Student government at Harvard means a sometimes confusing set of organizations, known mostly by their acronyms - CHUL, CUE, ERG and CRR. But this year a group of students has been working to form a new government, beginning with a constitution.

In 1789 the American Founding Fathers took only four months to write the Constitution. Since November about fifty undergraduates have been meeting to write a constitution for a new student government at Harvard, and to date the Convention has produced no substantive decisions on the structure of that government. As the convention now enters its fourth month of meetings, many students are beginning to wonder just how long it will take for some concrete proposals to emerge. Many convention members are wondering the same thing.

A combination of internal complications and uncertainty about the convention's role and strategy have caused the delay. Establishing bylaws, for example, became a two-week affair. First a committee established to decide on rules of procedure for the convention met and hashed out decisions on voting rights, quorum size and other issues. Then the full convention, in a classic display of Monday-morning quarterbacking, proceeded to debate the by-laws item by item, and after two meetings agreed on an amended version that looked suspiciously like the original version.

Other items on the agenda, such as the crucial presentation of plans for the new government, were pushed back one week, and then another, while the convention haggled over minor points. Several planned meetings had to be cancelled when the convention failed to produce a quorum of 35 students (including one member from 12 of the 14 delegations from the Houses and the freshman class). A letter to organizations of minority undergraduates asking them to send delegates to present their viewpoints on student government, which a subcommittee drafted in November, was finally mailed out early this week.

After Delays, Progress?

Nevertheless, the convention is now back in gear and ready to come out of its reading-exam period hibernation with a flurry of activity. The convention has published a statement of purpose and established procedures for deciding which issues to tackle in what order; for turning decisions of the convention into finished pieces of a constitution; for researching student governments of other colleges and past student governments at Harvard, and for publicizing its actions and intentions. Decisions on such questions as the size of the government, the relationship between the government and Harvard's present student-faculty committees, and the function and purpose of the government should be made within the next month or so, many convention leaders say. The most optimistic of them say the entire process of writing the constitution, presenting the document to students for ratification, convincing students to vote for it, and holding the first elections for the government will be completed by the end of this term.

Michael A. Calabrese '79, chairman of the convention and a Crimson editor, is, naturally, one of the optimists. Calabrese said this week that the delays that have plagued the convention so far can be attributed to a lack of communication among the various House delegations, and between these delegations and existing student-faculty committees. But Calabrese says this problem has now been eliminated. "There is a much greater amount of communication and a greater consensus now about what we are trying to accomplish," he says. "The disagreements between various factions are beginning to fade away. I'm confident that we won't let trivial things hold us back now. I think we can produce a constitution within seven weeks."

Jim Shpall '79, vice-chairman of the convention, shares Calabrese's confidence that by early April, at the latest, the convention will create a new student government constitution. "The group as a whole has not gotten bogged down," Shpall says. "We've settled some very detailed and important procedural questions, and now we're ready to get down to the actual writing of the new constitution."

Some Members Pessimistic

Other convention members fear, however, that a precedent of squabbling over petty issues has already been established, and they see no reason to believe that the bickering will lessen as the convention considers more substantive issues. Tom Prewitt '79, a former member of CHUL and a convention member, said this week, "The dynamics of the group prevent much from being accomplished. It is just very hard to get 60 enthusiastic, interested students to agree on such a broad topic as student government. Before anything substantial will be accomplished, we all need to listen more and not just to try to drive particular points home." Prewitt says he believes it would be "disastrous" for future Harvard undergraduates if the convention fails. "I don't think students realize how serious this is," he says. "The students must not be divided on the question of student government. If our efforts fail, the future of any type of student government at Harvard will be quite dismal."

Most convention delegates seem to agree that the progress made in the past few meetings indicates that the ideological divisions among members of the convention have faded, if not vanished entirely. The more pessimistic delegates see this progress as merely temporary, but the more hopeful assert that the convention's consensus will hold up during the next few meetings. Despite the different forecasts by convention members about the chances of success, almost all delegates seem to agree on what the crucial issues are.

One such key issue is what the relation of CHUL, CUE, ACSR and CRR will be to whatever type of student government the constitutional convention eventually designs. Maxine S. Pfeffer '81, secretary of the convention and a member of the CUE, says the chances of a confrontation between the new government and the established student-faculty committees are reduced because many student members of those committees are also convention delegates. Unfortunately, Pfeffer says, major differences in opinion about how the new student government should try to establish its legitimacy still exist. "One group of students feels that the new student government should derive its legitimacy solely by being the most representative student organization on campus. The members of this group don't feel we need or should try to get Faculty or administrative approval," she says. "Another group wants to try to get administration and Faculty approval, but wants to continue regardless of whether we get such approval. Finally, a smaller group would give up unless the Faculty and administration backed the proposals of the convention."

