In any case, it is clear that student opinion does not have meaningful influence at the present time. Effective student influence will only occur when students participate with the faculty on committees and in the final decision-making process.
Because not all decisions affect students to the same extent, and because various issues require different types of experience and training, it would be unwise to maintain the same student-faculty ratio on all committees. In fact, the ratio could vary between the policy decisions (which should always include student opinion) and the day-to-day operation of any one committee. The Admissions Committee, for example, should have student members when deciding policy issues, but would probably require an in-ordinate amount of time from any student attempting to participate in the entire admissions process. To illustrate the manner in which committee membership should be determined, three committees will be briefly examined.
The Committee on the Houses makes recommendations to the Faculty regarding aspects of life in the Houses. It deals with matters which affect students' non-academic (social) education far more than their academic education. These issues are directly relevant to the student and to almost no one else. Students should compose more than 50 per cent of this committee.
The Committee on Educational Policy makes recommendations regarding matters of academic concern. These issues directly affect both students and faculty. They have profound effect in terms of defining the academic reputation of the college. In addition, whereas decisions affecting House life could be easily reversed under the above plan, mistakes in the academic category are often harder to rescind, since they may have involved the hiring of more instructors, for example. Students should compose about 33 per cent of this committee, although this could vary widely according to the issues being considered.
Ad Board
The Administrative Board decides the "fate" of students accused of violating University regulations (academic and non-academic). The Board's procedure is unconstitutional because students are not permitted to appear before the Board and because they are not allowed to cross-examine witnesses. However, because the Board is so lenient, many people question whether it should be changed.
It is nevertheless true that the Board oft-times is merely giving official approval to the opinion of the accused student's Senior Tutor. Students should have the opportunity to question that opinion. This is especially important when dismissal is a posibility.
In the case of possible dismissal, an accused student should have the choice of being dealt with by the Board or by a committee composed of 50 per cent students and 50 per cent members of the Board. He should be able to appear before either group and should have the option of being represented by a member of the faculty (including lawyers on the faculty).
As mentioned, committee recommendations must be approved by the Faculty in order to become official. In order to insure effective student influence, therefore, any committee recommendation that is found to be unacceptable by either the Faculty or the representative student government should be reconsidered by a special faculty-student committee. The decision of this committee would be final.
A necessary component of a system such as this is a representative student government capable of formulating and expressing student opinion while maintaining the integrity of that opinion. In the past, Harvard student government (composed of the Harvard Undergraduate Council and the Harvard Policy Committee) has failed to establish a working relationship with students. Perhaps because of a pluralistic student body composed of many potential leaders or perhaps because the faculty has encouraged de-centralization by refusing to allow the "official" student government any meaningful, prestigious role, there now exist at Harvard a plethora of organizations all fulfilling functions which are in the domain of the student government at other institutions. These include House Committees, the Harvard Undergraduate Athletic Council, the Freshman Council, the CRIMSON, ad hoc committees such as the recently established Student-Faculty Advisory Council, PBH, SDS, YR's, YD's, and the Crimson Key. Some of the activities of these organizations must be consolidated by the HUC and HPC. This centralization will require major changes in the structure of the HUC and HPC.
Reorganization is not all that is needed, however. The HUC and HPC (or whatever bodies eventually emerge from the reorganization) must be truly representative, not appointed by House Committees and/or House Masters: members should be popularly elected via House and Freshman Class elections.
The HUC and HPC must have larger budgets, and be allowed to raise money by ways other than individual contributions. Most important, the HUC and HPC must become relevant to students' needs. This implies: 1) involvement with more issues that affect students, 2) recognition by the faculty in terms of a meaningful role in the decision-making process, and 3) incentive (e.g., better educational experience, interesting issues, academic credit, scholarship aid to compensate for foregone earnings, summer jobs at Harvard, respect) so that hard-working and intelligent students will participate.
Only when these conditions have been met will student government be able to fulfill its function