Illegitimate Reform

Periodically, a clandestine group of faculty members and administrators gathers in the Lamont Forum Room to adjudicate, review, and discuss. They compose the fabled paradigm of Harvard bureaucracy that is only an idea for some—evoking visions of the infamous Un-American Activities Committee—and is all too much of a reality for others. However obscure or real it seems, the Administrative Board of Harvard College (Ad Board) has been striking fear into the hearts of undergraduates since 1890.

Thankfully, reform may be underway. Last week, Interim Dean of the College David Pilbeam announced the creation a committee to consider Ad Board reform, bringing the call made last spring for Ad Board reform from former-Dean of the College Benedict H. Gross ’71 to fruition. But as progressive as this may sound, it seems that the Dean Pilbeam has already reinforced the status quo of Ad Board opacity: he named only three anonymous faculty members and no students to the committee. Without undergraduate representation, this committee cannot legitimately purport to reform the Ad Board, an organization so central to student life on campus.

It is critical that students are represented on committees that dramatically impact student life .Students bring a different and important perspective to committees dominated by Faculty. Further, it is far preferable to have students sitting on the committee itself than to have a committee of professors seeking out student opinion. Only by having actual student participation can the student perspective have an equal voice at the table, an effect that no amount of outreach by professors can reproduce. Furthermore, outreach by professors is by no means guaranteed—particularly on committees where Faculty members are faceless—and often falls short of even the best intentions. This is why students have, in recent years, slowly gained voices on important committees across the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. That process must continue.

Legitimate student involvement is especially important for the review of the Ad Board. Ironically, though the Ad Board makes decisions that directly affect student life, it fosters insular secrecy. The Ad Board considers all its cases in closed sessions, and even students who are being Ad Boarded are frequently confused about their cases. Students see and experience frustrations with the Ad Board and its lack of transparency that administrators and faculty may not even fully realize.

If the reform occurs in a mysterious vacuum, removed from students whose interests reformers claim to be considering, it will never be able to legitimately address the Ad Board’s weaknesses, nor the criticism against its secrecy. Even if one feels that students should not be on the Ad Board itself due to privacy reasons—a view with which we disagree—such concerns do not apply to the reform committee. There is thus no defensible reason to exclude students from the committee.

The Ad Board, its processes, and its transparency are a pressing concern to undergraduates. Though Harvard may not be a democracy, students should have a voice on issues that so seriously impact them. The College’s attention to this concern is crucial to build unity and trust between the administration and the students. Dean Pilbeam should recognize this by including students on the currently ridiculously secretive Ad Board reform committee.