Counsel on the Council

The future of student government at the College may well depend on the actions of the year-old Harvard Council on Undergraduate Affairs as it meets tonight to elect a new slate of officers. Under wise and capable leadership, the HCUA has for the past year intentionally shunned fruitless controversy or political maneuvering, and instead sought out the only practical course open to student government in a community that is notoriously apathetic about student government.

The collapse of the old Student Council after the bitter Howie Phillips controversy proved that Harvard has little use for the intense political manipulation and opportunism characteristic of student government at many colleges. The HCUA formula of investigation of an important problem, followed by a specific report and pressure on administrative officers involved has been moderately successful for the first year; continued wisdom in the conduct of HCUA affairs will make the Council's advice of increasing value to the Administration and student body.

The HCUA's most important work during 1962 involved development of a sensible system of ticket distribution for athletic events and recommendations for improvement of the quality and variety of food from the Central Kitchen. Both reports were made after considerable study of the problems involved, and both were acted upon immediately by University departments. More important, the HCUA has established itself as an important outlet for legitimate undergraduate complaints about ticket distribution and the food.

Council studies of Widener and Lamont have apparently prodded librarians Foster M. Palmer and Henry James to take long overdue action to improve the service and facilities and lengthen the operating hours of both libraries. A carefully worked out HCUA plan for inter-college dining for Harvard and Radcliffe students on date nights was vetoed by the Masters in December, but has since been more carefully explained to the principal objectors and may be put into effect this spring.

The Council has failed on occasion, and undertaken several projects which will require considerably more research and pressure before they can be of any value. The book exchange plan attracted little notice, yet is a desperately needed facility; despite HCUA studies, the Masters remain adamant in their strict interpretation of parietal rules. The Council has considered reports on sophomore tutorial for credit, the future of Dudley House, the organization of the Tenth House and a student union, but much exhaustive and often tedious study is still necessary before such student pronouncements can be of any value to the Faculty or Administration.

The problem of research is a most important one for the HCUA and the necessity for preparing detailed and thoughtful reports cannot be overemphasized. If the HCUA should become, as the old Student Council certainly was, a collection of shallow political opportunists, striving for headlines and publicity instead of service to the College, the accomplishments of the past year and the hopes of the HCUA's founders will be destroyed.

The Council is fortunate to have had as its first chairman someone uninterested in personal glory and uncorrupted by student politics. Neil Minihan's dedication to his job and determination to put the interests of the College and the HCUA before all other considerations were largely responsible for the success of the Council's first year. Furthermore, as a junior, Minihan knew enough about the operation of the University to work effectively behind the scenes with key administrators. He is also the first student council leader in recent years who has not had to be bailed out of trouble at the end of his term. Hopefully the Harvard Council on Undergraduate Affairs will choose as wisely as last year's Council, when they meet this evening to elect a chairman.