Council Activist Wing Seen Waning

Last month’s election of Sujean S. Lee ’03 as Undergraduate Council president marks a new milestone in the council’s quiet—and perhaps permanent—jettisoning of its liberal activist past.

Lee and her running mate Anne M. Fernandez ’03 have pledged to continue in the tradition of current President Paul A. Gusmorino ’02, who has led the council through what has been perhaps its most efficient and controversy-free semester ever by focusing entirely on student services.

And reflecting this growing trend towards student services over political advocacy, all candidates in last month’s presidential race focused their campaigns on such student-centered ideas such as a shuttle service to New York, cable television, reduced phone rates, and more big-name band concerts. Even Lauren E. Bonner ’04, a presidential candidate known for her activist past, seemed to avoid controversial political issues such as the Progressive Student Labor Movement (PSLM) and its push for a “living wage” for all Harvard employees.

With Lee carrying the Gusmorino legacy forward after a winning a landslide election and the council united behind her, it seems that social activism on the council may be dead—at least for the foreseeable future.

Staying On Track

Over the course of the semester, the council—rarely locked in debate or controversy—issued more reports on student issues than any previous council. In October, the group came close to a formal debate over the presence of the Reserve Officers Training Corps’ (ROTC) presence on campus, but Gusmorino quashed any possibility that a bill would be written for a floor debate, saying that the time spent on debate would likely be contentious and meaningless.

“I’m not opposed to people discussing it, but I don’t think anyone should bring forward a piece of legislation to the UC without undertaking substantial research in preparing it—especially for an issue as complicated as ROTC at Harvard,” he says.

Last year, the schism between the activist and student services factions on the council still existed, but under Gusmorino’s leadership, the conflict has dissipated—although some council members claim that the disappearance is simply because not many ideological debates have embroiled the campus in recent months.

But despite the noisy occupation of Mass. Hall last year by PSLM, the activist wing of the council became increasingly marginalized as Gusmorino and his small cadre of powerful executive board leaders secured an unprecedented number of student service victories.

“The liberal activist wing is dead,” former conservative council member Justin A. Barkley ’02 declares.

Defining a Role

Throughout the past decade, the council—and especially its president—have struggled to define the body’s role on campus.

With the exception of 1998-1999 council President Beth A. Stewart ’00, and her successor, Noah Z. Seton ’00—both well-known conservatives—many presidents have used their position as a bully pulpit to try and influence the University on controversial issues such as Harvard stock holdings or whether grapes harvested by allegedly unfairly treated workers should be served in the dining halls.

Robert M. Hyman ’98, the council’s first popularly elected president, used his campus prominence to push for such progressive issues as divesting the University’s investments in Nigeria, launching an ethnic studies program, anonymous HIV testing at University Health Services and the promotion of Rape Aggression Defense classes.

Hyman’s vice president, Lamelle D. Rawlins ’99, won the presidential race the next year and continued her predecessor’s legacy, leading the council through contentious debates on issues such as the morality of student protests against Chinese President Jiang Zemin.

One bill Rawlins supported, a measure to affirm “that California strawberry workers should be given access to bathrooms and safe drinking water in the field, health insurance, a work atmosphere free from sexual harassment, a living wage, and reasonable job security,” passed the council by a vote of 38-7.

The bill’s goal was to persuade Harvard University Dining Services not to buy fruit from companies sponsoring abusive labor practices.

“It’s just a simple gesture to urge Harvard Dining Services to support a movement to really make some people’s lives a lot better,” Rawlins said at the time. “Anytime we can make even a small difference, that’s important.”

The three-year activist trend started by Hyman, who served as president for a year before being popularly elected for the office in 1996, was interrupted by the reign of two prominent conservative presidents—Stewart and Seton—both of whom pledged to change the activist focus of the council.

Running in 1998, Stewart tried to frame the election as a battle between two opposing visions of the council, calling the election a “conflict” between “those who think the purpose of the [council] is to pursue a political agenda and those who think it is to pursue student interest.”

