"Students see the assembly as a playground for Government majors, and the administration doesn't care what undergraduates think anyway," Steven V.R. Winthrop '80, former chairman of the Student Assembly, says ruefully. His comment sums up the dilemma that has plagued the assembly since its inception--its place in the Harvard community. After one year of existence, the assembly is still searching for an identity and trying to convince students of its legitimacy. Critics of the assembly charge that it lacks both credibility with students and effective input into Harvard's administrative structure--perennial problems of student government at the University.

Given Harvard's traditional indifference to student opinion, members defend the assembly, noting that the assembly's survival posed the main challenge over the past year. Winthrop says he believes the assembly's major success this year was "finding its niche" in the University and "proving it's here to stay." But both Winthrop and Maxine S. Pfeffer '81, current chairman of the assembly, point to administrative resistance to student opinion as one stumbling block to effective student government at Harvard.

In addition to these structural problems, a host of organizational and internal squabblings have hindered the assembly. Many of its 96 members, some of whom say they are frustrated by a year of disputes, have come to pin their hopes for an effective student voice in University policy-making on a thorough review of the system of student-Faculty committees set up by the Fainsod Committee ten years ago

The Fainsod Committee, although established before the turbulent events of 1969, reflected in its final report the increased concern with student participation in decision-making stimulated by the strike and its aftermath. The Committee report recommended creating a number of student-Faculty committees, of which two survive--the Committee on Housing and Undergraduate Life (CHUL) and the Committee on Undergraduate Education (CUE). These committees and the assembly have circled warily around each other this year, for the assembly's formation indicated many students' dissatisfaction with these committees. Moreover, the assembly has refused to act subordinate to CHUL and CUE.

The assembly will request the review--an explicit challenge to CUE and CHUL--next year, and administrators have already indicated they favor the idea. Dean Rosovsky told CHUL members at that committee's last meeting that "things could be better" and he favors "some sort of review." Pfeffer says she is sure there will be a review and that it will be "useful to students." She adds, "It's a tremendous opportunity to build into the University structure a mechanism for expressing student views."

And, of course, the review will test the future of CUE and CHUL. Bruce S. Ives '82, chairman of the assembly's Task Force on the Role of the Assembly, says student opinion is "isolated" and "too decentralized" in the current student-Faculty committee. He adds many assembly members hope the review will result in a recommendation to merge the committees with the assembly.

While the review is underway, however, the assembly will function with ad hoc "provisional recognition" from Harvard, which allows it to use campus facilities but not to use the names "Harvard" or "Radcliffe" in connection with any of its functions.

Despite the recent official nod of recognition, many students remain skeptical about the assembly's effectiveness. Students credit the assembly with securing free toilet paper for all students next year and holding disco dances, but many say they are disappointed with the assembly's overall performance.

"I don't think they played a very significant role. There might be a lot of potential, but they haven't shown it yet," Edward J. Kessler '81 says.

Some of the criticism leveled at the assembly may stem from a certain lack of focus in assembly activities. The projects undertaken this year ranged from poll-taking--a function many assembly members say helped to establish the assembly's credibility in the eyes of administrators--to social directing. Many of the assembly's activities over the year have been directed toward prying open the governing structure of the University. The assembly has sponsored open meetings with President Bok, Dean Rosovsky, and Selwyn R. Cudjoe, assistant professor of Afro-American Studies.

In addition to the request for a governance review, the assembly has also asked the University to re-examine the procedures of the Administrative Board, which the Student Rights Committee of the assembly said denies students the constitutional right to "due process." The committee wrote a letter to President Bok requesting an open meeting to discuss the Ad Board. Bok referred the request to Dean Fox, chairman of the Ad Board, who, after discussion with the board, decided to ask each senior tutor to hold meetings with students in each House.

Several senior tutors held meetings during reading period, but Student Rights Committee members say they will request a general meeting again in the fall to push for the rights of students to make oral presentations to the board, to receive transcripts of their hearing, and other reforms.

The assembly also acted as a social organizer, sponsoring a number of dances and parties, including the Boston-Boston disco dance, where administrators and assembly members locked horns over the assembly's right to sponsor such a schoolwide dance. Archie C. Epps III, dean of students, said the assembly should have asked permission before planning the party, and expressed concern over possible injuries and University liability. Assembly members retorted they were not responsible to the University. Out of this controversy grew the assembly resolution to seek provisional recognition from Harvard. Assembly members also plan to rent a train to take Harvard students to the Yale game in New Haven next year, and to hold a concert by a major rock star in Soldiers Field.

These accomplishments, however, were shadowed by a host of internal and organizational problems. Low attendance plagued the assembly--over the year, attendance hovered between under the 50 per cent quorum and about 70 per cent. This show of apathy fueled students' criticism of assembly members as "resume-stuffers," but Pfeffer noted that "committees are where the real work is done, and they are almost always well-attended."

Internal wrangling tied up the assembly for much of the spring. The issue of political parties in the assembly prompted heated debate, a slew of accusations and countercharges, and a schoolwide referendum. The focus of the discussion was the Coalition for a Democratic University (CDU), which critics charged with controlling the assembly through the chairman and vice chairman, both CDU members. The CDU charged in turn that their critics acted from political pique--among the chief organizers of the North and South House Committee boycotts were defeated candidates for chairman and vice chairman of the assembly. The North and South House Committees recommended that their House delegates boycott the assembly, although both Houses called off the boycotts after the assembly agreed to poll the students on the issue. Pfeffer, who resigned her CDU membership after the poll revealed that 46 per cent of undergraduates disapproved of the idea of parties, believes "the issue has now disappeared. The CDU had completely good intentions, but it backfired and damaged the reputation of the assembly."

Controversy also flared over the assembly elections, marred by delays in some Houses and disputes in others. Several Mather House delegates contested the results of the House's elections, charging that the Mather House Committee used an unconstitutional "preferential" balloting system similar to the system used in Cambridge City Council elections. Several candidates in Currier House claimed that other candidates were loitering near the ballot boxes soliciting votes. Lowell House's ballots were misprinted, and the Kirkland House elections were delayed more than a week to allow time for more nominations.

The elections will probably be more orderly next semester because Winthrop drew up an elaborate set of by-laws to prevent abuses and make balloting procedures uniform throughout the College.

These problems have undeniably hurt the assembly's credibility with some students, and its overtures in the field of increased student political rights have certainly not changed any University policies. Many assembly members say they are aware of student dissatisfaction with the assembly, but say their accomplishments are limited by the University's decision-making structure. Winthrop admits the assembly "does not have much influence" in University policy, but he adds "that is because most administrators don't care what students think." Pfeffer echoes Winthrop's statement. "It's hard to reassure students that they can have input into official decisions when they haven't had any for such a long time," she says. Many assembly members hope to change this administrative indifference next fall with the governance review and renewed assembly activity. But they must first surmount besetting organizational and directional problems. Next year will undoubtedly test the assembly's ability to follow through on its promise of increased student participation in decision-making