Survival of the Fittest?

When I was but a wee first-year, my expectations for my career at (what I unpretentiously assumed to be) the best university in the world were sky-high. I believed I could take hard classes, volunteer in the afternoons, work ten hours a week and still party like the lively first-year I was (weekends only, of course). I also thought I could join the Undergraduate Council. Boy, was I wrong.

The cutesy posters printed out last minute weren’t enough, nor were the lackluster pleas asking my latest acquaintances to vote for me. I lost miserably. And that was as it should be.

What unfurled was pseudo-Darwinian competition: those deemed “fittest” by the voting populace won—and deservedly so. The winners were the students who postered every entryway in their yard weeks in advance, the ones who knocked on doors and schmoozed with potential constituents, and the go-getters with enough initiative to draw up entire platforms. The losers? Kids (like me) grasping at whichever extracurricular straws were closest at hand.

This year, 2,792 students logged onto the council’s website to vote, more than ever before. And while any increase in voter turnout is decidedly good, we must assure ourselves a fair election—one of enterprise rather than endorsement.

Independently, The Harvard Vote or Die campaign seems harmless. Their mission—aiding candidates who (they felt) better represented the student body—is a noble one, as is increasing voter turnout. And when six of the nine students endorsed by Vote or Die were elected, contributing to the nearly 50% representation of campus minorities on the council, it seemed the campaign had done some measure of good. Yet it also creates a political system based on group interest rather than on individual issues.

Consider the following hypothetical: in the 2005 council elections, Harvard political groups start to lobby for candidates. The Democrats back candidates only if they voted for Kerry in 2004, and Republicans endorse Bushites exclusively. What results is a melee of political, not issue-based, proportions; groups seek candidates to run for the council to represent not a diverse constituency, but the desire of a select few on campus. Far-fetched? Not quite. For the first time this year, something vaguely resembling party-politicking actually happened during council elections. The results of a Dems’ survey asking candidates to answer seven questions—and ostensibly align themselves either for or against the group—were released on voting day. And though there’s an obvious difference between endorsement and a simple survey, the trend is undeniably troubling—and could, in the future, allow less qualified and more connected candidates to represent us.

So let’s take a cue from Darwin. We must let the system work not through party politics or interest group wrangling but through good kids with good ideas competing for votes. The council isn’t running a country—it’s running a group fundamentally interested in improving student life. We don’t need parties or interest lobbying. We must let the independent, proactive candidates become our independent, proactive council members.

Matthew R. Naunheim ’07, a Crimson editorial editor, is a history and science concentrator in Pforzheimer House.