The Aftermath of Wyclef

In light of Tuesday’s cancellation of the Wyclef concert, Harvard students have a right to be upset about spending $30,000 and getting nothing in return. Many members of the Undergraduate Council (UC) are frustrated too.

While there is a temptation to turn that frustration towards fruitless finger-pointing, we see this as an opportunity to channel our dissatisfaction towards more productive ends. Like UC Vice President Clay Clapp said in The Crimson yesterday, we agree that “a big priority will be to reevaluate and overhaul the way the UC is involved in social programming.” Only by admitting the mistakes of the past, honestly evaluating our own capabilities, and keeping the needs of students first and foremost in our minds can we begin to address the question of what went wrong. For these reasons the relationship between the Harvard Concert Commission (HCC) and the UC needs to be seriously reevaluated.

On Tuesday night, the UC met in an emergency session to discuss problems surrounding the concert, minutes after news of the concert’s cancellation had begun to circulate over e-mail lists across the campus. This failure of communication is only symbolic of the more serious flaws in the institutional relationship between the HCC and the UC. In the days leading up to the cancellation of the concert, the UC was denied access to critical information that could have led to more responsible decision making.

With a centralized planning process, detached from the rest of the campus, the HCC is prone to certain mistakes that can be prevented through greater transparency. Delegation and centralization can be useful tools for planning certain initiatives, but the result in this case was that the UC, responsible both financially and in terms of organizational legitimacy, was left powerless and penniless. When these channels of communication break down or don’t exist in the first place, those responsible for handling oversights are left no ability to fulfill that responsibility. In all, the process left a sour taste in the mouths of everyone involved, but if it takes a failure of this magnitude to spark debate on the future of the HCC, then perhaps all is not lost.

In future dealings with the HCC, we need greater transparency regarding artist selection, more complete disclosure of financial information, and broader support and input from the Harvard community at large. We need actual numbers on ticket sales, financial contracts, and other financial liabilities so that we can make educated decisions. Armed with this information, the UC can work with the HCC to plan successful events, rather than being relegated to second-guessing after the fact.

Perhaps now is also an appropriate time to consider the types and sizes of events hosted by the HCC. Is Harvard an institution best suited for smaller venues? Last week, Harvard Students for Israel brought over 450 students to see the Fools of Prophecy concert at Pound Hall with minimal funding from the UC—a smashing success by all accounts. Perhaps better support from University Hall is the answer. At other schools across the nation, university administrations themselves fund upwards of $100,000 for concerts for the student body, and as the Harvard State Fair demonstrated, University Hall can successfully pull off large events. These are important options that need to be fully explored before we embark on another event of this scale.

While we commend members of the HCC for their marathon effort, we must not accept this as “business as usual” at the HCC or the UC. Before we consider future activities for the HCC, significant institutional reform such as those enumerated above need to be explored and implemented. As elected members of the council, we will not in good conscience continue to spend students’ termbill fees on a system that cannot produce popular results.

The overwhelming sentiment among UC members, almost a dozen of whom explicitly endorse the ideas presented here, is that the failure of the fall concert was not a circumstantial failure but an institutional one. Thirty-thousand dollars could have benefited students in any number of ways, and it is our responsibility to ensure that correct mechanisms are in place to prevent the squandering of such funds in the future.



Lori M. Adelman ’08 is a social studies concentrator in Dunster House. Ryan M. Donovan ’07 is a government concentrator in Lowell House. Connor C. Wilson ’07 is a government concentrator in Adams House. They are all members of the Undergraduate Council.