UC May Fund Exclusive Groups

A proposal that would allow the Undergraduate Council to fund events hosted by student groups that discriminate based on gender or religion has gained new life. UC President John S. Haddock ’07, who ruled that the proposal had failed at the council’s Monday night meeting, now acknowledges that a “parliamentary twist” might change the result of the vote.

UC members voted by a 26-19 margin Monday night to amend the council’s nondiscrimination provision. That rule currently bars funding for organizations such as the Harvard-Radcliffe Asian American Christian Fellowship (AACF), which requires its officers to “subscribe without reserve” to principles of faith, as well as several single-sex a cappella groups.

The Monday night proposal would allow the UC to fund events open to the entire undergraduate body but sponsored by so-called “discriminatory” student groups.

Haddock ruled at the meeting that the proposal had failed because the council’s constitution requires a two-thirds vote to change the bylaws.

But Haddock wrote in an e-mail to the council’s list Wednesday night that there is not in fact a two-thirds requirement for amending the bylaws.

The confusion dates back to last spring, according to an e-mail that representative Eric I. Kouskalis ’07 sent to the council’s general list. At that time, the UC amended its constitution to say that “changes to the Bylaws require a majority vote” of members casting ballots.

But at the time, the council overlooked an existing clause in its constitution requiring a two-thirds majority for changing the bylaws.

The council’s parliamentarian footnoted the constitution to say that “the two-thirds requirement for amending the Bylaws is null and void, and the majority requirement is operative.”

But last month, representative Matthew R. Greenfield ’08 tried to turn back the clock. He proposed a constitutional amendment that would restore the two-thirds requirement for bylaws changes.

The council voted 31-0-4 for Greenfield’s legislation, and Haddock ruled that it had passed.

Yet the constitution—which takes precedence over the bylaws—can only be amended if two-thirds of all UC members cast ballots, And since there are 51 members of the council, Greenfield’s legislation “failed to achieve the necessary threshold for passage,” according to Haddock’s e-mail.

Since Greenfield’s amendment isn’t binding, it appears that, under the UC constitution, the bylaws can still be changed by simple majority vote. And the reform of the nondiscrimination provision would have passed that threshold.

When Haddock ruled Monday that the Student Group Non-Discrimination Act would require a two-thirds, rather than simple, majority, proponents of the bill—including Greenfield himself—questioned this ruling.

Monday’s meeting became heated as council members argued over Haddock’s interpretation of parliamentary procedure. Haddock did not allow council members to overrule his decision, which further upset supporters of the bill. Approximately 15 council members in favor of the act left the meeting in an attempt to block any vote from taking place.

Now, Haddock says that he would entertain and sustain a point of order to correct the record. Greenfield’s constitutional amendment would be struck down, and the Student Group Non-Discrimination Act could come into effect.

Haddock would not say whether or not he would rule that the act has passed. But he did say in an interview yesterday that he would “recognize any motions to overturn the chair by a majority of votes.” This means that supporters of the bill could overturn Haddock’s ruling and thus authorize funding for so-called “discriminatory” groups.

The proposal has divided campus organizations. Groups such as the Harvard Republican Club and the AACF are backing it, while the Black Students Association and the Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, and Supporters Alliance lobbied against the bill.

Thomas D. Hadfield ’08, a sponsor of the bill, said that it “allows for UC funding for non-discriminatory events organized by official student groups” and will lead to more non-discriminatory events on campus. But Finance Committee chair Lori M. Adelman ’08, who opposed the act, said that, “at the most fundamental level, funding explicit discrimination is something that the UC should not be in the business of doing.”

—Staff writer Brittney L. Moraski can be reached at bmoraski@fas.harvard.edu.