This Year In Fun

Although the average undergraduate might sooner be able to sing outdated Third Eye Blind lyrics than launch into a description of the College’s role in social event planning, no Harvard student—no matter how detached—is able to avoid at least the trickle-down effects of the College’s influence on social life. Last spring, the outlook was bright for the future of space and funding for social life at the College, and we lauded the administrators and students who facilitated a new and improved social environment. With the foundation of institutional changes and structures set in place last spring, this past school year was a test to see if the structure of social life at the College could stand.

Perhaps the greatest challenge facing Harvard’s social programming is the diverse composition of its social scene. Many Harvard students get their weekend kicks traipsing down Mount Auburn Street and knocking on the heavy doors of final clubs, while others turn to House Committee-sponsored stein clubs and parties funded by the Undergraduate Council (UC) for fun. Faced with accommodating both the party-hopping social butterflies and the early-to-bed bookworms on campus, the College must attempt to install a universally sound social agenda. Changes in the structure of social programming boards, new student spaces, and a new alcohol policy have all changed the way students experience social life at Harvard.

This year was the first full year of operation for the College Events Board (CEB)—an autonomous body with undergraduate-elected members and a $200,000 budget from the College—which has proven to be a boon to Harvard’s social scene. This fall’s Harvard Carnival was a solid—though not overwhelming—success for the CEB. The board’s second and third large-scale events were bigger disappointments. The Harvard-Yale pep rally promised to be a saving grace for an otherwise-botched Game (thanks to Boston Police Department-enforced restrictions on the tailgate) until it was cancelled due to rain. A similar fate befell the CEB’s big spring event: Yardfest. While students sheepishly admitted to being excited for an anachronistic performance by Third Eye Blind, the heavens dumped buckets on Yardfest’s attendees. The CEB should be applauded for salvaging the event, but enthusiasm (and attendance) for the event was dampened.

These mixed successes reveal that investing too many resources in events that are easily and arbitrarily ruined is unwise. Rather, the CEB should continue planning the small events it executes well. While these events might not draw the entire campus, they accomplish more than the large-scale events because they bring people together based on common interests and facilitate genuine social interaction.

Few locations could hold more potential as a pillar of Harvard’s social life than the Cambridge Queen’s Head. From its opening in April, the Pub has lured students week after week with live music, kitschy décor, and $2 drafts. Much recognition should go to the students and College administrators behind the Pub’s conception and its execution, especially to project manager Zachary A. Corker ’04, former University President Lawrence H. Summers, and former Dean of the Faculty William C. Kirby. The work of these individuals, however, is largely over; it is now the responsibility of the CEB and the student body to make sure the Pub continues to be well utilized.

It is no surprise that college students flock to a space that promises cheap booze and buffalo wings, but only at Harvard would a library serve as a social hub of the undergraduate body. Since its October opening, Lamont Café—which takes the place of the library’s former reference room—has been a welcome addition to students’ favorite reading period haunts. While socializing and a library may seem like strange bedfellows, on a campus where many students prefer a 4.0 to a 40, we cannot pretend to be too surprised.

We also cannot feign shock at the light use of the Student Organization Center at Hilles (SOCH). Though the administration has offered considerable perks to SOCH users—including a snazzy café, a well-equipped library, and plenty of meeting space—student groups have been reticent to move their activities to the Quad. The administration, however, is wrong to penalize student groups by taking away their office space for failing to take full advantage of SOCH’s resources and office space in its first year. An adjustment period is to be expected.

Beyond the spaces and events over which the College has immediate control lies the uncharted territory of social events hosted by extracurricular groups and social clubs. In an attempt to exert control over this arena, the College proposed—and the Faculty approved—a poorly-conceived alcohol policy this spring.

The new policy codifies the College’s previously informal amnesty policy, protecting students who bring themselves or their dangerously intoxicated peers to University Health Services (UHS) from disciplinary action. But the policy also makes student group leaders liable if the intoxicated student was drinking at a student group event. This policy—which encompasses all student groups, but is presumably meant to target final clubs and other social groups—provides a disincentive for students to bring their fellow drinkers to UHS for fear of getting the leaders of their group in trouble with the College. Formulated without the input of any students, the new policy will be both a danger to undergraduates’ safety and a disincentive for student groups to host parties where an intoxicated student might consume the liquor that breks the camel’s back.

For all of the social development the College has undertaken this year, this policy signals an unfortunate erosion at the interface between students and the administration on issues pertaining to social life. Nonetheless, the new foundation for a better social life has passed its first major test—but will take the continued combined efforts of administrators and students if it is to continue to flourish.