High Hopes and Birth Pains

Council members count as achievements the preservation of unlimited storage, the establishment of annual teaching awards, an open forum on the Ad Board, a forum on the Core Curriculum, and development of internal rules.

"There was definitely a strong increase in the levels of activity on campus this spring as a result of the grants process." --Second term Council Chairman Sesha Pratap '84

"The reflection of any student government is entirely a reflection of the work and care put into it."   --Dean of the College John B. Fox Jr. '59

"My theory is that new arrangements of this sort last about a decade."   --Dean of Students Archie C. Epps III

As anyone familiar with undergraduate life at Harvard will readily acknowledge, changes here have been traditionally slow and few. It took 10 years, for example, before an "experiment" in co-educational living became an accepted fact. And some things, like the scheduling of exams after winter break, never change at all.

But last year, Harvard witnessed the most extensive effort ever to alter perhaps the most consistent source of undergraduate grievances: students inability to influence the college decisions that affect their lives.

Two and a half years in the planning, the new Undergraduate Council emerged last fall with an election turnout unprecedented for a student government at Harvard. More than half of all students voted in the three-day balloting, narrowing the field of more than 200 aspirants who competed for the council's 89 seats. On the surface, it was easy to understand the excitement. For the first time ever, undergraduates had a fully recognized representative organization, with direct links to the College's major advisory bodies. In addition, the student government sported a budget--$58,000 in all--collected from a voluntary fee on student term bills.

Finally, it seemed, Harvard's legacy of ineffective student government would undergo a long needed transformation, transcending the constant struggles to attract participants. If nothing else, council proponents argued last fall, the new government would assuredly remain useful and popular through its annual allocation of up to $35,000 to fund the projects of needy student organizations.

It was, on Harvard's painfully slow scale of progress, almost revolutionary.

That's partly why, 11 months and numerous meetings after the council's first October gathering, some find it difficult to understand why enthusiasm for the new student government is decidedly reserved, among administrators and students alike. While many eagerly volunteer that the council met or exceeded expectations, few are ready to say that the new government will ultimately prove any more viable than its many unsuccessful predecessors.

"I haven't made up my mind about the council yet," says Dean of Students Archie C. Epps III, who consulted with leaders of the new government more this year than any other University Hall official. Epps points to a variety of reasons for remaining cautious about the council, especially as it attempts to gain much needed respect from both administrators and students during its formative years.

One problem, officials and council leaders agree, lies in the checkered record of the council over its inaugural session. Essentially, it provides a study in contrasts: At its irregular best, the council operated with an efficiency and maturity surprising even to seasoned administrators. More often, however, the council struggled with the frustrations of inexperience, at times moving forward with boundless enthusiasm only to discover later that it had faltered.

On the positive side, student delegates point to the council's first major victory the preservation of unlimited on-campus summer storage privileges. In scoring perhaps the most distinct victory for students in years, the council maintained unlimited storage through an in-depth research study that contradicted official claims that House renovations and Summer School needs would cause severe cutbacks in the traditional student service.

Council members also count as achievements the establishment of a series of annual teaching awards, an open forum and booklet on the Administrative Board, the College's closed-door disiplinary body; a forum and study related to the Faculty's review this year of the Core Curriculum; and the year-long development of the council's internal rules, including well-received procedures for the awarding of grants to student groups.

Widespread praise for the council's accomplishments, though, has been tempered largely by the flip side of its initial scorecard: Recurring indications of the council's tendency to follow the quick-and-easy way of reacting to student concerns that has inevitably caused past student governments to fail. The most obvious symptoms were the council's endorsement this spring of several "political" positions. In responding to the call for Harvard to divest from holdings in businesses operating in South Africa and the Food Workers' Union demands during ongoing contract negotiations, the council supported groups without protracted debate, often basing its decisions on incomplete or inaccurate information.

Sometimes, the council's hasty approach became expensive, leading to the funding of certain projects that suffered from budget overruns and inadequate planning. But what may prove to have been the council's most costly error in its first year is one that, if uncorrected, could prompt the council's demise: An inadequate amount of regular contact with the undergraduate body.

The council's failure to sponsor any major social events was only the most visible cause of what seemed to be a fundamental lack of communication between students and their elected representatives. A recent Crimson poll of 335 undergraduates--about 63 percent--had never discussed council matters of College policy with any of the approximately five student delegates in each House and freshman district.

The council's failure to sponsor any major social events was only the most visible cause of what seemed to be a fundamental lack of communication between students and their elected representatives. A recent Crimson poll of 335 undergraduates revealed that nearly two-thirds of students--about 63 percent--had never discussed council matters or college policy with any of the approximately five student delegates in each House and freshman district.

A perhaps even more fundamental uncertainty seems to be suggested by poll results indicating that one-third of undergraduates believe that they did not benefit "at all" from the council's first year, with just 5 percent saying that the council's actions benefited them "a lot." The remainder of the respondents were roughly split between those answering that the council had benefited them "somewhat" or "not very much."

In spite of these possibly discouraging sentiments, second term Council Chairman Sesha Pratap '84 is among those who believe that undergraduates gained a great deal from the new government's existence this year.

"There was definitely a strong increase in the levels of activity on campus this spring as a result of the grants process." Pratap says, pointing to the government's distribution of more than $30,000 to dozens of groups. He adds that the council's mediocre ratings among students might stem from the lack of "direct impact" made by even the government's most outstanding accomplishments.

