The dream of an undergraduate parliament, patterned after the Oxford Union, has been a frequent fantasy which has always ended as a twisted nightmare of the original model. The glamorous expectations about a "Parliament" created much of the disappointment. Everyone knows Parliamentary Members can be witty and whimsical; student parliaments here were generally serious at best, down-right silly at worst. But these organizations did not fold for lack of wit although, admittedly, it helped. The last group, the ill-fated Athenaeum, is a case in point and an excellent guide to bobbles that the new "political club forum" might well avoid during its formation.

The Athenaeum, Latin for "School of Oratory," began in the Spring of 1953, and by the Fall of the same year it was again history. Its opening was a real production: ambassadors of good will gave long, dull speeches, the principal speakers wore tuxedos, and an audience of several hundred graciously applauded Pulitzer Prize winner Peter Vicreck as he prepared to attack intellectuals for opposing Stalinism less ardently than other forms of totalitarianism. Before he could say a word, however, an enthusiastic Athenacumite shouted an amendment to the debate proposition; the Chairman growled, Vicreck frowned, and the organizers wondered if such nonsense would go on all night. It did, but the process was delayed. An hour and a half of speeches preceded the general exchange of opinion, and by that time only a few had anything worthwhile to offer. The rest hissed and shouted at the chairman, who didn't quiet know whether to recognize questions or not.

Announcing the next meeting large placards demanded: "Is Harvard Sabotaging its Football Team?" This drew a lethargic group of 35 who heard Boston sports columnist Austin Lake declare that Harvard's "organized apathy" was caused by an athletic policy controlled by "Wall Street alumni favorable toward crew." Several people aroused themselves enough to refute this, but Lake said, "Sorry, boys, time to go," and left before debate began. The dominant group at this meeting was the "independent" faction which felt it could not fit into the official "Conservative" or "Liberal" categories. By the following Fall it was possible to count the total membership of each party on one hand. Soon even a hand was unnecessary--the Athenacum didn't die, it merely disappeared.

The failure came not from a lack of interest, but rather from a combination of organizational errors that channeled student interest into a windless cove. With a potential supporting membership of nearly 1000, the new "political club forum" has a fine opportunity to found a successful parliamentary group. Assuming general support from all the political clubs, the new parliament will have the advantage of sustained membership as well as plans designed to evade the major weak points of the Athenacum:

The selection of poor discussion topics drove away large numbers of supporters. One of the Athenacum's final meetings discussed "advertising," a subject only slightly less void of general interest than the University's football finances.

The prepared opening speeches were much too long and, for that reason, irritating. Obviously, part of the student's interest in a parliamentary body lies in hearing himself, and he doesn't like waiting all night for the privilege.

The organizational core of the Athenaeum dissolved soon after its formation because there was no way of assuring annual leadership--during the Fall of '53 it was difficult to tell who was running what. The new parliament, organized with club support, seems strongest in this respect.

The Athenaeum attempted to meet too often, a dangerous practice before student approval is assured. It appears that fewer meetings, of a more significant nature, would have held a better chance of support.

The need for a strong chairman who can control the meeting is a necessity. This is basically a matter of personality, but the Athenaeum's final meetings sadly demonstrated that the lack of this personality can be disastrous.

The inconsistent quality of guest speakers dealt unfairly with the Athenaeum's reputation. Distinguished guests were not helpful, and poor guests proved ruinous. It now seems logical to allow only student debate unless an exceptional outside speaker is available.

The success of organizational tinkering, of course, rests ultimately with the willingness of the founding groups to support the parliament actively. Because this essential seems to be present, the "political club forum" is off to a promising start.