Focus on the Possible

After another Undergraduate Council election in which over 50 percent of students failed to cast their votes, the UC took a moment last week to reflect on how it might increase interest in the Council and its activities. With the UC’s limited powers, however, the Council will find itself hard-pressed to overcome inevitable student apathy with the new initiatives that received attention during last month’s election. Instead, the UC should focus on the issues it can influence directly, particularly student group funding. Ultimately, any more substantive student input will depend on the University offering more avenues through which students can influence University policy.

The UC’s most successful proposals are rarely those advocated most noticeably during presidential campaigns. This year, for instance, the winning ticket promised an end to midterms on housing day and proposed soliciting donations from alumni to increase UC funding, while the second place ticket made building a student multicultural space a key part of their platform. While ambition is laudable, none of these goals is particularly likely and may even distract from the UC’s core responsibilities.

Chief among these responsibilities is funding for student groups, one of the few areas in which the UC has some sway. As UC President Gus A. Mayopoulos ’15 and Vice President Sietse K. Goffard ’15 have shown this year, concerted effort towards increasing student group funding can yield results. Though the 250k Campaign did not reach its goal, the College looks likely to free up $36,000 in the UC budget, an achievement that, as Goffard put it, will lead to “more money for students and student groups.” Given that the UC has little official ability to influence academic policy or building priorities, such funding victories are the best way for the body to play a positive role on campus.

A long-term strategy for increasing student engagement in issues of University policy, however, must move beyond a focus on finances. Without more influence on administrative decisions that affect student life, the UC will continue to have a hard time making a case for its relevance, and students will be largely right in viewing the UC as a body with limited potential. But as the recent furor over the closing of Stillman Infirmary demonstrated, the University would often benefit from more consultation with students. More substantive interaction between the University and the UC would attune policy changes more closely with student views, and give students a reason to take an interest in the UC.

Given its constraints, the UC should focus on issues of funding where it has a mandate to advocate on behalf of students, and where its voice can influence policy. The University, however, would do well to include the UC in policy discussions, and give the Council a more appreciable say in policy decisions.  More student voice will ultimately lead to both more student engagement and better initiatives.