To the Editors of The Crimson:

Last week's developments on the issue of sexual harassment gave rise to serious doubts on the part of the student community about the University's policy on this sticky subject. The censorship of the Band show at the Cornell game left one student wondering whether the shows were being edited just to please Harvard alums. Divestiture from South Africa was the most prominent issue in the news last year, leading to a rather horrifying hunger strike by the students.

The common factor underlying all these issues is a sense of distrust. The students are clearly not satisfied with the administration's statements. In the sexual harassment issue, the administration is repeatedly emphasizing that it is taking firm disciplinary action against the harasser and students are repeatedly asking for proof that this action is not a mere tap on the wrists. I am not being patronizing about the administration but it is clear that they have not botched the job of governing this college in the past decade. Then why the distrust on the part of the students? Why the accusations that the University is covering up for the faculty' Why the complaints about the Band shows' Why the discontent over the South African Issue Something is very wrong.

At this point, the problem behind all problems is a crisis of confidence Students are losing their confidence in the effectiveness of the administration's policies. Of all the had feelings in the air, the most dominant one is that the administration does not concern itself with student opinion. Divestiture from South Africa won a great deal of support from the student community, yet absolutely nothing happened. Sexual harassment is being dealt with in the same way--the University will not budge. Exams before Christmas is, of course, an old story.

I am not criticizing University policy on these issues. What I am trying to point out is that in all these cases, student opinion is very different from that of the administration's. This important difference is not being effectively taken into account, thus leading to serious misunderstanding between the students and the powers that be. The role played by the Undergraduate Council serves to illustrate my point.

Consisting of people concerned with the quality of education and student life, the organization makes an effort to provide the College with information on the effectiveness of rules and regulations. In many cases, it voices student opinion clearly and concisely. Yet its role is purely advisory. It cannot influence University policy in any way. Its recommendations may or may not be taken into account. Considering the effort and time that goes into the Council's reports, it is a great pity that they cannot be forcefully used.

It is not only the Council which receives this treatment. The Advisory Committee on Shareholder Responsibility, several ethnic organizations and other concerned students put in much resources into educating the community only to be ignored when it is time for action. University policy is formulated solely by the administration.

The solution to this problem is not to be easily found Student opinion is not the sole determinant of policy. Neither is the opinion of the administration. Both groups consist of intelligent, aware individuals. The crisis of confidence that arose last week calls for immediate action on the part of the administration to incorporate student representatives on their numerous committees and boards... There must be greater communication between student government and the University administration. The Undergraduate Council must not be just an item on one's resume.

How this is going to be done is another story altogether. It will take time before Harvard can say that it represents its students when it makes rules, formulates policies and awards tenure. But it is of utmost importance that student opinion is taken into account.

Students must cast votes: they must have an effective voice: they must have trust and confidence in the people that govern this college. The administration does not want to cover up for harassers. It is fully aware that sexual harassment is illegal. Through its policy, it is trying to avoid unwanted publicity; to administer justice without seeking revenge. Yet it is unable to convey this to a majority of the students. There is no channel for communication; there are no student representatives on the administration.

Lack of communication in the '60s caused some horrifying things to happen. I hope that memories of that decade and the angry voices heard last week will make the administration realize what is happening now. Harvard has been described as "America's greatest monument to democracy." I have yet to see an effective democratic government in action. It is indeed time for change. Vijaya Ramachandran