Vote Yes This Week

THINGS HAVEN'T GONE so well for aspiring student politicos since the last officially recognized student government voted to dissolve itself in 1969. Until 1978, there were simply no council seats to run for. And the splintered Student Assembly, since its inception, has served little more than the resumes of student-government jocks. Starting today, students have the chance to bring an end to Harvard's record of meaningless student government; we urge them to take it, and vote "yes" to the proposed Undergraduate Council constitution.

Students and Faculty members have now scrutinized the long record of undergraduate ineffectuality for more than two years, and have come up with a new form of government for next fall that has a fighting chance for effectiveness. By voting to tack on a $10, completely refundable surcharge to undergraduate term bills, and to centralize representation on student-Faculty committees, students could have a previously unheard and unified voice with financial support.

With its financial resources and more unified structure, the council will be able to distribute its funds to support worthy campus organizations perenially short of cash. With judicious and fair support of campus groups--and a campus-wide party or two during its first couple of terms--the council just might give students more of an opportunity for united activism. We remain skeptical of whether even a revamped structure can cure apathy, but it certainly cannot hurt.

Today, tomorrow and Wednesday students can vote in a referendum on the constitution. After the Faculty made clear last month that the inclusion of guaranteed minority seats in the new government inevitably would lead them to nix the plan, the student group drafting the constitution for more than five months quickly ended its circuitous bull sessions and eliminated the controversial minority representation clause. Not everyone was pleased with that move. "Some of you would trade your mother for a student government," one member told his compatriots. But in the end, all agreed that they would be foolish to miss the chance for Harvard's first centralized and funded student government.

Now the rest of us--the ones who have never cared much about the state of student government, much less its shape--must decide whether or not to approve the new form of government. We all should spare 10 seconds in the dining halls and vote in favor of the new council.

THE MOST IMPORTANT REASON for voting in favour is the constitution's crucial funding clause. Because the council would annually distribute more than 80 percent of collected funds to campus groups, this provision will allow fledgling but well-intentioned groups to make their causes and interests known to the community. Supporting diverse and financially strapped smaller student organizations could help resurrect interests known to the community. Supporting diverse and financially strapped smaller student organizations could help resurrect student interest and unity on the border campus wide issues the Undergraduate Council itself should address. We would expect the council to focus its funding on non-frivolous groups that have traditionally lacked visibility, particularly minority organizations.

Furthermore, the prospect for the student input if the constitution fails to get the necessary two-thirds approval and 50 percent voter turnout are grim. The failure of the referendum would kill the prospects for an assertive, recognized student voice for years to come. Students and Faculty who have shaped this plan for more that two years agree that it would be a long time before students had the energy and desire to start searching for a student government again.

And there is a lengthening agenda of vital concerns for effective council to address. Topping the list is how to insure that the myriad concerns of minorities are given serious serious, constant attention. When the student group writing the constitution grudgingly dropped the guaranteed seat clause, it vowed to take up the question as an early item of business for the new council. We would hold them to this. Besides, united opposition to federal financial aid cuts, and to University stock-holdings in South Africa--among other problems--is desperately needed.

Ultimately, perhaps the most convincing reason for voting to approve the new government is that there is no reason not to. Thinking that voting against the plan will signal to the Faculty that it can't bully our leaders is misguided. It would not create a more perfect government but instead kill the possibility of any possible student forum to work beside the Faculty. That would suit University Hall just fine. And not voting at all is also kind of heartless: Let's finally give our junior politicos a chance to strut their stuff in a structure that actually shows promise. If we don't like what we see, we can get our money back. But until then, let's give these guys a chance.