For a "Yes" Vote Tomorrow

Student government has had a very tough time at Harvard. Most incoming Freshman have coaquared the curious hunger that propelled them into all sorts of high school elections. Maybe they have already practiced enough Leadership or learned enough Citizenship. More likely, they have already gotten into Harvard.

This rejection of old values doesn't occur everywhere. Many universities, even some of the best, have "strong" student governments. At times these councils of democracy lord it over every conceivable student activity. They finance the drama, publish the newspaper, run the canteens, stage the dances, organize the political forums, etc. The moguls of student government stand at the apex of the single giant pyramid symbolizing campus power, prestige, and success.

This all seems rather bizarre to anyone accustomed to Harvard mores and prejudices. The idea of allowing one group, no matter how democratically selected, to control the activities and define the values of the whole student body seems ludicrous. Harvard enjoys a wealth of pyramids and is proud of the fact.

Still, for years the College has tolerated student government of one kind or another. And student politicians have had to tolerate the profound disinterest aroused by their every utterance. One politico, Howie Phillips, found this too difficult. In 1960 he piloted the Harvard Student Council into the mainstream of Richard Nixon's presidential campaign, and the HSC promptly sank.

It was replaced by the Harvard Council for Undergraduate Affairs, which survived for five tedious years. While their fellow students rediscovered the political challenges of the World Outside, HCUA leaders fastened on the strictest interpretation imaginable of "undergraduate affairs" and proceeded to issue lengthy reports on the poor lighting in various lectures halls and the general perversity of university policy toward motorcycle shelters. To suggest the atmosphere surrounding Council operations: In spring of 1963 the sharpest debates centered around WHRB's request to tape the biweekly meetings. Last spring, the HCUA perished of boredom.

At that time, an articulate minority of councillors advised that R.I.P. be engraved over the various experiments in student government, that the Harvard student body decided to do without formally what for years it had done without in practice. But a majority on the HCUA felt that one last try was in order, and the referendum then presented to the students listed only two choices: retention of the HCUA or acceptance of a new bipartite government, made up of a Harvard Policy Committee and a Harvard Undergraduate Council. The crucial decision--whether or not any sort of student government should exist here--was delayed until this term. That referendum takes place tomorrow.

The HPC-HUC venture began under the most trying of conditions. Behind it lay years of an ineptitude bordering on farce. It faced an administration that treated student government not with hostility (which might have been exciting) but with weary condescension. The student body stood divided between light-hearted opposition and apathy. And only a few months remained in which to do anything that might warrant a vote of confidence.

The two groups have used those few months remarkably well.

The HPC, led by Michael Abram, has begun to serve the function--unique in Harvard history--which the bipartite constitution outlined for it. That document left to the HUC all the relatively boring and trivial issues of administration which had drawn its predecessor into dark lecture rooms and damp motorcycle lots. The HUC was to concern itself solely with academic policy. The Berkeley riots, which occured shortly before the new government began, highlighted the growing student interest--around the country--in educational policy. The HPC seemed a promising vehicle for converting interest into constructive reform.

Though it is still too early to expect dramatic results, that promise appears to have been realized. The Committee issued several well-researched position papers during the Gen Ed debates. The last one, opposing the Moise Amendment, was excellently timed and fortified the Faculty concensus which eventually defeated the amendment. Earlier in the term, the HPC filed a report with the Committee on Advanced Standing and has received assurances that the main demand of the proposal, more and better advising, would be met. Presently the HPC is considering ways to increase and rationalize student influence over junior faculty appointments--a project more easily accomplished and in the end more important to students than attempting to influence tenure decisions. In conjunction with several campus political groups, the United Ministry, and the Kennedy Library Institute, the Committee is trying to establish Faculty-student House seminars on controversial domestic and international issues.

But the most exciting effort so far has been the Educational Audit proposal, which set up a regular HPC subcommittee to review, and issue reports on, the curriculam and rules of each department every four years. Under Evan Davis, the subcommittee has already enlisted the services of a number of capable students and the cooperation of many of the department chairman and senior tutors. With this proposal, the HPC has found an excellent way of reaching to the heart of Harvard's educational system. If the momentum already built up continues, this subcommittee could have a lasting effect on course offerings and tutorial regulations.

Last spring's constitution gave the HUC an unexciting assignment. It was to do what the HCUA had done so that the HPC could get on to more interesting endeavors. The members of the HPC were to be selected by the Masters, presumably for intelligence and knowledge, while the HUC was to make do with elected politicos.

Unexpectedly, the HUC under, chairman Daniel Goldfarb, has made something out of its mundane job and has already surpassed the HCUA in political imagination. From the Masters, the Council has wrested midnight parietals on football Saturdays. This seems to have damped the councillors' fire on this issue, but a "yes" vote tomorrow would give next term's HUC a chance to reopen the discussion. The Council has distinguished itself with many minor, but helpful, achievements: It ensured that interhouse dining at Radcliffe would indeed be free, published an informative booklet on the draft, began to formalize student contacts with the Overseers Visiting Committees, consulted with the Coop to improve the textbook department, and reported on Yale's experience with a non-faculty master (John Hersey). The Council also conducted a poll of student opinion on the House assignment system, out of which emerged a detailed and intelligent proposal for reform--which the Administration inexplicably ignored.

This term's major effort has been an attempt to persuade the Administrative Board to allow accused students a personal appearance at disciplinary hearings. The fate of the idea remains in doubt, but the mere broaching of it has initiated a useful round of self-questioning among the senior tutors and deans.

It would be simply untrue to claim that the HPC and HUC have earned a vote of confidence by the sheer weight of their accomplishments. There has not been enough time for that, What is important, is not the achievement, but the goals: This student government doesn't aim at electing someone to the American Presidency; nor does it see Nirvana in a neon-lighted lecture hall. Instead it is trying to focus the intelligence of interested students into the dark corners of Harvard's administrative policy, to improve substantially the education every student receives. It seems just possible that the College has finally found a student government fitted to its needs and idiosyncracies. The experiment may still fail, but there is every reason to give it a chance to succeed.