No Gin. No Juice.

We have been largely impressed by the efforts and accomplishments of this year’s Undergraduate Council (UC). With only a few months under its belt the council has worked remarkably hard for student causes, advocating in new and effective ways to work with administrators to effect real change on campus. But, in acknowledging these strong points and considerable achievements, we cannot turn a blind eye to that with which we find fault. The UC has finally encountered its first major setback. And it’s a significant one: despite months of promises that a major artist (which turned out to be Snoop Dogg) would perform, Springfest will not include a major concert.

We recognize that the UC and the Harvard Concert Commission (HCC) faced many final obstacles after Snoop Dogg’s controversial concert seemed a done deal. After learning of the rapper’s impending show, the Boston Police Department (BPD) abruptly demanded additional security. And after the UC made it clear that the added officers would make the concert unaffordable, the College did not offer the council any assistance to help defray concert costs. These obstacles should not be ignored.

However, ultimately, Harvard students will now see no top-name artists this year, just as other colleges are delighting in the springtime visits of The Shins, Ben Folds, and Ludacris, among others. We are terribly let down. On the heels of a greatly increased council budget following the UC’s contentious push for a termbill fee hike last year—a hike that its proponents justified in part by promising bigger concerts—this failure does not bode well for the UC’s campus credibility.

There are several ways in which this misfortune could have been avoided. The first place to start is within the UC itself. As it stands, the council’s bylaws limit it to allocating funds on a semester-by-semester basis; the council cannot set aside money to be saved for future semesters for fear of infringing on the autonomy of subsequent councils. But while there is logic in wanting to allow for the greatest possible council flexibility, this system precludes the UC from allocating funds for a springtime concert in the fall—at a time when they could begin placing bids on artists and working with the necessary College and city officials to ensure a smoothly planned concert.

Had the UC been able to plan and bid in advance, the BPD’s restrictions and the College’s unwillingness to pony up for the event would have been setbacks, not deal-breakers. With entire semesters to put everything in place, the HCC could have continued to negotiate with the BPD and the College, or they could have pulled out and sought a different artist. The College has already encouraged the UC to consider this kind of forward-thinking system. “We believe that a better model would be to allocate so that the HCC can work to bring artists who are already in the area, thus lowering fees, or working to negotiate by having more available artists to invite,” Assistant Dean of the College Paul J. McLoughlin II wrote in an e-mail. We hope that the UC considers amending its bylaws to allow for a measure of advanced planning.

And that brings us to the next guilty party: the College. We have heard time and again that the administration is dedicated to improving campus social life. And it is not to say that there have been no efforts, the oft-touted Loker Pub Nights being the shining example. But it is no secret that students want a raucous, rocking concert—like virtually every other college campus. When it was realized that the UC’s plans had fallen through, it is extremely unfortunate that the College did not help save the event.

According to UC President Matthew J. Glazer ’06, the College is lacking in the level of support it provides the UC. “At other schools, the college administration provides immense support for concerts, which reflects the efforts of these schools to improve the quality of student life. Under our current system, no matter how hard the UC and HCC work, if the College doesn’t provide more administrative and financial support, it will continue to inhibit the ability to produce large concerts,” said Glazer. And though the College often blames the UC for not allocating its funds correctly—focusing too much on student group funding than planning student events—to take from the former to give to the latter is a backward approach to improving campus life.

Many college administrations give anywhere from $100,000-$200,000 specifically to sponsor concert events. It is not unreasonable to suggest that Harvard do more to ensure at least one great concert happens every year. If the College is truly dedicated to improving campus life, we hope it considers creating an annual fund to be used by the UC to bring musicians to campus.

But, enough pointing fingers. Though the BPD and the College deserve some blame for this major upset, the bottom line is that the onus was on the UC to bring this campus an event that would immeasurably enhance an already well-attended, worthwhile Springfest—particularly considering the last UC’s efforts to secure a considerably enlarged budget.

Last spring, we admonished former UC President Matthew W. Mahan ’05 for his zealous attempts to raise students’ annual termbill fee 114 percent on the grounds that the UC had yet to prove the need or the capacity to warrant such a considerable hike in the council’s budget. But, we were hesitantly optimistic. Our words: “A substantial increase in the council’s budget might be warranted. More money would allow the council to organize bigger and better campus-wide events, bring top name bands to perform more frequently and further its efforts to improve Harvard’s unfortunate social environment.”

Given that the council emphasized that the fee hike was warranted because it would allow them to bring big-name bands to campus, securing a great show for Springfest should have been of utmost concern to the UC. Whereas the council’s other notable achievements this year seem to have entailed much forethought and planning, this is a case in which it unfortunately failed to do so. We hope members of the UC realize the significance of this disappointment and work to ensure that it does not happen again.