The successful reversal of College efforts to limit summer storage despite the widespread attention it sparked--occured entirely in bureaucratic circles. Some suggest that, as a result, this was a difficult victory for many students to appreciate, who in the end never had to go through a summer of hassling with commercial storage firms before regaining the privilege. And while the open meetings on the Ad Board and Core Curriculum were well-planned, they attracted few students. Organizers attributed the low turnouts to the weeknight scheduling of the events, while others suggested a more likely came--a low interest level among undergraduates when it comes to discussing most matters of College policy.

Student representatives and officials comment that even the best intentions--and, in cases like storage, excellent results--don't necessarily go very far in a community like Harvard, where students for 350 years have spent their undergraduate days without anything approaching an effective student government.

Officials say past history indicates that the council faces an unusually difficult task in erasing such a do-nothing legacy. The council must not only produce more than positive, visible changes in student life, they say. In seeking long-term support and attention, the government also must vie with better established extracurricular organizations--such as publications, drama societies, and athletic teams--that have traditionally proven the activities of choice on campus.

"The important thing to remember is that even though we're the Undergraduate Council, in many ways we're still a student organization competing for time and resources with other student groups," says Pratap.

"In the long run, that is the council's dilemma," adds Epps, explaining that the new government's "essential problem is that all the real action in student life is in established organizations, places that have run well for years."

This dual challenge to gain both credibility and attention, members agree, makes hard work the crucial ingredient. It is needed for both widespread student support and devoted membership willing to invest time week after week in doing what has never been done at Harvard before--achieve a lasting, viable means for students to be viewed as partners in the establishment of the College's policies and priorities.

"The council will fly or not fly depending upon the quality of the people who work with it," says professor of Biology John E. Dowling '57, chairman of the student-faculty committee that formulated the council. Adds Dean of the College John B. Fox Jr. '59: "The effectiveness of any student government is entirely a reflection of the work and care put into it."

The council's sub-committee structure and relatively strict attendance policy made council membership at least a two-meeting, six-hour-per-week endeavor. For the students serving on the council's grants-giving committee, typical work weeks often included five to 10 additional hours. And, like a small number of students, Council Treasurer Peter N. Smith '83 found serving on the Undergraduate Council practically a full-time job: a 30 hour-per-week commitment.

While every issue might not require the 30 to 40 hours that went into the storage and Core reports, council members say they now realize that it takes more than a series of meaningless revolutions to produce the beneficial changes in student life that will lead the council credibility among both administrators and students. "What we have to do is essentially repeat the storage success every year," says Michael G. Colantuono '83, who chaired the council during the fall semester. "That type of accomplishment will bring the council power, and the only way the council will continue to attract people if it gives them a piece of the power."

Many are optimistic about the council's proven potential, but few believe that the coming years--the most crucial in the life of any new student organization--are going to be easy ones. And Epps, who ran this year's highly successful fall elections, cautions that first year turnouts are usually deceptive as indicators of student interest, primarily because there are always a number of people who will run "just because it's something new."

While the long-term visibility of the government seems to be the central question, this year's council will likely not be deterred by the plethora of procedural questions that devoured much of last year. They should expect to benefit from the first council's extensive work on developing the body's internal rules and procedures, considered by many a "necessary evil."

Even more important, though, will be the record of work that never made it into the council's minutes. By year's end, council leaders had quietly developed a set of guidelines for the council to handle controversial "political" issues. These aimed at insuring that hot issues receive the uniform scrutiny and treatment ideally accorded to the more standard council business of grants and a range of issues related to the residential, educational, and extracurricular lives of Harvard students. Those guidelines--while not binding on this year's representatives--will join an extensive set of internal memoranda and recommendations designed. Pratap says, to give the council an "institutional memory" that insures against the potential discontinuity that has hindered previous student governments.

But Pratap and others realize that internal memos and precedents can only go so far. They say that this year's council may have to sacrifice some of its own ambitious goals just to guarantee that tangible benefits are garnered and visible to undergraduates. With greater satisfaction outside the chambers of a student government perceived as a way toward a happier--and more efficient group of council members, many will also be looking in next year's council for leaders who can provide the kind of decisive direction that, at times, was noticeably lacking this spring. Without it, the council may never be able to attract any more than a small core of dedicated students.

No one seems willing to deny that the latest attempt at undergraduate governance holds promise. But, unlike other undergraduate groups with healthy traditions that help support their new endeavors from year to year, the council is working under a deadline. Its predecessors have not lasted long--the previous Student Assembly lasted four years and its fate had become clear long before its final meeting.

At the same time that council members try to effect real change and influence, they feel compelled to keep a perspective on their structure's fragility. Says Epps: "My theory is that new arrangements of this sort last about a decade. We always have to be flexible and willing to look at it again." Saying "there's really no reason for the council to exist if it doesn't have the support of students." Pratap suggests that a yearly referendum asking students if they approve of the council's performance might be useful.

Another question in the Crimson poll found that 75 percent of undergraduates say they are "better off with" the current form of student government. With 14 percent unsure, only 11 percent wish the Undergraduate Council was not in place. But the downfall of the Student Assembly provides a chilling reminder of how quickly plans for effective College governance can sour: With an initial voter turnout of more than 50 percent and three times as many candidates as seats, the government met with great enthusiasm, but within two years it had become a volunteer organization.

In the eyes of some officials, the only way to make sure that things never reach that point is for the council to reach out beyond its membership. The key, these officials say, is to seek out students not necessarily interested in the weekly obligations of council membership but who would willingly support the government's efforts on particular projects or activities.

Only a few students were active in that way last year. The number who choose to supplement the work of the 89 elected representatives in the future may be the best gauge of the council's attempt to assert itself as an important part of mainstream undergraduate life. To succeed at Harvard, last year's participants agree, the council may have to become the student organization.