Dissent: Give the HUA a Chance

Today, the Board has decided to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

With the Harvard Undergraduate Association election opening today, we are reminded that this latest iteration of student government at Harvard College must develop its capacity to do impactful work that actually addresses student concerns on campus.

The Editorial Board is right to say that having elected figures distribute funds to student groups might not best serve student needs, and that the HUA presently fails to act as an advocate for students, in part because low turnout renders it illegitimate. Yet, they err in suggesting that this descriptive truth means we shouldn’t have a student government at all.

The issues facing Harvard and the College demand real action — not empty criticisms. The Board fails to recognize how the HUA can be a capacious vehicle in asserting student issues; therefore, we dissent.

The HUA finds itself at a crucial juncture. As it enters its fifth year of operation, this year’s candidates must address its shortcomings to achieve the body’s full potential.

Namely, the next presidents can use the HUA to advance student concerns.

When the College announced that unaffiliated House tutors will be required to vacate their positions by the end of the next academic year, the Board lamented Harvard’s failure to understand student needs. When the College suspended the Harvard-Radcliffe Orchestra from meeting this fall after a later-reversed judgement that the organization had violated hazing policies, the Board called the administration a “nanny state,” criticizing its failure to understand student perspectives. And when the Ad Board effaced its legitimacy after the encampments, the Board agreed the disciplinary body needed to add students.

Now, the Board calls for the destruction of one of the few means of collectively voicing student opinions to the administration. By severing the student body from the administration that governs it, abolition would effectively cede an existing, if hitherto ineffective, instrument of leverage over decisions that directly affect undergraduates.

Part of the Board’s reasoning for not needing a student government is that there are already existing advocacy organizations on campus. Certainly, many student groups around campus successfully advocate for political concerns — that’s not a good argument for getting rid of one of their tools of doing so.

The groups which the Board would like to replace the HUA’s advocacy function have themselves demonstrated, across decades, that student government is a useful tool to consolidate broader campus support.

Otherwise, the Board proposes outsourcing fund disbursement for student organizations to a few hired technocrats. It’s true that the HUA has previously done a poor job of disbursing funding for student organizations. However, a poor track record does not mean that no student government of any kind cannot — or should not — make important funding decisions.

Future administrations are, in fact, capable of learning from past mistakes. Reforms can take place. And voters can reward the candidates that prove worthy.

The HUA can begin by focusing on the details that would impact daily student experience the most: digitizing Harvard IDs, rolling out subsidized MBTA passes, and planning community events.

From there, it can scale towards larger issues of political import, such as securing students on the Ad Board or working to counteract DEI rollbacks.

We envision a student government that tangibly improves campus experience — and hope that such an improvement could raise turnout beyond last year’s sluggish 30 percent. Building the HUA’s capacity will bring student government to the forefront of student life, where it belongs.

Yes, the HUA is in need of deep, substantive reform to consistently uphold that ideal. But abolishing the HUA, without an alternative, sets student interests back.

Let not perfect become the enemy of good.

Heidi S. Enger ’27, a Crimson Editorial Chair, is a Social Studies concentrator in Eliot House. Elana M. Farbiarz ’29, a Crimson Editorial editor, lives in Thayer Hall. Zakiriya H. Gladney ’27, a Crimson Editorial Chair, is a double concentrator in Social Studies and Statistics in Dunster House. Eli H. GwinnLandry ’29, a Crimson Editorial editor, lives in Straus Hall. L.A. Karnes ’28, an Associate Editorial editor, is a double concentrator in the Comparative Study of Religion and Government in Mather House. Sylvia A. Langer ’28, an Associate Editorial editor, is a Molecular and Cellular Biology concentrator in Currier House. Kai I. Russell ’29, a Crimson Editorial editor, lives in Wigglesworth Hall. Cyrus P. Sarfaty ’29, a Crimson Editorial editor, lives in Hurlbut Hall. Ira Sharma ’28, an Associate Editorial Editor, is an Economics Concentrator in Mather House. Salma O. Siddiqui ’28, an Associate Editorial editor, is a Social Studies concentrator in Pforzheimer House. Matthew R. Tobin ’27, a Crimson Editorial editor, is a double concentrator in Social Studies and Economics in Winthrop House.

Dissenting Opinions: Occasionally, The Crimson Editorial Board is divided about the opinion we express in a staff editorial. In these cases, dissenting board members have the opportunity to express their opposition to staff opinion.