Student Services and Politics Do Co-Exist on the Council

To the editors:

I am writing to offer a clarification of my position on the politicization of the Undergraduate Council and to address your assertion (Editorial, April 13) that Vice-President Kamil E. Redmond '00 and I are a long way from meeting the "admirable and ambitious vision" we campaigned on in December.

I'm not sure exactly where the staff gets the idea that I want "to remove politically-charged issues from the council's agenda altogether." In my opening remarks last week, I argued that the divestment bill and the ROTC bill were both politically charged bills that were definitely within the jurisdiction of the council. While neither Kamil nor I specifically mentioned divestment or ROTC during our campaign, these were the exact type of issues that I imagined the council could discuss under the expanded vision of student services that we wished to foster.

In fact, the staff seems to agree with my main assertion, that the council should spend its time debating issues that "can affect real change only when it ties larger issues to the specific Harvard-related policy."

My problem with purely political issues, especially those which are not tied to a Harvard policy, is that they don't fit the council's current format. The Crimson argues that greater voter interest would be the result of candidates running on political platforms. My opinion is that the council should first be representative before taking strictly political stances, and for that reason, I've called for downsizing the council, in order to make the elections truly competitive and the representatives truly representative.

On Sunday, rather than shying away from a political stance on ROTC, the council took a clear stance against the military's policy. The first clause of the resolution that passed states: "Be it resolved that the UC in no way sanctions the military's current policy on the question of homosexuals in the armed forces." At the same time, the compromise that the council reached seeks to address some of the concerns of students who participate in ROTC as well. Yes, it was a compromise. But that does not mean that it did not have a political backbone.

It's sometimes difficult finding the right balance for the council. There is only so much we can do effectively given our position on campus. We are trying hard to find a middle ground that can accommodate as many interests as possible. I, personally, am doing my best to make sure that the council doesn't stray too far from an agenda that will produce meaningful results for the student body. You might see our efforts as "waffling;" I see them as an effort to provide the student body with an Undergraduate Council that meets their needs.

Noah Z. Seton '00

April 13, 1999

The writer is the president of the Undergraduate Council.

Seniors Don't Know It All

To the editors:

Regarding Daniel M. Suleiman's "Seniors Know Best" (Opinion, April 13), I must point out that I am a self-confessed clueless "bright-eyed and bushy-tailed" first-year. I found the article's claim that a Senior's "knowledge in matters Harvard" to be absolutely ridiculous. For anyone to make this claim is proof that he doesn't have a clue. The Harvard experience is different for everyone, there is too much going on for someone to "do it all." No one fully understands Harvard completely, not even seniors.

"Nobody ever said veritas was pretty."

Jason R. P. Karamchandani '02

April 13, 1999