'Blocking' Student Petitions

For first-years, today marks the first day that blocking group preference forms can be filed online. It also marks the first time since randomization that blocking group sizes will be limited to eight, rather than 16, students. Although we welcomed the change when it was announced, we are concerned about how the administration has received newly expressed student concerns about the policy.

Two weeks ago, Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis '68 rejected a petition circulated among the Class of 2003 to change the maximum size of blocking groups. The 877 first-years who signed the petition--constituting over half the size of the Class of 2003--objected that the new blocking group size of eight was too small to accommodate circles of friends.

We are disturbed not by Lewis' rejection of this particular petition but by his disdain for the idea that petitions and other written or electronic manifestations of student opinion might have a meaningful impact on University policy. Particularly worrying is Lewis' claim that "petitions are never a good way to deal with issues that have anything to do with limiting choices or expanding requirements--as individuals we would always vote to give ourselves more choices and fewer requirements." Though he has suggested that 877 students coming to his office hours would be a more appropriate way for him to hear student opinion, we disagree with the distinction he has made between coming to office hours to complain and signing a petition. Although it is understandable that the administration need not act on any petition that comes through the doors of University Hall, petitions do serve a very important function as vital barometers of student opinion. The reality is that many administrative decisions here at Harvard are made with little to no input from those they will affect. Petitions reflect the feelings of many students and should be treated with more respect and consideration--and not with indifference tinged with scorn.

This petition was hardly the disgruntled mutterings of a few dissatisfied students, but a remarkable demonstration of shared sentiment. The organizers were able to get the signatures of over half of the Class of 2003 in only two days. Nor is the issue a trivial one. Every one of the first-years who signed that petition will be directly affected by the rules on blocking group size, and for most the process of choosing a group is a difficult and unpleasant period. It is natural and appropriate that first-years should try to make their concerns known to the administration.

The decision to decrease the size of blocking groups was made by the Committee on House Life, a student-Faculty committee that includes undergraduates members chosen by the Undergraduate Council. Lewis said the vote was not split on Faculty-student lines. But when so few students are involved in the decision-making process, petitions are one of the only ways for the administration to learn about the widespread impact of their decisions on students' daily lives. The format of petitions serves this function well--the number of signatures effectively separates major and shared concerns from casual griping.

It is true that Harvard College is not a democracy. This is not a lament or a boast, but a fact that must inform the decisions and attitudes of both undergraduates and administrators. As students, we must understand that improvements in our lives can come only through cooperation and reasoned persuasion. Since undergraduates occupy at best a marginal role in the decision-making process, the administration must welcome and seriously consider student reactions to policy changes. Dean Lewis' response to this petition does not respect the mutual obligations necessary for cooperation between students and administrators.

DISSENT: Change the Policy

The staff was wrong in September to endorse a policy on blocking group size that unnecessarily restricts student choice. The recent circulation of a petition against the shrinking of blocking groups only confirms that judgment. The change from 16 to eight makes an already unpleasant blocking process even more painful, and by signing the petition first-years expressed their dissatisfaction through the only means available to them.

The petition against the change was signed by 877 students, more than half of the Class of 2003 and a greater proportion of affected students than voted in the last Undergraduate Council election. These signatures were obtained in only two days, and many more first-years have said they would have signed had they had the opportunity. It is clear that the petition legitimately represents the feelings of the clear majority of first-years.

In its anemic restatement of its earlier position, the staff fails to explain why blocking groups of ten, 12 or 14 present a grave threat to student life. Neither the College nor The Crimson has presented persuasive reasons as to why the earnest opinions of so many students should be paternalistically disregarded. The petition deserves to be given a fair look, and it deserves to be heeded.

--Stephen E. Sachs '02