News
Garber Announces Advisory Committee for Harvard Law School Dean Search
News
First Harvard Prize Book in Kosovo Established by Harvard Alumni
News
Ryan Murdock ’25 Remembered as Dedicated Advocate and Caring Friend
News
Harvard Faculty Appeal Temporary Suspensions From Widener Library
News
Man Who Managed Clients for High-End Cambridge Brothel Network Pleads Guilty
To the editors:
I am writing to protest the way the Undergraduate Council elections are being handled by the election commission and The Crimson.
In an e-mail message sent Nov. 22 to all candidates, the election commission notified us of a mandatory meeting to be held the next day from 9 p.m. until midnight. Either the candidates or a member of their campaigns were required to attend. The commission's decision to inform 18 people of a mandatory meeting the next day indicates either they have no regard for candidates' prior commitments or they do not plan ahead.
The Crimson's list of indiscretions includes its poor way of introducing the candidates for council president: "Trevor S. Blake '00, T. Christopher King '00, John A. Burton '01 and Noah Z. Seton '00 will all vie for the presidential seat along with Henry C. Quillen '00, Eduardo J. Dominguez '01, David L. Levy '00, Edward 'Ted' A. Swasey '00, Rebecca F. Lubens '00, M. Michelle Robinson '01 and Jonathan Gruenhut '99" (News, Nov. 23).
What sets Blake, King, Burton and Seton aside from the rest of the candidates, making some appear like extraneous peons in tow? Is there a reason for relegating seven perfectly legitimate candidates to a second-tier position? And if there is, why was it not discussed in the article? JONATHAN GRUENHUT '99 Nov. 23, 1998
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.