After Much Criticism, Institute of Politics Restructures

Since 1965, the Institute of Politics (IOP) has been a powerful campus presence. It attracts prominent speakers from countries all over the world and serves as a beacon of political inspiration for Harvard students.

But for the past two years, students and staff involved with the Institute say the IOP suffered in fulfilling its mission--to inspire undergraduates to get involved in politics--because the institution was becoming too bureaucratic and insular.

In response to these critiques, the IOP spent the year reforming itself. In December, the Institute disbanded its student leadership body and by reading period of the spring semester, the first popularly elected president, vice president and treasurer assumed office.

Concerned with administrative problems, the IOP faced the challenge of maintaining its programming while undergoing drastic internal changes. And, most would say, the Institute did an admirable job of balancing the two.

A New Day At The IOP

On Nov. 6, former Sen. David H. Pryor, director of the IOP, announced his plan to dissolve the Institute's Student Advisory Committee (SAC), the IOP's student governing body.

Pryor says SAC has become too "vertical" and stagnant, attracting only political junkies with little diversity.

At the time of action, SAC was preparing to take applications. In past years, SAC had self-selected new members based on applications, an interview and demonstrated involvement with activities. This method had been criticized for being unfair.

Erin B. Ashwell '02, a former SAC member, says self-selection is inherently problematic and fosters favoritism.

"There is a large group of students who really have been hurt by SAC policies," Ashwell says.

SAC had recognized the necessity of reform, and had begun, in the spring of 2000, to present changes to its Senior Advisory Board.

In addition to controversial policies, the IOP had also become less welcoming to students, staff say, and therefore was not fulfilling its original mission.

Executive Director Catherine McLaughlin says when she came here eight years ago, the IOP was a haven for student groups on campus and a place that reached out to all undergraduates.

"In years past, SAC was really a service to students to inspire them in politics," McLaughlin says. "[SAC was] an outward looking group who surveyed students, found things that interested the undergraduate body and searched for a political bend to campus affairs that would involve particular organizations."

Last spring, the IOP experienced decreasing attendance in their study groups and a visible decrease in motivation for leadership. McLaughlin says the trend of decreasing participation accompanied a change in SAC, which had evolved from an open center for student politicos to a group without ability to reach out and inspire students to become involved in politics.

Pryor was worried that the proposed reforms would not bring about change quickly enough. He decided to stop the application process and dissolve SAC. At the time of dissolution, Pryor did not know what type of student governing structure would replace the existing the committee.

But he said he felt that the current structure was unacceptable.

"We've had continuing discussions about SAC and the best way to achieve openness and to be inclusive, and I felt it was the best decision to just begin anew," Pryor said at the time. "It will be a new day at the Institute of Politics."

Students Respond

Students on SAC said Pryor's decision to disband the committee came out of the blue. They had started reforms, and were shocked about the decision that had come without their consultation.

Then-SAC chair Hannah Choi '01 vocally criticized Pryor for his move.

She said she was most insulted that Pryor had simply made a unilateral decision to wipe out all existing tradition.

"The overwhelming majority of students on SAC and senior associates think that [the dissolution of SAC] is rash, ill-conceived and unjustified," she said. "He should have consulted us."

Choi petitioned the Undergraduate Council to pass a resolution advocating more student input in the IOP.

"The dissolution of SAC...in a decision made unilaterally by the director without any consultation of students, sends a clear message: meaningful student input is not welcome," Choi wrote in an e-mail sent out to the Undergraduate Council e-mail list.

Many other students also say they felt Pryor was unduly harsh on SAC in his attempt to revitalize the IOP.

Robert F. McCarthy '02, another leader among the students in December and the current president of the IOP, also defended the IOP's structure and tried to clarify some of the misconceptions about SAC.

McCarthy said SAC had no monopoly over IOP programming, which had been taking place in open committee meetings. SAC's outreach attempts had been overlooked, and its attempts to reform its selection process were well on its way.

But McCarthy's arguments, a last attempt to absolve SAC of its reputation scarred by Pryor's decision, was essentially fruitless. The committee expired on the first of December, despite different opinions on the committee's merits.

Face-Lift

On Dec. 5, in another seemingly unilateral decision, Pryor announced the temporary structure of the IOP that would govern the Institute for the rest of the year.

This plan was based on a popular student plan that had been proposed--there were open elections for the position of IOP Student Governing president and the chairs of the six committees.

All students who had attended half of any committee's meetings were invited to vote in the election.

McCarthy was elected president and a task force, designed to conduct research and determine a permanent structure, was also formed during this open elections.

The task force consisted of three staff members, and six undergraduates who would be chosen in the open elections. Three graduated SAC members also served on the task force.

In retrospect, those involved with the IOP say the leadership structure this semester was a success.

The study groups, which were led by a diverse range of fellows, had been chosen according to the interests of the students. And as a result of popular fellows, attendance increased at the weekly study groups. Pryor says that all of the forums were overflowing, and the new faces showing up at IOP events were invigorating.

"We have just completed one of the most successful years, in the 35 year history of the Institute of Politics," Pryor says. "Not only have we had probably more forums than recent years, but the quality of the forums is unsurpassed, we think."

McCarthy said that all the programs this semester were carried out smoothly, without a lot of the tension that had been visible in the past.

But despite the smooth transition, the IOP had still been running under an interim government.

It was only in late April, that the task force released a draft proposal of a permanent structure they hoped to adopt.

This new government called for a popularly elected president, vice-president, treasurer and committee chairs. There would also be at-large members that would serve on the new student-advisory committee.

Although the new SAC maintains few of the characteristics of the old, self-selecting institution, Pryor and the task force decided to keep the name because of the institutional memory associated with the title.

In a proud presentation, the task force announced the unanimity of the draft proposal; all 12 members had agreed on each of the detailed points before finalizing the document. When Pryor accepted the structure, this signified, for the task force, a victory of consensus.

On May 8, the IOP held another round of elections where McCarthy was re-elected as president for his second term, and Eugene Krupitsky `02 was elected as vice-president. Francisco J. Flores was elected as treasurer; all three juniors ran as a ticket for uncontested positions.

Pryor says he feels very comfortable with the current state of the IOP is in right now. He acknowledges the riskiness and the contention surrounding his decision to dissolve SAC in the beginning of the year, but he says he feels confident that it worked out in the end.

"It was a venture, and it was the fear of the unknown that troubled us," Pryor says. "And now we have had our elections, we have a wonderful slate of new leaders, and I think there is general agreement that there we're on very sound footing."