A Bureaucratic Facelift

Student government at Harvard has had a spotty record at best. Often it has been characterized by procedural disputes among its members, lack of power in dealing with the administration, and a great deal of apathy on the part of the students it represents. Robert J. Kiely, master of Adams House, says, "In my 20 years at Harvard I've never seen a student council that's been very effective."

This fall, after a year of groundwork, John E. Dowling '57, professor of Biology and chairman of the student-faculty "Committee to review the structure of College governance," is confident that a centralized, effective student council--funded by a $10 surcharge--will be operating by February. "For the first time there will be a unified student government with a significant impact on decision-making within the University," Dowling insists.

The "Dowling plan," released last March, calls for:

* an 85-member student council elected from the 13 Houses and the four areas of the Yard;

* an administrative committee composed of the officers of the council and the chairmen of the five standing committees within the council (If the draft of a constitution written by an independent, unofficial student committee last April is used, the administrative committee's primary responsibility will be setting the agenda of the council.); and

* a semi-independent budget committee responsible for delegating the council's funds each year. Even though each student can opt to retain $6.50 of his $10 surcharge, that leaves at least $20,000 for administrative expenses. If students pay the full surcharge, another $5000 will go toward campus-wide activities and social events, with the remaining $35,000 distributed to officially recognized undergraduate organizations on the basis of need.

In addition, the Dowling report calls for division of the Committee on Houses and Undergraduate Life (CHUL) into two small student-faculty committees, with the student representatives to the committees responsible to the student council.

Several major steps remain before the student committee's constitution can finally be submitted to the student body for consideration. Archie C. Epps III, dean of students, says these steps include a review of the draft by a student committee that he chairs to insure that the draft maintains the "spirit" of the Dowling report; final consideration of the plan by CHUL, which backed the basic provisions of the Dowling report last spring, but disagreed sharply over several proposed amendments; and final Faculty and Corporation approval of the plan.

Student leaders, however, are insisting upon a different implementation process. Andrew B. Herrmann '82, president of the Student Assembly--which is not formally recognized by the Faculty and has no source of funding--and chairman of the student-formed constitutional committee, says his committee plans to call a constitutional convention to put the draft in final form before it goes to the Faculty and the student body for approval. "As far as I'm concerned, the Epps committee has no business reviewing the constitution," Herrmann says, explaining that he believes that students alone, without the help of administrators, should be responsible for drawing up the constitution for a student organization.

Strong student and Faculty support, expressed in straw votes taken last spring on the issue, should, however, transcend these procedural conflicts. The Faculty Council's near-unanimous support for the plan, for example, shows that "the Faculty is committed to incorporating student opinion into the decision-making process," Dean Fox says. In addition, a College-wide referendum in April revealed that 71 per cent of those voting favored the proposal.

But the Dowling plan still faces several sticky problems that may stand in the way of implementation. Foremost among these roadblocks may be student apathy. The constitution needs 3200 "yea" votes--a majority of the College--for ratification. Given that only 35 per cent of the undergraduate student body bothered to vote in the April referendum, getting a majority of the College to support the Dowling plan this fall could prove difficult. "People won't vote against the plan--they just won't vote at all," Nancy J. Northrop '81, a member of the Dowling committee, has said.

Dowling, who admits he was "disappointed" by the low voter turnout in April, argues that cynicism, not apathy, is the problem. He cites high participation in House committees as evidence that students can become excited about student government, and he stresses that he believes cynicism about the efficacy of a large student council can be overcome. Students working to implement the plan also express hope that they will be able to get the vote out. "Given the current cynicism and lack of faith in student government, it may be hard to get a majority, but it's certainly possible, and we're going to try," Herrmann says.

Another potential problem concerns the question of how minority students will be represented. Currently, plans contain no special provisions to insure a certain number of minority students on the council. Some students clearly find this situation unacceptable. "In light of Student Assembly's prior dismal record in incorporating minority viewpoints, I think there needs to be concrete provisions insuring adequate input from the minority sector," Vada Hill '82, the Black Students Association (BSA) representative to the Student Assembly and a member of the constitutional committee, says. "As it stands now, the constitution has no viable means of insuring minority representation."

Dowling has said that his committee did not recommend special minority representation because "we were worried that if there were special seats for minority delegates, then members of the minority community would feel that they were already represented and would not run for the council." The depth of diversity at Harvard, he adds, prevents him from believing that minority groups and their views will not be heard on the council.

Besides Dowling's concerns, there is another reason that minority representation is not a part of the current student governance proposal. Student leaders, recalling the weeks of controversy provoked by the inclusion of a provision for special minority seats in the Student Assembly's 1978 constitution, are reluctant to rekindle old hostilities. While minorities may fear underrepresentation, white students may not "readily accept the constitution if it looks like we're giving special favors to minority groups," Herrmann has said.

Another controversy, this time with the Radcliffe Union of Students (RUS), was resolved when the women's group essentially pulled out of the new student council. RUS, which currently receives $5 a year from every woman in the College, voted last spring to "give moral support to the new student council, but to retain our funds and our autonomy for the moment." Until there are written provisions assuring support for women's organizations, Elisabeth M. Einaudi '83, president of RUS and a member of the constitutional committee, has said, "the position of RUS is to remain separate from the Dowling report."

Nonetheless, in light of the student council's plans to fund undergraduate organizations, RUS has decided to withdraw its funding of campus women's groups. "Women are a part of both the Harvard and Radcliffe communities, and they will pay fees to both RUS and the council. We feel women are entitled to council funds on the same basis as men--we don't want women to be doubly penalized," Einaudi says, adding that RUS will be watching to see if the council discriminates funding women's organizations because RUS has supported them in the past.

"I think RUS feels a little threatened by the proposal," Dowling says--but some students disagree. Ross Boylan '81-4, a vocal critic of the Dowling Report and a member of the Constitutional committee, feels that the Dowling Committee simply ignored women's and minority concerns, which he feels must be addressed. "The Dowling Committee made a big mistake by not involving RUS and minority groups in its discussions," he says.

Even if the Dowling plan is ratified and completely implemented without any of these hitches, it may ultimately be no more effective in incorporating student opinion into the decision-making process than the present governance process. Some students claim that the new student government will have little practical effect on student-faculty relations and that students will continue to play a powerless, advisory role.

For the most part, Faculty and administrators seem to agree that the Dowling plan will change little. Robert J. Kiely, master of Adams House and a member of the Dowling Committee, has said he approached the Dowling project with the "intention that authority not be relocated." Kiely believes the plan does not call for "essential or fundamental changes in the way in which the College is governed." And while Fox believes that the splitting of CHUL may lead to "interesting and different" agendas, he said after the Faculty vote last May that the Dowling Report represents in essence "fine-tuning to make sure the procedures we have in place are effective."

Students working on the new constitution, while aware that they stand to gain little official "power," still believe that centralization and the independent budget of the new council will enable it to marshal and publicize students' opinions. "Harvard is a very decentralized place, and the funding of the council will allow us to buy the publicity necessary to make students aware," Herrmann says. And Dowling concurs, adding, "No one can steamroll by strong, unified student opinion. I think that's real power--it's the same type of power the Faculty Council has."

Although Fox claims that the Faculty will always seek some form of student input, both he and Epps have said that failure to ratify the constitution will end consideration of the Dowling report. But regardless of what happens, Fox believes, in the final analysis, "the form of a student government is less important than the nature of the participation in that structure.