Convention Faces Apathy and Distrust

THE HARVARD-RADCLIFFE Constitutional Convention--already bruised from some hard blows delivered by the campus minority groups and the liberal purists who valiantly fought to defend the sanctity of the one-man-one-vote philosophy--will face the obstacle of surmounting the negative opinion about the constitution that has resulted, in part, from both the inability of Harvard students to come to a consensus and the famous cynicism that Time magazine has so perceptively told us pervades our campus. The brazen convention members, up to now, have been confident that one day they would be able to call themselves the founding fathers of such a prestigious organization as the student government of Harvard. But the bubbly effervescence of the founding fathers has lost some of its initial fizz, and the latest word is that the convention members will have a difficult task awaiting them when they return from spring vacation to begin the ratification process.

Earlier this year, one convention member intimated that if Harvard students were indeed enveloped in phlegmatic apathy, this would work to the convention's advantage--students would indeed laugh at the very notion of students having a say about much of anything that goes on at Harvard, but they wouldn't feel strongly enough to actually vote against the constitution. Ironically, just the opposite might happen. Students might care enough to point out the constitution's weaknesses and refuse to ratify it, without caring enough to profer a viable alternative. It looked like just such an irony might become reality, when the South House delegation to the convention presented the results of a poll of 69 students that showed that 55 per cent of students favor the concept of student government, but only a paltry 15 per cent would actually vote to ratify the convention's constitution.

This sudden student opposition to the constitution could be a simple gut reaction to something new and a consequence of the proclivity of Harvard students to find fault in almost anything. If so, there is a definite possibility that convention members could sway this negative reaction by illustrating their faith in the new constitution as the best alternative to the fairly miserable current state of student influence on policy decisions at Harvard. A lot depends on the impressions students have about the authors of the constitution If there is a feeling that the convention delegates are building castles in the air in order to one day live in them, then little will convince students to take the efforts of the convention seriously. However, if students feel the convention delegates are conscientious, self-abnegating students who are merely trying to make life better for their fellow students, then the chances of the proposed student assembly ever convening are considerably better.

Despite these impediments, last week the convention overcame a major hurdle and received the best indication to date that students have been paying attention to what has been going on in Lehman Hall for the past five months. After students voiced opposition to a clause in a rough draft of the constitution to provide special seats in the assembly for representatives from campus minority organizations, the minority organizations mobilized to neutralize this anti-affirmative action sentiment. The convention members first reacted to this flurry of activity with a sort of pleasant amazement that the convention had finally provoked a response from the students, even a somewhat negative response. Having nearly 90 students show up for a convention meeting--most of which in the past had barely managed to keep a quorum--was, at Harvard, an accomplishment in itself. A sense of excitement and importance galvanized the meeting. But the eager excitement quickly turned to anxious hesitancy as it became readily apparent that the members of the minority groups meant business. The minority groups were there to force the convention to pass the clause by threatening to boycott or actively work to defeat the constitution when it comes up for ratification. The minority students participated in the floor debate, during which basic issues involved in the Bakke case now before the Supreme Court incited histrionics on both sides. The minority students found it hard to believe that there was so little support at Harvard for this basic affirmative action policy. The South House poll showed that over 70 per cent of undergraduates opposed the idea of giving the minority groups special representation and were therefore opposed to the constitution in its present form. The convention delegates, similarly, abhorred the thought of tainting the "divine" institution of one-man-one-vote and were amazed that the minority students were so eager to discard this basic tenet of political philosophy.

WHEN THE DEBATE got hot, it became obvious how necessary it was for the convention to retain the clause. The convention did indeed consist of mainly white, conservative students who were likely to create inadvertently a form of student government insensitive to the special needs of minorities on campus. The more the establishment-oriented delegates spoke of the importance of their kind of "political" equality and the more the minority students excoriated them for their lack of compassion, the more it became evident that unless the new student assembly established special seats for representatives of minority organizations, minority needs would be ignored. To delete the minority clause would have been disastrous. The convention would have alienated the most potent and energetic group on campus, besides taking a morally reprehensible position. After two hours of debate, the convention voted according to conscience rather than pragmatism and approved the clause by more than the necessary two-thirds vote, despite the poll figures that show most students would reject the constitution if it included the clause.

The convention members hope that with the backing of the tenacious minority students, they can eliminate student distaste for the minority clause. After all, students supposedly are discerning enough to realize that liberal democracy isn't so kind to minorities. Supposedly, everyone understands that modifications are needed to help those who suffer from discrimination in the system. But, the convention also faces the notorious student apathy and the incredible propensity for bickering found among Harvard students.

The need for a student government is not simply immediately practical. In the great scheme of things, it does not really matter that much who decides who gets to eat scrambled eggs and who will eat Frosted Flakes. There is a philosophical ideal involved in all of this, an ideal many of the convention members seem to take seriously. The ideal is a community in which individuals don't isolate themselves from others and refuse to accept imperfect goings-on around them. Only by working closely with others on a communal level to solve the little problems can we ever hope one day to be able to solve the more profound problems that we find in our society. Harvard teaches us not to ask questions--don't ask why you can't have hot breakfasts or exams before mid-year vacations and, similarly, don't ask why society does not live up to conceptions of justice we learn about here. Students' experiences at Harvard set patterns for the rest of their lives. And at Harvard, one is taught not to look around, but, instead, to get a head start on the isolated path to "success"--a lonely path traveled by the individual, not the group.

This is why the aims of the constitutional convention are good, and why the aims of any such group would be good. The view that Harvard is simply a corporation offering keys to success for those who have the choice to either buy them or spend their money elsewhere is deplorable. Harvard should be viewed as a community setting an example that will teach students how they should--as individuals--integrate themselves into the communities in which they will live in the future. The convention to date faces entrenched cynicism and apathy. There is good reason for students to feel this way, but this does not make the goals of the convention any less admirable. With the minority groups now satisfied and even eager to help with the ratification in the next few weeks, the constitution might have a chance of being ratified. But this will come about only if the convention members work strenuously to make students realize the laudable philosophy underlying the desire of many of the convention delegates to create a new student government. This should be the primary reason--and a good reason--for voting for the constitution.