But despite the mandate Stewart saw in her victory, the change wasn’t permanent, and Fentrice D. Driskell ’01 took over after Seton and did not limit the council’s agenda to only student services.

Driskell’s tenure, however, is remembered mostly for blunders and divisiveness, including the impeachment scandal of her vice president, John A. Burton ’01.

Driskell campaigned hard the next year for the election of Stephen N. Smith ’02, one of the founders of PSLM and a member of a number of community service groups.

Smith has a history of confronting the University about its policies regarding workers’ right and sweatshop labor.

“I’m not afraid to put my head on the line for issues like these,” Smith said during his campaign. “It’s important to make our voices heard when we can.”

Deemed the frontrunner early in the race against eventual victor Gusmorino, Smith stumbled down the stretch, however, and lost crucial support from other council members.

That campaign, observers say, may have been the last gasp of the liberal activist tradition.

And even Smith, Barkley says, may not have been the activist some of his predecessors were.

“Even Steve talked about a balance,” Barkley says.

Now, few vestiges of a progressive activist contingent remain on the council, and Lee and Fernandez are not likely to allow it to reemerge—at least in its old form.

With the council adjourned until the spring semester, Lee has not had a chance to begin directing policy.

But after a meeting with University President Lawrence H. Summers, she says she may push the council to speak out on issues of concern to students—so long as doing so leads to specific policy action.

“I would like to concentrate on things that have direct tangible effects on students but I do hope to include relevant issues whether or not they’re controversial or political,” Lee says.

Passing council resolutions that solely state opinion, Lee says, is something that she, like Gusmorino, will discourage the council from doing.

“The key word is action,” she says.

Revolution on SAC

Also key to preserving Gusmorino’s legacy is Student Affairs Committee Chair Rohit Chopra ’04, who through his wide network of alliances with members of the administration, wields enormous power behind the scenes.

While Chopra has orchestrated almost all the council’s recent victories—he played a key role in the battle for later party hours and started a fund to provide students on financial aid free tickets to University-sponsored events—he has chosen to remain on SAC rather than seek the council presidency.

Historically, SAC, which can recommend policy changes directly to Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis ’68 and Summers, has been a springboard for advocating ideological issues.

In the past, SAC has championed issues such as same-sex commitment ceremonies in Memorial Church and urging the University to amend its non-discrimination policy to include transgendered individuals.

Chopra, however, has a stricter vision of his role as leader of the influential committee.

“[The students] seem to like what we’ve been doing this year—improving the day-to-day academic experience,” Chopra says. “That’s what we’re elected to do.”

The Future of UC Politics

In his farewell address to the council last week, Gusmorino reiterated one of his favorite points.

The popular president, who many on the council describe as personally liberal, has attempted to separate the student services vs. activist debate from liberal vs. conservative politics.

He says he doesn’t favor council bills of a particular ideology; his only requirement is that they “have a tangible effect on issues that concern students.”

This de-politicizing of the council is a natural consequence of the agenda Gusmorino has imposed on the council over the past year.

If only issues that directly affect students fall under the council’s purview, there is little to define a council conservative from a council liberal.

Barkley says Gusmorino has tried to redefine the council’s focus and “promote a whole new way of thinking about the council that left that old [political] debate behind.”

“The left-right aspect of it is disappearing,” Barkley says.

But even if Gusmorino has tried to make room for all political ideologies under his student services tent, some lament that the council has narrowed its view and no longer speaks out on issues like the “official” voice of the students should, they say.

“Student government activism has produced some great achievements all across the country, and it is a shame that because of a few loud voices and a tradition of ‘student services,’ our council shies away from issues that are important to students and have been fodder for student governments for hundreds of years,” liberal stalwart Smith says.

—Staff writer William M. Rasmussen can be reached at wrasmuss@fas.harvard.edu