After weeks of intense debate, students narrowly approved increasing the Student Activities Fee from $35 to $75 in a referendum vote held this week.

But by an 11 percent margin, students rejected a proposal to make the fee mandatory. The result of the split decision is that the fee is likely not to be covered by financial aid, as it will not be considered one of Harvard’s mandatory fees.

Of the 2,235 students, or 35 percent of the campus, who voted in the election, 53.2 percent voted in favor of the increase, while 46.8 percent voted against it. On the question of whether to make the fee, which is currently optional, mandatory, 44.4 percent approved the measure, while 55.6 percent voted it down.

While students rejected a mandatory fee, had that portion of the referendum passed Assistant Dean of the College Paul J. McLoughlin II said he doubted that Dean of the College Benedict H. Gross ’71 would have supported it.

“Dick probably won’t support a mandatory term bill increase,” said McLoughlin during an interview last week.

Gross declined to comment on his position on the increase.

Before it goes into effect, the increase requires the approval of both the Faculty Council, which advises Dean of the Faculty William C. Kirby, and the full Faculty.

Despite the defeat of the proposal to make the fee mandatory, Undergraduate Council President Matthew W. Mahan ’05 said he was happy with the results of the referendum.

“This is the beginning of a new era in campus life at Harvard. These types of increases never pass, anywhere,” Mahan said in a statement. “This shows that students are tired of the status-quo.”

The majority of the council supports the increase, and members have argued that student government organizations at other colleges receive more funding and can hold more campus activities and events, and fund more student groups, than is possible at Harvard.

“We’re feeling comfortable. We’re positive. We feel celebratory,” said Council Press Secretary Justin R. Chapa ’05. “We feel like we’ve won the December campaign over again.”

But council members who opposed the measure questioned the fact that less than one-fifth of the student body voted in favor of increasing the fee.

“Though this presents a tremendous opportunity for the council, approval from 18.6 percent of the student body is hardly a mandate—with the students so divided on this issue, we’re going to have to work hard to make sure the money is well spent,” Teo P. Nicolais ’06 said. “We’ll need to work closely with student groups and House Committees both in the planning and disbursement of council funds.”

While council members on both sides of the issue actively campaigned on House open lists and sent e-mails to every House asking residents to vote, turnout still was lower than the December presidential election, which drew 3,077 students.

Chapa said that he believes the low turnout was the result of a combination of “voter fatigue” and the nature of referendums in general

“I didn’t [expect a large turnout] because I knew the history of referendums hadn’t been as high as regular elections,” Chapa said. “We’re asking students to go to the polls for a third time this year.”

A similar referendum held in 1999 which asked students to double the then-$20 fee drew only 369 students or 5.9 percent to the polls, resulting in the vote counting as only “advisory” per the council’s constitution. Another referendum held in December of that year on the same ballot as the presidential election was defeated by 149 votes, in a 1583 to 1434 decision.

Nicolais, who chairs the council’s Finance Committee and oversees funding to student groups, said he remains cautious but positive about the council’s ability to handle the increased responsibility.

“Additionally, the council will have to undertake serious structural reforms to accommodate this increase,” Nicolais said. “With all the talent and dedicated council members we have, I’m optimistic that we’ll earn this increase—we just have to be committed to doing it right.”

Joshua A. Barro ’05—who led the opposition against the increase—predicted that the increased fee as well as the increased publicity about its optional nature may result in a declining participation rate. Currently, 92 percent of students pay the optional $35 fee.

“I’m sure that opt-outs will rise next year,” Barro said. “Even if they already knew in the past they could opt out, now they will be more likely to because of the increase.”

Chapa said that in the long run, he doesn’t believe more students will opt out.

“I think that the people that continue to opt out will opt out and I think that those are some of the people that voted to keep it optional,” said Chapa. “There may be a slight decrease [in the number of students who pay the fee] next year but I expect it to return to normal by the year after.”

Barro announced his resignation from his spot representing Adams House in an e-mail shortly after the results of the referendum were released.

“This termbill hike was the last thing the council was doing that I felt very strongly about,” Barro said. “With this done I don’t feel compelled to stay on the council.”

Chapa said that despite clashes with the council’s leadership, he thought Barro had been a dedicated member of the council.

“While Josh Barro and I have disagreed over things on council, there are few other people that have dedicated themselves as wholly to council as Josh did,” Chapa said. “He will be missed.”

Andrew C.W. Baldwin ’05 also from Adams House, resigned his position as well.

Before going into effect, both the Faculty Council and the general Faculty must vote on the increase. Mahan said he believes the issue will be on the agenda for the May 18 Faculty meeting and said that, if passed, the increase would be reflected on the 2004-2005 school year termbill.

—Staff writer Jeffery C. Aguero can be reached at aguero@fas.harvard.edu.