Why Can’t We Be Friends?

At University President Drew G. Faust’s installation, then-Undergraduate Council (UC) President Ryan A. Petersen ’08 boldly proclaimed: “This process of decisions made behind closed doors, this disempowerment of students, this denial of citizenship must end now.” His aggressive rhetoric epitomized the conflict between undergraduates and the College that characterized so many of the major issues in student life this year.

While antagonism may have been an overarching theme of the student-College relationship this year, there were many notable exceptions, as progress generally followed communication and compromise. Significant strides in policy were made when the interaction was conceived of in a mutualistic, rather than confrontational, manner, and each side took the small steps necessary to improve the quality of life for Harvard’s students.

The year opened auspiciously, as Harvard’s puritanical social scene managed to capture a surprising 10th place finish in a sex-life survey performed by Trojan Condoms. Quickly, however, the specter of conflict began to hover over student life.

When students copying ISBN numbers for the textbook website Crimsonreading.org had the police called on them by the Harvard Coop, it shed light on the larger issue of the University’s unwillingness to lower textbook costs. Professors should take the trouble to put ISBN numbers on syllabi, making the Coop copiers’ “illegal” activities redundant. In addition, the administration’s reluctance to lend a hand to Crimsonreading.org must stop. The Coop exists in order to benefit the Harvard community, and students are only harmed when the administration puts the financial success of the Coop over low textbook prices.

When Nicholas J. Castine ’09 came up with an innovative solution to Harvard’s idiosyncratic lack of cable television in dorm rooms, television enthusiasts at Harvard rejoiced. But the University’s refusal to consider the Castine’s proposal was baffling. While Castine and his team of engineers were able to detail a project that would have provided cable at little or no cost to the University, administrators stonewalled and then rejected his plan without offering a clear explanation, raising questions about transparency and their willingness to improve student life.

The Crimsonreading.com and cable debacles were only preludes to the year’s true firestorm, which came in the struggle over the cancellation of the UC Party Fund.

In early October, then-Dean of the College David R. Pilbeam sent shockwaves through the undergraduate community by imperiously canceling the UC Party Fund, which had until that point supplied $1,750 per weekend for parties open to all students. While the UC had been working with the College to resolve concerns that funds were going to sponsor underage drinking, the administration soon decided to abandon negotiation and abolished the fund in a letter posted on the internet. The decision was not only disrespectful of student input, but also deeply flawed. While the cancellation of the Party Fund was intended to stop underage drinking, it will likely merely push the locus of the campus party scene further away from administrative control, while further exacerbating class differences in Harvard social life.

The administration’s intransigence was matched only by that of the Undergraduate Council, which angrily protested the decision with heated rhetoric and a refusal to comply. This led to a freezing of the UC’s funding, which, unsurprisingly, didn’t help anything.

The unproductive conflict reached its zenith in Petersen’s installation speech, in which he railed against the “disempowerment” and “denial of student citizenship” that he perceived in Pilbeam’s actions. While Petersen’s points may have had a trace of validity, his choice of words at the historic occasion of Faust’s inauguration was in bad taste and only served to further turn faculty and administrative opinion against the UC and its goals.

Ultimately, the protracted fight between College and UC led to a lot of fuss and little progress, as the final agreement the two sides reached represented an almost complete capitulation to the College’s original demands. The outcome made one wonder what the UC was trying to accomplish by burning precious political capital in a bloody battle against a more or less undefeatable adversary.

However, when there was a willingness among students and administrators to work together, both parties benefited. Nowhere was this more apparent than in the resurgence of the College Events Board (CEB) and its biggest event, Yardfest. While previous years had witnessed sub-par Yardfest artists, dwindling attendances, and a general lack of confidence in the recently created CEB, things were different this time around. Headlined by Gavin DeGraw and the Wu-Tang Clan, Yardfest was a resounding success, and a tribute to the new and effective attitude the CEB has brought to bear on social planning at Harvard.

The office of the Fellow for Campus Life (also called the “fun czar”) seems uniquely situated to help bridge the gap between students and administration. Jason B. McCoy ’08—next year’s fun czar—should focus on planning and promoting larger events that students cannot execute themselves, and help undergraduates maintain the autonomy they need to facilitate their own social lives.

More glimmers of hope on an initially dismal horizon were evident in the new report of the Joint Subcommittee of the Committees on College Life and House Life, which laid out a new set of regulations governing large campus social events. The draft included sensible proposals like earlier registration of parties and ticketing through the Harvard Box Office. Perhaps more importantly, the report was constructed with considerable student input, marking it a welcome departure from the heavy-handed decision-making of the Party Fund debacle.

The report’s vision, however, was neither perfect nor complete. We disagree with certain stipulations, such as the somewhat arbitrary limit of two events per weekend, and feel that the College must do more to facilitate social life. (Lengthened Pub hours and a mechanism to incentivize individuals to host parties seem like good places to start.)

These changes are just a few of the many small, constructive actions the administration could take that would benefit students. Extending library hours and outsourcing email (to combat the many problems posed by Webmail) may seem minor, but they have the potential to make significant impacts on the day-to-day life of undergraduates. Outside of University Hall, professors and teaching fellows (TFs) also have certain obligations they must meet in order to foster symbiotic relationships between teachers and students. Changes like promptly posting syllabi, returning final papers and exams, and providing comprehensive grade breakdowns to students should be an essential part of teaching a class.

While the beginning of this school year was marred by students’ vitriolic relationship with University Hall, spring brought the promise of diplomacy. In a year of ups and downs, at least we can take comfort in the fact that no students were sued by their professor—which is more than they can say at Dartmouth.