they have recorded and then written out their answers, or that they dictated answers for transcription. Nervousness when using a tape recorder may be a problem, but most people can overcome it with practice; this also provides good experience for those who will want to tape record CO interviews.

Many young men and women leave school with a limited ability to write and think abstractly. These clients commonly have the great difficulty with the first substantive question in the CO application, which asks for a description of the nature of their beliefs. Since the remaining questions are somewhat more experiential and practical, it may help clients to start with the second question and work their way to the end, then return to the first question. Along the way, applicants will make a number of practical statements about their beliefs which can be developed when they return to the first question.

These clients may also write too concretely about their experiences, without describing the development of beliefs or ideas associated with the experiences. "I went to church when I was a boy" is no substitute for "I went to church when I was a boy, and I didn't question what I learned there, but I didn't think about what it meant for my life." With a little questioning, counselors and attorneys can encourage clients to express the religious or moral lesson or growth that accompanied church attendance, the death of a friend, a day on the firing range or other significant experiences.

Clients who have little experience in essay writing often prepare disjointed drafts in which ideas and experiences are not well organized or connected. They may benefit from an outline breaking each question into smaller components. Without telling clients what to write, counselors and attorneys can use an outline to explain the topic areas that may be covered in each question and a logical order for the topics. This breaks questions down into manageable chunks and provides a logical structure for answers.

Some reviewing officers are quite impressed with CO's who can describe theological reading, dialog or correspondence preceding or following the crystallization of their beliefs. While such intellectual efforts are certainly not necessary in CO claims, it is essential to document the reflection which accompanies development of CO beliefs. CO's who lack an intellectual background are no less likely to reflect on their beliefs than others, but they are less likely to describe the process. Counselors and attorneys can help by asking for descriptions of the emotional or spiritual process by which beliefs changed, and making sure those descriptions end up in the application, particularly in the second and third questions.

Clients often ask to see other CO applications, and it is tempting to agree when they are having difficulty with their own applications. Yet these clients may be the most susceptible to the temptation to borrow words or phrases from other writers -- words or phrases that won't match their own language during interviews.

Clients may also unintentionally borrow words or phrases from their counselors or attorneys. It is important to warn them that reviewing officers may notice any disparity between different parts of an application, or between the application and interviews. We should watch for borrowed language when reviewing applications, since clients are often unaware that they have used others' words.

Many clients have real trouble with spelling, punctuation and grammar. Since their commands may have samples of this in other writings, it is often best to ignore spelling or punctuation mistakes in the application unless they change meaning. If clients prefer to have someone proofread for spelling and punctuation, this should be mentioned in the application. While problems of grammar sometimes make applications hard to read, they often parallel speaking patterns and, at least in this writer's view, should be changed only if necessary for an understanding of the text.

Clients who have difficulty writing usually need to do a good deal of re-writing, and this can be a frustrating experience. Criticism of their drafts should be tempered with that understanding and should be combined with praise for positive aspects of the applications. Counselors and attorneys need to avoid the temptation to limit criticism and discussion of drafts in these cases, since the process of editing and rewriting is essential for strong applications and excellent preparation for interviews.

PREPARING FOR INTERVIEWS

Advance preparation for interviews is always importance, but has special significance for clients who have problems expressing ideas verbally and clients who are simply nervous in front of officers. It helps to talk at length with these clients about ways to handle interviews, and to practice interviews beforehand.

Talking with clients about the style of interviews and ways to respond to difficult questions or questioning techniques can be quite helpful. By way of example, counselors and attorneys can offer suggestions about responding to rapid, aggressive questioning ("feel free to ask the IO to slow down or repeat a question; tell her you'd like to say something more about that last question; stop and take a few breaths if she's rushing you; keep an eye on your temper because she's trying to get a rise out of you," etc.) and about responding to questions they don't understand ("ask her to rephrase it, talk in generalities while you think about the question, don't say you've never thought about it if it's a basic kind of issue").

Counselors and attorneys can also help clients prepare mental checklists of the ideas they want to get across in the interviews. This allows applicants to organize the information they want to volunteer if chaplains or IO's don't ask the right questions. Additionally, we can help clients notice and deal with nervous mannerisms which might be distracting during interviews or might be misinterpreted as evidence of insincerity.

There is no substitute for practice interviews. The questions listed at the end of CCCO's Advice for Conscientious Objectors in the Armed Forces are excellent and can be supplemented with questions about recent and current military actions and conditions. If clients are too comfortable with their counselors, it may help to bring in someone else to play the role of chaplain or IO. Tape recording the practice sessions will make clients more comfortable with recorders and allow them to review the sessions.

In the course of practice interviews, it is useful to practice responses to difficult questioning styles as well as the questions themselves. Clients who have never developed debating skills may have trouble maintaining a measure of control over the interview. Practice sessions allow them to develop ways to assert their views in the face of hostile or confusing questions. These sessions can also help less articulate clients learn to elaborate on their ideas, avoiding the monosyllabic style in which many enlisted people deal with officers.

Finally, practice sessions can be used to test questions that stem from stereotypes about intellectual background, theological study, or speaking or writing style. Clients who have thought about these questions are less likely to be defensive or apologetic. When clients learn not to treat these things as weaknesses, it becomes a little more difficult for IO's and chaplains to do so. For example, clients may want to comment on their lack of writing or speaking skills before the issue is raised by the IO; they may practice ways to remind interviewers that it is not written texts and denominational teachings that are important to them, but God's communication with them through soul or conscience, if that fits their beliefs.

