Last spring the Faculty Council recommended that the Faculty vote in a new calendar with a first semester that would end before Christmas break--and the Faculty voted to recommit the matter to the council effectively killing the change for at least one year. It was one of the few times last year that the Faculty did not follow a Faculty Council recommendation.

So it seemed surprising this week when sources close to the Council reported that the council will consider the issue of calendar change again and will probably recommend to the Faculty in March or April a calendar very similar to the one it proposed last year, with a first semester ending before Christmas. The question is, what could change the Faculty's mind on calendar reform this year?

First, there is the report of a University-wide committee to study the possibility of studying. The report, completed last week, makes no specific recommendations but does point out the possibility of a unified University-wide calendar. And perhaps more important, president Bok appears to be a firm supporter of calendar revision.

The Faculty vote on calendar reform last year was close, of course--79 to 63--so approval of the new calendar this year would not be a complete reversal of form.

Another major argument for calendar reform is that all of Harvard's schools should operate on a single, unified schedule. But it appears that it would, in fact, be easier to coordinate all the faculties on the present system than with the proposed reforms; only two University programs--the Business School's MBA program and the Kennedy School of Government's public policy program--now have first semesters that end before Christmas.

But the key to this year's campaign for a new calendar seems to be the energy crisis--something that nobody was worrying about when the Faculty remanded the issue last year. With a first semester that ended before Christmas, Harvard could shut down for the entire month of January if there were another energy squeeze; it's bound to be a persuasive argument.