The Student Council took on one of its toughest problems of the term Monday evening--the proposed anti-discrimination clause in the new set of rules for undergraduate organizations. After long wrangling, the Council finally recommended that the Faculty outlaw the charter of any group which includes a membership clause discriminating on grounds of "race, color, nationality, or religion."

The very length and heat of the Council debate show that reasonable men never agree on the methods of defeating prejudice. No one will question the motives of the Council; but it has acted unwisely in attempting to legislate against prejudice.

Discrimination is not susceptible of a black-and-white solution. For those who practice it, it is logical and--in the mind of the practitioner--perfectly justified. Fighting it effectively is basically a matter of persuasion rather than publicity alone; and it is certainly not a matter for charter reform.

There is danger, also, that such a clause could be used as a restriction on the freedom of undergraduate groups. There is no question that discrimination is a bad thing; but against this particular method of combating it must be weighed the abridgement of freedom -- an abridgement which would set a precedent for the Council, or for University Hall, further to limit the membership, actions, or purposes of student groups. There are too many such regulations now.

The Council would do well to consider not only the ineffectiveness of its latest resolution, but also its implications for freedom of association at Harvard.