The decision of the Harvard Student Union to hold an indoor, rather than an outdoor meeting was a wise one. If the Union had arrived at the opposite conclusion, it would not have secured official countenance, which lends inestimable momentum to the peace movement. Official approval lends dignity and force to what might otherwise be considered jejeune idealism.

Aside from securing University Hall support, the membership has demonstrated its intelligence. Past outdoor strikes have proven to be jamborees of one sort or another where unconcerned spectators are present merely "to see the fun". At other times meetings have degenerated into riots. Affirmatively regarded, an indoor meeting is more suitable, for peace, unfortunately, is not an essentially emotional subject, and its "message" cannot be most effectively delivered by a hoarse stump-speaker. Its appeal, devoid of such window-dressing as bands and flags, must be primarily made to reason.

The vote on whether the occasion of April 22 is to be called a "strike" or not might well have been referred to the total membership as the question of national affiliation was. The majority vote for "strike" causes some measure of sorrow. If the college approves, against what is the so-called strike directed? Another full-blooded word seems to be loosing its vitality through corruption of meaning, in a manner reminiscent of once expressive adjectives appropriated by the film industry.

But whether it is to be called a strike, meeting or rally is, of course, a small point. The emphatic approval of an indoor meeting and the support of Dean Hanford augur greater success for the cause of peace, and the Student Union is to congratulated for both reasons.