We at the Harvard Union of Student Officers (HUSO) welcome all discussions of our purpose. However, we were disappointed to find grave misinterpretations in a staff editorial on April 20. Perhaps we have not made our goals clear.
HUSO is not, as the editorial suggests, an alternative legislature trying to compete with the Undergraduate Council. Rather, we seek to foster communication among student groups, and to secure fair treatment for organizations from the administration. In the future, we will probably lend our voice to the Undergraduate Council's on selected issues. But our roles will be those of lobbyists, coordinators and researchers promoting the interests of student organization--for example, by increasing U.C. grants.
Right now, student organizations don't communicate and they even undermine each other. Working in scattered basement offices, caught up in their own organizations and house-based social lives, the groups officers rarely meet one another.
This is dangerous for several reasons: First, if student officers do not know each other, each is more likely to condone false images of other organizations and their members. This, in turn, bolsters campus racism and other bigotries. Second, student groups may repeat mistakes if they cannot learn from the experience of others. Established institutions such as The Crimson have an apprenticeship system that preserves institutional memory. But even The Crimson's executives have sometimes had to learn essential lessons the hard way. Groups that are new, reviving or branching out in fresh directions have even more to learn from others' experiences.
Third, Harvard administrators have no reason to act consistently when student leaders do not compare notes. As long as they deal with each group separately, administrators can make arbitrary decisions without causing an uproar. In the past, they have done this in assigning office space, setting "caps" on groups' fundraising efforts and allotting dorm space to groups arriving before registration. Similarly, they can use one group against another, as they used the House Committees to circumvent the Undergraduate Council on the student alcohol policy.
The Crimson staff editorial suggests that Harvard's student groups may have little in common beyond the student center issue. We beg to differ. HUSO probably won't address such broader issues as divestment or campus security. Those issues are for the Undergraduate Council. But there are many problems the student officers can try to solve together, such as racism and sexism within organizations, or management-related issues such as volunteer burnout and the high rate of leadership turnover common to college groups.
An organization of student officers is open to charges of elitism. However, if we wish to help student groups communicate, it appears sensible and most effective to start by getting leaders in touch. Student officers do not represent their groups' members; rather, they join HUSO to gain assistance from those who face similar challenges. This, we believe, can help promote cohesion on a traditionally fragmented campus.
If students are to gain any real leverage with the Harvard administration they must pool their efforts, not waste them on competition. We have 40 members now, and we hope to bring together the heads of all student organizations. HUSO plans to unify and strengthen, not divide and conquer. Van Truong Moderator, HUSO Alex Acosta Martha Bridegam Adam Cohen Anthony Romano Founding Members, HUSO
Read more in Opinion
A Taxonomy of Harvard
