To the Editors of The Crimson:

In your editorial of October 22 ("The U.C. Finds Itself"), you argue that the proper role of the Undergraduate Council is to promote campus social life. Indeed this is an important function of the U.C. The council should follow last year's successful Elvis Costello concert and "Big Party" with more concerts and more campus-wide events. It is incorrect, however, to assert that this is the only function that the council can and should perform. Council history has shown that representing student interests and promoting social life are not incompatible goals of student government.

Last year, for example, as you point out in contradiction to the basic tenor of your editorial, securing a $40,000 word processing center and opening Widener on Sundays were definite improvements in the quality of student life realized by the council.

You argue further that the council was "captured" by the administration on the issue of discipline last year. But if abolishing the CRR and replacing it with a committee that affords students nearly every element of due process while simultaneously helping to reform the Ad Board is what you consider being "captured," then perhaps the council should be "captured" more often.

You contend that "quite simply, council members too often are swayed by administrators." Yet, last year when the council was fighting to give students input into the tenure process, it was The Crimson that was swayed by the administration. In your editorial of March 19, 1987, The Crimson argued that "no one should have been disappointed last week when the dean of the Faculty questioned the practicality of an Undergraduate Council plan to give students a formal role in tenure deliberations."

You argue that political issues were discussed with the intensity of whether to ask the dining halls to provide cereal at every meal. Yet, your reporter noted that there were "45 minutes of heated debate" at the council meeting in which the open meeting was discussed.

When students and The Crimson feel that the council has not been effective, they have an obligation to demand that the council better represent their interests; but your editorial espouses a limited vision of student government with which I cannot agree.

You, too, are students, and I hope that you can work constructively with the council rather than destructively against it to improve the quality of student life at Harvard. Evan J. Mandery '89   Chairman, Undergraduate Council