No Clear Leader Emerges After UC Debate

In a debate dominated by questions focused more on individual characteristics than broader issues, the three tickets for the leadership of the Undergraduate Council (UC) faced off last night in front of about 100 students in a Science Center lecture hall.

Most of the debate pitted Magnus Grimeland ’07, John S. Haddock ’07, and John F. Voith ’07 against one another as they responded to questions from the moderators and one other.

The questions, from moderators Neeraj “Richie” Banerji ’06 and Steve Y. Lee ’06, focused largely on the experience of each candidate, and on several occasions drew laughter from the audience.

Haddock and Voith, and their respective running-mates Annie R. Riley ’07 and Tara Gadgil ’07, have at least two semesters of council experience, and Haddock, Voith and Gadgil have served in positions of leadership on UC subcommittees.

A relative newcomer to the council, Grimeland has served for a semester as a member of the Finance Committee. His running mate, Thomas D. Hadfield ’08 ran unsuccessfully for a seat from Eliot House earlier this semester.

No clear favorite has yet emerged in the campaign, though the Haddock-Riley campaign has picked up several endorsements, including that of the Harvard Democrats. UC member support is largely divided between the Haddock-Riley and Voith-Gadgil tickets, and current UC president Matthew J. Glazer ’06 has not publicly endorsed a ticket.

The moderators asked pointed questions of the candidates, challenging Haddock on his shift in position on the UC’s role in campus social events, Voith on his final club membership and past record as Campus Life Committee (CLC) chair, and Grimeland on his inexperience and UC attendance record this past semester.

The UC is in the midst of debating an amendment that would dissolve the CLC, currently responsible for planning campus-wide events like the Springfest Afterparty, and replacing it with an independently-elected body called the Social Events Committee (SEC).

Haddock reiterated his position against the amendment; however, he stated that the council should not play a role in these types of events and should instead leave campus-wide planning to the administration and student-based planning to individual groups.

“We need to find a way to make the council change,” said Haddock. “We need to make a student-driven process that is independent from the UC.”

Voith pointed to the amendment on the table as a good start, but advocated a more collaborative approach for social planning.

“The way I see the future of social programming is through a connection with the students, the UC, and the dean’s office,” Voith said. “Social programming has an important role on campus; I don’t see the future role of the UC as a bank.”

Grimeland called for greater cooperation between the UC and University Hall without advancing a specific plan to reach this goal. He also supported more diffusion of social planning through increased funding of House committees and student groups.

“I think both the UC and the administration should have a role in social programming,” said Grimeland. “One of the reasons it has been difficult to throw such a big concert successfully in the past is that the administration does not support it economically at all.”

The most heated debate occurred between Haddock and Voith.

Noting that the position of the president requires student advocacy skills, Haddock questioned whether Voith could be an effective leader, citing the fact that Voith has not served on the UC’s Student Affairs Committee (SAC), which works most closely with the administration.

Voith maintained that he could be an effective advocate, and also pointed to Gadgil’s experience as SAC chair over the last semester. Four out of the past five UC presidents have served as SAC chair prior to leading the council.

This trend was addressed when Gadgil was questioned about her choice of running for vice president, rather than the council’s top position.

“I specifically want to be vice president because I feel like I can utilize my skills to work within the committees to be more of a facilitator,” Gadgil said.

Voith also challenged Haddock on his specific plans for social programming.

“In discussions with the deans, the deans have flat-out rejected your proposals,” Voith said. “How do you see the administration planning events for students in a better way?”

Haddock responded that the administration was receptive to his ideas.

“I had lunch today with Zac Corker,” Haddock said. “I think we share a common vision that really, the UC needs to be done with social programming. I think the administration is a body that should be playing a large role in social events, but events should be driven by students.”

Voith—whose own relationship with key administrators also came under attack—challenged Grimeland to detail his interaction with the deans.

“I’ve worked with the administration on several instances,” said Grimeland. “But I must say that I don’t know the administration well, but from what I’ve done before in my life, I’ve gotten things done before, I’ve met people.”

Grimeland said that after several days of campaigning, he believes that his ticket is on par with his competitors in terms of electability.

“We entered the race as an outsider ticket,” said Grimeland. “I think at this point, we are not an outsider ticket. I think right now we are on the same level as these other two candidates.”

—Staff writer Alexander D. Blankfein can be reached at ablankf@fas.harvard.edu.