Council Right to Lobby, Work With Administration

To the editors:

I'm not going to comment at length about the perceived "break-up" of the Seton-Redmond ticket (News, Nov. 29). Kamil E. Redmond '00 and I have spoken and have no hard feelings. While we've always agreed on some things and disagreed on others, I am proud of the work that we've done and the effort that we've put in. Judging whether our election was a good choice for the student body is somebody else's business, not mine.

Instead, I would like to clarify my statement that there are two ways of going about being on the council: either you can tear everything up or you can work within the system. This does not mean that you cannot push for policy change within a system that currently exists. I think this is what we have done. Successful examples include UHS reforms and Universal Keycard Access. Although unsuccessful, the council also fought hard to preserve Science Core exemptions for students with AP scores and to oppose the cut in blocking group sizes.

What I meant is that the council can either work as it does now or it can change its mission and structure, putting aside the multiple tasks that it takes upon itself and taking up the one, overwhelming fight for greater student input in decisions of the College and University. If the council decides on this second goal, it would need to drastically reform itself to create an organization that is able to produce campus protests, rallies and sit-ins.

If this is the type of council the student body wants, then the council's new leaders should understand this desire and act on it. However, everyone should understand that a council aimed solely at more input in College decisions will take many years and many council leaders.

I chose to work in the existing system because I felt that such an effort would be too difficult to sustain from year to year, and that much of the the council's lobbying efforts made the same progress. The council's professionalism and responsibility has increased since the introduction of popular elections for the council president four years ago. In these four years, the council's role in College decisions has increased. I feel that this incremental approach--which has seen policy changes in phone rates, dining services, house life, UHS, security and safety, advising, book prices and student group funding--has produced a number of positive results for the student body.

I am proud of the council's work in the past four years and during my term in this last year. Even while working within the framework of the council's current structure, we have never failed to fight hard for the students' interests, and I am confident that no matter who is elected in the next few weeks to replace me, the council will continue to work tirelessly to represent the student body.

Noah Z. Seton '00

Nov. 29, 1999

New Haven Not So Bad

To the editors:

Yesterday's column by Christina S. Lewis '02 (Opinion, Nov. 29) about Harvard's infamous calendar was well-written and will hopefully encourage change at the College. The broader issue is that the administration seems to be neglecting undergraduates in favor of faculty wishes. Because of Harvard's notorious indifference, in addition to the school's lack of social life, I am not even applying to your college.

Additionally, however, as a Connecticut resident not applying to Yale, I am displeased with The Crimson's unprofessional attitude towards New Haven. The city is home to 450,000 hard-working and well-educated residents, and, according to the Wall Street Journal, harbors the nation's second highest concentration of high-tech jobs in the nation after Silicon Valley. New Haven has more theaters than Boston, is within easy access of New York City, and has a contiguity of restaurants, nightspots, theaters and other shops surrounding the Yale campus. Frankly, downtown New Haven makes Cambridge look like a sterile, uninviting area--perhaps a reflection of the Harvard administration and students themselves.

Sarah Peters

Nov. 29, 1999