Lies, Damned Lies, Council Ads

ANYONE who was alive and breathing at Harvard last year must have been surprised to read the Undergraduate Council's self-promotional statement in Monday's Crimson. In a paid, full-page appeal for candidates to run in the upcoming council elections, the council bragged about a long litany of accomplishments, including sponsoring "two well-attended concerts," and "[saving] senior hourlies from an attempt to eliminate them."

Apparently, the appeal was intended for gullible first-year students, because perceptive eyes familiar with the council's recent track record should have detected some major historical revisionism.

Fact is, the ad was chock-full of sugar-coated truth, half-truths and outright untruths. But don't take my word for it--a council member told me that the ad was "the biggest load of horseshit I've ever seen."

Former Council Secretary David A. Battatt '91 condemned the ad in equally unambiguous terms: "There's no reason for us to put out this kind of self-righteous propaganda."

AN exhausive account of the disinformation contained in the ad would probably fill this page, so I will list only a few examples.

The Claim: "The Council, rallying freshmen and house committees, brought about an administrative about-face by defeating an administrative plan to impose 25% randomization in some houses."

Reality: The Council jumped on the bandwagon only after more than 1200 first-year students petitioned Dean of the College L. Fred Jewett '57 to abandon the proposed changes in the housing lottery. For the council to claim sole responsibility for the administration's reversal is preposterous.

The Claim: "The Council sponsored two well-attended concerts by Jimmy Cliff and Suzanne Vega. Harvard now has an excellent reputation in the entertainment industry, if it should wish to have more concerts in the future."

Reality: This one contains two outright fabrications. The Suzanne Vega concert was so poorly attended that the council lost money hand over fist, had to take out a loan from BayBanks to cover their costs, and attempted to renege on their agreement with Vega to donate a portion of the concert's proceeds to AIDS research.

As for our "excellent reputation," the council so thoroughly bungled its efforts to sponsor concerts that Harvard is reportedly blacklisted in the music business. Former Council Chair Evan J. Mandery '89 told a Crimson reporter that one concert promoter advised him that the council would probably never attract a performer to Harvard again.

The Claim: "The Council came out against a possible attempt by Harvard's administration to litigate and push off recognition of the newly-formed Harvard Union of Clerical and Technical Workers....Harvard decided not to litigate, and recognized the union's legitimacy."

Reality: This statement is roughly akin to saying "I wrote a letter to the local paper supporting the right to burn the flag, and what do you know, the Supreme Court did exactly what I asked."

The Claim: "The council catalyzed a campus-wide debate on the appropriateness of having ROTC back on campus..."

Reality: I suppose that this one is technically true, but it's a sugar-coated version of reality. A more accurate account would be: "The council impetuously voted to invite ROTC back onto campus, and then retreated when it realized that it had provoked a firestorm of controversy."

IT would be bothersome enough if a council member simply promoted the organization by misleading unsuspecting students, but it's worse. The council paid $600 to mislead students--that's $600 of our money. Thirty of you folks should be aware that your $20 contribution to the Undergraduate Council paid for a sleazy public relations ploy.

It didn't surprise me to hear that the person behind the ad was former Council Chair Kenneth E. Lee '89, according to Battatt.

As I have pointed out in this column before, it was Lee who attempted to justify his initial support for ROTC by claiming that he "wasn't aware" of the military's policy of excluding gays and lesbians. Of course, Lee presided over a council meeting at which the issue was debated in no uncertain terms. Yet he still voted in favor of ROTC. In true Reaganesque fashion, we are left with two possible explanations: Either Lee conducted the meeting while in a coma, or he lied about his ignorance.

(The similarity to former president Reagan's amnesia defense is disturbing. After The Independent quoted Lee as saying he "wasn't aware," I asked him how he expected anyone to believe him. He insisted that the heated discussion of ROTC's anti-gay discrimination never penetrated his skull during the council debate. Just as with Reagan, I don't know which would be worse: if he was lying or telling the truth.)

I bring up this incident not to drag Ken Lee's name through the mud, but to illustrate his evident tendency to play fast and loose with the truth.

Actually, I do want to drag his name through the mud. Harvard students should not have to take the statements of their student leaders with a pillar of salt. Lee and any other council members who approved of the misleading statements in their ad have abused the confidence invested in them by the students they represent. A bit of righteous indignation is perfectly appropriate here.

Battatt suggested that the council's publicity should be "honest with the student body about the things we do well and the things we don't do well."

Good idea.