Disruption Was Improper

To the Editors of The Crimson:

As the result of the roll call vote on Resolution 7S-32 was read, I regained much of the confidence that I had lost following the earlier vote in favor of the ROTC resolution. That the Undergraduate Council had reconsidered the constitutionality of Resolution 7S-28 seemed the result of a week of reasoned debate. Democratic participation in the student representative process yielded an important endorsement of minority rights.

In the moments that followed, my immediate relief and satisfaction turned into anger and indignation. Both parties involved in the debate resorted, on alternate occasions, to attempts to disrupt the meeting. Those unhappy with the decision to overturn last week's action attempted to adjourn the meeting. Members remarked that other parts of the agenda meant nothing in the new context. Although I deeply respect many members of this faction, I believed that the designated agenda for the meeting should not have been ignored as a knee-jerk reaction to the passage of a resolution they opposed. While Frank Lockwood proposed his resolution concerning new undergraduate organizations because of the ROTC, the reaffirmation of the Undergraduate Council's commitment was an important step regardless of the rest of the agenda. Those representatives who attempted to postpone the remainder of the council's business chose the wrong avenue to express a justifiable grievance.

Later in the meeting, activists who had previously acted by the council's rules initiated a frenzied attempt to disrupt the council's business. Members of groups such as the Society for Creative Action abandoned an effective set of rules when the rules no longer served the group's motives. No more than 20 students, chanting "let her speak," impaired (temporarily) a processs which had served them, along with the rest of the Harvard community, extremely well. They must know that their motives do not justify their methods, and even a member such as myself, who has actively supported their cause, loses much faith in them as a legitimate representation of public interest.

There is little that an open forum of representatives can do to prevent the undermining of order. Yet, faith in the ultimate success and legitimacy of the democratic system under which the council operates demands the respect of all concerned. Both representatives and activists violated this respect; nevertheless, interference with the democratic process is neither representative nor creative action. Michael Johnson '92   Council member