"For the first time in my life I felt as if I had enemies. It caused a lot of pain in my personal life," Offutt said.

The referendum asked students whether they supported divestment and whether the council should take a political position on the issue. The results returned two-thirds in favor of divestment and slightly fewer students favored a council policy on divestment.

"The referendum in one sense was a victory against Offutt's view [of the council] because it proved decisively that undergraduates thought that this student government should discuss issues like divestment," Melendez says. "On the other hand, it was a Pyrrhic victory because...the referendum offended many members of the council who thought that these members were just airing their dirty laundry in public. These were the members who got fed up."

Melendez says that of the votes for Offutt, a portion of these came from members who were fed up with both Offutt and Lane and so opted for the status quo.

The council experienced its largest turn-over in membership this year as it reeled from the after effects of last year's political infighting. Lane, Sarotte and Zayas decided not to seek re-election because they were frustrated with the council. Zayas says that while this year there was a continuation of the politicized atmosphere in the council, "weary and tired" delegates just kept quiet. "It's a very parochial institution right now," he said.

The council handled only one divestment-related issue this year: whether to send a letter to the Corporation endorsing an open meeting with the seven-member body to discuss Harvard's investment policies. And this was not interpreted as a question of the council's taking political action. "[The council] can help them without endorsing their cause," Smith says.

Council vice chairman Amy B. Zegart '89 says that the group owed the calm fall semester to its different membership as well as to the change in the campus' political atmosphere.

Council members are now more politically conservative, Zegart says. Also, the issues that have been debated this fall such as overcrowding, discipline and tenure "lend themselves to unified student sentiment," she says. Last year's hot topics, divestment and council support of E4D, were divisive and precipitated problems, she says.

Former chairman offset agreed that the council has been less political. "I think the council has purged itself of this political element and settled down to only problems concerning student life," he says.

"We wanted to get away from thinking about divestment and Central America, issues I don't feel should concern the council," Offutt adds. "We did change alcohol policy and get chocolate milk in the kitchens. These aren't glamorous accomplishments but they are things that Harvard students want."

While the council seems to have stabilized among its members as its enters its fifth year of existence and manages a budget of some $75,000, many members question whether the council has sacrificed something to achieve the stability.

Zayas says that when the council limits itself to issues that concern student life, the administration will not take them seriously. Steven A. Nussbaum '86, who served on the original council and throughout his undergraduate career, says he feels the council has definitely lost sight of its goals.

"The council was created by activists with its, overarching goal to make Harvard a more democratic place where student opinion is truly important," Nussbaum adds, saying that recent councils "have lost sight of this goal. They are afraid to take stands against the administration, and rather than challenge deans and administrators they ask for letters of recommendation."

Natasha Pearl '83, who helped create the council, echoes the views of her one-year colleague on the council. "The original council was created to have a direct, immediate effect on student life through things like "hot breakfast" as well as take stands and lead on issues like divestiture," she says.

"We wanted to create a body that was not inherently radical but with the flexibility to became radical, or take stands if that's what the students wanted," Pearl adds. "Today's students however are more conservative and afraid to stick out their necks. That really saddens me."

But current council members contend that the body has not endured an insufferable loss from last year's shake-up. "The only problem is that the council has lost its energy which perhaps came from the conflict," Offutt says.

As for the future of the council, Smith remains doubtful. He says he hopes the depolarization is a permanent change, but "even if we were to get through this year, we would still have to wait and see about next year."

Both Zegart and Eisert agree that the final decision on whether the council should become politically active should be conducted on a case by case basis. "Flexibility is the rule," Eisert says, citing the council's letter endorsing a meeting with the Corporation. He adds, "We are no longer polarized because the council has taken the pragmatic view."