United Nations Ambassador Arthur J. Goldberg has wisely consented to answer questions on American Vietnam policy at an open meeting here Sunday. Had he not agreed to confront the widespread criticisms of the war, Goldberg would no doubt have faced a situation similar to the one encountered by McNamara in November.

The meeting offers the chance for a dialogue between Goldberg and critics of the war. This purpose will best be served if John T. Dunlop, who will moderate the session and determine its format, selects a student-Faculty panel to conduct a major part of the questioning.

Without such a panel, the two-hour meeting is likely to be frustratingly uninformative. The Ambassador has apparently ruled out a debate; nor does he want to make a formal speech. Is the only alternative to have members of the audience scramble to microphones for two hours? Some University officials seem to think so. But Goldberg has expressed his willingness to confront the entire rage of misgivings about the Vietnam policy. These misgivings are not easily formulated in a pat question or two.

A panel of critics--like the one that questioned McGeorge Bundy here in 1965--would be the most effective means of voicing doubts, pinpointing disagreements, and satisfying everyone that the Ambassador has been thoroughly questioned.

The Bundy panel was set up under similar circumstances. The then-assistant to the President for National Security Affairs had been informed that critics planned to protest his Phi Beta Kappa Oration. He agreed to a public meeting with them. The panel that resulted was comprised of three professors and three students; Dunlop could do worse than follow that example.