Let's Stop This Senseless Bickering

To the Editors of The Crimson:

I Would like to take this opportunity to respond to Mark N. Templeton's September 23 editorial, "Inside the UC."

While I disagree with many of the editorial's substantive suggestions, most if not all UC members vigorously welcome new ideas and serious advice when it is given in the spirit of truly wanting to improve the efficacy of the Undergraduate Council. However, respectable, well-reasoned suggestions lose their credibility when they are surrounded by sarcasm and petty name-calling. There is no reason to include phrases like "every resume-stuffing Gov jock" and "bumbling tradition." The editorial failed in relaying its key points to many students and especially UC members who where simply put off by the first few paragraphs; unfortunately, the editorial succeeded in perpetuating the senseless and detrimental antagonism between the UC and The Crimson.

The tone of the article suggested that The Crimson would find fault with the UC no matter what agenda is pursued. In reference to a UC survey given to guage support for last spring's calender reform resolution to lengthen intersession this year, I was shocked to read that "If the Council believed it was truly a representative body, then it would not have needed to survey its constituents."

First, from personal experience in dealing with the Registrar, Dean Jewett and other administrators on this issue, I know that they required such a survey before they would even consider making such an unprecedented calendar change. Indeed, the survey enabled what this same editorial lauds as one of the "limited successes" of the year. At the time, literaly dozens of administrators, UC members and students--including Crimson editors--applauded the survey and said that such contract with constituents was precisely the way to make the UC a "truly representative body." If we had not conducted the survey, The Crimson probably would have attacked the Council for not seeking student input. Either way, the UC can't win.

Furthermore, Templeton incorrectly implies that the UC has never considered his suggestions for improvement.

In terms of cutting membership, there is always a tradeoff between reducing bureaucracy and maintaining a representative group of students. Cutting the UC roster only risks losing hard-working people with intiative who may not be the one or two most popular people in their houses. It is a complex issue that does indeed merit serious consideration, but the solution is not as simple as slashing the number of eligible positions to three-fifths.

Also, with regard to a student-wide election of officers, the UC membership--not the student body at large--is more qualified to judge who has dedicated more time to the Council and who has been a more effective leader in committee when voting for the top four positions. A clear majority of students voted against campus-wide elections in a student body referendum given in the spring of 1989.

Lastly, in reference to Templeton's suggestion that the social committee should be disbanded, the hundreds of people who enjoyed the reading period study breaks, the burgers at the Harvard-Yale picnic or the many events at Spring Fling weekend might disagree with the editorial's assertion that "no one cares" about social committee events.

But there is no point in bickering further. This is a new year, with a new Council and a new agenda. The UC will do its best to start the fall semester on a positive note, as we continue to garner more student input and be more assertive with resolutions.

The UC is far from perfect, but many members have pledged to work hard and dedicate their time to improve our only student government. We hope that The Crimson will soon share some of our optimism. Together, let's finally turn the page on the senseless antagonism and help make the UC work, and work well. Sound advice given in the spirit of cooperation will benefit all of us. Steven N. Kalkanis'93   Academics Committee Co-Chairs