Imprisoned in delusions of grandeur, the HCUA has forgotten the limits of its position and the only road to influence open to it. When the constitution was being written, Dean Monro warned the drafters that "power at Harvard lies in a sensible idea, clearly expressed with good maners." Last week, while emphasizing that he thought "the council is feeling its way and is a lot better than three or four years ago," the Dean admitted he found current Council reports lacking in "throughness and clarity." "A well-written report always gets attention," Monro advises. But there have been very few of these in recent years.
As far as the Faculty and Administration are concerned the Council is just one voice--albeit somewhat representative--among many in the University. It will be heard only if it makes sense. A letter from an individual student to the relevant dean or committee on a pending problem can be far more influential than ten Council votes if the argument presented is persuasive and respectful.
Not many students, however, will actually write letters, and it would be unfortunate if the CRIMSON's voice were the only one heard in the undergraduate community. There still remains a function for a Council, but that function is strictly defined by the dictum to thoroughly research a problem and present an argument cogently and politely. This is the sort of thing a council can do; several decades ago this is what the Student Council did, with impressive results.
It is foolish for the Council to try to compete with the CRIMSON on bringing attention to minor problems. With few exceptions, the Council has allowed itself to fall into a "me-too" role, picking up issues from the CRIMSON and presenting short, generally worthless statements, weeks after a CRIMSON news story or editorial. In any competition on minor matters the Council is doomed to lose, both because its deliberations, often necessarily picayune, are public, and because the CRIMSON automatically commands a wider audience.
To be useful, the Council will have to shift substantially its current focus. Instead of publicly fighting the small issues that come up each year, it should select probably no more than half a dozen basic questions and subject them to careful and informed analysis. Council reports should have the same thoroughness that characterizes studies of the Visiting Committees of the Overseers,
The experience of the old Student Council and of the young HCUA calls for several changes in structure and procedure; without them the Council will remain only an arena in which frustrated politicians may work off excess energy.
* Nine new members, appointed by the House Masters, should be added. These men, eliminated when the Council was reorganized, have been missed. Many bright and imaginative students either cannot win or will not run in elections, and the Council suffers from the loss of their wisdom.
* Nearly all the Council's work should be done in committees. These committees should be established to explore specific but basic problems, and should include many students not on the Council. In this way the Council could make use of specialized interest and knowledge in the Community and thereby become both more effective and representative. Committee reports, once approved, should be given wide circulation. Currently they collect dust in the Council office.
* The Committee on Educational Policy, composed of leading students in all major departments, should be re-established. In the best years of the Student Council this was the most valuable committee. Continued failure of the HCUA to revive it could lead to the establishment of a Dean's Committee of students, which would be less independent.
* Council meetings should be held infrequently, and only to consider major committee reports. The Seymour practice of weekly meetings has only exposed the Council to ridicule, wasted members' time, and encouraged the Council to embroil itself in trivia. The Council officers can more easily obtain small concessions and adjustments from the Administration without the publicity and wrangling that inevitably goes on in general meetings of the Council. Council meetings should be great debates, not great squabbles over procedure.
* The Council should encourage its committees and affiliated agencies (like the Combined Charities Drive) to be as independent as possible. Only in the case of obvious malpractice or serious question of procedure or policy should the Council attempt to control a committee. Administration officers admit that Council votes on reports often are only matters of incidental interest to them when compared to the substance of reports themselves. Only by appointing committees intelligently, not by debate, can the Council be certain of getting worthwhile proposals.
* The Council should abandon its pretensions to regulating in any way