Leaders remain resolutely ambivalent; NCEW's profile is lower than ever in speaking out about issues.

To resolute or not to resolute: that is the question that's vexed NCEW since its birth.

In true on-the-one-hand and on-the-other-hand fashion, NCEW has been resolutely ambivalent on this issue.

Virtually the first words uttered by NCEW's founders were vows not to pass "resolutions of approval or censure" and to remain scrupulously aloof from association with any faction or group within and outside the newspaper profession." But when UNESCO proposed a freedom-unfriendly freedom of information code, the membership in 1951 condemned it.

And so it has gone through the years. Uncomfortable about taking stands, board members and/or the membership nevertheless have spoken out, though not always as effectively as they might.

Thus, NCEW's board in 1976 attacked the clandestine employment of journalists by the CIA, but the membership balked at having NCEW testify to Congress.

The "resoluting" question seemingly was settled once and for all in 1979 when members declared by voice vote - as "the sense of the organization" - that "the executive board of NCEW has authority to speak or act in the board's behalf on matters concerning the editorial page function." Evidently unconvinced, however, Karli Jo Hunt, NCEW's president in 1986, declared, "We're not a resolution-passing society - there are too many fiercely held points of view under our tents for that."

A case in point:

After NCEW complained in 1974 to the National News Council about columnist Victor Lasky pocketing $20,000 from Richard Nixon's presidential re-election committee, an irate editor wrote to NCEW president Ken Rystrom, "I am absolutely appalled. I most certainly hope that NCEW doesn't speak for me on this matter, because it does NOT. . . . I believe very strongly that NCEW has acted foolishly."

Perhaps mindful of how touchy members can be, NCEW in recent times has left journalism-related issues to others. (NCEW records indicate that the organization may have last resoluted in 1984, when it objected to the jailing in Illinois of an editorial writer who refused to reveal a source.) The incongruous consequence: the American Society of Newspaper Editors, which represents primarily news-side editors, editorializes regularly on First Amendment and journalism issues, while the organization of opinion writers usually is mum.

In fact, NCEW's profile is so low these days that when I was asked recently by The Freedom Forum whether I belonged to any of 21 journalism-related organizations, NCEW wasn't on the list.

No doubt, some editors might be appalled and feel very strongly that NCEW has acted foolishly when it goes into an activist mode. Given the prudence for which editorial writers are renowned, though, imagining NCEW's butting into matters where it doesn't belong is difficult.

Besides, an organization dedicated to promoting fearless expression of opinion ought to be willing to accept a brickbat or two as the price for now and then voicing its collective judgment on journalism-related issues of the day.

NCEW member Gilbert Cranberg, former editor of The Des Moines Register's editorial pages, is George H. Gallup Professor at the University of Iowa's School of Journalism and Mass Communication.