IOP Members Propose Structural Reforms

A secretive self-selection processes. Closed meetings. Unpublicized minutes. Exclusive luncheons. Special privileges for members.

It may sound more like a secret society than a Harvard political organization, but some students charge that these phrases aptly depict the Student Advisory Committee (SAC), the governing body of the Institute of Politics (IOP).

These students are proposing structural reforms in the selection of SAC members, which they hope will end years, if not decades, of what they see as, at best, an exclusive governing body which takes for itself special perks and, at worst, a self-perpetuating old boys' network.

"There is a definite caste system at the IOP," says former IOP member David B. Alpert '00, who was not on SAC. "Some people in SAC feel they're more important...and entitled to extra [privileges] because they're in this higher class of people."

Central to the reform proposals is for the IOP's committees--which plan events, internships and study groups--to elect their own chairs to SAC. Currently SAC picks committee chairs from among its own ranks.

The proposal will be considered by SAC in January, and whether it will muster the two-thirds majority necessary to pass is, for now, anyone's guess.

But whether or not the specific proposal passes, some point to the fact that SAC is entertaining notions of reform and has, over the past several years, become a more diverse body as evidence of a movement in a more inclusive direction.

In particular, they point to the recent election of SAC Chair Byron J. McLain '00, who says the goals of his term include making all welcome.

"I think that my freshman year there still existed a tangible 'old boys network' at the IOP. In fact, as a first-year I initially questioned whether or not the IOP was a place where I wanted to spend a majority of my time, since I particularly did not see many minorities involved there," says McLain, who is black.

But he notes that SAC is now a much moreinclusive body than it was then--14 of 30 currentSAC members are women and 12 are minorities--andhe pledges to empower those who are at thecommittee level.

"I can promise you that the students who becomeinvolved in the IOP's programming and planningevents will be more diverse next semester and nextyear," he says.

Levels of Hierarchy

Many charge that SAC--which is composed eachyear of 25 to 30 students who are chosen fromamong the associates, or regular participants ofthe IOP--takes privileges for themselves they donot grant to other members.

Critics point out that SAC members often takespecial seating at IOP events and participate inexclusive luncheons with visiting politicians.Last spring, for example, SAC members had a brunchwith Henry Kissinger '50--a fact that associateswere not officially alerted to.

Critics also charge that SAC is not responsiveto opinions of non-SAC members.

"It is frustrating to try to coordinate withpeople at higher levels," says former associateRachel L. Brown '01, who says she had difficultieswhen planning an internship forum and left the IOPafter her first year. "I felt like I was runninginto a brick wall with my ideas."

SAC members argue that SAC meetings themselvesare open to the entire IOP membership, but criticssay that SAC does not encourage attendance bynon-members.

"No one ever told me when [SAC] meetings wereor invited me to attend," says Kathryn R. Markham'99-'00, an associate who is helping draft thecurrent proposals for structural reform.

Outgoing SAC Chair Jeffrey P. Yarbro '99 saysthe perception that associates do not have asignificant role in the IOP is untrue.

"I think associates have tremendous opportunityto be involved in every aspect of the Institute ofPolitics. [They are often] in charge of eventsfrom their earliest days at the IOP," Yarbro says.

"I do think it is unfortunate that people thinkyou have to be in the leadership to stay involvedin the organization," he adds.

A third complaint raised by critics is thatmany upperclass non-SAC members drop out becausethey have feel they have little role in theorganization.

According to former IOP associate Aadil T.Ginwala '99, students who are not selected to beon SAC by the end of their sophomore year arediscouraged from applying again.

"It's not the best way to run anorganization--to pick people their freshman yearand have them covertly run things for the rest oftheir time at Harvard," Ginwala says. "Everythingfeels sort of `back-room,' and that drives away alot of people."

McLain, for his part, acknowledged in an e-mailmessage that he did not think associates feltwelcome at SAC meetings, and says he agrees thattoo many associates drop out of the IOP aftertheir sophomore year.

McLain says that among his stated goals are tomake the IOP more open, to reduce the focus on SACmembership as the culmination of one's involvementin the Institute, and to reduce the specialprivileges that SAC members receive.

SAC member Michael J. Passante '99 describesrecent IOP decisions to increase associateinvolvement as a step in the right direction.

"We've established more small policy discussiongroups and monthly brainstorming sessions forassociates," Passante says. "We've also createdseminars for committee chairs, to help betterexplain to them the IOP structure."

