What Growing Pains?

Rarely do institutional reform proposals address long-held concerns as thoroughly and as effectively as the recent report from the Undergraduate Council Reform Committee (UCRC). The executive summary of the UCRC’s recommendations reads like a laundry list of targeted changes suggested both from within the UC and without. It is undeniable evidence that the council has been listening to its toughest critics: Harvard students.

Perhaps the most significant change the UCRC has suggested is the direct election of candidates to each of the UC’s three committees. For years, UC critics have noted that students tend generally to favor service on the Student Affairs Committee (SAC) first, followed by the Campus Life Committee (CLC) and the Finance Committee. Under the old system, the House candidate garnering the highest percentage of the vote picked his or her first-choice committee, while the second and third-place winners were often placed on committees with missions they weren’t as passionate about. The new system means students in each House will run for individual committees, ensuring, for the most part, that the most enthusiastic candidates for each committee get elected.

The only possible downside to this change lies in the inevitable politicking that will happen as sophomore UC-reps run their first races in the Houses. We may see sophomores running for CLC, even though they were on SAC as freshmen, just to ensure their election to the UC. Though this might seem to undermine the overarching goal of guaranteeing every UC rep’s earnest motivation to work on his or her respective committee, that many sophomores have defeated junior and senior incumbents in the past suggests otherwise. Neither would it be bad to force SAC-aligned sophomores to “prove their mettle” on CLC before graduating back to SAC. With the proposed direct elections, UC candidates will work harder to craft committee-specific promises before elections. And they will show greater dedication afterwards.

The most notable omission in the report is any recommendation to dissolve all ties between the UC’s three committees. The philosophy behind this decision is sound—all student representatives, regardless of their committee affiliations, should have a say on legislation that affects the entire Harvard student body. But this “say” shouldn’t grind UC floor debates to a halt. The UCRC’s recommendation to raise to two-thirds the number of votes required for consideration of certain amendments addresses this balance. Our only concern is that the two-thirds threshold (up from one-third) is too high; the new requirement will eliminate the specter of one committee (totaling roughly one-third of the UC) consistently bogging down debate, but we worry that it could demand too many others to support often-needed examinations of controversial proposals. While we defer to those more familiar with the dynamics of UC debates to set the two-thirds limit for now, we hope that the UC will rework the number if it proves to be too high in practice.

Responsibility sharing seems to be the name of the game with many of the other reform proposals. Sub-SAC chairs and assistant treasurers will lighten the currently unbearable load on the UC’s top executives. The redefinition of the role of UC vice president as head of both a new UC standing rules and reform committee and a new UC-student group forum is also a positive step in light of the ad hoc responsibilities VPs have held thus far. Requiring the Harvard Concert Commission to report to the CLC is a step we have called for in the past—accountability must go hand-in-hand with responsibility. And though we endorsed a split ticket for UC president and vice president this year, ticket-based voting as suggested by the UCRC will ultimately ensure that the upper leadership of the UC is able to communicate and to divide responsibility effectively.

Finally, the reform recommendations also signal a new commitment to creativity. Both in its recommendation that the campaign budgets for UC presidential campaigns be increased to $400 and its insistence that the UC have the right to allocate future funds, the UCRC has set the groundwork for a more dynamic, flexible, and influential UC. Presidential campaigns must engage students better through more innovative tactics than postering and screaming outside of the Science Center. A bigger budget will give campaigns the resources to do so. And with the ability to reserve future funding, the UC can begin planning big events like concerts years, instead of months, in advance.

Our reaction to these proposed reforms is almost unswervingly positive. The UCRC and every member of the UC—past and present—who contributed to this constructive report should take credit where credit is due. Through these reforms, which we hope will be unanimously welcomed, the UC will be able to serve students in a higher capacity.