To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

As one of those Student Council members who recently voted to leave NSA, I have been very much disappointed that the Council's reasons for their decision to withdraw have not been adequately presented to the students, while the proponents of NSA have been quite vociferous.

First, let me say that I believe that there is a need for NSA, that NSA does very good work, and that Harvard should belong to it. Why then did I vote to leave? Not, as has been represented, because I think Harvard is different--for better or worse, not bcause Harvard can't afford it (though NSA would take at minimum one-fourth of what we received at registration), and not because the Student Council wants to set up a rival organization.

This year NSA passed one hundred resolutions, purporting to be the voice of American students. They gave an average of three to five minutes debate on each resolution, often failed to explain them and laughed down opposition to the resolution on the floor. No advance notice was given of the agenda, and yet delegates were expected to be experts on international affairs, military training, federal aid to education, segregation, and so on.

You may or may not favor Algerian independence, but the question deserves more than a one-minute debate before being overwhelmingly backed. Resolutions were passed on mass emotion, passed as quickly as possible to get them out of the way, passed with our two representatives (in over 1000) not having an opportunity to speak. Everyone, official delegate or not, had a voice; it was impossible to be heard over the hundreds of "extras."

Our grievances with NSA are not on policy, but on method. Does not this slapdash method detract from, if not nullify, the meaning of what NSA does? Can it really be said that American students favor the release of some obscure Algerian student leader-rioter now in jail? Sure we are for freedom, but who is the guy? Maybe he threw a bomb. But you have said you wanted him released.

After six years of debate this Council has taken the step of leaving NSA. But we advocate eventual return. We are resigning temporarily in order that Harvard's name, which the NSA flashes quite eagerly, should not be misused. We want certain procedural changes, but to effect them from within the organization is either impossible or impractical. Harvard's withdrawal, we are hoping, will be a glass of cold water. But we are not stopping there. A complete report of our reasons for withdrawal is being sent to every one of the 350 member colleges.

A "seminar," composed of the Ivy League schools, the Seven College Conference, the Little Three, and a few others will meet in New York on December 6. The purpose of this seminar will be to set an example for NSA of what we believe can and should be done--and how it should be done.

We have not left NSA out of apathy, but out of interest. We hope to rejoin in a year or so. --Andrew Warshaw '59