Perks and the Old Boys' Network

A long standing complaint about the IOP ingeneral, and SAC in particular, is its lack ofrepresentation of women and minorities.

One striking example was presented by anassociate who did not wish to be named.

"I walked into the SAC office once, and sawthings written on the wall about a woman on SAC inreference to `underoos," says the associate. "Itseemed kind of weird--the place seemed very clubbyand frat-like."

In an election process that is self-selectiveand closed, these concerns are reinforced amongsome.

"There have been concerns in the past that thisis an old boys' place, and that there's not enoughdiversity," says SAC member Eugenie A. Lang '00."This [hasn't been] true--over the past couple ofyears, but there will always be nasty assumptionsabout anything done behind closed doors."

While both McLain and Yarbro point to theincrease of female SAC members over the past fewyears, Markham notes that just three years agoonly three women were elected to SAC.

Lang says she feels McLain's election as chairreflects a more reform-minded outlook of thecurrent Student Advisory Council. "I think thathis election was partly a result of people'sfeelings on the changes being discussed."

Reforming Elections

But some members feel that the current trendstowards a more representative SAC and greaterinvolvement of associates will not suffice tosolve the IOP's longstanding structural problems.

"Because of the magnitude of the problem,anything other than structural change runs therisk of being reversible," says Markham, who is aCrimson editor.

IOP associates can apply to SAC each springterm. Applications are then reviewed by asubcommittee of current SAC members. Aftercandidates are interviewed and carefully reviewedby current members, the new SAC members arechosen.

Once selected, members serve until theygraduate or resign from SAC.

A group of associates and SAC members have beendrafting a proposal that would provide for thedemocratic election of individual committee chairsand SAC members.

"It's not unreasonable, particularly in anorganization designed to foster participation in ademocratic political system, for people to want toelect their leaders," Markham says. "I think amore inclusive voting process would serve to bringmore people into the IOP, and give SAC members anincentive to be accountable to the associates whoelect them."

Alpert says he supports the reforms becausethey would give regular participants more of avoice in what goes on in the IOP, and would createmore of a connection between SAC members andassociates. He also voiced concerns about thecurrent method of SAC selection.

"There's a perception that selection to SAC hasmore to do with personal affinity than with merit,which follows from the currently undemocraticnature of the selection," Alpert says. "I thinkthat's not surprising given that it is a politicalorganization."

But William P. Moynahan '99, outgoing vicechair of SAC, says such proposals need to becarefully considered.

"While the proposals on the table have somemerits, there are valid reasons for maintainingthe current system," says Moynahan, who is aCrimson executive "Many student groups on campusoperate under a self-selection process and thereare historical reasons for why that is thecase--reasons that will be debated at the propertime."

Markham says democratic elections would helpaddress the concern that personal connections andbackroom deals weigh too heavily in SAC selectiondecisions.

"In a large group setting, you have to vote onthe basis of your impression of the candidate'sability and not on personal relationships," shesays. "It's impossible to maintain a personalrelationship with the large number of people thatwould vote in a democratic election."

Some opponents to reform have expressed concernthat open, democraticA-9REFOR

But he notes that SAC is now a much moreinclusive body than it was then--14 of 30 currentSAC members are women and 12 are minorities--andhe pledges to empower those who are at thecommittee level.

"I can promise you that the students who becomeinvolved in the IOP's programming and planningevents will be more diverse next semester and nextyear," he says.

Levels of Hierarchy

Many charge that SAC--which is composed eachyear of 25 to 30 students who are chosen fromamong the associates, or regular participants ofthe IOP--takes privileges for themselves they donot grant to other members.

Critics point out that SAC members often takespecial seating at IOP events and participate inexclusive luncheons with visiting politicians.Last spring, for example, SAC members had a brunchwith Henry Kissinger '50--a fact that associateswere not officially alerted to.

Critics also charge that SAC is not responsiveto opinions of non-SAC members.

"It is frustrating to try to coordinate withpeople at higher levels," says former associateRachel L. Brown '01, who says she had difficultieswhen planning an internship forum and left the IOPafter her first year. "I felt like I was runninginto a brick wall with my ideas."

SAC members argue that SAC meetings themselvesare open to the entire IOP membership, but criticssay that SAC does not encourage attendance bynon-members.

"No one ever told me when [SAC] meetings wereor invited me to attend," says Kathryn R. Markham'99-'00, an associate who is helping draft thecurrent proposals for structural reform.

Outgoing SAC Chair Jeffrey P. Yarbro '99 saysthe perception that associates do not have asignificant role in the IOP is untrue.

