Children of Light--II

When Mike Hornblow and a coalition of dissatisfied students started their push for limiting the political activities of the Student Council President, few thought their efforts would lead to a general reorganization struggle. But the Phillips controversy served to unleash years of resentment and anti-Council feeling, and within a few weeks, the Council was on trail for its life.

Forcing the crisis, Bill Bailey led Dunster from the Council because the current situation looked "hopeless." To his mind, the Council not only was failing to represent the student body but was also trying to be "an extra-curricular activity ... doing too many things of no interest to the general student body." Bailey called for a diminished role for the Council, and a less imposing name--the Student Affairs Committee. Yet his suggestions for the selection of members implied no radical change from the present; the House would remain the basic political unit, but be strengthened.

Council veterans Tim Zagat and Roger Leed, asked by President Phillips to do a general study of the Council, also expressed "general dissatisfaction" and mourned the "tragedy of an organization passively presiding at its own dissolution." But Messrs. Leed and Zagat offered remedies quite different in approach and machinery from the Bailey plan. They reasoned that most students express themselves through organizations rather than through the House; they observed that the current elections through the Houses had produced a non-representative Council "verging on complete lethargy"; thus they suggested a Council composed of representatives of organizations and members selected by the Houses and through class-wide elections--a body of between 50-75 members. Further, they decided that a larger part in student affairs was the remedy for Council's affliction of low prestige. The Leed-Zagat report calls for an extensive Council organization, with sub-divisions to take care of administrative matters, College affairs, and external affairs.

How representative should the Council try to be? Both reports hedged on this question, although Leed and Zagat emphasized that the "Council should be as effective a spokesman for the student body as possible." Bailey, in his original statement, contended that the new Council should act chiefly as a coordinator of House activities. Bailey and others unhappy with the present Council are extremely suspicious (perhaps unwarrantedly so) of any Constitution implying that the Council represents undergraduates on anything. They point with horror to the murky record of recent years where the personal political career of the Council President has sometimes found a convenient stepping stone in the Council. In the opinion of Leed and Zagat, a decrease in the importance of the Presidency would alleviate this chronic trouble; inter-House Council enthusiasts insist that only a cut-back in Council influence and power can do it. Evaluating the Dunster withdrawal, Leed has remarked that Bailey's rebellion is "something like a populist movement at Harvard." If that is so, Leed and Zagat resemble New Dealers.

While concern over non-representation is justified by past experience, one might also be worried over the lack of representative functions outlined in the original Bailey plan. The special attribute of an elected council is its representative nature; if that quality is left unexploited, it is hard to see any point in a Student Council. Any group can conduct studies and develop reports. Only an elected organization can hope to do this from the standpoint of current student opinion. There is little doubt that undergraduates desire to make their will known: petitions circulate constantly through the Houses and letters jam the CRIMSON bulletin board. The trouble is that these campaigns have small chance of success. Often the people who head them don't know to whom they should present the petitions. A strong Council, respected by the deans and the students, could handle these problems far more efficiently than single-issue efforts, and probably gain considerably more success with the Administration. Past Council actions, such as the report on the freshman year, the change in Lamont's rules, the extension of parietals to their current times, and the dining hall survey that prevented a major increase in board rates provide clear evidence of the value and potential of a Council.

Everyone admits that representations of undergraduate opinion on political matters is impossible, but representation in the future on College problems such as parking, educational policy, togetherness with Radcliffe, the size of the College, and diplomas is not only practical, but decidedly necessary. Undoubtedly considerable time will be required for the Council to gain the respect and trust required to execute its representative function adequately, but the Leed-Zagat approach in this respect seems far more congenial to progress than the limited coordinator view of Council functions.

In the Dunster membership formula, which was given a tentative OK by the Council, one seat will be filled by an all-House vote, and one by the House Committee, instead of holding elections by the classes in the Houses. This system has several advantages. It is hoped that making the elected seat more competitive will result in more imaginative and capable men being elected, with less unopposed contests. Leaving one seat to the discretion of the House Committee should help provide the badly needed link to the Committees. This link will become especially important if the Council begins to function (as it should) more through the House Committees, on such projects as 20th Century Week. Right now, the Committees provide the best access to the student body. Another strength in the plan is that the Council would become smaller; along with the added prestige commanded by a small group should come tighter, more responsible organization and more productive meetings. Still, the fact that this system is no remarkable change from the status quo leaves serious doubt that it will solve the Council dilemma: lack of communication and respect.

But the very fact the organization will be new may be its biggest asset. The most pressing change needed for success is a change in student attitude, and a fresh start may be the best way to get it. Regardless of what they finally call their creation, the special Student Council reorganization committee must conceive an organization with powerful ties to the students that will insure strength to carry out the representative and service functions of a student council. Another failure might kill Council at Harvard.