THE STUDENT COUNCIL

The Student Council's study of reorganization to avoid possible conflicts between its jurisdiction and that of the House Committees is simply another indication, if such is needed, that the Council is very much "on the ball". The Council's revival, started last year when the Constitution was brought up to date, has more than fulfilled the hopes of those who saw it as a necessary condition for the Council's survival and at the same time a step toward increasingly effective work.

Last night the Council adopted a report of its sub-committee which, in effect, said that there was no need for making any real change at the present time. It was felt that because Article I of the Constitution states that a man from each House shall sit on the Council, cooperation could be maintained through informal discussion and notification of House chairmen when any matter concerning a House was to be brought up. To supplement this there would be conferences between the President of the Council and the Inter-House Committee which the President is to help call into being each fall. Although much can be said for this point of view, since the present system has worked moderately well and any change can always be viewed as difficult and of questionable value, the Council has erred. One of the six plans suggested at the last meeting could have been adapted to give the Council the same degree of University representation that it now has, and, at the same time utilize the Houses as local units through which the Council might maintain a more direct contact with the individuals who make up the College.

The objection that any shift which would integrate the efforts of House leaders and the elected representatives of the student body would be prejudicial to the best interests of the student body is to say simply that the interests of the Houses are incompatible with the interests of the College as a whole. Since the vast majority of the three upperclasses act in dual capacity as members of both House and College, such an argument seems invalid. Representation of commuters and non- House members would stay the same, and the question of Freshmen can hardly be brought in on either side inasmuch as in neither case would their present unrepresentative condition be altered.

Even if the Council has voted the subject down for the moment, the slight, if highly commendable, action it did take to cooperate with the Houses indicates that the problem is a very real one and therefore will, as the Houses become increasingly important, crop up again. When it does the Council should not simply meet it by such stop-gap measures as it took last night but must take the bull by the horns and make real provision through constitutional means.