"I think associates have tremendous opportunityto be involved in every aspect of the Institute ofPolitics. [They are often] in charge of eventsfrom their earliest days at the IOP," Yarbro says.

"I do think it is unfortunate that people thinkyou have to be in the leadership to stay involvedin the organization," he adds.

A third complaint raised by critics is thatmany upperclass non-SAC members drop out becausethey have feel they have little role in theorganization.

According to former IOP associate Aadil T.Ginwala '99, students who are not selected to beon SAC by the end of their sophomore year arediscouraged from applying again.

"It's not the best way to run anorganization--to pick people their freshman yearand have them covertly run things for the rest oftheir time at Harvard," Ginwala says. "Everythingfeels sort of `back-room,' and that drives away alot of people."

McLain, for his part, acknowledged in an e-mailmessage that he did not think associates feltwelcome at SAC meetings, and says he agrees thattoo many associates drop out of the IOP aftertheir sophomore year.

McLain says that among his stated goals are tomake the IOP more open, to reduce the focus on SACmembership as the culmination of one's involvementin the Institute, and to reduce the specialprivileges that SAC members receive.

SAC member Michael J. Passante '99 describesrecent IOP decisions to increase associateinvolvement as a step in the right direction.

"We've established more small policy discussiongroups and monthly brainstorming sessions forassociates," Passante says. "We've also createdseminars for committee chairs, to help betterexplain to them the IOP structure."

Perks and the Old Boys' Network

A long standing complaint about the IOP ingeneral, and SAC in particular, is its lack ofrepresentation of women and minorities.

One striking example was presented by anassociate who did not wish to be named.

"I walked into the SAC office once, and sawthings written on the wall about a woman on SAC inreference to `underoos," says the associate. "Itseemed kind of weird--the place seemed very clubbyand frat-like."

In an election process that is self-selectiveand closed, these concerns are reinforced amongsome.

"There have been concerns in the past that thisis an old boys' place, and that there's not enoughdiversity," says SAC member Eugenie A. Lang '00."This [hasn't been] true--over the past couple ofyears, but there will always be nasty assumptionsabout anything done behind closed doors."

While both McLain and Yarbro point to theincrease of female SAC members over the past fewyears, Markham notes that just three years agoonly three women were elected to SAC.

Lang says she feels McLain's election as chairreflects a more reform-minded outlook of thecurrent Student Advisory Council. "I think thathis election was partly a result of people'sfeelings on the changes being discussed."

Reforming Elections

But some members feel that the current trendstowards a more representative SAC and greaterinvolvement of associates will not suffice tosolve the IOP's longstanding structural problems.

"Because of the magnitude of the problem,anything other than structural change runs therisk of being reversible," says Markham, who is aCrimson editor.

IOP associates can apply to SAC each springterm. Applications are then reviewed by asubcommittee of current SAC members. Aftercandidates are interviewed and carefully reviewedby current members, the new SAC members arechosen.

Once selected, members serve until theygraduate or resign from SAC.

A group of associates and SAC members have beendrafting a proposal that would provide for thedemocratic election of individual committee chairsand SAC members.

"It's not unreasonable, particularly in anorganization designed to foster participation in ademocratic political system, for people to want toelect their leaders," Markham says. "I think amore inclusive voting process would serve to bringmore people into the IOP, and give SAC members anincentive to be accountable to the associates whoelect them."

Alpert says he supports the reforms becausethey would give regular participants more of avoice in what goes on in the IOP, and would createmore of a connection between SAC members andassociates. He also voiced concerns about thecurrent method of SAC selection.

"There's a perception that selection to SAC hasmore to do with personal affinity than with merit,which follows from the currently undemocraticnature of the selection," Alpert says. "I thinkthat's not surprising given that it is a politicalorganization."

But William P. Moynahan '99, outgoing vicechair of SAC, says such proposals need to becarefully considered.

"While the proposals on the table have somemerits, there are valid reasons for maintainingthe current system," says Moynahan, who is aCrimson executive "Many student groups on campusoperate under a self-selection process and thereare historical reasons for why that is thecase--reasons that will be debated at the propertime."

Markham says democratic elections would helpaddress the concern that personal connections andbackroom deals weigh too heavily in SAC selectiondecisions.

"In a large group setting, you have to vote onthe basis of your impression of the candidate'sability and not on personal relationships," shesays. "It's impossible to maintain a personalrelationship with the large number of people thatwould vote in a democratic election."

Some opponents to reform have expressed concernthat open, democraticA-9REFOR