Buell called the Faculty Council "a fairmicrocosm" of the Faculty at large, andacknowledged that the council vote was "quitedecisive."

"After this discussion and decision, it wouldnot be productive to pursue this in the nearfuture," Buell said.

But undergraduate demands have been shot downbefore and a new generation of students can beexpected to revive the issue, said Secretary tothe Faculty Council John B. Fox Jr. '59.

Buell also said he expects to hear more fromundergraduates on the subject.

"I would not be surprised if the UndergraduateCouncil continues to express that calendar reformis an issue of importance to a lot of theirconstituents at CUE meetings," he said.

But Undergraduate Council representatives saidthis week that they see few avenues by which theycould pursue the issue now.

"We were apparently so summarily dismissed thatI don't know what we would do now," saidChristopher J. Garofalo '94, who began draftingthe calendar reform proposal during his tenure aschair of the Undergraduate Council's studentaffairs committee.

"I'm very disappointed in the Faculty Council'sdecision, and quite surprised that they came to itso quickly," Garofalo said. "But it seems clearthat they don't care what undergraduates think andwon't consider this again."

Garofalo called the Faculty "stubborn" and"selfish" in their rejection of the plan, whichwas the product of months of negotiation betweenstudents and Registrar Georgene B. Herschbach.

"We were willing to bargain and sacrifice inorder to get this proposal into a from where itcould pass in CUE," Garofalo said. "And no oneever total us not to bother."

But Jones said the arguments against calendarreform presented in Wednesday's Faculty Councilmeeting echoed opposition to the proposaloriginally voiced in CUE.

"While there had been some support from Facultyin CUE, most of the pressure was from students andthe majority of people in favor in CUE wasslight," Jones said. "I certainly was not one whochanged my mind.