Delegates to the National Student Association's conference last weekend on the proposed National Service Corps were all for the idea. At one point an ad hoc committee composed primarily of Young Americans for freedom introduced a resolution advocating "abandonment' of the project, and suffered an ignominious defeat in the ensuing vote.

A member of the President's study group on "national voluntary services" said that of 10,000 students who had returned questionnaires to his office, 72 per cent indicated they would consider serving in the corps.

But if the delegates supported the concept of a service corps they were not excited about it. In the lunch line, in the lobby of the American University student union, even on the floor of the plenary session, the talk among the students was of other things. The tremendous enthusiasm generated at a similar conference two years ago to study the overseas Peace Corps was no where in evidence.

There were several reasons for the tepid response of the delegates. It is clear the idea of a national service corps lacks the glamour and adventure of the Peace Corps. Innoculating babies in a Philadelphia slum, albeit a desperately needed service, is just not the same thing as innoculating babies in Lagos, Nigeria.

And too, this conference was noticeable deficient in inspiring speechmaking of the type Sen. Hubert Humphrey and Dr. Harold Taylor provided two years ago.

Congress vs. Commitment

But these are superficial reasons. The important problem the NSA conference revealed was that the type of service corps which would challenge and excite young people could never get Congressional approval; and the corps that might pass Congress would remain unsatisfying to students who have spent their undergraduate years deeply involved in such causes as combatting racial discrimination.

There was general agreement among the delegates on the basic themes of the service corps proposal as sketched out by such speakers as Richard Boone, head of the President's study group. Boone emphasized that the program would have limited funds and manpower (probably about 5,000 the first year) and would have to choose projects where it could make a "distinctive" contribution.

He listed two ways the corps could make such contributions. The first would be to increase the "visibility" of chronic problems which do not receive public notice, and therefore little public attention. He included in this group the plight of migrant workers, Indians, and the whole spectrum of evils publicized in Michael Harrington's The Other America, a recent account of poverty in this country.

The second great contribution of the corps, according to Boone, would be as a "catalyst" for local volunteer groups and private agencies. He said that most projects would eventually be taken over completely by local groups and corpsmen freed for new work.

The phrase "catalyst" was used by Dr. Taylor to describe his hopes for the Peace Corps, and the flourishing of overseas teaching projects, scholarship programs, and other private endeavors are testimony that those hopes were not false ones.

But if the delegates subscribed to these general themes, they objected to the vagueness of the speakers on more specific questions, particularly in the aspect of structure and control of the corps and priority of projects.

The basic principle set forth was that the corps would only initiate projects when requested by local authorities. When questioned, Boone extended "local authorities" to include private agencies with no governmental connections. But it was never made clear whether a Congressman or state administrator would have the power to block service corps projects requested by such agencies.

In private discussions during the conference Boone elaborated on his group's current thinking. He said that each project's merits will be weighed against the tenor of local opposition, and then either instituted or rejected. This would mean, in fact, that Congressmen, city councils, or state officials would probably be able to keep out the service corps if they felt strongly enough. And there is little doubt among observers here that projects aimed at changing the social character of their region would meet with insurmountable resistance from the entrenched Southern delegation in Congress.

Some delegates were even gloomier for the prospects of the service corps in the South. They argued that any legislation which did not give the states veto power over local projects would never pass Congress.