Samuel S. Bowles, assistant professor of Economics, attacked this position as "cynical."

"I don't think that universities should try to get as much as they can." "Ultimately," he continued, 'this would reflect on colleges in a political way. We can't afford to let universities become a harbour of privilege," because they are too dependent for financial support and their academic independence on society.

Monro Supports Faculty Action

The resolution's supporters won at least one important convert yesterday. Dean Monro said he now agrees with the Rawls position that the Faculty -- as a collective body -- ought to take a position on deferments. Monro has long believed that the deferment was unfair, but before yesterday he thought that opposition to it should be expressed only by individuals or unofficial groups of Faculty members.

Monro praised Rawl's motion for not asking the University to stop its policy of computing class ranks. Monro has not changed his previous position on this policy -- that Harvard has an obligation to supply the rankings as long as deferments exist and local draft boards ask for them.

Not everyone at yesterday's meeting thought that the anti-deferment resolution was strong enough. Hilary W. Putnam, professor of Philosophy, told the Faculty he would have preferred a motion refusing to supply class rankings, as a way of dissociating Harvard from the war in Vietnam. "For me," he explained last night, "the injustice of the war far outweighs this or that inequity in the Selective Service System. And the Selective Service System the University community a part of the war."

Other speakers at the meeting included Oscar Handlin, Charles Warren Professor of American History. It was Handlin, who introduced the motion to table the anti-deferment resolution in December; he did not do the same thing at this meeting