National Student Association: Old Criticisms Take New Turn

The National Student Association has come in for a good deal of criticism in recent years, from a variety of sources and for a number of reasons. Critics ranging from Indiana Young Americans for Freedom to Smith College student government presidents have accused the Association of being "unrepresentative" of American students. In recent months the charge of unrepresentativeness has taken on a new meaning. Understanding this change is important to understanding the past and present problems of the Association.

At the time of the so-called "conservative revival" in national student politics, in 1961, "unrepresentative" meant "further left than most American students." Both the Young Republicans and YAF charged that resolutions passed by the NSA Congresses were too liberal to be an accurate reflection of student opinion. Since the NSA Congress in the summer of 1961 the student right has proposed a series of reforms in the administrative and procedural structure of the Association. At the same time it has fought vigorously for the conservative positions on the floor of the Congress. The clear intention of the right has been to change both the manner in which resolutions are passed and the resolutions themselves. Their concern has been to further the accurate representation of student opinion--which they deem to be conservative.

MARC J. ROBERTS '64 is chairman of the National Executive Committee of NSA. His views in this article are strictly his own and do not necessarily represent those of the CRIMSON.

New Criticisms

Today much of the antagonism toward NSA no longer comes from those who disagree with the politics of its resolutions. Many now object to the Association simply on the grounds that it takes stands on "political issues" in the first place. "Unrepresentative" has come more and more to mean takes positions on issues on which students "have no opinions" or even "...should have no opinions." This trend is only a change in emphasis. Both views have been advanced regularly in the past, and no doubt will be expressed at the Congress this summer. And both criticisms need to be understood and answered.

The older criticisms of NSA--that the structure of the Association made opinion unsure--were to an extent valid. The structure of the Association through which a given school, or individual is represented is complex and often chaotic.

The 400 member student governments have three kinds of links to NSA as a whole: regional structures, the annual Congress, and national elections. The eleven-day National Congress each summer, is where elections take place, and resolutions are written. As such, the Congress has been the focus of a good many of the older criticisms of NSA's "representativeness."

Delegates to the summer Congress form the legislative body of NSA. Each member school sends a certain number of voting delegates according to its enrollment (up to seven). Each student government is left free to select delegates as it sees fit. Clearly there are many instances when the students have little control over the eventual make-up of their school's delegation. Structurally at least, it would seem that NSA is fatally unrepresentative.

One apparent solution to the problem that delegates are often not directly responsible to the students of a member school is to have delegates chosen in campus-wide elections. This plan has been pushed recently by both the right and the left within the Association.

Yet there are many different kinds of schools which are members of NSA. It is debatable whether a hard and fast rule demanding direct election would bring about better representation in such a variety of situations; not to mention the overwhelming problems it might create on a few campuses. The current resolution "strongly urging" direct election seems to be as far as the Association should go in this direction.

The precept underlying much of what happens at NSA Congresses is that debate and discussion are worthwhile ends in themselves. The theory has been that it is a good idea for future citizens of a democracy to become concerned with the larger problems of their society. This perspective developed gradually during the 15 years NSA has been in existence, and has only become fully conscious in recent years. The hope of those who introduced "politics" into NSA was that by bringing students of widely-differing opinions together, the easy answers of the traditional wisdom would come under critical examination. NSA insisted that although it took positions, it was "non-partisan" in an important way. The point was not to discredit any particular political view-point. It was rather to encourage students to think for themselves in a systematic way about the goals and methods of politics.

NSA's success in pursuing its noble aims has been less than its leaders hoped for. But in light of these aims it is clear that the passing of resolutions at the Congresses is not primarily intended to merely record, as accurately as possible, student opinion on various issues.

Purpose of Resolutions

Resolutions have a dual function. First they serve as a stimulus to debate at the Congress and throughout the year. Second, they indicate to the national and regional staffs the areas with which students are most concerned. These staffs then set up conferences and programs on topics of current interest. Often resolutions contain a mandate to the national staff for a particular program: a conference on the aims of education or circulation of the film, Operation Abolition.

To be valuable for these educational purposes Congress resolutions do not have to be simply a reflection of the thinking of the students at member schools. Where most students have only a dim consciousness of an important issue, let alone an opinion, to be "representative" is meaningless. Yet a resolution on such an issue is warranted as the first step in helping to end such indifference.

The problem of representation is not simply confined to the operation of the National Congress. There is a general problem of contact and communication throughout the structure of NSA. It is a problem that runs both ways, between students and officers. The nation is split into 22 regions in NSA, each with several elected officers. The nation is split into 22 regions in NSA, each with several elected officers. The regions vary in size from New England, with about 60 schools, to the Great Southeast with less than 10 (Note--NSA lost much of its membership in the deep south in 1954 when about 80 schools pulled out because of the Association's endorsement of school desegregation.) Regional officers are responsible for planning conferences and meetings, helping individual campuses run programs, and in general making NSA a reality. Assisting regional officers are a variety of national staff people; and the two annually elected Program Vice-Presidents (P.V.P.'s). The latter are supposed to spend their time going from campus to campus helping on specific problems and setting up actual programs.

