CHUL Out

As it battled over the breakfast issue, Student Lobby also claimed that CHUL, then the main undergraduate representative body, was not doing enough to champion student interests.

“The breakfast decision was an example of the University’s disregard for student opinion,” said Laura E. Besvinick ’80, an organizer of the Student Lobby protest, in September 1977.

Student Lobby would later change its name to Student Issues Coalition in order to be officially recognized by CHUL.

CHUL, an official standing committee of the Faculty, was founded in 1970 in response to the 1969 student seizure of University Hall and to the earlier takeover of Paine Hall. Students involved in the protests had demanded more undergraduate power in administrative decisions, and CHUL’s composition reflected that request. The committee was comprised of both Faculty and student members, including student House representatives, House masters and administrators.

Though CHUL had access to the “91 account”— the budget for non-academic College expenditures such as House funds and money for other student-related activities—in the fall of 1977, student representatives were still pushing to gain access to broader budgetary information, while others hoped to exercise influence over budgetary decisions.

CHUL’s legitimacy as a student representative body was not only challenged by Student Issues Coalition, but also by the actions of other student organizations. In October 1977, the Currier House Committee called for a constitutional convention of House representatives to establish a new student government.

In November, the delegates wrote in a statement of purpose, “Most students will continue to be unable to have a meaningful voice in decisions about their educations and their lives until there exists an organization which is directly and solely accountable to them, and which is prepared to act to represent their interest.”

Fox says that students took issue with CHUL in part because it was a representation system designed by the Faculty, and not by students. He says the issues raised by the convention were the impetus for the formation of today’s student governmental body, the Undergraduate Council, which was finally established in 1982.

Hot Stuff

During the winter of the 1977-1978 school year, the breakfast debate became complicated as several news issues came to light. First, the state announced that it would decrease its meal tax, forcing the College to refund a surcharge of $15.50 or treat the money as an increase in board fees of that same magnitude. This raised the question of whether the extra money should be used to reinstate hot breakfasts in all the Houses.

CHUL voted down this idea 10 to 9, with 12 members abstaining. Student representatives explained the decision by stating that they were faced with the choice of maintaining the current system with longer breakfasts in “cold” Houses or serving shorter hot breakfasts in all the Houses. Under the plan in place, the eight House dining halls serving cold breakfasts were open up to half an hour longer than the other Houses.

However, CHUL voted in favor of using part of the meal tax surplus to fund hot breakfasts in all the Houses during the January exam period and ignored Weissbecker’s claim that “it is simply not feasible” to offer hot breakfasts during that time.

Fox acted in accordance with the CHUL decision and opened hot breakfasts in all the Houses during the exam period. He also decided to refund the $15.50 surcharge.

In January, CHUL conducted a student poll in hopes of resolving the issue, only to find that students were nearly evenly split on the hot breakfast question.