Play By the Rules

When Harvard College administrators made the decision to cancel the Undergraduate Council (UC) Party Fund more than a month ago, the UC was up in arms. Much of its indignation amounted to little more than rhetoric and childish petulance. But the UC’s most salient argument has been overlooked until now. In the wake of the cancellation, UC members claimed that the College had overstepped its bounds since its decision violated the UC’s founding charter and constitution. Our examination of these documents bears out the UC’s argument.

Whether or not one thinks that the College’s decision to cancel the Party Fund was advisable, there are still major issues of legitimacy in the way that it has been implemented. The Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) resolution of 1982 that created the UC stipulates that “the allocation of the funds raised through the term bill charges [which provide the basis for UC funding] will be in accordance with the Constitution of the Undergraduate Council.” The UC Constitution, which was also approved by FAS, states, “The Council shall have final authority over the use of these funds.” There is no real ambiguity here; FAS clearly intended for the UC to have exclusive control over its own funds.

Nevertheless, throughout the Party Fund controversy, the College has asserted its right to exercise control over Undergraduate Council funding. There have been several rounds of negotiations and the College administration seems finally persuaded. Last night, the UC announced an agreement with college administrators that seems to defer ultimate veto power over UC expenditures to the Faculty Council. As long as the UC agrees not to fund alcohol, it can distribute its resources at its own discretion.

Ultimately, UC funding does not fall under the College’s jurisdiction. If the College administration wishes to dictate how the UC allocates its resources, they should have to do so through a vote of the FAS in order to avoid violating the 1982 UC charter.

Issues of whether the Party Fund should exist notwithstanding, the College acted improperly in its refusal to respect UC privileges conferred by FAS. If the University wishes to maintain a constructive relationship with students, it should not renege previous commitments. Since a university is a private institution, students are obligated to respect administrative decisions, even if they are unpopular. But when Harvard is willing to disregard established rules and procedures it becomes difficult to fault students for making a fuss. We hope the new agreement between the UC and the College will help bring an end to this unfortunate episode.