Uncertainty Is the Key Word As Assembly Elections Near

One word characterizes the state of student government at Harvard: uncertainty. Members of the student-Faculty Committee on Houses and Undergraduate Life (CHUL), College administrators and former delegates to the now-defunct Constitutional Convention are picturing at least a half-dozen scenarios of impending upheaval in student representation at Harvard this fall. Patterns of student government could be re-shaped and fixed for years. By the same token, the new Student Assembly, to be elected for the first time this fall after being evolved by the convention last year, could fizzle out and fade away. There is no consensus to be found among the crystal gazers.

Archie C. Epps III, dean of students, said last week he saw two alternatives that the Student Assembly could pursue. On the one hand, the members of the Student Assembly could request formal recognition from CHUL. On the other, Epps said, the members of the Student Assembly could ask the University to appoint a special review committee to consider different options for student government reform. The committee would be similar to the Fainsod Committee that established the student-faculty advisory committees--mainly CHUL, the Committee on Undergraduate Education (CUE) and the Committee on Rights and Responsibilities (CRR)--in the wake of the campus unrest of 1969.

When the school year ended last spring, Harvard administrators such as Epps and Dean Fox were still befuddled by the convincing mandate the convention's new constitution had received from students. About 70 per cent of the students who voted approved the constitution--despite a few controversial clauses--and about 85 per cent of the undergraduate body showed up at the polls. This constituted one of the most dramatic displays of student consensus in years. But while the convention delegates had labored long over the development of a workable student government, and had tried hard to garner approval from undergraduates, no one had spend much time pondering how the new Student Assembly would mesh with the existing network of student-Faculty committees. Consequently, a rift emerged among the convention delegates.

One group of key delegates felt that, in the wake of the impressive mandate, the convention should continue to meet and press for comprehensive reform of the existing system of student representation while the time was ripe. Another group of active delegates felt the convention had already gone far enough by itself, and should wait to let the duly elected Student Assembly decide the future of student government at Harvard. They were afraid the convention might incense students by appearing to be a body that was out of touch with the rest of the students. The group that wanted to wait prevailed. As a result, those steering the convention have washed their hands, to a large extent, of the responsibility of student government reform. This has left a tremendous vacuum. No one knows exactly what is going on, and everyone points to the first Student Assembly elections as the key to the future of student input to University policy.

But the internal structure of the convention, at least, is clear. Its constitution provides for the creation of a fairly typical student government. There will be 85 members in the assembly, with students elected from their respective Houses and living areas of the Yard. There are provisions for recalls, referendums and grass-roots meetings between the representatives and their constituencies, to make sure student opinion is well represented. The assembly will have a few standing committees to deal with housing, education, the organization of social functions, and the University's disciplinary policies toward students.

Court decisions have complicated a controversy that last spring centered on the minority plank in the constitution. As a result of the Bakke case, the Supreme Court this summer ordered a North Carolina appeals court to reconsider a decision banning the use of such minority planks.

Predictions about the potential effectiveness of the Student Assembly are hesitantly optimistic among those most closely involved with it. Jay Yeager '79, a delegate to the convention, said he thinks the Student Assembly can wield effective power this fall, but he admitted that "the assembly will only have a modicum of legitimacy, and whether or not that will remain is questionable." Yeager said that, for the assembly to gain power and legitimacy, it must carefully consider student opinion.

William Friedman '79, a member of both CHUL and the convention, said, "We must acknowledge that there is a chance that the Student Assembly won't get off the ground. And we can't automatically believe that the assembly is legitimate or good. The assembly needs to find a couple of strong issues and do something with them." Friedman added that some time in November, after the Student Assembly has met a few time, its committees should meet with the corresponding student-Faculty advisory committees to develop a working relationship and plan future reforms. "The Student Assembly needs a period of germination," Friedman said.

Maxine Pfeffer '81, a member of the Committee on Undergraduate Education (CUE) and enterprising secretary of the now-defunct convention, said the Student Assembly might start off working on a recent student proposal to establish a counselling system whereby upperclassmen would advise freshmen on an individual basis. "It's called 'Students Helping Students,'" Pfeffer said. "That program might be the first run by the Student Assembly. Right now, it's run through the Freshman Dean's Office." Pfeffer said that before the assembly elections there will be a meeting held--open to anyone interested--to set the ground rules for the elections, which will probably be conducted by the House committees in a fashion similar to the ratification vote. "I think a lot of freshmen will run," Pfeffer said. "And I think a lot of convention people will run just to make sure the assembly doesn't fall flat on its face."

The Bakke decision has complicated a controversy that last spring centered on the minority plank in the constitution. As a result of the Bakke case, the Supreme Court this summer ordered a North Carolina appeals court to reconsider a decision banning the use of such minority planks. The minority plank, which allots one seat in the Student Assembly for a representative from each of five Harvard minority organizations, evoked an unexpected amount of controvery last spring.

