Report Pushes Accountability

Following a year of scandal and setbacks for the Undergraduate Council, the student government could face its first comprehensive review since it was created in 1982.

A College report officially released yesterday recommends that a student-faculty committee revamp the council.

The report proposes that house committees get more involved in the council. It also suggests that students other than council members be allowed to participate in faculty-stu- dent committees.

The changes could dramatically reduce the scope of the student government's power, since such committees oversee aspects of the College ranging from the core curriculum to house life.

The suggestions are part of a re-examination of the entire administrative structure of the College by a group of faculty and administrators. Dean of the Faculty Jeremy R. Knowles will decide whether to act on its recommendations.

Some council members are concerned about the larger role of faculty and administrators in overseeing Harvard's only student self-government.

Faculty and Administrators

"One concern we might have is if there's not enough student interest on that student-faculty committee," said former press secretary John Feeney '97.

"It might just become a faculty overhaul committee, and that defeats the purpose of student government," he said.

Others said the council needs no reform or outside interference. If adopted, the report could dilute council members' power by increasing the role of the house committees in student government.

"I don't think there's a need for major structural change within the U.C., and frankly I think in the last year the U.C. has proven itself quite capable of handling its own affairs," said former council member John J. Applebaum '97, a member of the council's reevaluation committee.

Some faculty say they have little interest in overseeing undergraduate life, though they would serve on the committees if asked.

"I have a very foggy idea of what it all was about," said committee member Theda Skocpol of last semester's series of council scandals. "I'm not sure I want to know much more of what it's all about."

Heavy Loads

Many professors face heavy administrative loads already, leaving less time for teaching and research.

"In principle, I'm sure [the faculty] would care, being deeply caring people," said Professor of Slavic Languages and Literatures William Mills Todd III.

"In practice, the deans raid our departments for committee membership almost mercilessly," he added.

The co-chair of the report committee, however, said she was sure faculty would willingly spend time to examine the council.

"I think that we'll find faculty who are interested in this particular aspect of college life," said Administrative Dean of the Faculty Nancy L. Maull.

The report recommended the review because the council has never been evaluated, said co-chair of the committee Harry R. Lewis, Gordon McKay professor of computer science.

The council may not be living up to the ideals that established it, he said.

"There was an awareness on the part of some committee members that the hopes conceived in the Dowling report on the U.C. may not have been realized," Lewis said.

The Committee to Review College Governance issued the Dowling Report in March, 1981.

Committee Suggestions

The report recommended five council committees, including an Educational Policy Committee, instead of the three that currently exist.

The Dowling committee also said the report should be rejected "unless it provides provision for involving students more directly in all decision-making processes within the College, including tenure decisions, curricular offerings, and requirements for degrees."

Maull agreed the council is not perfect, but said those of other schools are not much better.

"I don't actually know of a large institution that has a satisfactory student government," Maull said.

The review may be tied to a general need for oversight, but has no connection to specific council scandals, Skocpol said.

"Everything in the University gets reviewed eventually," she said.

Maull added that the council recommendation is a very small part of the 78-page report

The changes could dramatically reduce the scope of the student government's power, since such committees oversee aspects of the College ranging from the core curriculum to house life.

The suggestions are part of a re-examination of the entire administrative structure of the College by a group of faculty and administrators. Dean of the Faculty Jeremy R. Knowles will decide whether to act on its recommendations.

Some council members are concerned about the larger role of faculty and administrators in overseeing Harvard's only student self-government.

Faculty and Administrators

"One concern we might have is if there's not enough student interest on that student-faculty committee," said former press secretary John Feeney '97.

"It might just become a faculty overhaul committee, and that defeats the purpose of student government," he said.

Others said the council needs no reform or outside interference. If adopted, the report could dilute council members' power by increasing the role of the house committees in student government.

"I don't think there's a need for major structural change within the U.C., and frankly I think in the last year the U.C. has proven itself quite capable of handling its own affairs," said former council member John J. Applebaum '97, a member of the council's reevaluation committee.

Some faculty say they have little interest in overseeing undergraduate life, though they would serve on the committees if asked.

"I have a very foggy idea of what it all was about," said committee member Theda Skocpol of last semester's series of council scandals. "I'm not sure I want to know much more of what it's all about."

Heavy Loads

Many professors face heavy administrative loads already, leaving less time for teaching and research.

"In principle, I'm sure [the faculty] would care, being deeply caring people," said Professor of Slavic Languages and Literatures William Mills Todd III.

"In practice, the deans raid our departments for committee membership almost mercilessly," he added.

The co-chair of the report committee, however, said she was sure faculty would willingly spend time to examine the council.

"I think that we'll find faculty who are interested in this particular aspect of college life," said Administrative Dean of the Faculty Nancy L. Maull.

The report recommended the review because the council has never been evaluated, said co-chair of the committee Harry R. Lewis, Gordon McKay professor of computer science.

The council may not be living up to the ideals that established it, he said.

"There was an awareness on the part of some committee members that the hopes conceived in the Dowling report on the U.C. may not have been realized," Lewis said.

The Committee to Review College Governance issued the Dowling Report in March, 1981.

Committee Suggestions

The report recommended five council committees, including an Educational Policy Committee, instead of the three that currently exist.

The Dowling committee also said the report should be rejected "unless it provides provision for involving students more directly in all decision-making processes within the College, including tenure decisions, curricular offerings, and requirements for degrees."

Maull agreed the council is not perfect, but said those of other schools are not much better.

"I don't actually know of a large institution that has a satisfactory student government," Maull said.

The review may be tied to a general need for oversight, but has no connection to specific council scandals, Skocpol said.

"Everything in the University gets reviewed eventually," she said.

Maull added that the council recommendation is a very small part of the 78-page report