One of the most firesome features of the activities of political pressure groups at Harvard is the constant sniping of the smaller organizations at the Student Union. Every major move it makes is accompanied by accusations that it is Communist-dominated, self-seeking, and unrepresentative. The latest and perhaps the most annoying blast has come, on the eve of an H.S.U. sponsored Peace Rally, from the Harvard Anti-War Committee.

Everyone knows that the H.S.U. leans to the left, and expects that all of its activities will be pointed in that direction. It is obvious that much of its driving force originates in its considerable bloc of Young Communists and fellow travelers. But only a few resent this. They charge that H.S.U. policy is vicious because it appears to follow the Kremlin, and cite as an example the fact that last year the H.S.U. was asking for collective security, and now is on an isolationist tack. The answer to that is that the H.S.U. has learned well the lesson of the World War; that America has a fatal tendency to jump into Europe when war is raging, and then pull out when peace comes.

The fact remains that the H.S.U. is the most successful political group now active in the College. However pinkish may be the sources of its energy, the energy is there, and just at present it is directed toward achieving something vital to everyone" peace. Smaller organizations cannot hope to block up that energy, or erase its coloring.

The burden of proof lies with these lesser groups. Right now they are not doing as good a job of stirring up peace sentiment in the College as the H.S.U. If they think they can help, that the cause of peace would benefit by their support, then their contentious accusations are a stupid way of showing it. They complain that having a C.I.O. man speak for a meeting sponsored in part by the H.S.U. means the sacrificing of peace to politics. Strangely, it is Norman Thomas, their own headliner, who is doing just that. Mr. Quill is willing to speak together with Mr. Thomas, but not vice versa.

The Socialist Party has ever and always stood for peace. It seams pathetic that now the party's leader should allow an antipathy for what he conceives to be the red tendencies of C.I.O. and H.S.U. to stand in the way. He has his chance to strengthen the largest and most effective efforts being made here for peace, yet he prefers to serve a splintering role. Someone ought to tell him about the bundle of sticks parable: you can break them separately but not together. If he objects to the United Front on domestic matters, that is his privilege, but this is an issue which demands cooperative action. United we stand at peace; divided we fall to the hell that is war.