Under its Own Knife

To every student who has felt a nagging dread at the mention of student government, last Tuesday’s vote by the Undergraduate Council (UC) to disband one of its own committees must have brought hope. But students’ satisfaction with this bill should come from the hope that the UC, having shed an obsolete arm, will be more efficient, not from glee that the student government seems to be disassembling itself. It is not; rather, it is recognizing its reduced role on a campus with a new mechanism for social programming. After weeks of discussion on several different restructuring plans (including plans to create a new outreach committee), the UC, influenced by a number of student activists, decided to serve the College the best by reducing its numbers.

With a 36 to 10 tally, the “2x2” bill—so-called because a total of two representatives, split between two committees, will represent each House and yard—narrowly achieved the three-fourths vote that is necessary to change the UC’s constitution. The plan disbands the UC’s Campus Life Committee (CLC), hence reducing the membership of the UC from 51 to 35 persons. Eliminating CLC became necessary after the creation last month of the independent College Events Board (CEB), whose acitivities will be funded by University Hall. With the CEB in charge of planning campuswide social events, it would be redundant to maintain a UC committee with the same primary mission.

Instrumental to the bill’s passage was a group of highly dedicated student activists. A loose coalition of campus politicos, including officers of (but not representing) the Harvard College Democrats and the Harvard Republican Club, as well as a few UC leaders and a few bloggers, successfully led the charge in petitioning UC representatives to accept the “2x2” plan. Only through activists’ zealous blogging, posting on house e-mail lists, and contacting UC members were representatives eventually persuaded to vote “yea.” Such actions by members of the student body—including those who furthered the debate by arguing against “2x2”—are essential to successful student government. We commend all these activists for their time, their effort, and most importantly their example of student participation.

Likewise, we commend the UC members for shirking selfishness by approving the “2x2” plan. The restructuring eliminates 16 spots on the UC and undoubtedly places many members in jeopardy of losing their positions next year. If two more members had voted out of self-interest, then the vote would have failed, and the student body would have been left with a slightly more bloated UC. But instead of circling the wagons to protect its own, as it easily could have done, the UC fulfilled its duties of serving the student body over its own members’ interests.

In the near future, however, the UC needs to place questions of structure behind it as it begins its first tentative steps as a biped. The UC must set aside internal debates and resume its student advocacy efforts in the fall (working towards cheaper coursepacks, for example). Still, the two-committee structure is an experiment, and only time can determine whether it needs further tinkering. At some time in the future, it may be wise for the Council to again consider its optimal structure. And if that time comes, we can only hope that the UC will again heed activist voices and vote in the interest of its constituents.