While people often say that Harvard's Undergraduate Council election is little more than a popularity contest, this year voters may have to make some real choices. Last year many of the contests occurred before voting began; some houses had to scramble to find six students willing to run for the College's only recognized student representative organization. Few spots were hotly contested.

But this year's unprecedented number of candidates--a whopping 175 of which slightly more than half will gain seats on the council--may leave voters with some difficult decisions to make. No longer will a candidate's catchy slogan, or word of mouth recommendation suffice.

Only 89 aspirants will emerge from the pack after the three days of voting are concluded tomorrow to serve for a full year as a council member on the six-year-old body.

The large pool of candidates could conceivably alter the focus of the council. Two years ago the council was torn asunder with infighting over whether it should act as a forum for larger political issues or for issues concerning student life. While in the past, the council has addressed both matters, two years ago, the students decided to limit the body's scope to the College.

Current Chairman of the Council Richard S. Eisert '88 said that the large field of candidates, the most he has seen during his four years on the council, stems from this change in direction. He attributed the organization's "growing popularity" to last year's campus-wide events such as the Elvis Costello concert and the Memorial Hall keg party "which helped portray the council in a very favorable light."

Eisert, who is committed to the council's centering on student life issues, has chaired the body for two consecutive terms. He ran an unopposed reelection campaign last spring which was considered a mandate for his student life philosophy.

And, according to a Crimson survey conducted this week of students seeking election to the council, Eisert's goal will be perpetuated this year. The large majority of candidates interviewed said that they think condition of student life is the council's top priority.

Candidates this week were asked:

.Whether the council is a forum to consider political issues outside of Harvard, or concern itself solely with student life

.What they thought of the alcohol policy

.Whether the council should discuss campus racial issues

.Whether the Quantitative Reasoning Requirement (QRR) should be mandatory for all students

.Whether students should have input in faculty tenure decisions

"The administration does a good job with political involvement, but it doesn't touch student life. That is a job for the Council," said Donald A. Fishman '91.

"We need to solve our problems here on campus first before we deal with outside problems," agreed David R. Golob '89.

The current chairman of the Social Committee, Michael L. Goldenberg '89, who is seeking to retain his Leverett House seat, said, "The Undergraduate Council should remain a non-political organization and dedicate itself to improving student life."

"We should not serve as an outlet for Harvard students to voice their opinions to the U.S. Government," he added.

Several students, however, think the Council should involve itself in, but not center on, political issues in addition to those concerning student life. "Harvard is a prominent member of the community and should show an interest in local issues," Rommel T. Dionisio '91 said.

Farai N. Chideya '89 added, "Just because there are other [political] groups on campus doesn't mean that the majority of student's opinions are properly represented. That is the Council's job."

Input on Tenure Decision

Last year the council sent a written report to the administration concerning a desire for increased student input in the tenure process. The council's action was prompted by the administration's refusal to tenure several popular junior faculty members, among them Alan Brinkley.

Most candidates agreed with last year's report and said they advocated giving students a say in who receives tenure.

"We are coming here to be educated, and that depends on how well professors teach, not on their ability to develop theorems," Alex V. Edelstein '91 said.

Some upperclassmen proposed specific channels for students to air opinions on tenure decisions.

"The University should experiment by having students sit in on tenure review board meetings," said George Y. Ho '90.

Josh S. Preven '91 added, "[Students] should have a voice in the form of a student-faculty committee which can make recommendations."

But not all candidates approve the mandates of the tenure report. Valentin Rodriguez '91 said, "I don't think students should have anything to do with it [tenure decisions]. It should be left to the administration. That is their job."

"There should be some input but we can't judge academic credentials. The final decision should be left to the various departments," Daniel M. Donahue '89 said.

Formulating Alcohol Policy

While many candidates said they were unfamiliar with the University's current alcohol policy, they said they supported lenient policies for underage drinking.

This year in an attempt to cut back on illegal drinking, the College has included students' birth dates on their bursar's cards. Students will be required to use their cards for positive identification at all campus parties.

But candidates said that these measures are too rigid.

"In getting accepted here, students have demonstrated their responsibility. Decisions about drinking should be left up to them as part of the learning process," said Randall T. Kempner '91.

Several candidates acknowldeged that the University must comply with the state drinking laws, but added that students still have ways of getting around the Massachusetts legal drinking age of 21.

"Students should be allowed to do whatever they want in their dorms, but they have to conform to the law outside," said William F. Crowley '91.

"The drinking age should only be enforced if student drinking interferes with the privacy and pleasure of other students or the community," he added.

"I think the policy is a good one because it absolves the University from any legal responsibility, satisfies the local authorities, and at the same time keeps the students happy," said Troy W. Norris '88.

Susanna L. Blumenthal '90 said, "The [alcohol] policy is a ridiculous one because the University has closed its eyes to the real alcohol problem that exists on this campus. They merely have chosen to handle the crisis in an easy but legal way."

Other candidates said University policy has little effect on student drinking practices.

"There are a lot of intelligent people on campus and those who want to drink will find a way to drink while those who don't want to won't," said Richard B. Cooperstein '88.

David A. Saef '91 said, "Students will drink regardless of what the University intends to do.''

Questioning the QRR

Council hopefuls also agreed for the most part that the QRR should be altered if not wholly abolished.

"The QRR is so superficial it doesn't teach students anything at all," J. Alden Millard '91 said.

"The QRR is a bogus requirement. Students study half an hour the night before the test, and half an hour after the test they have forgotten everything they learned," said David R. Korfhage '90.

Michael Mathieu '90 agreed, "The QRR is only a test of how fast you can read the little books they hand out."

But others said there is some value to the concepts behind the QRR. Lori L. Outzs '91 said, "Students should know how to use the computers, but not necessarily freshman year. They should have four years to fulfill the requirements."

And Athan C. Tolis '91, however, said he favors the QRR concept. "Something even more than the QRR should be imposed. People should in some way be exposed to calculus," he said.

Discussing Racial Issues

In the wake of increased campus discussion of racial issues this year, many candidates said they were uncertain that the council was the proper forum for campus racial issues.

Last year a new committee was established to discuss race relations at Harvard and this year the College created the new post of dean for minority relations. And two weeks ago the Administrative Board required a student to withdraw for making a prank phone call to a Black student which the disciplinary body deemed a racial slur.

Theodore D. Chuang '91 said the Council should address racial issues. "There is no other place where student views can all be gathered," he said. "It is supposed to be a representative body."

"The council is a spokesperson for students and if students of any color are being discriminated against, the council should intervene," said Michael Kelson '90.

Others, however, disagreed, saying that the council could better serve students by channeling its energies into different areas of student life.

"Enough organizations are focused on racial issues that I think the council should direct itself toward other things," said Erinn Thoyer '91.

"It is a matter for the administration, because the importance in racial cases is protecting the rights of a minority, and students can't always do that fairly," said Stephen T. Kern '91.

Getting Down to Business

The lucky candidates will have a chance to air these views at the first council meeting next Wednesday.

Their first order of business will be the selection of a new committee chairman as Eisert will be stepping down. As of now, the two primary candidates are current vice-chairman Amy B. Zegart '89 and current chairman of the Academics Committee Evan J. Mandery '89. Mathieu has also declared intentions to run.