IOP Deals With A Year of Change

When former Sen. David H. Pryor became the director of the Institute of Politics (IOP) in August 2000, he found it “odd” that an institution encouraging political pursuits did not elect its student leaders.

“That’s not what democracy is all about and what we teach people here is democracy,” Pryor says.

In November of that year, Pryor decided it was time to address the decreasing student participation. He suddenly announced that the IOP would dissolve its governing student body and hold open elections—startling its leaders, who were already trying to institute reforms.

“I kept hearing from students that they looked at the IOP as a very closed society or a ‘club,’” Pryor says. “I sensed that we had to open it up as much as possible to make everyone feel welcomed.”

Though the move was surprising and left some students bitter, over a year later both staff and student leaders say the restructuring has been largely successful.

“I am happy with improvement I’ve seen over the past year, but I wish it could have occurred in a more collaborative process from the start rather than being forced upon the students,” says former IOP President Robert F. McCarthy ’02.

Pryor says he thinks it was the suddenness of the restructuring that shocked everyone.

“After some 25 years of doing things a certain way, I think a lot of people were concerned on whether it [the restructuring] could be brought about,” Pryor says. “We made a radical departure from the past and it has paid off. It has paid off in view of the participation of students, the interests and the number of people who are taking part in the IOP and its activities.”

The reorganization encouraged the elected student leadership to reevaluate how the IOP works and is perceived on campus. The Institute started recruiting first-years, established a grants board and tried to directly address student interests. The results of these efforts are clear, both students and staff say: student attendance is up, there is an increased interest in leadership positions and student-staff relations are more open.

“It [the restructuring] was kind of a breath of life into the IOP and we think it was more than long overdue,” Pryor says.

‘A Breath Of Life’

McCarthy says the restructuring has not changed how students work in the IOP—but now there are more students involved.

“An important development of the structural changes is it has allowed the IOP to clarify what its programs are, how it spends its funds and what it does,” he says.

Gordon Li, the IOP’s director of communications and outreach, says the IOP’s restructuring has made its decision-making process more transparent, attracting more students. Li estimates that 150 students attended the advisory committee to the Institute’s Forum at the beginning of the year. Even at the end the semester, when participation usually drops, 75 to 80 students were still active.

Pryor also attributes the increased participation and interest in the IOP’s activities to the “opening up” of leadership, noting the healthy competition for elected positions in committees. Others feel the restructuring has invited open discussion and criticism about the IOP.

“There have been a lot of people involved in the IOP and there is a good discussion of ideas in part prompted by elections,” says Erin B. Ashwell ’02, former member-at-large and chair of various projects. “I think that people, especially the freshmen and sophomore classes, have some really vibrant ideas and people are willing to commit more time to their IOP activities.”

The IOP has also pursued other means of generating interest in its mission. In an effort to raise awareness about the Institute’s mission and activities, IOP students now register incoming classes to vote.

Pryor also takes pride in staff efforts to meet student concerns. Pryor recalls a student expressing an interest in learning more about prisons. In response the staff invited a former prison guard-turned-author to become an IOP fellow.

“We have a really great group of fellows coming in February,” says Pryor, who will be leaving the IOP at the end of the spring semester. “We have tried to reflect or mirror what the students want to know about.”

Improving Relations

Some of the unhappiness at the time of SAC’s dissolution stemmed from poor student-staff communication.

“Everyone agreed there was a problem with student-staff relations. I think students took an unfair share of the blame,” McCarthy says. “The improvements that SAC was trying to make, was making, weren’t happening quickly enough, so the staff decided to start from scratch. “Many students were upset because they perceived the restructuring as a personal attack. Just as there had been miscommunication before, there was a lot of miscommunication during the dissolution,” McCarthy says.

McCarthy says the current improvement in relations is the most important outcome of the restructuring. Students have begun attending staff meetings, and staff members sit in on student meetings. The IOP also now holds Friday afternoon socials during which students and staff can mingle.

Caroline E. Adler ’04 says she has always found the staff very open, though she has noticed increased efforts to have student and staff interaction. She participated in a staff-student retreat at which students and staff brainstormed together.

Pryor says though there were hurt feelings over the dissolution, the changes were only possible because of strong student support. McCarthy, who was also a member of the old SAC guard, led the interim government and then was elected as the first president under the new structure. Pryor says he believes the restructuring process also gave students a taste of how politics and democracy operate.

“I think we, the staff, and the students learned a lot about governing ourselves,” he says.

“I think the staff is really looking at the students now as legitimate representatives of the student body’s interests, and there is a good atmosphere of wanting to do substantive work,” Ashwell says.

In addition to trying to attract more individual students to their various offerings, the IOP has tried to work more closely with other student groups. The new grants board has a $25,000 annual fund earmarked for the politically minded projects of other student groups.

“One of the benefits of the IOP in having a staff and endowment is that it doesn’t have to struggle like other student groups,” McCarthy says. “We had an image problem on the campus. As a direct result of the restructuring and efforts to outreach to the campus, the IOP has a better image among other student groups.”

But Adler says that some people outside the IOP still see it as competitive and intense.

“I think that maybe one improvement could be its perception on campus,” Adler says. “We want the IOP to be a resource.”

Newly elected IOP President E. Clarke Tucker ’03 says outside perceptions of the IOP have changed since he first became involved.

“I think my freshman year people perceived it as a place where people go to network,” he says. “[But now], with open elections and focusing on issues in addition to politics, I think more students have come to understand the IOP is a very open place whose mission is to help students any way it can.”

—Staff writer Nalina Sombuntham can be reached at sombunth@fas.harvard.edu.