Council at Stake

Last April, Bill Bailey, hard-driving chairman of the Dunster House Committee, shocked student politicians by withdrawing Dunster from the Student Council. Although his brashness and methods were attacked, many students agreed with the contention that the Student Council was serving little if any useful purpose.

Balley's answer to the problem (and the answer of the many House Committee leaders who joined him) was to effectively do away with Student Council at Harvard. The Council, unwilling to accept Bailey's censure, asked for and got a stay of execution.

While the Council was fighting for its existence it asked for faith and time. Both were granted. It is unfortunate that the long wait and the show of faith (as exemplified in the substantial monetary pledges this fall) have not been more handsomely repaid. Actually, the Constitution being presented for ratification does not differ tremendously from the one the Council had when it toppled. No new lines of action are drawn.

The new constitution does not solve many if any of the basic problems which prompted last spring's repudiations of the Council. In fact, there are few reasons why it could not have been written in May.

One controversial revision concerns names and titles. In an effort to prevent a future Council executive from misusing his position a la Howie Phillips, the office of president will be changed to chairman. To guard against any hint that the Council is authorized to represent undergraduate thinking, the committee suggests that the name Student Council be replaced by Harvard Council for Undergraduate Affairs (HCUA).

It is doubtful that such surface changes can lead to the desired effects. An ambitious politico could abuse the title chairman with the same abandon with which Mr. Phillips abused the title president. "HCUA" could not be used as maliciously as "Student Council," perhaps, but this name might hinder the work of an effective Council. Last spring the battle cry was that the Council needed to regain the respect of the students. A humble name such as HCUA may not help build prestige.

In addition it might be confusing, since both Harvardmen and those "in the outside world" will always need to be told that HCUA is really the student council. On the other hand, proponents of HCUA claim that it is actually a more accurate name than Student Council. In any event, the student body will be given the privilege of deciding this vital debate on the referendum.

The squabble over the name, though, points out the real issue in the whole tangle. This question is not new; it was around last spring and it still is unanswered: how can the Council work effectively?

Most elected groups derive their prestige and power from some definite function which they alone perform, and this function is usually an administrative one. Well-defined administrative responsibility is the the root of House Committee power, for instance. In its sessions with the deans, the reorganization committee failed to discover one significant administrative duty at Harvard besides the Combined Charities drive which the Council could perform. Thus, the new Council will once again have to operate without a clear-cut sphere of power.

What did emerge from the long and often thoughtful deliberations of the committee was a feeling that the Council could best function as a sort of board of student overseers. It has been in this role that the Council has made most of its past contributions, and in the opinion of the administration, past successes point the path to the future.

Dean Monro told the committee that "power at Harvard lies in a sensible idea, clearly expressed, with good manners." Aside from its own merits (which are many) this statement automatically defines the effective modus operandi for any legislative body, since the deans do have a good deal to say about how much power any undergraduate organization can have.

The new Council, then, apparently should conduct investigations, write reports, and raise questions. But this is what the old Council has done. Why should such action be any more popular among the students in the future? We are seemingly led to one of two possible conclusions. Either the recent turmoil was much ado about nothing, and the only real problem was the old Council's personnel; or, a student council is superfluous at Harvard.

Members of the Reorganization Committee would probably protest violently to such a deduction. We have all sorts of ideas about how to get the Council moving in new directions, they will tell you, but now isn't the proper time. Let's wait for the new Council.

This is indeed a bad policy. The student body deserves to know at least some of the ways any new Council it might authorize could be of service. The committee and the Council had an obligation to point the way now, not next semester.

A "yes" vote in the coming referendum will give the Council another chance to justify itself. A "no" vote would retain the current constitution, and in all probability would kill the Council, at least for the present. There were enough encouraging proposals in the meetings of the reorganization committee, and the Council's record through the years is good enough to warrant giving the Council one last chance by passing the constitution. The Council must realize, though, that the moment of truth can not be avoided any longer.