'The New UC': Crusaders and Lunatics

Jokers to the left of me, clowns to my right/Here I am, stuck in the middle with you.

Ask some vocal members of the Undergraduate Council to reflect upon the past year, and they'll offer you a litany of accomplishments. They'll rave about the council's greater accountability and improved public image. They'll even puff up with pride and refer to themselves as "The New UC." But don't believe the hype. The council is mired in a cesspool of irrelevance, misguided activism and petty infighting.

Until this year, the council more or less successfully balanced its three missions: to lobby the administration, to fund student groups and to foster community via campus-wide social events. The council functioned best when it took stances on issues which enjoyed widespread student support--issues like increased Crimson Cash, a 24-hour library and Core reform. But a cadre of left-wing ideologues captured dozens of seats this fall, mainly in uncompetitive races and hijacked the council with activist platforms unrepresentative of real student concerns.

Meetings were spent condemning foreign nations, denigrating ROTC members and replacing "freshman" with "first-year"--a move which one female faculty member dismissed as "a non-issue." A favorite topic was gender equity. Councillors spent the entire year deploring the status of women at Harvard and their desire for more female leadership played a large role in electing Elizabeth A. Haynes '98 as chair of the student affairs committee.

But when Haynes balked at their radical agenda, they browbeat her with vicious personal attacks until she eventually resigned. The activists didn't want gender equity. All they wanted was different faces mouthing the same ideas.

Needless controversy plagued the council this entire year. It voted without fanfare on divisive issues like expelling ROTC commissioning ceremonies from Harvard Yard, cutting funding for the Freshman Formal and supporting a multi-cultural student center, which many students oppose.

By comparison, initiatives with broad-based support--like a bill supported by Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis '68 and leaders of Digitas and the Harvard Computer Society and designed to remodel to Science computer terminals and protect students from acquiring carpal tunnel syndrome--were termed "irrelevant" by council executives. The practical and relevant was sacrificed to the obscure and trivial.

Bellicosity poisoned relations with University Hall, too. Councillors' behavior at monthly Faculty meetings was utterly embarrassing. In good faith, President Neil L. Rudenstine agreed to waive University policies which technically prohibit students from speaking at meetings. Rudenstine even agreed to answer councillors' questions--provided he was given advance notice in order to prepare a comprehensive answer.

In response, councillors abused their privileges by asking surprise questions and straying from the agenda. They arrived at the formal meetings wearing baseball caps and blue jeans, and they misrepresented to the press the positions taken by administrators. Their disrespect reflected poorly upon all undergraduates. But on "The New UC," rhetoric masks for substance, arrogance for leadership.

A side from using "The New UC" for ego trips and political games, the extremists repeatedly thwarted attempts of other members to foster a sense of community on campus. If you can remember any council activity this year--like comedy concerts, Thanksgiving airport shuttles, Yale football tailgates or Springfest--chances are that the campus life committee planned it. While the rest of the council passed meaningless resolutions, it did all the hard work.

True, the campus life committee--headed by Rudd W. Coffey '97, Philip R. Kaufman '98 and Tally Zingher '99--had its share of failures, mainly because of poor postering by the rest of the council. As punishment, the leftists slashed Coffey's budget by 25 percent and reallocated large chunks of future monies to other committees. But if you didn't partake of any council services, no matter. There won't be any next year, because there's no funding for them on "The New UC."

One of the few bright spots this year was in the finance committee, where members continued the work of Councillors Brian R. Blais '97 and Edward B. Smith III '97 in reforming student grants guidelines. But still, about 20 organizations were denied funding requests. Meanwhile, two council executives spent $400 on airline tickets for a junket to Philadelphia. Remember: that's your money they're spending.

But looking at the big picture, why should anybody care? It's obvious: the council is your collective voice at Harvard University. When councillors disrespect administrators, or foster division on campus, or play games with your money and trust, they do it in your name. You look asinine because of their antics.

Maybe you can change the council by joining the group next year. But don't count on it. There is no place on "The New UC" for thoughtful, sincere members. Imagine being elected next October and walking into your first council meeting. Look to your left: You see a white-male-hatin', ROTC-condemnin', Rudenstine-insultin' crusader. Look to your right: You see a raving lunatic. You'll soon feel out of place. And you'll have 25 meetings to go.

Christopher R. McFadden '97 was the 1995-96 Eliot House delegation chair to the Undergraduate Council and is a Senior Editor of The Harvard Crimson.