IN AN ODD way it is difficult to argue that student government at Harvard should be political. How do you argue that cats should have fur or dogs should bark? They simply do. What on earth is an apolitical, elective, legislative assembly? The Undergraduate Council has, and inevitably will have, a political role at Harvard. Arguments that it should not are just poor excuses for ignoring student concerns.

This semester we have witnessed a running battle between different factions on the council over whether the body should have a political role. All the while, council members from both groups have been lobbying deans, consulting with constituents, maneuvering in meetings, grandstanding for the press--in short, petty politicking as they try to represent the views and interests of students. Such is politics.

The entire brouhaha over "politicizing" the council has focused on a single issue: divestment. And there has been a good reason, up to now, for the council to be neutral on divestment: no one knew for sure how the majority of students felt about the issue.

But in light of this week's referendum on divestment, there is simply no excuse for the Undergraduate Council to avoid playing a role in debate on the issue. The council has asked students what they think. That's great. But if the council is to ignore the results of its referendum, what is it ever supposed to do?

Get us chocolate milk, says the self-righteous defender of the status quo on the right. That's great too. And so is working to relieve crowding and getting students storage space and protecting the CUE Guide. But that is no excuse for ignoring student views on important moral and policy issues--issues like divestment, or minority admissions.

Sure, the Undergraduate Council is often ineffective. Is that a good reason to argue that it shouldn't do anything at all?

Oddly enough, the council's current leadership, while championing an "apolitical" role, has had a noticeably unsuccessful record advocating student interests--chocolate milk is quite a tour de force.

What is at issue here is not the fundamental business of the Undergraduate Council but rather a wimpy attempt to avoid controversial issues. A neutered, "apolitical" council would by no means be a representative body concerned with furthering student interests. It would reduce the council to its worst aspect: a popularity contest, a game in which members aspire to become self-important petty bureaucrats. Perhaps this is an accurate description of what some council members do. But is it really what they ought to be doing?

True, an "apolitical," bureaucratic council would be ripe material for more snide columns, and a model of stagnant unresponsiveness to student concerns.

Of course, that's what you really want anyway, isn't it Jeff?