A more attentive administration andbureaucratic changes stave off the need fordisruptive protests today, students and alumnisay.

"[Now], the administration has a differentattitude which I think is more flexible," saysRobert M. Krim '70, a member of the StudentFaculty Advisory Committee (SFAC). Krim is also aformer Crimson editor.

Ali also notes "a shift in the administration,which has expressed a willingness to negotiate."

Since the protests of 1969, many committeeshave been formed to improve interaction betweenthe administration, faculty and students on campusissues.

"There are fewer sharper edges," Raines says."There is all this interaction."

Lewis says she believes this has engenderedbetter student- administration dialogue.

"People don't feel like they have to fight asmuch from outside they system," Lewis says.

But other students maintain that theadministration has not changed much since the1960s.

Some students even say the administration hascreated diversions, such as groups and committeesto study student concerns, but has not madedrastic structural changes.

"The difference is that Harvard was willing tomake institutional changes in 1969, but thishasn't been as clear cut since 1980," Chong says.

Student Apathy

Others, however, say the smaller-scale oftoday's protests stems from student indifferencetowards issues in the campus spotlight.

"Honestly, the severity of issues hasn'tchanged, but what has shifted is the studentsapathy," Ching says. "There's no widespreadsupport of the student body and there's no unity".

Some student leaders feel there is a lack ofunity because the momentum generated by theprotests is disrupted every year by turnovers instudent leadership.

"The challenge is: can we sustain the discourseon these issues?" Ali asks. "To transfer ourstruggle in the turnover of students, in that wehave fallen short."