At last week’s Undergraduate Council’s (UC) general meeting, we, along with three other council members, introduced a piece of legislation entitled “An Affirmation of Free Speech and Open Inquiry” that addressed those members of the Harvard Community who criticized University President Lawrence H. Summers for provoking academic debate at a recent academic conference. The bill did not endorse Summers’ comments, but it did endorse his right to stimulate academic discussion. The legislation’s aim was not to be critical of those who challenged the substance of Summers’ remarks; its aim was to be critical of those who challenged the right of Summers to say them.

The bill was brought up as new business at last week’s general meeting, requiring one more than two-thirds of the votes to be considered. Surprisingly, the motion to consider failed by one vote, 28-14-1. The next night we attempted to discuss the bill at the U.C.’s Student Affairs Committee meeting. After a short introduction and a short question and answer period lasting no longer than five minutes, a motion was made to table and postpone the legislation indefinitely. The motion passed 14-4, effectively killing the bill. The dark and unsettling irony in the unwillingness of the U.C. to debate this issue of free speech and academic inquiry will undoubtedly prove detrimental to the U.C. and to the Harvard student body. We never imagined that an affirmation of such a principle would prove so difficult to muster from the U.C..

The U.C. is not here just to plan dances and give out grants and write position papers that support more blue light phones on the way to the Quad. While all these services are valuable to students, we were also elected to show the rest of the Harvard community how the student body feels on important issues. It is our responsibility to show the rest of the Harvard community that we remember that Harvard stands for hundreds of years of free speech and academic inquiry—our motto “Veritas,” inspires academic exploration. A university or an organization like the U.C. that stifles academic debate has no purpose. For members of the Harvard community to attack the right of the President of the University to ask questions and pose hypotheses denies students the kind of academic atmosphere that they deserve. Students should not be afraid to say something because it may offend people who disagree with them. For the U.C. to fail to even consider the legislation denies students the opportunity for discussion, questions, and debate about this issue on the floor of the U.C. General Meeting.

Though U.C. members’ motivations for killing the bill vary, one of the major arguments for not considering the bill was the belief that the U.C. would be “damned if it passes, damned if it doesn’t.” Council members were preoccupied with the notion that the press would misrepresent the legislation as an endorsement of Summers. Perhaps had the U.C. voted to consider the bill, the legislation could have been amended to address these concerns. Many council members who voted against the bill feared ruffling the feathers of the administration and faculty. On Feb. 22, The Crimson wrote, and quoted U.C. President Matthew J. Glazer ’06, that “the U.C. would not be making a statement on the Summers debate because the campus is ‘significantly mixed on the topic,’ [and] that the bill did not get voted to consider because there is no campus or U.C. consensus.”

We disagree with the argument that this bill is too contentious for the U.C. to address. It is not the role of elected officials to avoid division and controversy. Last year the U.C. debated the termbill fee increase despite a deep split within the Council, and ultimately, the Council reached a decision to increase the fee. Representative government exists so that elected officials will tackle tough issues, debate the merits of different sides, and then reach a decision. If this were a direct democracy, then every student could vote on every issue. However, this is not a direct democracy, and U.C. members have been elected to tackle tough issues and reach decisions on behalf of our constituents.

While it is beneficial to consider reaction to legislation, U.C. members were not elected by constituents to worry and agonize over how the administration, faculty or the press may perceive the actions of the U.C.. It is time for U.C. members to put their political agendas aside. The administration is not going to disband the U.C. for taking a stand on contentious issues, nor will the U.C.’s persuasion powers with the administration be compromised. It is time for the U.C. to refocus and to re-embrace its goal: to serve the undergraduate community in any way that it can.

John A. Epley ’07 is a history concentrator in Lowell House. Scott M. Richardson ’07 is a history concentrator in Dunster House. They are members of the U.C. Campus Life Committee and Finance Committee, respectively.