Although this issue continues to divide the members of the convention, the group's most enthusiastic supporters insist that the issue is not really all that important. Calabrese says the delegates to the convention are coalescing around the idea of a symbiotic relationship between the new student government and the existing Harvard bureaucracy, at least during the early stages of the new government's development. More importantly, Calabrese maintains, the specific relationship between the new and the old student governments does not have to be written into the constitution. "The biggest change will not occur now," Calabrese says. "It will occur next fall, when the new student government is organized, and its members are elected. Then the new student government itself can re-examine student-Faculty relations and decide what course to take. First we must set the thing up. Then we will find out now much responsibility it wants to take on."

Shpall has his own prediction of the future of the existing student government when and if a new government is formed. "Because of the core curriculum, CUE will be busier than ever," Shpall says. "However, it is conceivable that if this new group works responsibly and establishes it legitimacy, then the new student group can replace CHUL, or at least aid it. The breakfast poll, for instance, was done in direct response to our efforts and our complaints about representation. And if CHUL responds to us by increasing its communication with students, then that's half the battle."

Many members of the convention advocate making CHUL an auxiliary of the new student government and giving the latter the power to appoint the members of CHUL. Changes in the CHUL election procedure, however would require Faculty legislation. Few members of the convention say they want the new government to assume responsibilities of CRR or the ad board. But regardless of what the convention members think will be the eventual fate of the existing student-Faculty committees, the vast majority of them are careful to emphasize the importance of proving to students, the Faculty and the administration that the new government will be "reasonable" and "pragmatic."

This conciliatory stance is gaining adherence among delegates. At the first meetings last year, certain delegations--such as those from Leverett, Winthrop and Adams Houses--struck a more strident and "radical" pose. These delegations warned of the potential danger of linking the new government to the administration or the student-Faculty committees. These students advocated ideas such as student plebiscites on issues, and a town-meeting type of student government. As time passed and the philosophical battles began to hinder progress, students abandoned the more innovative proposals and the members who were dedicated to the notion that anything was better than the status-quo emerged victorious.

Convention members hesitate to specifically blame CHUL and CUE members for the inadequacy of present student government. Instead they point to structural obstacles that prevent the existing method of student representation from working effectively. "Even if the members of CHUL are doing the best job they can do, they cannot do enough," Pfeffer says. "The structure prohibits results, despite good intentions. Sitting next to important administrators and House masters is intimidating. And even if CHUL representatives try to get a feel for student opinion, it is impossible because there are so few representatives. Also, CHUL is an advisory body, and the students are not a majority."

A possibly apathetic student body creates another problem that convention members are worried about. Many students feel it may be futile to attempt to exert any kind of influence over an administration committed to making its own decisions. "It seems the students could not care less," William Mayer '79, a member of the convention and a CHUL member, said this week. "When they get shipped off to Radcliffe at the end of freshman year or when their hot breakfasts are taken away, they may get concerned. But as far as students trying to affect administrative decisions on University policies--no."

Who Are the Delegates?

There is a larger question to be answered than the details of the convention's activities and the opinions of its members. Who are the people who make up the convention, and what motivates them?

One rumor making the rounds is that these students are all Government majors doing a sort of independent study in constitutional governments, which will look good on their records when they apply to law school--especially if they serve in the government they help establish. Sort of like building castles in the air and then going to live in them.

Another rumor, the polar opposite of the first theory, is that a small gang of committed radicals is using this convention to create a student government which will some day violently confront the administration and Faculty, thereby leading to 1969 revisited.

The answer is that neither rumor is correct. Neither pre-law nor pre-revolution types, the convention delegates are just undergraduates who feel the existing student government fails to give students an adequate say in decision-making at Harvard.

Convention members claim the support, or at least the acceptance, of Dean Epps, Dean Rosovsky and President Bok. But this may be premature, because University officials have adopted a wait-and-see attitude. Epps said this week he has had no official contact with any convention members, knows little about what the convention has done and what it wanted to accomplish, and that he will wait to see some concrete convention proposals before making any judgment. Epps says that if students want a new form of government they should be able to have it--but this hardly amounts to an endorsement of the convention.

This should not be surprising, in light of the low profile the convention has kept up to this point. A poll convention members conducted before vacation showed that only 40 per cent of undergraduates had heard of the convention, but of those who had an opinion of the convention almost 80 per cent approved of its work. Delegates all agree on the need for greater student control over decisions affecting their college lives, and on the need for new student government. Just what form that government may take, however, remains to be seen.