U.C. Leaders Betray Student Interests

After all the self-congratulatory rhetoric from members of the Undergraduate Council this year, students (i.e. the "represented") will finally get a chance to make their voices heard. Well, sort of--and no thanks to the council.

It took the work of former member Anjalee C. Davis '96, who is taking a semester off from the College, to give Harvard students a College-wide referendum. The council's constitution mandates the possibility of a student referendum: "Any question may be committed to a referendum or poll by the Council or by a petition signed by one-tenth of the undergraduates.

Davis, who previously lost her bid for president of the council and refused a position on the reevaluation committee, is well-known for her antagonistic relationship toward the council. Nonetheless, Davis played by the rules and easily gathered more than 1,100 signatures for a petition which would require five questions to be brought before the students in a binding referendum on April 19-21.

But, last Sunday, when Davis presented the petition to gavel-wielding Council President Carey W. Gabay '94, Davis was quickly ruled out of order. Gabay decreed that only one of the five questions would be brought before the students and, furthermore, that one question would be the recent term-bill fee hike. Gabay also remarked that he was being "nice enough" to even allow the referendum on that one issue.

Mumbling something about an alternative interpretation of the constitution, Gabay decided that every question brought before the council must have its own list of signatures from one-tenth of undergraduates. This decision was later supported by a five to one vote of council executives and will most likely be upheld by a simple majority of the full council in a vote this Sunday.

Although certainly a convenient interpretation for Gabay and his fellow executives who wish to maintain the status quo uncontested, such an "interpretation" denies a simple fact. Every student who signed Davis's petition signed a petition which called for five questions: "We, the undersigned Harvard-Radcliffe undergraduates, commit the attached questions to a referendum.

As each of the 1,128 signatures pertained to the petition calling for all five questions, well over one-tenth of undergraduates have demanded that five questions be brought before the entire College in a binding referendum. Thus, the question of "interpretation" quickly evaporates--unless, of course, one has a vested interest in distorting the expressed will of undergraduates.

With this recent controversy, we must begin to wonder about the intentions of the Undergraduate Council. Isn't it time to worry when the president of our student government only selectively follows the will of the students and the mandates of the council's own constitution? Isn't it time to worry when the basis of his limited support for the interests of students and the council's own constitution depends upon his expressions of generosity?

With these questions, we applaud the likely intervention of Dean of Students Archie C. Epps III. Yesterday, Epps expressed his support for the undivided referendum: "If the U.C. fails to present these issues on their referendum ballot, I will convene a meeting of the Committee on College Life to discuss this failure next week....The results of that meeting would probably be that the College itself would put forth these issues for a student vote, which would then be binding for the Undergraduate council." Epps should immediately instruct the council to follow it is own rules, bringing all five questions on Davis's petition before all students in a binding College-wide referendum.

The referendum would not only be healthy and useful but, at this point, necessary. Maybe we have taken too many courses in liberal political philosophy, but we sincerely believe that the duty of student representatives is to represent the interests of students. Yet, it has become clear that the interests of students do not predominate at the proceedings of the council.

Other than Gabay's dismissal of Davis's petition, the most flagrant example is the recent term-bill fee hike itself. Council members voted overwhelmingly to raise students' fees by 50 percent, while a Crimson poll revealed that most students (56.2 percent) disapproved of the fee hike (with 25.2 percent uncertain).

Yet, this decision was only one of three recent measures designed to hoard students' money. Last spring, the council passed a measure to eliminate the check-box option on term bills, forcing students to write a personal letter to the dean to beg for their own money back. And this spring, the council passed another measure to overturn a previous decision of giving house committees all unspent monies at year's end.

Now, after the work of outsider Davis, students should be given the opportunity to decide these issues for themselves. The five questions on Davis's referendum include the three financial measures mentioned above, as well as whether council elections will be held both semesters instead of once a year and whether council executives should be elected to their positions directly by students.

It is a sad day when students can be saved from their own representatives only by the grace of sympathetic administrators. Unfortunately, that day has come.