What About the 'Student Bill of Rights'?

It has been a month since the U.S. presidential election, but a new round of elections begin this week, at least for Harvard students. Even though it feels like we just elected Undergraduate Council President Robert M. Hyman '98 and Vice President Lamelle D. Rawlins '99, it is already time to vote for the new council leaders. By now, everyone is sick of the campaign posters, debates and promises and cannot wait to see all of this come to an end.

As in this year's disappointing U.S. presidential campaign, almost all the candidates are running on similar platforms, promising a responsive council, Core reform, gender equality and a multicultural student center. With almost everyone pledging to work toward the same goals, the urge is to vote for the most recognizable name, or perhaps for the incumbent Rawlins, but I urge you not to decide so quickly.

Rawlins and Michael A. O'Mary '99, her vice-presidential "running mate," announced their decision to run on the eve of the national elections. Rawlins, who began the "running-mate" concept last semester with Hyman, again joined a candidate who has worked for the same goals and who shares similar views. However, O'Mary will neither help nor hurt Rawlins, but he will try riding on her coattails to help him win.

Last year, Hyman and Rawlins ran on a platform called the "Student Bill of Rights." Among the things they believed students had a right to were "a safe campus", "gender equality," "privacy," a "responsible and responsive student government" and "better student services and public spaces." Most of the rights themselves are self-evident and non-controversial, since who would argue that student's should not have a safe campus or against gender equality? Hyman and Rawlins neglected the issues most important to students, like grade posting, better UHS service and improved MAC facilities.

Now Rawlins is making her bid for the presidency, promising to finish what she and Hyman started. She has accomplished a good deal, including extensive work with anonymous HIV testing, Rape Aggression Defense classes and the student group and shuttle bus summits. Yet she is running on a platform of finishing what she and Hyman started precisely because they never tried hard enough to implement their ideas in the first place.

Rawlins especially hopes to continue working for racial and gender equality. This desire comes after no real attempts were made to push for an ethnic studies concentration, something of high priority to many students on campus. As for gender equality, although the council passed a bill requesting that all official uses of the word "freshman" be replaced with "first-year," Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis '68 vetoed it, leaving the issue unresolved. And even though many faculty have been tenured over the past year, the council took no action to try to get students more involved in a process that directly affects them and that could narrow the gender gap among tenured faculty.

Another one of her "rights" is campus safety. There have been at least four reported incidents involving students and muggers around the campus this fall alone, one of which took place outside a Wigglesworth window. We have not seen any increased patrols, campus lighting or blue light telephones over the past year. And what about interhouse card-key access, another promise Rawlins made last year? While non-interhouse access protects the students inside the buildings, it leaves the students walking on the streets defenseless. The council should not settle for anything less than 24-hour interhouse card-key access.

The only thing the council has shown students this year is that its own internal problems have prevented it from getting things done. After all, its legislation received about as much coverage as did the heated debates between Hyman and Rudd Coffey. These former presidential opponents could not put personal interests aside, and Coffey had to finally resign.

Every year, all the candidates make the same promises, and every year, the issues the students are most concerned about the ignored. A key issue this semester is the referendum to increase the percentage of funds the council finance committee is allowed to give to student groups. Right now, the committee receives 60 percent of the council budget for distribution, but ends up having about $10,000 extra in non-collected funds. With a new bill supported by Rawlins and passed last spring, the funds will roll over and remain in the finance committee rather than be distributed to other council committees. Another new referendum proposed by Rawlins and O'Mary will only increase the funds to this committee, which already has a $10,000 surplus that could be used to hire a well-known band and a sponsor a successful Springfest.

Everyone knows, probably even Rawlins, that it was impossible to accomplish everything she proposed in her "Student Bill of Rights." Rather than spurt out an overwhelming number of promises that can't be fulfilled, candidates and the council should choose one or two goals, like Core reform and interhouse card-key access, that students really care about and want to see happen before they graduate. We gave Rawlins a chance, and while she didn't completely fail, she didn't fulfill her promises. This time, students should vote for someone who really believes that, as Rawlins said in last week's debate, "Rhetoric is one thing and actions another."