Project Challenge Misdirected

Two weeks ago, the Undergraduate Council passed a bill authorizing a contest amongst students to develop a project intended "to raise awareness of and to fight homophobia at Harvard." Pending the approval of the council, the group with the best plan will be awarded $1,000 to carry out their proposal. While we commend the council's concern for eradicating homophobia, the exact means by which the council has chosen to pursue this end warrants critical scrutiny.

Although outsourcing the money to student groups might result in a few novel ideas, we are primarily concerned that the $1,000--several times the money provided to most student groups--will be spent in an ambiguously productive way.

First, the task of eradicating homophobia has been presented to the campus as a "project challenge"--much in the same way that Harvard Student Agencies sponsors an entrepreneurial challenge each year. Although the intentions are noble, the method seems to trivialize the problem into devising marketable plans that promote toleration. Indeed, homophobia is a systemic problem that cannot be eliminated by a single "project," however well thought out or well-intentioned, but requires changes in deep-rooted attitudes over a longer period of time. Although the council's "challenge funding" will do much to highlight campus attention on a serious problem, we are concerned that the end result will be some chimerical "event" designed to do little more than draw favorable press coverage.

It is certainly possible that the idea that eventually "wins" might be a worthwhile use of the council's money. In fact, the council is on the right track by actively soliciting ideas from concerned segments of the community. But it would be more effective to cut the "challenge" idea altogether and allocate resources--monetary or otherwise--to the specific task at hand.

In the end, the ideal solution might not be some brilliantly designed, singular project but a broad-based effort to heighten campus awareness and facilitate community dialogue. Organizing panel discussions might seem banal or trite, but it would probably be more effective than setting aside a lump sum of money for a yet-to-be determined project. Community outcries, such as the pledge signed by Mather House residents following homophobic vandalism on the door of a gay tutor, might lack tangible results but go a long way toward reminding us to be ever vigilant against bigotry in our community.