YOU CAN'T HAVE it both ways. Students are always complaining about the ineffectiveness of the Undergraduate Council. This semester they have thumbed the Big Fingers, laughed at the chocolate milk, smiled at council political squabbles and refused to believe their student government capable of doing anything even marginally effective.

But while students complain loudly, they make few, if any, efforts to improve their "ineffective" government.

Each year, less than half the student body bothers to vote for council representatives. Even a referendum on divestment, supposedly one of the hottest political issues of the year, failed to capture the time or interest of even a small majority of the student body.

Thursday night, the council tried again. It held a public forum soliciting student opinion about recent council decisions, as well as suggestions on issues to tackle in the future. The council even made cute posters, featuring Clifford the Big Red Dog, with the slogan "Come Kvetch At Us." They bought Sprite, Fanta, Coke, Diet Coke, Tab, Ruffles, Pretzels, Doritos, Oreos, and even Blueberry Newtons, hoping to attract the hungry if no one else.

At 8:00, the forum was supposed to start. No one came. At 8:15, council members adjusted their bow ties and the collars of their tuxedo shirts. Still no one came. At 8:30, they bribed students studying at Cabot Library with offers of free food if they would just come and talk to their student government. At 8:39, two finally came.

Two students. Twenty-six council members gave up studying for midterms to talk with their public, and two students came for the Oreos. By 9:17, when our Undergraduate Council finally gave up and went home, a total of seven of their constituents had set foot in Science Center B.

Council members joked that the reason for the lack of turnout in the forum was that it was scheduled for the same night as the Cosby show. They said that Thursday night "taught them a lesson" about making greater efforts to attract constituents to council events like the forum. But the real lesson is that students will not leave their television sets long enough to talk with their student government.

STUDENTS WHO ARE not willing to spend thirty minutes suggesting what the council should be doing simply do not have the right to criticize its ineffectiveness, let alone laugh at its blunders. If the council is inefficient and lacks direction, it is largely the fault of a humiliatingly complacent and apathetic student body that would rather watch a sit-com on Channel 4 than bother to participate in improving student life.

The issues that the council deals with affect all of us. So why did no students attend the forum? Certainly not because they do not care about student life. No one can honestly say he has no opinion whatsoever about the drinking policy, the academic calender, the shuttle system or disciplinary procedures.

So what could the council do to get students out of their common rooms and into council forums? They could advertise more. Instead of putting up 100 posters advertising the event, they could put up 200 or 500. Instead of postering the Tuesday prior to the forum, they could have started on Sunday. Instead of putting an ad in the Independent only on the day of the event, they could have run ads during the two weeks before the forum. Instead of costing $28, the forum could have used up $100 of the council's funds.

And then, of course, students would have griped that the council had spent $100 extorted from their term bills just to talk to a few constituents. Catch 22.

On the other hand, who's wasting their money?