Coverage of U.C. Not Balanced

I have been very pleased with the accomplishments of the Undergraduate Council this semester, and the coverage in the Crimson has generally been favorable. It was with great dismay and some confusion, therefore, that I read Wednesday's staff editorial accusing this semester's council of frivolity and irrelevance ("'Spirit Week': A Miserable Failure", Nov. 29, 1995).

The editorial was, first and fore-most, factually inaccurate. It implied that the Council had sponsored or even funded the recent "Hello Day," this event, in the words of its organizer, "had nothing to do with the council." I do not appreciate such inattention to detail in an attack on the council's relevance and competence.

With regard to Spirit Week, the Crimson's criticisms seem spurious and argumentative. The total expenditure for Spirit Week was less than $50, which amounts to less than one penny per student. It was not a top priority, but Council members expressed interest and we felt that the event was essentially harmless. It did not change anyone's life, nor was it intended to, but it was cheap and certainly fun for some students. Why should it be forbidden for Council members to try something lighthearted from time to time?

The charge of irrelevance is especially curious in light of the fact that the Crimson had run a staff editorial on the previous day calling for Harvard to divest from Shell Oil. This editorial mentioned a Council resolution, passed week and a half before, which calls for divestment as well. It is difficult to conceive that the Crimson did not consider this, the subject of their own staff editorial, relevant. Spirit Week and related events may not enhance our relevance, but they have consumed relatively little of the Council's time, energy, and money this semester.

Our allocation of $600 to subsidize HUPD's Rape Aggression Defense program was relevant. Our establishment of a phone bank to allow students to call Congress about financial aid was relevant. Our support of the recent conference on Ethnic Studies was relevant. Shuttle buses to the Yale game, and the Yale tailgate party, were relevant, or so the student turnout suggests. Our ongoing effort to examine the Core curriculum is relevant, as is our upcoming Concentration Fair. Our decision to support PBHA was relevant. Finally, our stand on Shell and Harvard's connections to the Nigerian military government was relevant, or so at least the Crimson apparently thinks.

Some of these actions have received favorable press in the Crimson, including staff editorials supporting our actions. Sadly, others have gone unreported or underreported. We have been doing "honest work on relevant matters," as the Crimson advises; regrettably, the Crimson seems to ignore much of this work. --Marco B. Simons '97   Chair, Student Affairs Committee   Justin C. Label '97   Tobias B. Kasper '97   Undergraduate Council