Last spring, the IOP experienced decreasing attendance in their study groups and a visible decrease in motivation for leadership. McLaughlin says the trend of decreasing participation accompanied a change in SAC, which had evolved from an open center for student politicos to a group without ability to reach out and inspire students to become involved in politics.

Pryor was worried that the proposed reforms would not bring about change quickly enough. He decided to stop the application process and dissolve SAC. At the time of dissolution, Pryor did not know what type of student governing structure would replace the existing the committee.

But he said he felt that the current structure was unacceptable.

"We've had continuing discussions about SAC and the best way to achieve openness and to be inclusive, and I felt it was the best decision to just begin anew," Pryor said at the time. "It will be a new day at the Institute of Politics."

Students Respond

Students on SAC said Pryor's decision to disband the committee came out of the blue. They had started reforms, and were shocked about the decision that had come without their consultation.

Then-SAC chair Hannah Choi '01 vocally criticized Pryor for his move.

She said she was most insulted that Pryor had simply made a unilateral decision to wipe out all existing tradition.

"The overwhelming majority of students on SAC and senior associates think that [the dissolution of SAC] is rash, ill-conceived and unjustified," she said. "He should have consulted us."

Choi petitioned the Undergraduate Council to pass a resolution advocating more student input in the IOP.

"The dissolution of SAC...in a decision made unilaterally by the director without any consultation of students, sends a clear message: meaningful student input is not welcome," Choi wrote in an e-mail sent out to the Undergraduate Council e-mail list.

Many other students also say they felt Pryor was unduly harsh on SAC in his attempt to revitalize the IOP.

Robert F. McCarthy '02, another leader among the students in December and the current president of the IOP, also defended the IOP's structure and tried to clarify some of the misconceptions about SAC.

McCarthy said SAC had no monopoly over IOP programming, which had been taking place in open committee meetings. SAC's outreach attempts had been overlooked, and its attempts to reform its selection process were well on its way.