The percentage of women in Harvard’s freshman class has surpassed 50 percent, but the portion of females in the College’s student government has dwindled to less than a quarter.

While the 2006 Undergraduate Council (UC) elections were the most competitive in recent years—with 125 candidates running for only 33 spots—the Council fell short of its goal of increasing female representation.

Whereas 13 out of 48 UC representatives last semester—or 27.1 percent—were female, just eight out this year’s 33 members are women, according to a count by The Crimson.

This slight drop came despite the fact that UC leaders held a workshop last month to show Harvard women the ropes of campaigning.

“I think it’s unfortunate that the numbers of women have fallen in the UC,” according to Radcliffe Union of Students steering committee member Dara F. Goodman ’07, who added that her group would work with campus leaders this year to move the UC closer to “gender parity.”

ON THE BRIGHT SIDE

Still, UC leaders cheered the competitiveness of this year’s races.

Each house election—with the exception of the Dudley campaign—was contested, with three or more candidates on the ballot. Last year’s race saw 86 students running for four dozen spots and featured many non-competitive elections.

The cause of the spike in the competition was twofold. First, the trimmed-down UC—now comprising two committees, not three—cut seats on the council by one third. Second, more incumbents decided to run for UC—52 percent of UC members are incumbents this year, whereas last year, only a third returned, according to UC Public Relations Director Benjamin W. Milder ’08.

The members cited the improved state of the UC as the reason incumbents returned in full force. Whereas the UC ended the spring of 2005 with the resignation of its vice president, it finished last year with a major legislative accomplishment—eliminating the Campus Life Committee that had been widely derided as dysfunctional.

“Now that we have returning members who know how things work we’ll be able to better serve the student body right from the get go,” said Milder.

And while last year’s campaign was a cakewalk for many candidates, this year’s contenders had to fight for their seats.

“A lot more candidates had websites and detailed platforms on the issues,” said Milder. “Last year people could just sit in their room and didn’t have to go out and meet people or develop platforms.”

Despite the increased visibility of the UC candidates on campus, voter turnout barely edged up—from about 39.5 percent to 41.4 percent, according to figures from the UC Election Commission.

The freshman class had greater participation rates, with a 60.2 percent turnout—perhaps a reflection of the fact that 78 freshmen ran for just eight spots.

UC leaders said they didn’t know how many successful candidates were minorities. The council’s “Vote or Die” initiative had urged students from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups to run.

PRESIDENTIAL CONTENDER FELLED

Magnus Grimeland ’07, who launched a surprisingly-successful “outsider” presidential campaign last year that won him second place with 912 votes, is a UC outsider once again.

Grimeland, last year a Mather House representative, faced a competitive race against two other dedicated incumbents; he proved a casualty of the elimination of one seat from each house on the UC.

The issues the UC faces this fall encompass the spectrum from academic to social. One issue dear to every Harvard undergrad that the UC will tackle this fall is the Harvard Yale tailgate—an event known for revelry but threatened by harsh alcohol restrictions. Other priorities include curricular reform and student-group financing.

—Staff writer Margot E. Edelman can be reached at medelman@fas.harvard.edu.