Chung Slaps PUCC Too Hard

The Crimson's stances toward the Progressive Undergraduate Council Coalition, expressed in Patrick Chung's column ("Sloppy Slap Shot," Opinion, September 23) and a staff editorial on September 25, invariably start with a firm reminder of why PUCC's reformist project is necessary. Chung acknowledges that the Undergraduate Council, the only body able in theory to speak on behalf of all the members of the College, "is just another extra-curricular activity" and "suffers from a lack of legitimacy." He also allows that the council's illegitimacy stems in part from the fact that "[it] is a bastion of white males." So far, so good. When representatives of campus progressive, ethnic and gay-lesbian groups, as well as other concerned individuals, began meeting last spring to discuss the council's failings, we pointed to the same issues in just the same terms.

Here, Mr. Chung shifts suddenly into an attack on PUCC's membership, motivation and intent. He paints the organization as a cabal of self-righteous radicals determined to impose their agenda on the campus; to complete the model, he suggests that PUCC is driven by a hubristic, "delusional" vision of the council's activist potential. In the same vein, The Crimson's editorial staff suggests that a PUCC victory would mean the politicization of the U.C. grants process, a potential disaster for conservative student groups. If any of this were true, students would have good reason for alarm. Thankfully, however, these positions rest on several misconceptions about PUCC's character and aims.

First, PUCC abhors the notion of directing U.C. grants to reward or punish ideology. We have proposed that a small sum of money--perhaps 2% of the council's semesterly budget--could be set aside to aid ad-hoc projects that engage in the defense of student interests. We understand those interests quite narrowly, as concerns that students hold and which affect a substantial portion of the College's population. Students working to maintain federal financial aid programs might qualify; those interested in, say, pro-choice advocacy, however urgent that issue may be, would have to look elsewhere. Every other aspect of the grants process would remain blind to organizations' political commitments. We hold this principle to be sacrosanct.

The second major error lies in the notion that PUCC is a band of ideologues bent on dividing the council and the student body. Chung asserts that PUCC's openly progressive bent "smacks of consensus destruction...and enrages legitimate conservative[s]." Of course, in order for "consensus destruction" to take place, a consensus must first exist; Mr. Chung has already admitted that no such consensus exists around the council. More importantly, PUCC seeks to create a legitimating consensus in campus politics--not by declaring a moral mandate for progressive concerns, but by creating an articulate dialogue around vital and potentially divisive issues, one which might produce the agreement lacking in Harvard's present, rhetoric-driven politics. As Mr. Chung would know if he had read the question-and-answer document that PUCC has provided to The Crimson, "we don't want to start a conflict, but to build a new basis for cooperation." This means seeking common ground with everyone on campus, not claiming priority for our own piece of territory.

PUCC agrees with Harvard's administration, with virtually every critic of the Undergraduate Council, and, to judge by his article, with Mr. Chung that such a legitimating consensus cannot occur within or around a council that is 80 percent male and chiefly white. So long as the council resembles a less-than-exclusive final club, it will remain a feeble presence on campus. For this reason, PUCC's coalition includes as equal partners leadership representatives and members of the Black Students Association (BSA), the South Asian Association, the Asian American Association (AAA), and the Bisexual Gay and Lesbian Students Association (BGLSA), along with leaders of Amnesty International, Harvard's Civil Liberties Union, Crimson staffers, many independent individuals, and, as Mr. Chung portentously reveals, a few figures from Perspective. Our 45 candidates and 100 non-candidate volunteers reflect Harvard's population in race, gender and ethnicity. They bring to the fore a range of concerns that the present council has largely ignored, and which any campus consensus must treat with respect.

As for Mr. Chung's fear that PUCC will allenate "legitimate conservatives," we can only point out that our candidates include socially conservative final club members and a former Salient editor. We are glad to put our commitment to dialogue and coalition into practice at any time and with anybody, and look forward to further, fruitful conversation with campus conservatives, whose legitimacy we (unlike Mr. Chung) do not presume to judge.

Of course, PUCC's effort is about more than consensus politics. We believe that, as the voice of undergraduates, the council should address issues that directly affect students' lives. Congressional cuts in financial aid are one such issue, which many campuses have worked hard to influence, and which the council has ignored. Working for student input into University decisions that shape our classroom and residential experiences seems to us to be another unavoidable responsibility of an adequate council. These are issues that students care about, and that an effective representative body should care about as well.

The Crimson's concern about these issues seems not to be that they are excessively radical--for they clearly are not--but that the council, "with its frightfully bad reputation," cannot serve as "a credible voice on these issues." That, of course, was PUCC's point at the outset. Only a representative council that places itself at the heart of campus debate over these issues--not dictating positions to students, but providing a venue for the articulation of interests and concerns--can wield a credible voice. We want to create such an Undergraduate Council, and believe that Harvard's students deserve no less.

In the end, the Crimson's arguments come down to simple pessimism about the prospects for changing an entrenched institution. As the Undergraduate Council is, the paper suggests, it shall remain--at least for the foreseeable future. Reformers must despair. PUCC's active and growing membership disagrees. Mr. Chung ends with the despondent coda, "I'll see you on a cold October night at the [council-sponsored] Gala Ball." Mr. Chung can do whatever he likes with his October nights. PUCC will be working, hopefully and collaboratively, to transform Harvard's politics in the interest of all students. --Garance Franke-Ruta '96-'97   Tobias B. Kasper '97   Jedediah S. Purdy '97   Ian Simmons '98   Julie C. Suk '97