Throughout the development of the Core, hardly any student participation was allowed or encouraged.

Unlike several members of his staff and of the Faculty, Rosovsky said that he did not think “that students are in a position” to decide what their educational priorities should be.

Although two students did sit on the Standing committee and each subcommittee, these students had non-voting status.

Rosovsky argued that the status was meaningless because the committees rarely took formal votes, and he never intended for these students to serve as representatives.

“This isn’t a matter of democracy. These students aren’t holding a political office,” he said. “They are there to provide student input.”

Furthermore, the student members were not permitted to discuss any aspects of the proposed courses with fellow undergraduates.

Maxime S. Pfeffer ’81, one of the student members on the standing committee, said that the committee rules imposed restraints that continually handicapped her ability to serve as an effective delegate.

“It’s so frustrating when you can’t communicate any information to your constituents. Our hands are tied,” she said.

Rosovsky countered, however, that making Core proposals public may endanger reputations. Confidentiality, he said, protects professors whose course suggestions the committee rejects.

Daniel T. Berman ’79, the second undergraduate on the standing committee, agreed that committee policy hindered his representative role.

“If there is one thing I have learned in the past year-and-a-half it’s that above all Faculty members hate to be embarrassed. You’ve got to indulge them so they don’t back out and just not offer the Core course,” he said.

—Staff writer Risheng Xu can be reached at xu4@fas.harvard.edu.