Open and Shut Case

THE Undergraduate Council executive committee made a smart move last week by moving to include one of the leaders of last year's open meeting petition drive in their upcoming appointment with the Harvard Corporation.

Of course the committee's vote could be rejected by the full council, or the Corporation could refuse to sit with a real, live undergraduate activist. What's more, the undergraduate that the committee chose--Noah Berger '89--said that he would prefer that the council chose a representative from RAZA or the Black Students Association to attend the meeting.

These obstacles aside, though, the executive board's decision marked an important step for the council. The vote acknowledged that the council does not hold a monopoly on representing student's concerns. We hope that the issues discussed by the student activist at the meeting will not be overshadowed by the council's agenda. It's about time the council realized that divestment and open governance are issues that greatly concern a significant number of Harvard undergraduates. That the Coporation invited the council to the meeting scheduled for March is the result of the divestment-activist led petition drive last year.

BUT the open governance issue, being fought by both alumni and students, has had remarkably little assistance from the council. Steadfastly refusing to broach any issues which seem political, such as divestment or the union drive, the council has been wary of joining in on a movement--led by campus activists--for a more accountable Corporation. The council plans to be silent on these critical issues in its upcoming meeting indicates its fear of challenging the administration--and reflects the abdication of its role as the student's political representative.

The council's choice on this score is an unfortunate one, but in their decision last week they at least acknowledged that they have made a choice. Issues of open governance and divestment are too important for the council to remain silent on--but their silence seems more tolerable so long as they acknowledge that such issues are important, and that someone needs to voice these concerns to the Corporation.