News
Harvard Medical School Cancels Student Groups’ Pro-Palestine Vigil
News
Former FTC Chair Lina Khan Urges Democrats to Rethink Federal Agency Function at IOP Forum
News
Cyanobacteria Advisory Expected To Lift Before Head of the Charles Regatta
News
After QuOffice’s Closure, Its Staff Are No Longer Confidential Resources for Students Reporting Sexual Misconduct
News
Harvard Still On Track To Reach Fossil Fuel-Neutral Status by 2026, Sustainability Report Finds
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.