When the dust settled on the Undergraduate Council’s termbill referendum, neither side received exactly what it wanted. After a divisive debate that polarized students into “yes-yes” and “no-no” factions, students voted for the termbill fee increase to $75 but voted against making the fee mandatory.

Of all the possible outcomes of the referendum, this one has the potential to be the worst. Although the fee increase passed, students are now more aware of their right to waive paying it. Couple this new awareness with generally negative feelings about paying a new, higher fee, and the council could theoretically lose money next year. Free-riding will inevitably be an issue as well; we doubt students will skip a U2 concert just because they conveniently checked the opt-out box.

To prevent these scenarios from seriously disrupting the council’s operations, members of the council must make a concerted effort to convince as many students as possible to pay the new fee. In other words, although the campaign to convince students to approve the termbill increase is over, the campaign to win the hearts and dollars of students has just begun. The student body has retained the ability to keep the council honest and responsive. The council must recognize the stakes involved and work even harder to be fiscally responsible and to hold events that students actually want.

In the interest of making it easier to protest or support the council, we also feel that the “opt-out” system must be replaced by two check boxes: one for opting-in and one for opting-out. Thanks to the termbill referendum, many more students now know about their right to opt-out of paying the Student Activities Fee that funds the council. Nevertheless, the 65 percent of Harvard students who did not vote in the referendum deserve to exert the same discretion. The clear vote against changing the fee to mandatory implies that the student body values its ability to choose to support council activities. A two-check box system will ensure that all students must consciously decide to support the council, and the mechanism for making that choice ought to be made clearer on the termbill itself.

To try to convince students to vote yes on the referendum, the council employed ads with the slogan: “Do you believe in a better Harvard?” But instead of asking students that question, the council ought to be answering those students who ask, “How is the council going to make Harvard better?” Instead of vague generalities, the council should start making promises. More students will be inspired to pay $75 on next year’s termbill for an Outkast concert and weekend buses to New York than will be for a “better” Harvard. Sure, the Harvard College Democrats and the Harvard Republican Club endorsed the fee increase, but what do students with no club affiliations have to look forward to?

What the council cannot afford is to brush off its responsibility to justify the fee increase in hopes that students will forget to opt-out next year. Although it means more work for the embattled organization, the outcome of this referendum also presents a tremendous opportunity for the council. On its shoulders rests the responsibility to prove to students that it deserves more money. If the council is successful, then students will be better served, and the council will be able to state more confidently that it has widespread support for all the activities it organizes. That kind of legitimacy cannot be bought nor approved in a referendum. It must be earned.