The Undergraduate Council (UC) would do well to remember its name. Though this page sometimes takes issue with its policies, we believe that the UC’s mission is an important one. But recently, the UC has been overreaching its mandate to improve the undergraduate experience at Harvard College and reverting to a nasty old habit that rendered it largely superfluous during large swaths of the last decade: dabbling in political issues, on which its voice is irrelevant and unrepresentative.

The most recent alarming case of the UC’s meddling was its legislation on the security guard labor dispute. On April 30, the UC passed the Stand for Security Act, in which it endorsed the Stand for Security Coalition’s campaign to improve the livelihoods of the security guards, who are currently in union negotiations with their employer, AlliedBarton. Then last week, seven UC members, acting under a request by UC President Ryan A. Peterson ’08, fasted for a day to show the UC’s supposed support of Stand for Security’s hunger strike.

The UC overstepped its bounds in passing the Stand for Security Act and its president overstepped in presuming to organize a UC-sponsored fast in support of the issue. The latter action was particularly egregious in that it presumed, without benefit of a vote, that the UC supported Stand for Security’s methods—which were not referred to in the Stand for Security Act—as well as its aims. In the future, the UC should refrain from taking stands on political issues, on which it does not have the standing to speak, nor should it formally involve itself in controversial methods of protest such as hunger striking.

While well intentioned, the Stand for Security Act took on a highly charged and inherently political issue on which there is no clear student consensus. The welfare of security guards does impact the greater Harvard community, but its direct impact on undergraduates is negligible. In choosing to involve itself in what amounts to a wage dispute between one of the University’s contractors and their employees, the UC marginalized itself and it opened the door to taking stances on other political issues only tangentially related to Harvard undergraduates.

Despite the fact that UC members are elected on the basis of their ideas for the campus and not their political views, it was not too long ago that the UC found itself pontificating on everything from Chinese human rights to genocide. Though they are eminently worth debating in other forums, legislating on such issues is a waste of time and also de-legitimizes the body in the eyes of the administration—crucial partners in the true mission of the UC.

Aside from overstepping its bounds in passing its initial resolution, the UC is in no position to formally support a method as radical as hunger striking in legislation or in action. As controversial as the issue was, the tactic of a hunger strike was even more so among the student body, with e-mail lists abuzz in debate about Stand for Security’s methods. The UC leadership’s decision to put its institutional weight behind the hunger strike not only made an inappropriate political statement for a body without political aims but also tacitly put the student body’s support behind the strike.

That’s not to say that individual UC members should not show their individual support for the hunger strike because of their office. Though we also disapprove of Stand for Security’s hunger strike in and of itself, we have fewer qualms with UC representatives choosing to participate in issue advocacy as individuals than in their capacity as UC representatives.

Finally, Petersen overstepped his role in sending out a coercive e-mail to the UC, stating that “the UC should follow through on our commitment to Stand for Security,” announcing a UC day of fasting, and demanding that “every one of us should be at the…rally.” While Petersen did voice his support for workers’ rights in his platform when he was elected, having one point in a platform does not give him a mandate to impose his viewpoint on the UC.

Petersen wrote to the UC in an e-mail that “So long as that conduct has moral consequences and so long as we are part of the Harvard community and part of the institution, we should have some role in determining Harvard’s conduct.” We disagree. The UC should refrain from taking political action on moral issues that do not directly affect Harvard students—whether that means passing legislation or supporting a hunger strike.