Operation Unsatisfactory

The operation of this whole structure has been less than satisfactory. Regional officers change every year, and hardly learn their jobs before they leave. The mobile P.V.P.'s are hard to call on for aid once they have driven out of the campus gate. In any case they only get to a small minority of campuses, and then only for a mere brief visit. Regional officers have proved almost impotent in helping some poor confused NSA coordinator, who wants to "educate" his fellows but hasn't the slightest idea of how to go about that rather large task.

Recently there has been a good deal of talk in NSA of splitting the country into four to six large areas, and setting up a permanent office for a program vice-president in each area.

An expanded P.V.P. system would enable some part of the Association to give personal attention to a school's unique situation. But it all depends on finding enough money. And the prospects for such a find are not encouraging.

In light of this discussion of NSA structure and operation, the older criticisms of NSA as being "unrepresentative" have a certain validity. In fact NSA was not involving a good many of the more conservative students in the country--either because their schools didn't belong or because students on the "right" were not attracted to what the Association was trying to do in the 50's. The idea of making other people concerned about political issues appealed, in general, to people who were fairly liberal. The liberals in addition seem to work harder at NSA conferences to influence the great mass of uncommitted delegates. During the great HUAC debate at the 14th Congress two years ago, there were so few conservative speakers that some had to talk twice. The liberals, as is their wont, elbowed each other for the microphone.

Solutions Possible

Last fall both the College Young Republicans and the YAF passed qualified resolutions asking their members to participate in NSA. This seems to indicate that part of the problem is approaching solution. On the structural side several reforms have been made in the operation of the Congress. But the rules were never the real problem. Conservatives have apparently realized that, despite its problems, the structure of NSA is open, and they can influence it.

At the same time, the newer complaint that NSA takes positions that are, or should be, of no concern to students does imply a fundamental disagreement between the Association and its critics. Most of the issues on which there is no student opinion, and on which NSA posses resolutions, are considered on the theory that there ought to be student concern in such areas. Someone once quipped "If we really represented American student opinion, the Codification of Policy would be 100 blank pages." Apparently it is not sufficient for NSA to merely ask students to become concerned with one area or another. The virtue of passing resolutions at the Congress is that it gives students a reason for being concerned. If past student apathy is any guide, NSA is correct in believing that more than the rhetoric of democratic responsibility is needed to get through the wall of disinterest most American students erect around themselves.

It is true that many of the people who do, and have made the "non-political" objection to NSA are individuals student interest to political questions, injured in some way by the shift of This is a shift which NSA seems intent upon furthering. Student body presidents and fraternity people, consciously or unconsciously, often wish more attention were given to campus problems. For the campus is their element. But at the same time there does appear to have been a more fundamental change in student attitudes that has brought about the increase in this kind of criticism of NSA.

The reasons for what appears, to this writer, to be an increasing privatism on American campuses in the past few months are hard to pin down. But this trend seems to be the source of the changing focus in the criticism leveled at NSA. The recent increase in student activism that began in 1900 was clearly due, in part, to the impact of the sit-ins. Picketing, sitting in, freedom riding all gave students the feeling that they could do something to affect that great, ponderous bureaucratic world out there. The brief vogue of peace and disarmament demonstrations helped keep this feeling alive. So did the shift in occupancy of the White House to an administration that promised all kinds of social action and appeared to be sympathetic to youth.

Civil Rights Struggle

But now the civil rights struggle has entered a phase where activity in the south demands genuine sacrifice and courage. And there is little room for the white in southern action projects anyway. In the north, the efforts of the student activist have been centered in the hard, unflamboyant work of tutorial projects and selective patronage campaigns. The newer activities are often less dramatic, usually demand more dedication, and therefore are less likely to involve fringe people. The work has become so hard, or so long-range that it has become unreal to most students. Once again they feel irrelevant. Once again there is the frustration and impotence.

In the area of international affairs the triumph of the hard line in Cubs sapped the vigor of much of the leftwing. For all students, continuing crises and problems with no apparent solutions have drained away emotional commitment. One can only follow Laos so long, and be upset about it so long. And if it is not Laos it is Viet Nam, or Berlin. People have retreated a bit further into their own lives when confronted with a world which apparently operates without them, and beyond their influence.

At the same time it is true that NSA has moved away from some of the burning political issues and toward questions more closely connected with the academic community. In some sense this is a response to the criticism that NSA is too political. In part this movement is a tactical one. Perhaps the people who would ignore NSA if approached on more political issues can be involved in debate that will ultimately lead to questions of social concern by becoming involved in questions of higher education.

At the same time there is much feeling in the Association that there are genuine questions that face the American educational community that need student attention in their own right. The impact of federal funds on the university, the nature of social development of students in an academic community, academic freedom: these issues NSA feels a responsibility toward--since they affect students and it is a student organization. Also here NSA has a greater chance to make itself felt. Other educational organizations like the American Association of University Professors, and the National Education Association take NSA views seriously, not as an indication of what all students are thinking, but as some indication of concerned student opinion.

It is difficult to say what will happen in the future. There is a need for more work on each campus. Yet who is going to do that work is another matter. Regional structures will only improve when the funds appear from somewhere to hire people to do the work that full time students cannot get to. The fact that there is apparently some increase in student apathy and privatism makes the job of the Association more difficult. But perhaps it is one more argument for the need for an organization like NSA