Towards the last few weeks of the push for ratification, Michael A. Calabrese '79, former chairman of the convention, and a few insiders in the convention were aware of a North Carolina appeals court decision ruling that a student government minority plank similar to the one in Harvard's student government was unconstitutional. Calabrese did not tell all the other members of the convention of the ruling, because he feared fueling the controversy around the minority plank and he said he thought it would merely confuse students. Epps also knew about the judicial decision, but made no special effort to disseminate the information. After the constitution passed, the legal difficulties with the clause became known to the student body at large. Epps said he saw the North Carolina decision as a potential obstacle to University recognition of the nascent Student Assembly.

Over the summer, the Supreme Court vacated the Fourth District Appeals Court decision that the minority plank in the student government at the University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ordered the appellate court to reconsider its decision in light of the recent Bakke decision. But the Appeals Court decision is reconsidered, the lower-level decision favorable to the UNC minority plank--made by a district court judge in Durham, North Carolina--is the law.

Andrew A. Vanore, Jr., senior deputy attorney general for North Carolina, said last week the reconsideration has been pending for several weeks and that he expects the appellate court to take action "pretty quickly."

In light of all this, the University doesn't really know what to do. Epps has said he is not a legal expert and will probably confer with Steiner. Steiner, when asked whether he had read any of the decisions, said he had not and did not plan to. He said he was unfamiliar with the cases and had no opinion about them.

Calabrese maintains that there are several differences between the UNC case and the situation at Harvard. For instance, Harvard is not a public institution, but only receives federal funds. Also, the difference in the means of selecting the minority representatives stipulated in the two constitutions means the cases may not be comparable. "Only in the most obscure way does it relate to Bakke. And even if it does relate to Bakke, that decision was more in our favor."

Over the summer, the attitude of Harvard administrators toward the inchoate Student Assembly has become more favorable, according to students working with administrators. One student deeply involved in the assembly said the new administration attitude makes him wonder if Epps, Fox, and Rosovsky sat down at some point in the summer and decided that the University should quietly encourage the new student government. Epps, in an interview last week, took a considerably more favorable stance than he has since the North Carolina decision became known.

For instance, Epps said he had given former delegates to the convention permission to pass out information about the approaching assembly elections to students in Memorial Hall during registration. Although this action is minor, Epps termed the action "a restricted approval" of the Student Assembly. He was quick to clarify that this does not imply University recognition--such recognition can only come from CHUL on behalf of the Faculty. Epps said he intends to consider each request make by the Student Assembly on a case-by-case basis. For instance, once the 85 assembly members are elected, they will need a fairly large building to meet in. Last year, Epps raised the possibility that the University--because of the judicial decision--might not be able to supply such a building. But last week Epps said, "Should the request come in, I would want to discuss the matter with the excutive committee of CHUL. We could probably reach some kind of compromise. These compromises can be taken without formal recognition." The CHUL executive committee--consisting of Fox, three masters, three students and Deans Epps, Spence and Moses and guests, has traditionally closed its meetings to the press and other CHUL members. The committee has been used as a means of circumventing a formal vote on an issue at a full CHUL meeting. By working through this committee, Epps and Fox can operate quietly. They can avoid adverse publicity in connection with their discussions of quotas and affirmative action.

Epps last week suggested that he might seek alternatives to the present minority plank, possibly through his efforts with the Race Relations Committee. "I wonder what particular problem is being addressed by quotas. If the assumption is that whites would not elect blacks, I question whether that is indeed the case." Epps noted that several blacks have been elected heads of House committees, that the president of the Glee Club this year is black, and that the executive editor of the Harvard Independent this year is black.

Epps said the North Carolina appeals court decision was not the only barrier to recognition of the assembly. "We would not entirely base our decision on [that] decision," Epps said. "There might be other alternatives we would want to use without facing the issue of legality... Bakke does seem to say something to us about quotas, and it seems to be prohibitive."

Calabrese said he is aware of a sentiment among more radical students that the Student Assembly could diffuse energy previously funneled into effective demonstrations against the administration. "I don't think there is a grand conspiracy to co-opt student power, but I think it has occurred to them [Harvard administrators] that if they don't provide for student input into University decisions, they'll have a dangerous situation on their hands ...They probably realize it's in their own best interest to work with the Student Assembly instead of ad hoc demonstrations. This will funnel student energies so that they are less emotional. Whether that takes away from the positive power of demonstrations is up to the quality of students in the Student Assembly. If the activists use this as their vehicle, it can be very effective...Student activists must make equal use of the assembly or it could become a buffer for the status-quo.