The Case for NSA

This statement represents a minority opinion of the editorial board on the NSA issue.

The opportunities available to Harvard through membership in the National Student Association outweigh any possible disadvantages. By rejoining NSA, Harvard students have the chance to advance for students everywhere the ideals and opportunities they find so precious here.

The arguments against the College's participation in NSA center around a few salient points:

First, opponents of NSA claim that the Association is viewed by the public as a lobby group for a monolithic student opinion that does not really exist. But there is on many vital issues a majority consensus among American students that can be valuably asserted. As a safeguard against false unanimity, though, NSA has provided that should a college disagree with majority resolutions, it can register a written vote of dissent; Harvard can go on record as disagreeing with any actions of NSA it finds noxious.

Second, students have claimed that NSA resolutions have been passed in farcical travesties of parliamentary procedure. NSA, though, has now nullified many of these objections through procedural reforms: Fewer resolutions are presented; they are discussed thoroughly in workshop committees, and qualified opinion from outside experts is solicited. Furthermore, NSA is strengthening general student consciousness of issues; a "Project Awareness" program for presenting issues on campuses will encourage the representation at the congresses of a more informed student opinion.

Third, Harvard objectors have complained about the quality of the University's NSA delegates. A better electoral procedure here would remedy faults in this situation. If a committee composed of representatives of the Student Council and various organizations (such as exists for the Combined Charities Drive) sought out and nominated capable and interested representatives, Harvard could obtain a highly qualified delegation.

Not only are the disadvantages of NSA membership being lessened, the potential benefits make joining eminently worthwhile. The NSA serves valuable functions domestically and abroad. On the national scene the Student Association is active in bringing issues of academic freedom (such as NDEA) and federal aid to education into the awareness of students and key governmental officials alike.

On the international scene NSA provides scholarships through the World University Service for student leaders from other countries and organizes exchange visits. Perhaps even more significant than these activities is the role NSA assumes in the International Student Conference (ISC). The future leaders of especially the underdeveloped nations are often active in their student associations, and these associations are often active in politics. NSA has a unique chance to communicate with these students and through its resolutions of policy demonstrate that Americans are aware of their problems and sympathetic to their aspirations.

From the point of view of Harvard itself, membership in NSA offers a valuable opportunity for University students interested in world student problems to channel their efforts through NSA and the ISC--a chance that would be lost if Harvard stays out of NSA.

It would be paradoxical for University students who prize academic freedom and student welfare to stay outside an organization that has such vast potential for advancing these ideals in less fortunate student communities. Whatever unattractiveness there is to Harvard students in being represented in a national association with other American students should be outweighed by the unique, and in these times momentuous, opportunities available through NSA. Harvard's influence as an eminent academic institution would both strengthen the Association and make the University's membership fruitful; students should vote to rejoin the NSA.