Less Politics, More Progress for the U.C.

Sometime during exam period, I received an e-mail from a Harvard student whom I had never met. "The main reason I voted for you," it read, "was because of your promise to work to get rid of the grade gap. I was wondering whether you had made any progress." Since that time, I have received a handful of similar e-mails--questions about the possibility of opening the MAC earlier, a few rants about dining services inflexibility, a suggestion that keycard access be the top priority. All referred to a single issue raised during the campaign.

I hesitate to attribute any great significance to my election, with Samuel C. Cohen '00 as vice president. But one analysis that does seem plausible is that the election represented a shift in priorities among members of the student body from delineations of ideology to promises of specific change. Indeed, to the extent to which I have influence over the council, my goal is to create a body which talks less and does more, one based less on the political and more on the practical.

First, then, there must be changes within the council. Most significant will be a change in the structure of the council's cabinet. Past cabinets have been composed of 10 or so students charged with broad concerns like "public spaces." The instinct to delegate responsibility to single students is good, but the broad arenas of past cabinet positions have left room for improvement. As a result, the new cabinet will be composed fundamentally of three directors--education, house life and college life. These areas mirror the student-faculty committees to which the council elects delegates. Most importantly, council members will be encouraged to apply under one of the directors as a point-person for a specific issue--such as securing student vans, extending MAC hours or faculty diversity.

This structure, I hope, will encourage each of our representatives to formulate a personal stake in a focused area. Sam and I, of course, will support and reinforce these efforts. Our particular privileged access to administrators makes this both necessary and convenient. I have also set for myself three central priorities:

1. Universal keycard access. We have been unsuccessful in the past on this issue, I believe, because we have too strongly emphasized the safety factor. We have done this partially because we have had to; opponents claim that keycard access will be less safe because it will increase the traffic in any given dorm. We have had no choice but to respond with the assertion that increased keycard access will in fact increase safety because students will be more leery of piggy-backers.

In truth, I do think this latter claim is more accurate. But even assuming the safety effects cancel out, there are still great reasons for keycard access. It would increase a sense of campus-wide community. Which upperclass student does not recall with great fondness the days of being a first-year, popping in to visit friends and vice versa? The result of restricted access is the relegation of socialization to electronically pre-arranged encounters. Moreover, it is simply more convenient. We are afraid to say this because we think it makes us seem selfish or reckless, but we shouldn't be. In the end, we will never get anywhere if each side continues to stubbornly argue its version of the safety issue. So how de we go about achieving universal access? First, we have to be more candid about our motivations, with the hope that more honest dialogue will be more successful in discussions with administrators. Second, we need to address the issue on a house-by-house basis.

2. Student-accessible vans. From students participating in public service in Boston to athletes practicing during predawn hours, the campus needs transportation services beyond university shuttles. The council is currently working to document this specific need and investigate the programs of other schools. We will work with the administration to model such a system on those of Dartmouth and Yale.

3. Core reform. Select departmental courses must count for core credit. Though I am placing this issue in the category of personal priorities, the progress already made by the council is due almost entirely to Sarah K. Hurwitz '99, James T. Grimmelmann '99 and Benjamin A. Rahn '99, as well as former Student Affairs Committee chair Eric M. Nelson '99, a Crimson editor. Their efforts will continue and will be supported by my lobbying of administrators.

And that, my friends, is my agenda. Other issues, certainly, rank high on the list as well--cable TV, extension of MAC hours, the elimination of the grade gap. But they are in general issues which I believe can be successfully addressed by properly-supported members of the council. These top three demand my attention. It will be a grand experiment, this pursuit of the tangible. Stay tuned.

Beth A. Stewart '00 is president of the Undergraduate Council.