To be perfectly honest, I’m jealous of the Harvard Undergraduate Council (UC). In just over 120 words last Sunday, our student government managed to provoke the kind of maelstrom longed for by every editorialist.

It was far too simple, really. “Whereas workers at Harvard University are an integral part of the greater Harvard community,” the council proclaimed, “the Undergraduate Council supports custodial workers’ efforts to improve the lives of workers at Harvard.”

The floodgates opened almost immediately. In the wee hours of Monday morning, the Harvard Republican Club (HRC) released a statement condemning the move, which it decried as part of “a narrow and politically charged agenda.” Left-leaning campus media, too, raised objections to the legislation, calling it a “pointless political manifesto.” The UC makes strange bedfellows, indeed.

What has transpired this week has not been debate about workers’ wages themselves, nor should it have been. Rather, we’ve been confronted with an important question about the purpose and function of the UC. Do we want an activist, deliberative body that considers questions of campus politics, or a bureaucratic organization that (occasionally) funds parties and organizes campus events? The answer isn’t nearly as simple as either The HRC or this page would make it seem; what’s needed instead is a redesign of student government at Harvard.

According to its present Constitution, the UC’s purpose is, among other things, “to serve as a campus-wide forum for the expression and exchange of student ideas and opinions.” Passing a resolution in support of Harvard’s workers is, therefore, entirely within the UC’s institutional purview.

But even though it turns out that the UC is technically within its rights to opine on this sort of issue, it is irresponsible for it to do so, in its current form. We elect UC representatives without the foggiest notion of where they stand on important issues like Harvard employees’ wages, expecting them to rubber stamp our party grant applications and sell us tickets to successfully-organized events. What advocacy we expect them to do is wholly within the realm of undergraduate life at Harvard—on questions like the Harvard College Curricular Review, the development of a new campus in Allston, and the extension of library and dining hall hours. Unlike the question of employee pay, these issues all pertain immediately, directly, and undeniably to our experience as students here. We elect our representatives with the understanding that they will limit themselves to these circumscribed forms of advocacy, and that they will not dabble in bigger, more divisive issues, as they did this week.

None of this is to say that there should not be a representative body responsible for discussing the sort of issues that stray sufficiently from the beaten path of present UC politics to provoke controversy and complaint. But, to prevent the confused outcry we saw this week, that body should be elected separately from the organization that plans and pays for campus events.

By reconstituting the UC as two separate and independent bodies, we can have the best of both worlds: a forum for advocacy on matters of campus politics, and an organization dedicated to organizing big ticket campus events and funding student activities. We might also get one step closer to (at least) making it possible for undergraduates to know exactly what they’re voting for, come election time.

Not only would a deconstructed UC simplify the work of our elected representatives—who would either be responsible for making successful parties and concerts happen, or for debating bigger questions of college and University policy, but not both—it would also make it impossible for UC representatives to get elected to an activist body without making their stands on matters of University policy clear. Precision about what exactly it is our representatives are elected to do is a pretty important prerequisite to holding them responsible for doing those things. Why we continue to elect our peers to a great plum pudding of a council, only to hope that they are assigned to a committee that suits their strengths and interests, is beyond me. Throw this unexpected activism into the mix, and what you get is just downright frustrating.

By all means, let the activists be active, but let them be elected by their constituents for that purpose.

Dividing the UC according to the very different purposes that it seems eager to serve would give representatives an opportunity to do work in which they’re truly interested, while also making it much more possible for undergraduates to make an educated choice about their leaders. This week’s petty controversy rooted in confusion didn’t serve anyone’s interests—it’s time that the UC made clear to undergraduates what its job really is.



Adam Goldenberg ’08 is a social studies concentrator in Winthrop House. His column appears on alternate Fridays.