INTERVIEWS

Clients who have difficulty expressing themselves in interviews may benefit even more than others from the presence of a counselor or attorney at their IO interview. And while counselors and attorneys generally do not attend chaplain interviews, this may be useful with inarticulate clients. Representatives can intervene if chaplains or IOs engage in hostile, rapid-fire or confusing questioning, or rephrase questions where clients have trouble understanding them. In some cases, representatives may take the offensive and talk about clients' difficulty in speaking publicly or expressing ideas, pointing out that such things have no relation to the criteria for conscientious objection and are inappropriate considerations. It may be valuable to discuss the case law on this issue, some of which is discussed below. (This is particularly true in Navy cases, where commands are encouraged to use JAGs as IOs.)

Some clients are more comfortable if a friend, family member or church member attends the hearing to offer moral support, while others may feel awkward or nervous talking in front of people they know. With inexpressive clients, it may be particularly useful to present witnesses to bolster the clients' testimony.

Unless there are reliable guarantees that a transcript will be made, IO interviews and perhaps chaplain interviews should be taped in most of these cases. Interviewers sometimes misunderstand or distort clients' comments, and the problem is magnified when clients are not articulate. Accurate records are essential where bad recommendations or decisions result from bias against or misunderstanding of clients.

REBUTTALS

If rebuttals to adverse recommendations are necessary in these cases, they normally should be done by the counselor or attorney. Where clients have stumbled or misspoken during interviews, the rebuttal may also include their statements, perhaps under oath, to clarify issues. Additional witness statements can be added at this point to rebut erroneous IO findings or buttress weak points.

Where clients are assisted in CO proceedings by counselors rather than attorneys, and where clients feel they may want to litigate denial of their claims, it is helpful to consult an attorney experienced in military law at this point, since the rebuttal can be used to ensure that an appropriate record is made for litigation.

CASE LAW

During the Vietnam era, a number of military and draft CO cases considered the problem of claimants whose views were not clearly or artfully expressed. Federal appellate courts frequently held that being inarticulate was not a proper basis for denial of a CO claim.

Courts found support for this view in United States v. Seeger, 380 US 163 (1965). Immediately after its well-known explanation of the breadth of beliefs which may qualify as religious, the Supreme Court stated:

"[I]t must be remembered that in resolving these exemption problems one deals with the beliefs of different individuals who will articulate them in a multitude of ways."

This language was expanded a little in United States v. James, 417 F.2d 826 (4th Cir. 1969), a draft case involving a claimant whose "religious views [were] not set forth at length or articulately." Footnoting the Seeger quotation above, the court stated that "we believe, nevertheless, that not only the articulate may qualify as conscientious objectors."

In Gruca v. Secretary of the Army, 436 F.2d 239 (D.C. Cir. 1970) cert.den. 401 US 978, the appellate court denied an objector's petition for habeas corpus, but wrote at length about the problem facing uneducated or inarticulate applicants:

"It will be recalled that the Board noted that Gruca 'was very quiet and information was difficult to obtain [and] he either could not or would not express himself in any way.' [citation omitted] When we consider this observation in tandem with the clumsiness of Gruca's written views, we are led to suspect that Gruca was badly handicapped through lack of education in his attempt to establish his claim....If the Board denied Gruca the desired status because it mistook his inability to express himself for an unwillingness to do so, or if Gruca was simply unable to make a convincing presentation because of his lack of education, then we cannot pretend that justice has been done.

"This is only a single instance of a recurring problem. There is a real risk that the conscientious objector classification has become a shelter reserved exclusively for the glib or well educated registrant who has learned how to speak the language of sincerity. Since it is obvious that the sincerity of a registrant's belief is not, in theory, a function of his education or his ability to express himself, this exclusivity is intolerable."

Other helpful cases include Helwick v. Laird, 438 F.2d 959 (5th Cir. 1971) ("One does not have to be a St. Augustine or a Thomas Aquinas to qualify as a conscientious objector...." "Conscientious objection has no necessary relation to intellectual sophistication."); United States v. Stetter, 445 F.2d 472 (5th Cir. 1971); United States v. Joyce, 437 F.2d 740 (7th Cir. 1971); United States v. Zaragoza, 449 F.2d 1278 (9th Cir. 1971) (Where the claimant was a high school drop-out and not fluent in English, "we do not hold him to the standards of eloquence and sophistication one might expect from a graduate student in philosophy."); Rastin v. Laird, 445 F.2d 645 (9th Cir. 1971) ("A person may be both naive and immature and still be very sincere and hold deep convictions.") and United States v. Peterson, 456 F.2d 1099 (8th Cir. 1972).

At least one Vietnam-era case went against this trend. In Bishop v. United States, 412 F.2d 1064 (9th Cir. 1969), the court considered CO beliefs which grew out of a claimant's Bible study with the Jehovah's Witnesses. The court held that:

"Therefore, since Bishop claims to have derived his beliefs through exercise of his intellect, his inherent ability to formulate such thoughts are [sic] relevant to the honesty and sincerity of the asserted beliefs. In these circumstances, Bishop's 'intellectual capacity' is one of the 'objective facts' from which inferences as to his sincerity or insincerity can be drawn."

The case serves as a reminder that clients who discuss their reading of religious texts are expected to be knowledgeable about them--often unreasonably so--and that clients who emphasize conscience or spiritual communication with their God may have less difficulty. It also reminds us that courts are not always sympathetic to those who have not "learned how to speak the language of sincerity." As counselors and attorneys, we must help our clients to speak this language in their own words, while reminding the military that "not only the articulate" should be granted CO status.

(The author would like to thank attorney Jim Feldman for his review of the case law discussed in this article.)