For most students, the Harvard College Curricular Review (HCCR) is, at best, a process that they have barely heard of. Indeed, for a once-in-a-generation review of the foundations of Harvard’s undergraduate curriculum, it has generated depressingly little excitement outside of University Hall and Faculty offices. Yet without concrete student input, the HCCR could turn into an administrative feat about as appealing to undergraduates as Loker Commons.

Responsibility for both informing and soliciting student opinion on the HCCR falls on the Undergraduate Council. As the students’ representative body, the council should be engaging the student body in a dialogue about the HCCR, using its unique position as a prominent mouthpiece for undergraduate sentiment to push the students’ agenda in the Curricular Review.

Luckily, the student body recently elected two of their own who we believe will solicit student opinion and argue persuasively for undergraduate views in front of HCCR decision-makers. Matthew J. Glazer ’06 and Ian W. Nichols ’06, president- and vice president-elect of the council, respectively, must convince the College to respect students’ wishes throughout the HCCR’s process. More than this, however, they also must convince the student body of the review’s importance and get more undergraduates involved in council efforts so that there actually are concrete student views to convey to HCCR officials.

Promoting involvement in the council, by both its own members and students at large, was a promise made prominently in the platforms of all three contenders this election season. The council’s two new executives can fulfill this promise by pushing through plans to reform the council’s structure and culture in order to make House and Yard representatives more responsive to their constituents.

Already, we’ve seen progress in the second regard. Just this week, council representatives began an “Issue of the Week” campaign targeted at HCCR questions, soliciting students’ ideas on the timing of concentration choice. Additionally, some House representatives hold regular office hours before Sunday council meetings—as required by council bylaws—to gather student views about other issues. Yet this outreach is still spotty. Different House representatives display varying levels of commitment to collecting student input. Glazer and Nichols must pound it into the heads of all council representatives that their first job is to represent and respond to their constituents.

Reforming the structure of the council can also make council representatives more responsive on issues apart from the Curricular Review. Splitting off the Finance Committee (FiCom) from the rest of the council will free FiCom-ers to spend more time giving grants to student groups. The Harvard Concert Commission (HCC) should also be forced to solicit more student input before it begins bidding for large musical acts, whether through a closer association with the council itself or folding the HCC directly into the College Life Committee. Though we recognize that the bidding process is complicated, the HCC must realize that it is working with student money, and student desires trump expediency or total autonomy from the council. Finally, the council must finesse its methods of communicating with the student body. The recent proposal of a dedicated campus publicity head hashed out by Justin R. Chapa ’05, Neeraj “Richie” Banerji ’06 and Lauren P. S. Epstein ’07 is a welcome fix to this pressing problem, and we hope that the new publicity director will work hard to excite students about council business.

All these reforms aimed at involving students will not only help the council play a better hand in HCCR and Allston negotiations, they will also make the council more effective at doing what it’s supposed to do: representing students. This fact should guide Glazer and Nichols through what we hope is a successful 2005.