The UC, Going Forward into Irrelevance

The year 2013 at Harvard might well be remembered as the year of tomato basil ravioli. Sam B. Clark ’15 and Gus A. Mayopoulos ’15, running on a simple but effective platform of more tomato basil ravioli soup and thicker toilet paper, eked out a victory in the Undergraduate Council presidential election. This alone is an unprecedented feat for a “joke” ticket. Their win and somewhat predictable subsequent resignation represents a clear vote of no confidence from the Harvard student body to the UC, an organization that has recently sought “relevance” to students. It is a powerful wakeup call, a signal that the UC must reconsider the way business is done if it wants to remain relevant in student life.

A root cause of student discontent is the perceived inefficacy of the UC. As highlighted in the recent UC presidential debate, candidates year after year promised to improve engagement between the Council and the student body but year after year have provided few tangible results toward these ends. As Mayopoulos said in the debate, such platitudes are mere “empty words.” Clark also questioned the effectiveness of simply “being firm” and “having more meetings” with administrators, an apparently prevalent mentality in the UC. This modus operandi lacks transparency and concrete progress that the student body can see, creating unfavorable impressions of the UC.

The Clark-Mayopoulos ticket significantly diverged from this approach. Besides their obvious humor, what distinguished Clark and Mayopoulos was their straightforward platform and their focus on engaging students. Their lack of UC experience paradoxically seemed to serve as a benefit, as people saw them not as detached, aspiring politicians, but rather as relatable peers. Instead of promising an extensive slate of vaguely achievable promises, Clark and Mayopoulos promoted small but tangible (both literally and figuratively) changes to soup options and toilet paper. These practical suggestions for campus life were widely recognized and supported among the student body. Students expressed excitement after Harvard University Dining Services, supposedly coincidentally, announced last week the introduction of weekly tomato basil ravioli soup.

Certainly, other factors contributed to the exceptional election result. Due to an error by the UC Election Commission, this year’s election was decided by a plurality voting systems rather than the ranking system that is normally used. But regardless of the electoral system in place, that Clark-Mayopoulos garnered more votes than any other ticket speaks volumes to students’ perceptions of the UC.

In the end, Clark-Mayopoulos’s success usefully highlighted problems with the UC at little real cost. Because the pair plans to resign, the UC will elect their replacements internally. Last week, we endorsed C.C. Gong ’15 and Sietse K. Goffard ’15, the only ticket that seems fit for the job. The close second-place ticket will most likely take office in the end. But the new administration will come to power amid a wave of student dissatisfaction. They campaigned on a slogan of “Go Forward”—now, they must go forward in a significant, new way, or they risk dragging the UC into permanent irrelevance.