This year’s race for the Undergraduate Council presidency and vice presidency is hardly a contest. Given their experience, ideas, concrete plans, leadership, and enthusiasm, Matthew L. Sundquist ’09 and Randall S. Sarafa ’09 are far and away the best candidates, and they deserve your vote. That said, they are not a perfect ticket, and although we are optimistic about their leadership, we cannot endorse them without reservation. Specifically, Sundquist and Sarafa are an insider ticket, and the UC’s record during the past few months raises some concerns.

What sets Sundquist and Sarafa apart is their experience. Both have served on the UC for over two years. Their freshman year, they worked together to get students universal keycard access. Since then, they have taken two different paths.

Sundquist has focused on advocacy, while Sarafa has led on fiscal matters. Only the fourth person to be elected UC vice president before his or her junior year, Sundquist has worked closely with UC President Ryan A. Petersen ’08 for the past year, serving as the face of the student body to the administration. No one on campus knows more about the ins and outs of University Hall, and no one is better positioned to be the point person on campus for faculty, administrators, and governing boards alike to relate to the student body. This skill is particularly critical because the UC must frequently work with and through the administration—the president’s working relationship with administrators is the most important facet of the job.

Sarafa, on the other hand, is one of the most knowledgeable people on campus about student group funding, thanks to his leadership of the UC’s Finance Committee. He played a crucial role in pioneering upfront funding for student group events and took the lead on clarifying the UC’s grant guidelines, demystifying an often-frustrating process. His expertise complements Sundquist’s advocacy strengths, and they will make for one of the better-rounded and experienced presidential teams in recent memory. The same cannot be said of Sarafa and Sundquist’s opponents—particularly Roy T. Willey IV ’09 and Nicholas B. Snow ’09—whose grasp of the realities and challenges of dealing with the administration is limited at best.

Though it is their greatest strength, Sundquist and Sarafa’s student-government experience may well also prove a handicap. As insiders, Sundquist and Sarafa bring with them the insularity endemic to the UC.

This is particularly disconcerting given the fact that Sundquist served as vice president and Sarafa was a member of the UC’s six-person executive board during the party fund debacle of the past two months. After interim Dean of the College David R. Pilbeam abruptly suspended the UC’s party fund in early October, the UC fought against the administration for several weeks. While the administration held all the cards and froze the UC’s budget, the UC fought on, only to ultimately capitulate to the administration’s demands.

While the UC’s resistance gained students a few extra weeks of alcohol reimbursements at parties, its struggle came at a great cost. The trust between the UC and faculty and administrators, which is so central to the UC’s mission, was breached. As UC executives, their involvement in the enormous miscalculation in judgment concerning the party fund is alarming. Relations between the UC and College administrators were only worsened by Petersen’s fiery speech at University President Drew G. Faust’s installation, which alienated many in the University leadership, a problem that will have repercussions into the next UC President’s term.

As Willey and Snow have pointed out, Sundquist and Sarafa also come from a UC that is all too often insular and incomprehensible to the average undergraduate. Too many voices are frozen out of the debate. Willey and Snow have highlighted athletes and members of unrecognized student organizations, two groups that are profoundly affected by the College’s new alcohol policy, yet are not routinely advocated for by the UC. Willey and Snow, however, have done little beyond citing the problem and running a reactive, often-negative campaign that includes few new ideas and even fewer concrete plans for implementation. Sundquist and Sarafa, on the other hand, seem to understand the problems stemming from the UC’s insularity, but they must work proactively throughout the coming year to create a more welcoming and inclusive UC.

Despite their weaknesses, however, Sundquist and Sarafa have impressed us considerably. Beyond their vast experience, they have the personalities and leadership necessary to succeed in their respective roles. Sundquist, an aspiring teacher who needs no further padding for his résumé, is running because of his energy, enthusiasm, and belief that the UC can make a difference. His passion and drive are matched by his charisma and verve. Quite simply, nobody on campus knows more people than Matt Sundquist, and nearly everybody knows him. Sarafa, although not quite as ubiquitous on campus, is also an open and friendly person to whom students can voice their concerns.

Sundquist and Sarafa also have the right priorities. At the top of their list is reform of the Administrative Board of Harvard College, Harvard’s unjust disciplinary tribunal. Although Pilbeam has created a committee of three anonymous faculty members to reform the Ad Board, the committee, like the Ad Board itself, seems largely a sham. Sundquist and Sarafa are committed to pushing for meaningful reform to the Ad Board. Their know-how and drive are the best opportunity the student body has to enact real change to the Ad Board.

Beyond the Ad Board, improving mental health services on campus and streamlining the convoluted student group funding process are at the top of Sundquist and Sarafa’s to-do list. Add to that advocating for cable television in dorms, initiating a UC capital campaign, and cutting fixed costs for student groups, and it is clear that Sundquist and Sarafa have a firm grasp of the needs and demands of the student body.



We endorse Matt Sundquist and Randall Sarafa with a tremendous amount of hope, though not without worries. They have the knowledge, experience, energy, agenda, and personalities to lead the UC to great things in the next year, and we are confident they will do a great job. Yet only if they learn from the past, refrain from fighting counterproductive battles, and change the UC’s insular culture will they unlock the UC’s full potential in the coming year.