For the past year there has been a conversation in student affairs about the possibility of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA) and the American College Personnel Association (ACPA) consolidating into a new, single national association. The Blue Ribbon Task Force has been appointed to examine the pros and cons of consolidating the two associations and making a recommendation to the respective governing boards. As one of the 10 members of this task force, I have been part of the conversation and have heard arguments for and against this idea. A single professional association in student affairs is not a new idea: NASPA, ACPA, and the National Association of Women Deans, Administrators, and Counselors (NAWDAC) tried to unite in 1971. When it did not happen, principally because NAWDAC chose not to consolidate, the conversation did not stop. I cannot remember a national meeting when someone did not lament the need to attend both national meetings to recruit candidates for a position; present a paper or program; meet their responsibility on a commission, council, or board; sponsor a social event for their alumni; or present or receive an award.

In recent years the voices of members who want a consolidated association have grown louder. ACPA's gaining its independence from the American Association of Counseling and Development (AACD), an umbrella organization of counseling-related professions, increased the hope for one association. Most recently the financial difficulties in higher education that limit travel and diminish the number of people in student affairs who are willing to support multiple memberships, and the increased similarity of the two associations, have resurrected the possibility.

As one might expect, there are many rumors, misunderstandings, and much speculation about why NASPA and ACPA have begun to talk about a single consolidated association; and, as one would expect, much of the common wisdom on this topic is wrong. Among the more popular misconceptions is that ACPA approached NASPA with the idea of consolidation. Actually, the decision was mutual; but the conversation really had been going on for many years. There is speculation that ACPA was having financial problems and needed financial help from NASPA. Actually, ACPA had a couple of tight budget years, but is financially very stable and has a strong operating budget. Some have suggested that ACPA was growing much faster than NASPA and that over time the NASPA membership would shrink and ACPA's membership would dwarf that of NASPA; therefore, NASPA needed to consolidate. Actually, the membership of the two associations on average is about equal. Others have suggested that the majority of people in student affairs were already members of both associations; therefore, consolidation was a simple issue. Actually, about 30% of the members of the two associations have dual membership. There were rumors that NASPA was envious of ACPA's scholarly initiatives, such as the work in student developmental theory and the Student Learning Imperative, and wanted to consolidate to gain some of the intellectual capital ACPA had created. Actually, both associations have contributed significantly to the field, although sometimes with a different emphasis. Finally, comments were made that the associations were merging, implying that one organization would "take over" the other. Actually, the only conversation has been about consolidating, which is a process of jointly forming a new, single, combined association.

As a member of one of these associations, are you starting to get annoyed by members of the "other" organization who may think that about your organization? Wait, it gets worse. At the 2003 national meeting of each association, the Blue Ribbon Task Force held open forums to solicit input from members about a possible consolidation and distributed a paper highlighting issues being discussed by the Task Force. Several programs were presented by faculty and administrators not directly associated with the Blue Ribbon Task Force on the topic of a possible consolidation, and reports were given on this topic at both association business meetings. E-mail addresses for the Blue Ribbon Task Force were publicized, and members of the associations were encouraged to write and share their views on the issue.

What has surprised me about the comments that were shared either at the meetings or in E-mails is the we-versus-they subtext of these comments. I have a hard time with such comments, because I am part of that 30% who are dual members, and I have been since 1974. The problem I have with the we-versus-they debate is that "we" and "they" are really us: the people in student affairs. all of the arguments about how much "we" are better than "they" are, and therefore we shouldn't consolidate, makes no sense to me. Consolidation is not a contest with a winner and loser. Some people would like to reduce the discussion to a kind of ranking system like US News and World Report does with colleges. Sorry, but the value of that kind of attitude escapes me; it just doesn't lead anywhere constructive.