Putting the Fun in Harvard

In the totalitarian state that governs Harvard’s social scene, a historical epoch has been reached: remarkably, the Fun Czar, Fun Republic, and Fun Proletariat are all in agreement. The decision of the Undergraduate Council (UC) to sever ties between itself and large-scale social programming is not only backed by Campus Life Fellow Justin H. Haan ’05, but is sure to be well-received by the majority of Harvard undergraduates. We support the creation of an independent undergraduate social programming board and applaud the UC for endorsing this initiative. At the same time, we hope that the more entrepreneurial social programming efforts of the past year do not get lost in the restructuring.

The UC overwhelmingly passed the Social Programming Act last Sunday, which states that the UC supports “institutional separation of student government from the direct planning of campus social programming activities.” The UC will help create an independent social programming board, which is scheduled to begin its work at the end of this academic year. The 20-person board will be selected through a hybrid of elections and appointments and will be in charge of planning campus-wide social events. A typical year for the board might include a fall “welcome back” event, a concert featuring a prominent headliner band, and a House-based event such as House Olympics or a large Dodgeball game, among other events.

The reason for the creation of an independent social programming entity was multifold. Firstly, members of the UC pick committees based on how many votes they received in UC elections, and since most students join the UC with the intent to focus on student advocacy, the Campus Life Committee (CLC), which is presently in charge of social programming, is normally students’ third choice.

Secondly, according to Haan, Harvard is a “huge, decentralized university, and you need to work through extensive bureaucracy to get anything done.” Currently, the Harvard Concert Commission and the CLC are on a bureaucratic timetable set by funding restrictions, UC election dates, and the academic calendar. By creating a social programming entity outside of the UC, the UC has freed the social programming board of these constraints. The new social programming board will be able to organize during the summer, over breaks, and on a schedule of annual funding as opposed to being allotted a certain amount from the UC per semester.

Finally, the UC’s primary function is as an advocacy group, not a social programming institution. Social events require a large degree of collaboration, but advocacy initiatives tend to put themselves in an adversarial position with regard to the administration. Navigating the red tape necessary to organize a large-scale social event will be much easier for an organization designated solely for social programming that does not have to be concerned with other roles it may have to play on campus.

While the independent social programming board has been charged with planning events that we hope will be widely attended and appreciated by Harvard undergraduates, we believe its position on campus will be greatly strengthened if it also serves as a facilitator of grass-roots social programming projects. With CLC largely hamstrung over the past year, the efforts of coalitions of students to keep events coming through the pipeline have been noteworthy. The success of events such as the Junior High Dance (planned by the Junior Class Commission) justifies improved resources for individuals or small groups planning social functions, and we hope that the newly formed social programming board takes to heart this role. It is in a better position than the UC or any other organization on campus to coordinate and advise these efforts.

Yesterday, the College announced it would fund the board with a grant of $200,000 for its first year. This is a promising sign of the College’s continued support for improving the social life for undergraduates. However, it still remains unclear how the board will be solvent beyond short term grants from the College. The long term situation as it stands is ambiguous and unsettling. We hope that in the coming weeks, the College and the UC can hammer out a long term plan for financing the social programming board—whether that will include continued reliance on gifts, a stake in the current termbill fee, or the building of a social programming endowment needs to be made clear.

In the interim, the UC will have roughly $70,000 extra to spend that previously went toward CLC social programming. We are glad that House Comittee’s and student groups are bound to benefit from this boon. But so long as the long term funding of the social programming board remains unclear, the reliability of this additional funding should also remain an open question, so as not to surreptitiously amount to a backdoor termbill hike in the future.

The creation of an independent social programming board and the College’s decision to generously fund it signify an enormous turning point for Harvard. We hope that the undergraduate community will likewise support the board in its future endeavors.