ALTHOUGH the new Student Assembly has met only a few times, certain characteristics of the body are becoming readily apparent. Most noticeably, its caution. The reasons for this caution vary, but many representatives say it stems from a fear that the assembly will embarrass itself by trying to do too much, too soon. Representatives say they want to avoid the predicament President Carter found himself in after a year in office, having initiated a dozen reforms while having completed few; they want to learn their way around the University bureaucracy, carefully investigate what kind of substantive reforms the assembly can realistically pursue, and slowly build up the respect of their undergraduate constituents by succeeding when attempting change.

Another reason for the caution could be that the assembly is a group of moderate students. This is reflected in the elections of officers and committee chairmen in which the more moderate candidates prevailed over the more radical candidates. Admittedly, the methods of classifying students according to ideology are vague and the margins of victory in these elections were often slim. However, many representatives agree the elections show that the assembly's initial steps have favored moderation.

The election of Stephen V.R. Winthrop '80 to the chairmanship set the pattern that the other elections followed. In a run-off, Winthrop, who ran on the promise that he would not let his politics interfere with his administrative functions as chairman, defeated Chris Owens '81, a representative from Quincy who was discernibly more of an activist. Owens, during his pre-election speech for example, mentioned a half-dozen issues the assembly should tackle and cast the Harvard administration in an oppositional role to students. Owens got a lot of votes, but Winthrop won.

The election of Jim Deutsch '80 over RAZA minority representative George Sanchez '80 for the vice-chairmanship cleared remaining doubts about the nature of the assembly. Deutsch, who favors Faculty recognition of the assembly, said during the question and answer period, "If we're not taken seriously by the Faculty and administration, then we're not being responsible to the people who elected us." Deutsch's other responses also seemed to place him to the right of Sanchez, who pleased the "Anti-Junior-Politico" sect by his response to a question as to whether he was a Government concentrator: "I came to Harvard and took Gov 30. Now I'm a history major." As in the race for chairman, the vote was close--this time 36 to 34--but Deutsch and the moderates prevailed again.

SEVERAL representatives, to be sure, give the impression of being hard-core radicals. These students are particularly eager to influence Harvard's tenure policies, investments in South Africa, the creation of a women's study program and other left-wing causes. The radicals want to begin to act immediately on the issues they feel are pressing. However, they have so far been mollified by another distinct faction in the assembly--a group of left-leaning representatives who differ from the radicals in their belief that representation must come before ideology.

These representatives can be called the purists, for they are faithful to the assembly's designers, who saw the chief problem of student government as a lack of adequate representation. The purists could well hold the key to the assembly's success. Many of the purists are former convention delegates, including Carl Rosen '80, chairman of the assembly's committee on intra-and extra-University affairs, and Michael A. Calabrese '79, chairman of the committee on college life. The purists want the assembly to conduct referenda, hold "town meetings" in the Houses, and become clear about student sentiment before acting on the more controversial issues.

Rosen is a good example of the members in this loose faction. An active member of the South Africa Solidarity Committee (SASC), Rosen has insisted that the assembly should not take a stand on the issue of Harvard's ties to South Africa until the representatives are sure of undergraduate opinion. Rosen says the only way the assembly will gain legitimacy is through precise representation. He believes the assembly will soon be ignored if it loses touch with its constituents.

Already, a split is emerging between the radicals and the purists over how to deal with the South Africa issue. The first clear instance of this split occurred at the second assembly meeting when representatives voted to recess instead of taking a stand on the Engelhard issue. During the debate the purists said taking such a stand before consulting with students would contradict what the assembly stood for, while the radicals stressed that a time factor was involved because of the demonstration at the Kennedy School. The vote to recess passed nonetheless, angering many of the radicals. However, the meeting that night had gone on for over three hours, and some representatives who would normally have approved of considering the issue thought time constraints would preclude adequate debate and consideration. Unquestionably, the South Africa issues will come up again.

A TRULY conservative faction has yet to become evident in the assembly. The debate over South Africa issues will largely center around means, not ends. In terms of national politics, the entire assembly could probably be placed on the left. In fact, the assembly can best be understood in terms of liberals v. radicals, rather than conservatives v. liberals. The South Africa issue has made the entire campus more politically aware, and this increased awareness appears to be reflected in the nature of the assembly. The assembly more closely resembles SASC than it resembles the Republican Club. The question remains whether the representatives will have the commitment and patience to do the tedious committee work necessary to prepare and advocate alternatives to the University's present policies. And even further down the line, no one knows if the assembly can attain the recognition and power needed to put such alternatives into effect.