We believe that it is time for a change in priorities at the helm of the Undergraduate Council (UC). After three consecutive years of electing advocacy-oriented UC presidents, we want a president who will attack the challenges facing campus social life head-on. With this in mind, we endorse John F. Voith ’07 and Tara Gadgil ’07 for president and vice-president of the UC.

Though we believe the UC should remove itself completely from the social programming business because it lacks a track record of success in this area, we realize that many, including much of the UC and important members of University Hall, disagree. If the UC is going to continue to try its hand at planning social events, we want these events to be successful and fiscally-responsible. Of the three tickets, Voith and Gadgil show the most promise in this regard.

Voith and Gadgil, more than their opponents, present us with a cohesive platform that, while the least radical of the three, is the most realistic and the best conceived with an eye to the bigger picture of running the UC.

Social planning as a panacea to campus social life has emerged as the marquee issue of this election. We feel that, to be maximally effective, any new social programming board must operate with the cooperation and participation of the administration. But we are also aware that such a new organization will only be a success if it is able to access the UC’s funding resources (such as termbill revenues) and profit from the leadership of qualified UC leaders. To this end, we believe that Voith’s experience as vice-chair and now chair of the Campus Life Committee (CLC) provide him with excellent credentials for holding a presidency that we hope will be defined by an improved approach to campus life within the UC.

The UC has enjoyed a number of commendable successes over the last year in its advocacy initiatives, particularly in the establishment of a “24/5” opening schedule at Lamont Library. The UC’s advocacy activities have, in the last year, been more or less in line with our priorities, and we don’t hesitate to give credit to presidential candidate John S. Haddock ’07 for the role that he has played in securing these important victories for undergraduates. The success of the Student Activities Committee (SAC), however, is not the problem in this election cycle; instead, we need an executive that is specifically prepared to tackle the issue of campus social life. We believe that Voith is best qualified to provide this kind of leadership, particularly in serving with current SAC chair Gadgil.

The most important role that the UC President ought to play is in the council’s relationship with the College administration. All three tickets can claim experience in working with University Hall on a variety of initiatives over the last year; Haddock on the UC’s 24-hour library proposal, vice-presidential candidate Thomas D. Hadfield ’08 on the “Swipe for Darfur” campaign, and Voith on campus events like last month’s Pep Rally. We are most impressed, however, with how realistically Voith and Gadgil see the UC’s possible relationship with the College. Again, while we share the College’s skepticism about the UC’s ability to plan large scale campus events independently, there has been no indication that the other candidates’ more radical plans are actually feasible. Like other candidates, Voith and Gadgil endorse more collaboration with the administration in planning social events, but they differ in that their proposal is something that University Hall will accept. We also feel that Voith’s outreach to the administration as CLC chair will serve him very well as president. Voith enjoys established productive relationships with Campus Life Fellow Justin Haan ’05 and Special Assistant to the Dean for Social Programming Zachary A Corker ’04, and worked closely with the Dean’s Office on last month’s successful Pep Rally.

While we encourage students to cast their votes for Voith-Gadgil this week, we must also commend both of the other tickets for the worthy job each of them has done in campaigning for the UC’s top positions.

We are very impressed by the agenda for continued student advocacy presented by the Haddock-Annie R. Riley ’07 ticket, particularly as concerns their initiatives geared at making Harvard more accessible to students disadvantaged by socioeconomic background or physical disability. We hope that, the outcome of this week’s election notwithstanding, these priorities are taken to heart by council members, particularly those on SAC. We were not impressed, however, with the apparent flexibility of Haddock-Riley’s vision for the council; for example, they call for the creation of a social programming board completely separate from the UC but without a sure means of ensuring funding accountability or connecting it to a larger vision for undergraduate life. Furthermore, there is no way for the council to both increase funding for student groups and House Committees, as well as maintain funding levels for campus-wide events without either a termbill increase or an unexpected gift from University Hall. The infeasibility of these plans speaks to an unhealthy inclination to sacrifice vision for political expedience.

In a similar vein, we are thrilled with the novel approach taken by the Magnus Grimeland ’07-Hadfield ticket. Unlike so-called “outsider” tickets in past elections, these candidates present us with a unique set of priorities for the UC that reflect their individual experiences and qualifications, within and without the council. We are concerned, though, that their platform lacks in clarity and attainability what it makes up for in concision and simplicity. For example, Grimeland and Hadfield propose a $10 million undergraduate investment plan, without presenting plans on how to achieve buy-in from the College. Their proposal to raise student-group-specific money from Harvard alums also lacks crucial specifics that would convince us of this plan’s feasibility. We are also worried by the candidates’ apparent carelessness in contacting the College administration, which they have not approached about the content and viability of their proposals. Their neglecting to do so, we feel, could well compromise their relationship with University Hall once elected. Since the administration was not included in the process of formulating these very ambitious proposals, we fear that they would be less inclined to work with Grimeland and Hadfield to make them a reality.

The outcomes of this year’s UC presidential and vice-presidential elections will be especially significant because of the immediacy of proposed changes to the way the council plans campus-wide events. These changes, we hope, will start us down the path toward a more consistent, higher quality standard of events at the College. This in mind, we feel it most important to consider the unity, clarity, and feasibility of candidates’ proposed changes, as well as each candidate’s demonstrated abilities to lead and to work with the College administration to realize their vision. We feel that John F. Voith ’07 and Tara Gadgil ’07 are best up to the task at hand, and we endorse them for UC president and vice-president, respectively.