As Henry Norr '68 explained, "The Committee on Houses is not representative of the faculty sentiment as a whole, but of a small segment of men who have a vested interest in being paternalistic rulers of a boys' dormitory: being a Master means you have certain preconceptions as to what the social make-up of Harvard should be."

The COH's limitations of age and structure were well illustrated in its non-decision regarding student seating. For the first hour of the debate between the HUC and COH, the Masters offered a barrage of reasons for the impossibility of such an innovation. Finally, Master Zeph Stewart confronted the Committee with what he considered to be the real reason for their opposition. "We haven't given any good reasons for not letting students on," Stewart said. "In fact, there is no philosophical reason why they shouldn't sit on the Committee. The problem is simply one of ages. We would feel stupid if they were to attend our meetings on a regular basis."

Administration

The COH debate over seating gave the impression that they had the power to do something. The fact is that the meeting resolved nothing, and after the talking was over the COH turned the problem over to Dean Ford, who wrote a personal letter to the HUC, explaining the rejection of the proposal "as a representative of the COH."

So the COH has precious little power. It is the administration that holds the social control over students' lives and defines the ways in which they will live at Harvard. The administration expresses its will to the COH in several ways. First, through the several administrators who sit on the Committee itself. The second, more subtle, way is through the experience of the Masters themselves; they know the fact of life that the administration has control over any decision which involves basic policy.

The inferior position of the Masters vis-a-vis the administration was illustrated in the HUC-COH debate on seating. Master Smithies asked us why we wanted seating on the Committee. We replied that we wanted to influence the important decisions: funding a new athletic building, constructing the underpass, tenth house, tuition hikes, investment and endowment decisions. Smithies was incredulous; "We're as interested as you are in changing these decisions, but you know they just can't be changed by us, that's all. Those decisions are made in the high-level stratosphere of the administration!"

Dean Glimp can protest that "Students ARE involved in decision-making," as he has done time and time again. But it is clear that these claims are valid only in the most grossly paternalistic context. In the last five years, students have been invited to participate in several university decisions: COH subcommittee on parietals, Gill subcommttee on the tenth House, Ad Board review, Admission Committee review, House Study Committee. None of these were sincere attempts to incorporate student opinion.

Though the proposals of the parietal subcommitee were accepted, the group was formed by the administration only after it had decided that significant change was necessary to avoid unsightly publicity.

According to two of the three students on the Gill subcommittee, Peter Weller, HPC, and Larry Lawrence, HUC, students contributed nothing to that faculty-administration decision. They were invited to the first and last meeting and denied entrance to any of the meetings in between. It appeared to them that the committee members already had their minds made up. In fact, the students did not even have access to information. At one point, they requested figures on the increase, if any, in off-campus fees after Mather became operative. The Committee members admitted knowledge of the figures, but said the amount of the increase was secret until approved by the Board of Overseers. In other words, the students could not have the pertinent information until the decision was already made.

In the last three instances, the administrators merely made an official request for student testimony. The students had no continued presence, futile or not, on the decision-making bodies.

From the record, we must conclude that students are not truly "involved" in decision-making until they play an equal or dominant role, until they actually have responsibility. Dean Glimp tually have responsibility. Dean Glimp's personal definition of "student involvement" is revealed in a suggestion he made to the HUC president and vice-president at the beginning of 1968. "I really want the HUC to get involved in the decision-making process this year. And I've done some thinking about just what would be the right way. There's been a lot of talk about a new athletic building within the next ten years. Why don't you guys set that up as your big project for this year? You could really do a lot of good on that."

Students get almost nothing from participating in decisions as they have done in the past: at the whim and fancy of the administration. All previous examples of student participation have been the meanest instances of tokenisms.

Financial Decisions

Why has the administration so thoroughly rebuffed student attempts to share in decision-making power? Because the administration does the University's long-range financial planning and it jealously guards this vital decision-making tool. It is this power of the purse that enables the administration to wield direct control over social matters and indirect control over educational ones.

Of course this is not the rationale usually offered for refusing student participation. Usually administrators' reasons are vague and unreal. Dean Von Stade has said, "Student participation just wouldn't be the same if it were institutionalized." Edward T. Wilcox, Director of The Program of General Education, has explained it more simply, "It's just out of the question, that's all." Dean Glimp just shrugs and says, "It's the principle of the thing. I guess we just see things a different way." Dean Watson has answered the question by saying, "Look, if students don't like this place, they don't have to come here."