What is to be Done?

Staff Editorial

This December, as the campus was plastered in blue and yellow candidate posters, Harvard's undergraduates turned out in record numbers to choose a new President and Vice President of the Undergraduate Council (UC). Perhaps it was the disastrously ineffective administration of Sujean Lee and Annie Fernandez, or simply an inflated sense of self worth, that motivated no less than six tickets to cast themselves into a contest characterized, as usual, by gross inflation of accomplishments, but also by remarkable amounts of cheating, mudslinging, and outright lying. Yet, this December's fierce, though at times comical, battle did entice more than half of all undergraduates to cast a vote for UC President, and consider, if only while the web-page was loading, the course they wanted the UC to take in the coming year.

And the student body has spoken; Rohit Chopra, endorsed by Perspective for his commitment to progressive ideals and ability to effectively lobby administrators, was elected President by the largest margin in history. We hope that the days of uncontested elections, in which real, controversial issues were skirted and widespread apathy manifested itself in low turnout and distrust of UC Representatives, are over. Last year, liberals were hard-pressed to find an acceptable candidate. Questions of ideology were avoided altogether. In these pages, we wrote that the UC must "consider Harvard's slap-on-the-wrist policy toward sexual violence, ... and its embarrassingly white and male faculty." And this year, the candidates have considered these issues, with Fred Smith and Chopra both championing changes to the University's appalling-and illegal-policy on sexual assault, as well as increases in faculty and curricular diversity. Yet, while we applaud the candidates for their engagement with real issues, we fully realize that turning the UC into an effective student government will require great effort from the Representatives themselves as well as the student body. While it is important to recognize the UC's importance as a lobbying body that can bring students' concerns and ideas to the University, the new administration must work toward changing the attitude espoused by too many representatives who reject any semblance of a representative democracy and do what they think is best for the student body, rarely, if ever, consulting with their constituents. To this end, regular contact with constituents must be made mandatory, attendance at meetings enforced less selectively, voting records published, and the student body regularly informed of the UC's activities and debates. The UC's failure to allocate and distribute student group grants this fall is an unacceptable violation of the trust placed in our student representatives. A restructuring of the UC's cumbersome three-committee structure should be investigated in order to ensure that, in the future, grants are distributed in a more timely manner.

As a long-term goal, the Chopra/Stannard-Friel administration should undertake the institutionalization of existing-and creation of new-avenues for participation provided by the UC. The great progress made in publicizing positions available for undergraduates on various student faculty commit tees should be furthered by formal announcements and advertising. Chopra must make sure that these committees meet and should publicize through the media any reluctance by University administrators to schedule these meetings. This pressure on the University must be paralleled by an effort to make the committees' student members more accountable. To that end, we urge the new administration to make mandatory-and public-regular reports by the student representatives. As a first concrete step in the democratization of Harvard, Chopra and Stannard-Friel must make good on their promise to advocate for student representation on the Ad Board. However, we encourage them to push for a student representative as part of a more comprehensive review of our Ad Board, that would compare it with similar bodies at other schools, and issue concrete recommendations to Harvard for its reform.

This year's curricular review presents an important opportunity to work toward the democratization of Harvard. Chopra and Stannard-Friesl must push for the formalization of student input in the undergraduate academic experience. The UC should respond to widespread interest in the creation of new courses and concentrations, and should make sure that the end-product of the curricular review adequately reflects this interest. Furthermore, a genuine re-evaluation of the academic landscape at Harvard must include an indepth look at faculty diversity. The hiring-and tenuring-of more non-white and female faculty is necessary if Harvard is to live up to its commitment to broadening intellectual perspectives present on campus and in academic debate generally. The UC, as a lobbying body for student interest, should more effectively bring the full weight of student concerns and demands to the attention of the administration.

Additionally, the Chopra/Stannard-Friel administration should continue efforts to make Harvard more affordable, especially for low-income stuednts. Since 47 percent of Harvard undergraduates receive no financial aid, and the vast majority of those students receiving financial aid come from families with incomes far above the national median, it is particularly important that Harvard take steps to ensure that low-income students have the same opportunities at Harvard as their wealthier peers. Chopra has, in the past, demonstrated an awareness of this issue, and pushed the Financial Aid Office to offer free Harvard Box Office tickets for the lowest-income students. His plan to institute free online e-sourcebooks is another step in the same direction. However, an even more crucial measure is to demand that Harvard fully endow its financial aid program-like Princeton already has-and thereby ensure that Harvard fully meets family need. Moreover, the UC can work to make Harvard more affordable, by allocating funding to student groups that plan to host free social events and provide free services.

We are optimistic that Chopra and Stannard-Friel will make good on their progressive campaign promises, and institue internal reforms to make the UC both more efficient and more responsive to student concerns.

--by the Perspective Staff

Questions? Comments? Please contact perspy@hcs.harvard.edu