To the Editor of the Crimson:

In discussing the idea of Harvard Political Union or Forum. I think we should realize that its purpose should not be to replace partisan organizations. A Forum must be impartial, but in these grimly decisive days no one is impartial; there are just 3561 irreconcilable viewpoints in Harvard College. Accordingly, on vital issues a Forum must present debates or panels.

Harvard has been fortunate that Emerson D and the New Lecture Hall have been used as sounding boards on crucial issues by many men whose names John Harvard, class of 1991, will remember. Unfortunately these prominent figures do not, like Noah's menagerie, come in pairs. There are many controversial speakers, to whom we listen in order to disagree with them, whom a Political Union dare not sponsor as a lecturer, and cannot persuade to join in a round-table word skirmish.

At the same time Harvard meetings are notoriously one-sided; "Discussion" is often a synonym for heckling. On whatever viewpoint, a speaker at such a meeting is usually as unequivocal as a Nazi ballot and we often resent the missionary zeal which that implies. Many issues of the greatest importance, such as problems of race and labor, and plans for a post war international order, we must work out on a slow and logical basis. I refuse to choose between Organizations with a Cause, and a non-partisan Union. We vitally need both. Hugh Barhour '42.