No one can honestly believe that national affiliation will be without effect upon the policies and activities of the Harvard Student Union. The letter, printed elsewhere on this page, and written by what might be called a rump of the executive board in spite of its shadowy claims to unanimity, shows a frantic grasping for the integrity surrendered by last Thursday's vote.

It is as wishful as it is unconvincing to state that the National Committee will have no control over the Harvard chapter. If this "separate bedrooms" arrangement or "perfect understanding" theory maintains, the last excuse for joining the American Student Union vanishes. But of course such a convenient state of affairs can not exist, and even the most enthusiastic members of the Union are not such fools as to believe that their Harvard representative on the National Committee will have any significant voice in shaping national policy.

"Coordination" is a word obviously more fitted to catch the eye than the mind, and this is the function assigned the National Committee by the authors of the letter. If a control over the policies of the local chapters is to be rigorously eschewed, coordination will answer such crying needs as setting a common date for peace meetings and demonstrations of other sorts. The annual dues of the chapters will have to be very low indeed if such a service is to have a just price.

The independence necessary to any Harvard political organization has been carried off lock, stock, and barrel, by the tireless and determined radical group which first lulls the moderate members into dull complacency and sooner or later alienates them by its irresponsible activities. The letter leaves unanswered the significant question: what strength will be added to the Harvard Student Union by its half-hearted but involving connection with the national organization?