DURING THE PAST several weeks the Undergraduate Council has received a surprising amount of attention in College dining halls, dorm rooms and media. That scrutiny began when the supporters of a bid to unseat the student government's top officer tried to turn a campus-wide divestment referendum into a vote of confidence on incumbent Chairman Brian C. Offutt '87. What emerged from these controversies was a debate over student government's responsibility to take stands on what members have called "controversial political questions."

But the debate which preceeded the council's election of officers last Sunday night avoided real-world political questions such as divestment. The exchange between Offutt and his challenger, Dunster House Representative Melissa S. Lane '88, made for a student government election like any other, a sound-off between sound-alikes.

For those who feel the council's primary responsibility is to improve campus life and to communicate student view to the administration, last Sunday's sound-off should give encouragement. The conduct and outcome of the election suggests that the council has finally decided to get out from under the spotlight of campus scrutiny. If it's done debating its mission, maybe the council can get on with work.

THE COUNCIL DIDN'T hold up very well in the glare of public attention. The pettiness of the student government's quarreling became clear, and grand philosophical debate began to reveal itself as a power play by disgruntled council members.

What's heartening about Sunday's election is that the candidates seemed to realize that the council doesn't do its best work--or even adequate work--when it has to deal with too much attention.

Offutt did not hold onto the council's chair by mouthing grand slogans or issuing statements of intent like those associated with the earlier days of the campaign. He won after outlining specific ideas to improve the quality of student life. None of the changes he outlined is as captivating as "controversial political questions," but each would have a positive effect on the life of undergraduates.

Neither candidate spoke about divestment, or mentioned the council's none-too-clear mandate to shape campus debate of important issues. They did not offer new visions of student government at Harvard. Offutt called the week-long effort to unseat him "bickering," and, among other things, said he would like to see Harvard Stadium used for rock concerts. Lane, who lost the election, also steered clear of anything resembling a larger question of student government. Her campaign statement focused on the need to heal rifts within the council.

Offutt's measured, practical campaign statement showed that he knows that the council isn't comfortable in the spotlight--either as the champion of controversial political views, or as a group which can't keep its domestic squabbles in the family. With any luck, he also no knows just how futile it can be to try to stifle debate, something he has been criticized for in the past.

It remains to be seen if the other 87 council politicos have also grown weary of the spotlight. By electing Offutt, the council members showed they've learned that their constituents don't pay for and support a council so that it can sit around and debate lofty issues. We'll know the lessons of the past few weeks were not lost on our representatives if we hear a lot less about the council as we watch the Yard become a more hospitable place for the disabled, get better care at University Health Services and listen to music in Harvard stadium. Those are the changes Offutt said he'd work to bring about.