Correction Appended

Just when you thought the dust had settled from the Undergraduate Council (UC) showdown with the College administration over party grants, some UC members appear to be considering another crusade against administrators over reimbursement of alcohol purchases for dorm parties.

The UC has been fighting a losing battle from the start. The outcome of several turbulent weeks of fracas is a precarious truce with administrators in which, if anything, the UC has less financial autonomy than before. Technically, according to its founding charter passed by the Faculty of Arts and Science (FAS) in 1982, the UC should be allowed to exercise complete independence in spending its money, subject only to FAS.

As a result of the fight over party grants, however, the College now has significantly more leverage to challenge UC expenditures. This was not a victory by any stretch of the imagination, although certain self-congratulatory members of the UC would have you believe so. In fact, students’ rights, to the extent that they even exist at a private university, would probably be more extensive today had the UC never engaged the administration at all and simply agreed not to reimburse students for alcohol.

You might think that such a discouraging outcome would be enough to dampen even the UC’s most bellicose anti-establishmentarians, and allow us to move on to something else. Instead, there is now talk in the UC of jettisoning its agreement with the College by funding alcohol reimbursements with income streams from a partnership with Harvard Student Agencies and CrimsonReading.org—money that is less under the College’s control than the regular grants.

Of course, technically, the College has no oversight of UC spending at all. But that didn’t stop Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education David Pilbeam six weeks ago. And whatever political capital the UC had it has well and truly burnt. The bottom line is that, in this matter, the College holds all the cards. Any dispute over alcohol that went far enough to necessitate the intervention of the FAS (the only body that does have explicit power over the UC) would almost certainly end up in the administration’s favor. It’s nonsensical that UC members yet feel emboldened and willing to engage the administration again on the issue of autonomy.

The whole campus was upset when the College put an end to party grants, especially because it coincided with a wider College plot to crack down on underage drinking. From the average student’s vantage point, it would be nice to see the UC return to those issues where they can expect to win, or at least be taken seriously. The last six weeks notwithstanding, UC President Ryan A. Petersen ’08 and Vice President Matthew L. Sundquist ’09 have scored some important victories, most notably calendar reform, which was the result of diplomatic persistence.

The idea of antagonizing the administration over an issue where it holds all the cards just doesn’t make sense.

Clay A. Dumas ’10, a Crimson editorial editor, lives in Lowell House.

Correction: Thursday's Comment "Once More Into The Breach..." incorrectly stated that David Pilbeam is associate dean for undergraduate education. In fact, he is interim dean of Harvard College. The Crimson regrets the error.