Graphic By Charles Nailen/The Hoya

Georgetown University students are significantly less supportive of military action in response to last week’s terrorist attacks than the rest of the country at large, a poll of 157 students taken this week by The Hoya found. The poll also found that Georgetown students are overwhelmingly opposed to instituting a draft in the future and only somewhat confident in the government’s ability to manage the situation.

Seventy-four percent of Georgetown students said that they would “support the use of U.S. military forces against those found to be responsible” if they thought such action would make a difference. Twelve percent disagreed and 14 percent said they were unsure.

In the most recent ABC News nationwide poll, 93 percent of respondents said that the best response to the attacks was military action.

The poll conducted by The Hoya revealed that a significant percentage of students are still undecided about the best course of action for the nation in the wake of the attacks. In only one question out of six were less than one-fifth of students undecided about the questions posed to them.

Of those polled, 57.3 percent said they would not “support a draft to support the existent military forces maintained by the United States if a protracted war were to occur.” Also, 22 percent said that they would support a draft, and 20.7 percent said that they were unsure.

Female opinion was far less supportive of a draft, with only 17.4 percent of respondents supporting a draft as compared to 28.1 percent of men who said they would support a draft.

One half of all respondents said that they “trust the government to effectively manage the situation.” Of respondents, 22.4 percent said that they did not, while 27.6 percent said that they were unsure.

The poll also found that 49 percent of Georgetown students were unwilling “to accept civilian casualties sustained during an attack against those found to be responsible.” Thirty percent said that they would be willing to accept civilian casualties and 21 percent said that they were unsure.

Female respondents were far less likely to accept civilian casualties, with 54.6 percent saying that they would not, as opposed to 41.5 percent of men. Of women, 23.3 percent said they would be willing to accept civilian casualties, with 40 percent of men saying they would accept them.

Opinion was closely split on the question of U.S. military casualties. Of those polled, 41.3 percent said that they would “be willing to accept American casualties sustained during an attack against those found to be responsible.” Thirty-four percent said that they would not, while 24.7 percent said that they were unsure.

Men and women split widely on this question, with 57.8 percent of men willing to accept U.S. military casualties, compared to only 29 percent of women. Female opinion was broadly distributed, with 43 percent unwilling to accept military casualties and 27.9 percent unsure. Only 21.8 percent of men were unwilling to accept military casualties.

The campus also diverged on the question of whether it would “support a sustained war against a nation found to have aided or sheltered those responsible for the attacks.” Of those polled, 42.3 percent of respondents said they would support an extended war, while 36.2 said they would not, and 21.5 percent said they were unsure.

Men were much more supportive of the possibility of an extended war at 51.5 percent compared to 35.3 percent of women.

The poll was conducted Sunday night in Sellinger Lounge and Henle Village and during Monday afternoon in New South cafeteria and selected classrooms in ICC. In total, 150 students responded to the survey, which consisted of the six preceding questions and a question about the respondents’ sex. All field work was conducted by members of The Hoya staff.

– Staff Writers Ruthie Braunstein, Dave Heaton, Liz cDonald, Charles Nailen, Stephen Owens, Anne Rittman, Marcie Rubin and Samantha Friedman contributed to this report.