In the early 1990s, the Civil Liberties Union of Harvard (CLUH) frequently fought for student rights--and won.

Although its membership never topped 35, CLUH claimed a string of victories on issues from ROTC to coed rooming to how students were represented before the Administrative Board.

More recently, however, CLUH's prominence and active voice on campus have diminished.

The organization's membership has decreased and the number of issues it has tackled has declined significantly.

In perhaps its only widely-noted step of the last two years, CLUH played a significant role in the establishment of rules and procedures regarding privacy on Harvard's computer network.

CLUH also took stands on other campus issues, opposing randomization of the first-year housing lottery and supporting Robert M. Hyman '98-'97 and Lamelle D. Rawlins '99 for Undergraduate Council president and vice president in the first-ever campuswide elections of those officers.

But the organization is still a long way from the time when the dean of the College would turn to CLUH for consultation on matters involving students' rights.

The Organization

Founded in 1986, CLUH is still dedicated its original goal of preserving civil liberties at Harvard.

"What CLUH has focused upon is taking the principles of civil liberty and applying them to a private university," says Jolyon A. Silversmith '94, former CLUH director and current president of the Harvard Law School Civil Liberties Union.

"It's important to have a group like CLUH that has an outside perspective and without partisanship," Silversmith says.

For example, CLUH has intervened when it felt University policy compromised students' rights, based on existing anti-discrimination laws.

CLUH tackled many such issues in the early 1990s.

The organization took an early stance on the ROTC issue, arguing in 1991 that the University should cut its ties to ROTC because of the military's discrimination against gays and lesbians.

After electronic locks were installed on the doors of Yard dorms in 1993, CLUH objected to University officials' ability to track students' activities, leading the Administrative Board to pass a new policy restricting the release of information recorded by students' electronic card keys.

The new policy prohibits the University from releasing the record of a student's entry into a building unless the release has been specifically authorized by the student or by the dean of the College.

CLUH members feared that the University would violate students' right to privacy by using card key information irresponsibly, then-CLUH director Robert W. Yalen '95 said at the time.

CLUH was also instrumental in designing the "User's Guide" to the Ad Board, which describes procedures and actions, providing examples of typical cases ranging from turning in late study cards to date rape.

Silversmith said the organization also participated in a review of the co-ed housing policy because members believed that if students of opposite sexes desired to room together in the same suite, the University should not prohibit co-ed rooming.

After discussion with the administration, the rules in the Student Handbook were modified so that students are now able room together at the house master's discretion, according to Silversmith.

Administration

Much of CLUH's success in the early '90s came from its close relationship with the administration, particularly then-dean of the College L. Fred Jewett '57. But the organization has seen its influence shrink under Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis '68.

"Civil liberties are best protected on campus when the administration has a careful ear for student concerns," says Devin S. McLachlan '96, former CLUH assistant director for University affairs.

"We had a long very open relationship with Jewett," McLachlan says. "Dean Lewis has not had the time to establish that sort of relationship with students and we just don't have the rapport with the dean of the College that we used to."

According to Jewett, during his administration CLUH was quite actively involved with college administrators.

"I met with them quite regularly and at one point we set up a regular meeting once a month," Jewett says. "I tried to maintain discussions with them. Generally, we had a pretty good relationship."

On the other hand, during Lewis' tenure, contact between CLUH and the college administration has been much more limited.

"I don't have a great deal of contact with them--very little this year," Lewis says.

Declining Membership

CLUH is also a much smaller organization than it was in the early 90s. The organization's membership has declined from the 25 to 30 students who regularly attended meetings three years ago, according to Silversmith.

Jeff Hauser '95, former CLUH assistant director of general affairs, says the organization was at its strongest in 1993-94 and then began declining the following year.

"We had succeeded on a number of issues," Hauser says, "so there were core issues that no longer required [CLUH to take] action."

"The group split over what issues to pursue," Hauser says. "For instance, certain people wanted to deal with Radcliffe discrimination, or were against affirmative action, while others disagreed."

He says the membership decline is partly the result of a reduction in the general activist role that CLUH used to play.

"The group became less interested in pursuing national issues," Hauser says. "They felt that doing work with the ACLU was not as productive; that curtailed the number of issues the group could deal with."

"People became interested in the group when they would see issues that they felt strongly about. In the last few years the issues have become less rampant, and there has been less of a need for an organization of this nature," Hauser says.

But CLUH has a strong core of members, according to E. Michelle Drake '97-'96 and other former directors of the organization.

"Typically there has always been a core group most devoted to the issues," Silversmith says. "The core group was often the most important."

Some CLUH officers say that the nature of the organization is such that a large membership is neither necessary for, nor an indication of, the success of its agenda and projects.

"CLUH doesn't have to be big," McLachlan says. "It is not exclusive, but you need just enough people to write letters and meet with administrators."

"The things that we have accomplished are ones for which you don't need huge mobilizations and petition drives," Drake says. "Often talking to the right people and getting on the right committees is all you need."

McLachlan and other officers who have dealt extensively with the administration say that the small size and behind-the-scenes existence of CLUH often work to its benefit.

"If we are too big we can't have a relationship with the University without it being a public relationship," McLachlan says. "When we make too much noise, we tend to make things more difficult for us."

And CLUH officials emphasize the organization's smaller size does not mean CLUH is no longer important.

"The declining membership is obviously an issue and it is definitely a big deal, but it's not like CLUH no longer has a voice on campus," Drake says.

"CLUH listens in a quiet way and then responds to students in a quiet and diplomatic way. We are not looking for the limelight. We are looking for work to get done," McLachlan says.

Leadership

CLUH has also been affected by the constant turnover in its leadership and the graduation of some of the most active and committed members of the organization.

"We had really strong leaders who graduated the year before," Drake says.

"In the past, the leaders also devoted a lot more time to the organization and there was a lot more energy coming from one or two people," Drake says.

"We have people this year who are involved who are also involved in many other activities," adds the former CLUH director.

Club members cite Silversmith as one of those activists whose graduation was a great loss for the organization.

"It is sort of important to find the right people with the right ideas who can find the issues that need to be worked on," Silversmith says.

"It is a hard task to run a group where you don't have an easy-to-define focus," Silversmith says. "It is important to have dynamic leadership."

Changing Environment

Finally, many CLUH members say their role has been affected by the changing nature of civil rights issues on campus.

"Harvard has become a more friendly environment for civil liberties concerns," Drake says.

Drake and other officers also say that the organization has resolved many of the larger issues it has been tackling in the past.

"This is also an era where campus activism is not what it once was," Silversmith says. "The administration has become more responsive and there are fewer issues that drive a wedge between students and administrators."

Some administrators agree that the gap in viewpoints between students and administrators has been bridged for most civil rights issues.

"I think the Harvard campus is in relatively good shape with respect to civil liberties issues," Lewis says.

CLUH officers such as McLachlan believe that the nature of the issues tackled by civil liberties organizations often curtails the number of students who decide to get actively involved in the issues.

"People are more motivated by issues in politics than by a more detached, rational view of the constitution and civil rights," McLachlan says. "There is nothing sexy about civil rights."