Points of Disorder

It’s a pity that most Harvard students couldn’t care less about their student government. The Undergraduate Council (UC) has an admirable track record of organizing valuable events and services for the College, and its advocacy has, on many occasions, effected major changes in administrative policy that have benefited undergrads. But perhaps more importantly, the UC provides, without question, the most regular, cost-effective source of entertainment on the Harvard campus.

True to form, last week’s general meeting was a complete gong show, as the UC once again contemplated changes to its stringent non-discrimination policy on funding student groups. A brief synopsis: A last-minute piece of new business catapulted the UC into chaos, student group leaders were summoned to testify, a former UC vice president was dragged out of retirement to cast a vote of dubious legitimacy, a motion was made for the ejection of the chair of the Student Affairs Committee from the meeting, and the meeting ended without anything having been accomplished.

What’s at issue here is more than the UC’s inefficiency; the council’s funding policy is incoherent and inconsistent. The status quo leaves student leaders and UC members alike irritated and confused, and leaves events unfunded for apparently arbitrary reasons. The most basic issue has to do with the content of the UC’s non-discrimination provision itself. Article I, Section 4 of the UC Constitution reads: “The Council shall not discriminate, and shall discourage discrimination on the basis of ancestry, nationality, creed, philosophy, economic disadvantage, physical disability, mental illness or disorders, political affiliation, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”

On the basis of this restriction, the UC has occasionally denied funding to officially recognized Harvard student organizations, most notably the Asian American Christian Fellowship (AACF), which requires its officers to be Christians, and single-sex a cappella singing groups, which require their members to be of a particular sex. Even though these organizations have passed muster with University Hall’s Committee on College Life (CCL), which vets student groups for official College recognition, the UC has sometimes insisted that they not be funded because of the discrimination written into their constitutions.

This situation is untenable since the UC has not stuck to its regulations in the past. Last November, for example, the UC suspended its bylaws to fund an AACF study break. Three months later, it made the opposite decision in considering another AACF application. Why the inconsistency? I don’t have the answer, and I don’t think the UC’s leaders do, either. But while no one wants to see the status quo survive, the UC has proven itself unable to decide how to fix the problem.

One option is for the UC to obstinately redouble its opposition to funding groups that discriminate in their constitutions on any of the bases proscribed in the UC constitution. This position would have the UC eliminate the loopholes that have allowed it to fund events put on by “discriminatory” groups in the past, without regard to the nature of the events themselves.

This isn’t viable because it ignores the actual impact that UC funding has on student life. The wording of an organization’s constitution is surely secondary to the nature, audience, and impact of the events it puts on, and if the entire campus stands to benefit from an AACF event, the UC should fund it. Supporters of this option respond that money is fungible and that funding an individual event frees up an organization’s resources for other, more exclusive, and more sinister activities. Fine. But frankly, if UC support would make an event bigger and better, or possible in the first place, for the benefit of all undergraduates, then the apparently unsavory impact on the rest of the group’s finances ought to be overlooked.

The UC’s second option is to abandon its own vetting process completely and open funding to all CCL-approved student groups. Opponents argue that decisions about funding should be based on the judgement of elected representatives, not administrators. This position is unnecessarily stubborn; what the UC might give up in the power to vet student groups for non-discrimination, it would gain in consistency and coherence. When CCL approves a student group, it considers its membership policies with respect to the College’s non-discrimination policy and federal law, which makes exceptions for single-sex singing groups, for example. Whatever self-satisfaction the UC gains from being unreasonably strict in its non-discrimination policy cannot possibly justify the confusion and irritation created by the mixed signals student group leaders receive.

There is something to be said for the UC’s refusal to pay for the Din & Tonics’ spring tour to Bermuda, or for an AACF board retreat. Not funding these events, however, should have nothing to do with the groups’ constitutions. Instead, the UC should examine the audience of a particular event before making funding decisions. If a group’s membership is to benefit from a UC grant to the exclusion of other undergraduates, then the UC should think twice before funding it. But if an event put on by a CCL-recognized group is to benefit the entire campus, then undergraduates’ money would be well-spent supporting it.

In sticking to its guns, the UC perpetuates a confusing, incoherent system that fails to fund worthy events consistently. Student groups that are recognized by the College ought to be eligible for event funding when their events are open to all undergraduates. As the UC’s budget grows with the injection of cash freed up by the spinning-off and College-funding of social programming, its surplus cash ought to be allocated in a way that satisfies undergraduates, not the stubbornness of their representatives.

Adam Goldenberg ’08 is a social studies concentrator in Winthrop House. His column appears on alternate Fridays.