Erica Chenoweth and Zoe Marks Named Pfoho Faculty Deans


Harvard SEAS Faculty Reflect on Outgoing Dean, Say Successor Should Be Top Scholar


South Korean President Yoon Talks Nuclear Threats From North Korea at Harvard IOP Forum


Harvard University Police Advisory Board Appoints Undergrad Rep After Yearlong Vacancy


After Meeting with Harvard Admin on ‘Swatting’ Attack, Black Student Leaders Say Demands Remain Unanswered

Council Hears Protest on Varsity Club; Discusses New Constitution

Revision in Time of Office Suggested


Eloquent opposition as well as some sympathy toward the proposed construction of a new varsity club was voiced at the Student Council's weekly meeting last night. At the same session, Charles R. Brynteson, Jr. '50 recommended significant changes in the Council's membership structure.

David C. Poskanzer '50 asserted that if the varsity club project is intended to attract athletes to Harvard, this intent displayed a lack of moral courage on the part of the University. "I don't think the varsity club would be an asset to Harvard education," Poskanzer said. "I think it would be a definite detriment and would hurt the House system which is based on the idea that everybody eats together."

Final Decision Tabled

Patrick B. McCormick '50, Council secretary, retorted that "perhaps Harvard has to evolve a little in its attitude toward athletics ... unless we want to play Tufts and Bowdoin." James F. Hornig '50 said he thought "there were better ways to spend the money" and John T. Coan, Jr. '50 sided with McCormick in arguing for a new varsity club. A decision on the issue was tabled pending further investigation.

Brynteson, chairman of an undergraduate committee to revise the Council constitution, proposed that the terms of Council members run from spring term to spring term rather than fall to fall as they do now, in order that each new Council may have the opportunity to consult with former members before they graduate.

Revision Tabled Too

He further recommended that six additional members be appointed to the Council by the vote of the Council before November 1 each year. These members would concentrate on the Council's "advisory projects."

The revision committee also proposed a change in the wording of the Council constitution's preamble which made it clear that the Council was in no way a student government. Discussion on the constitution ended without decision because of a lack of a quorum.

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.