Pilbeam Puts Abrupt End to UC Party Grants

In a sharply worded open letter addressed to four Undergraduate Council representatives, Interim Dean of the College David Pilbeam announced the termination of a UC program that has granted thousands of dollars every week for private parties on campus. The move caught students by surprise and awoke concerns about the administration’s approach.

“This is final,” said Associate Dean of Harvard College Judith H. Kidd in an interview yesterday afternoon following the release of the letter. “We are not eliminating private parties in any way. We are paying a great deal of attention to students having a social life in the past few years with the Lamont Cafe, SOCH, the pub, and freshman social spaces.”

According to Kidd, the College administration had debated the party grant program with the UC since it began in 2003.

The program doled out $1,750 to students hosting events each week in the form of 16 separate grants, according to the UC Web site.

Pilbeam’s letter was addressed to UC President Ryan A. Petersen ’08, Vice President Matthew L. Sundquist ’09, Finance Committee Chair Zander N. Li ’08, and Student Affairs Committee Chair Michael R. Ragalie ’09.

The students issued a letter late Tuesday night responding to Pilbeam, saying the UC will vote on whether to formally repeal the party grants that they had temporarily reathorized two weeks ago. The UC also plans to vote tonight on whether to give the council’s executive board the go-ahead to consult a lawyer about questions of legality.

In a statement released early Wednesday morning, Petersen called the grants “a positive influence on student safety at Harvard.”

“Instead of partying at final clubs, over which the administration has little control, students at the College take part in activities under the watchful eyes of resident tutors, and only after their events have been pre-registered with the appropriate University official,” Petersen wrote. “We hope that your actions do not foretell a turn towards unilateral decision-making.”

In Pilbeam’s letter posted on the Harvard College Web site, the dean chastised the UC for insufficiently regulating the parties and urged it to refocus on funding student groups.

“[T]he UC has not assumed responsibility...for verifying that underage students will not be reimbursed for purchasing alcohol,” he wrote. He continued, “it is quite apparent that the UC Party Grant program, in practice, has funded parties where the focus is on drinking.”

Pilbeam, who did not respond to requests for comment yesterday, wrote that the party grants promoted events in cramped suites, creating problems for the Houses.

Sean Palfrey, the co-master of Adams House, said that the topic was broached at the most recent Masters’ meeting last week and that there was a “hardy consensus” among the masters.

“Each of the Houses have sets of routines, and this was flying in the face of those and really put everybody at risk because you couldn’t predict who was going to come and you didn’t know the ages of the people who were coming,” Palfrey said yesterday.

Pilbeam argued that the UC, as a result of its party grant program, had not made the funding of student groups a sufficiently high priority.

“Failing to fund groups because resources have been diverted to individuals for parties is not in support of the greater good of the students you represent, not in keeping with your mission, and not the intended purpose of these funds,” Pilbeam wrote in the letter.

Calling the program “inappropriate” and “not in compliance with state law,” Kidd said that the administration’s decision “should not come as a surprise.”

Though some House Committee (HoCo) chairs and student organization leaders were enthusiastic about the possibilities of an expanded social budget, Zak Tanjeloff ’08, a resident of the 10-man party suite in Currier House, said the absence of party funds will hamper his room’s ability to throw parties for the rest of the school.

“It’s just financially impossible to host as much as we would like to, or at all, because we don’t have those kinds of resources,” Tanjeloff said.

Mather HoCo Co-Chair Nitesh K. Banta ’08 said the party grants helped social life at a campus-wide level, and their elimination puts the emphasis on House-specific events.

“Houses aren’t equal, so I don’t think it’s fair,” Banta said.

A few students, such as Dems President Brigit Helgen ’08 said that they found the content and tone of the letter perplexing because they had not been aware that the party grants had been under debate.

“I don’t see it as much as a loss in funds as it is disrespectful the way it was done,” she said. “We were treated like children. And now you have either final clubs or parties that require a cover and that’s going to stifle social life on campus.”

—Victoria B. Kabak contributed to the reporting of this story.
—Staff writer Aditi Banga can be reached at abanga@fas.harvard.edu.