Every day that the Student Union remains divided on the delicate problem of whether or not it should support collective security, its value to the undergraduate body diminishes, and steps should be taken to reconcile the two opposing factions before it is too late.

It is only too clear from the nature of the controversy that misrepresentation, demagoguery, and pressure politics have been resorted to in the past and are being planned for the future. And in a college organization of this sort, particularly when it is dealing with a subject as vast and intangible as world peace, there is absolutely no cause for employing these parliamentary tricks. The fact that two hundred Harvard students advocate leagues of nations, Ludlow amendments or lisle lingerie is not going to alter the course of human events to any marked degree. Nor is the fact that twenty out of the two hundred can impose their will on the rest likely to bring these men any large return, either in fame or fortune.

What the Student Union can gain, and what it can give to the student body, is a sound working knowledge of democratic procedure, rational debate, and intelligent compromise. It has made a praiseworthy effort to recruit men from all schools of thought, but the crucial test is whether it will now become an arena for indiscriminate strife, or an enlightened and diversified forum. "Every city and house divided against itself shall not stand," and the Student Union should put its house in order before it ceases to be of value and falls of its own weight.