Last week members of the Student Council stored their overnight suitcases, tucked away cocktail glasses and other convention-going paraphernalia, and announced their withdrawal from the National Student Association.

No longer would they be obliged to undertake the annual pilgrimage to the nation's capital to meet formally and informally with students from colleges throughout the country. Harvard's problems, Marc Leland, President of the Council, explained, are of a "different" nature from those on other college campuses.

When Leland, along with Tim Zagat, the other Council delegate to the NSA convention, submitted a report on the conference to the Student Council, they listed three major criticisms of the organization: 1.) the representatives do not represent the views of their student bodies and are therefore not qualified to vote on their behalf on national or political issues; 2.) the resolutions passed by delegates were generally devoid of substance and fact; and 3.) the problems presented are not those with which the Harvard community is concerned.

The last point is the crucial one, for, as Leland argued, "The NSA never got around to discussing the problems of Harvard College." The Council after hearing three hours of debate, decided eleven to four to agree with Leland that there was "little value" in remaining members of the student association.

Paradoxically enough, Harvard played a leading role in the establishment of the NSA. When suggestions from seven New England colleges, including Harvard, led to the first National Student Congress in December, 1946, representatives from the University were among the first elected national officers.

The protest raised by some students against Harvard's withdrawal serves as a reminder that Council opinion has not always been so adverse to NSA. In fact, members voted twelve to four in 1957 to remain in the organization, and two years ago they approved NSA membership thirteen to one.

When last year's delegates reported their views on the association to the Council, they did so in "a favorable report." The only criticism made at that time, according to George Pontikes, one of the representatives, was that "Harvard had never taken enough of an interest or an active role" in the organization.

That argument was echoed again this week by proponents of the NSA. The Society for Minority Rights and the Freedom Council, as well as individual students, have urged that the Council reconsider its decision, and that the matter appear before the student body in the form of a referendum.

Whatever the outcome at Harvard, this university is not alone in its complaints against the NSA. The President of Brown's student government association termed the organization, "a waste of time and money" and the President of Columbia's student council had made similar statements.

Representatives from more than twenty colleges and universities, including Harvard, signed a declaration at the last NSA convention criticising the organization for "its lack of consideration of issues, its lack of respect for speakers, and the lack of substantiation" for the resolutions passed. Among the signers were Michigan State, University of California, Indiana, Northwestern, Ohio State, University of Southern California, and Notre Dame.

It may be as Bruce Larkin, NSA International Vice President has said, that too many colleges take a "What me worry?" attitude toward the association. Certainly there are schools which take an active part in the organization and derive benefits from that participation. The question seems to lie with the "different and peculiar problems of the Harvard community:" specifically, whether these problems exist, and, if they do, whether membership in the NSA can help to solve them.

The difficulty may be that NSA attempts too much, as the Council has argued, and that its resolutions (there were over a hundred presented at the convention) should be limited to a few issues relevant to students. But the main criticism has been that the organization just hasn't done enough to warrant our continued membership.

Perhaps the proposed "Ivy League" seminar--and other meetings of schools with common problems--can be of more value than NSA has been. But, even with an improved NSA or with any of the alternatives to NSA, the question remains whether any intercollegiate organization can prove genuinely worthwhile so far as Harvard is concerned.