And All That Jazz

Long a malaise of American electoral dynamics, the politics of personality arrived at Harvard this Undergraduate Council election season. While nationally, only 10 percent of voters claimed to have cast their vote because of policy concerns in last month’s presidential election, Harvard students would have been hard pressed to even reach that level of voter engagement with council issues in this week’s presidential and vice-presidential elections.

Instead of debate about council initiatives, principles or any real issues for that matter, the candidates presented their constituents with “vision,” “experience,” and “philosophy.” This is all well and good, of course, except when these things fail to vary among the different campaigns, leaving personality as the only differentiator. Though of course no one could reasonably expect a candidate to argue against, say, 24-hour library access or student input into the College’s Allston expansion, candidates made the unfortunate decision to try to differentiate themselves based on experience (or lack thereof), self-perceived personal capacity for leadership and even gender and house affiliation; the Teo P. Nicolais ’06-Samita A. Mannapperuma ’06 ticket never hesitated to point out that vice-presidential candidate Mannapperuma ’06 was the only female candidate for either position, and also the only Quad resident in the running. Outside of these factual observations, however, the rest of the campaign rhetoric barely rose above the level of vague pleasantries.

For example, Nicolais, one of the three candidates for the council presidency, told this writer that a key plank in his platform was making the council “more of a student government and less of a student group,” by modifying the role played by the council to involve more governance, facilitation, and engagement with students. Nicolais said that a fundamental part of his vision for the council was “to bring the council to the campus. We spend so much time in University Hall and not in the Yard.”

Nicolais’ sentiments were echoed by Connor C. Wilson ’07, campaign manager for candidates Tracy “Ty” Moore II ’06 and Ian W. Nichols ’06: asked about the importance of the council’s improving its relationship with students, Wilson said, “it’s extremely important,” adding, “the UC is very out-of-touch with students.”

Surely, then, the Matthew J. Glazer ’06-Clay T. Capp ’06 campaign offered students a different approach. Alas, no. Presidential candidate Glazer said that the council “has to make sure we’re doing what students want us to get done,” and emphasized: “the UC is a student government.” Asked if he thought the council ought to be “more of a student government and less of a student group,” Glazer responded in the affirmative.

Even the respective tickets’ negative campaigning was not spared the cross-candidate monotony. Accusing his opponents of writing an unmanageably long set of promises, Nicolais reflected that “the election process [is] an attempt to create the longest laundry list. All the ideas in the world won’t accomplish anything if they’re not tied in to a specific platform.” For his part, Wilson felt that the Moore-Nichols platform was different from the two others: “I think our platforms are incredibly different—the others have laundry lists, but no clear focus.” Mercifully, Glazer stayed away from the term “laundry list”, instead falling back on his (and every) ticket’s “relationships, ability and experience.”

With enough common ground to start a border dispute, coming to the decision of which candidate to support was nigh impossible, so students chose personality and popularity instead as the deciding factor. K’idar J. Miller ’08, a Grays Hall resident and a Moore-Nichols supporter, agreed to display campaign signs for the ticket in his windows facing the Yard. Asked about his decision to support Moore-Nichols, Miller said that visibility was a key factor: “I heard more about them than about the other guys. They were more publicized.” Miller cited messages sent over thefacebook.com and e-mails from Moore supporters as determining factors. “My network of friends is closer to the Moore campaign than to the other side,” he said. Asked why he ultimately agreed to publicly support Moore after hearing about his campaign, Miller said he “felt more comfortable with the personalities of Moore and Nichols than with the other two campaigns.” Why give attention to personality and not platform? “There aren’t political issues that take diametrically-opposed positions,” Miller said.

This lack of debatable issues can be chalked up more to the campaign’s conduct than to the realities of council politics: Issues that ought to legitimately have been discussed were swept under the carpet, such as the question of the council’s funding the Harvard-Radcliffe Christian Fellowship (HRCF) because of the group’s violation of council non-discrimination rules in its constitution (which requires officers to be Christians). Only Glazer-Capp actively supported the HRCF’s losing its council grants. Despite the issue’s fundamental importance to student group funding, it was absent from all but the most minor, one-on-one forms of campaigning. Asked what he thought of the absence of the HRCF funding question and, indeed, of most major questions of council policy from the campaign, Glazer said, “I don’t think in this campaign there has been enough substance—the one thing we need is more opportunities for candidates to interact and talk about the specifics of what they want to get done, and how they want to get it done.” Glazer’s sentiments, however, failed to make the leap from aspiration to action.

The election’s result, announced yesterday, reflects a campaign fought on questions of personality and popularity, not policy; the council’s new leaders, Glazer and Nichols, will be subject to the same lacklustre, apathetic expectations that were the yoke of their predecessors. If Glazer and Nichols truly want to make a difference in the way in which the Undergraduate Council conducts its business, and make the council a vibrant, vital and versatile part of undergraduate life, they will have to start from the ground up by changing the atmosphere in which council leaders are elected.

Unfortunately, it will be another year before they have their chance.

Adam Goldenberg ’08 lives in Grays Hall.