“Some things never change.” So reads a staff editorial headline published in this paper 27 years ago. The editorial was written in response to the recommendations proposed by a committee headed by Professor John E. Dowling ’57, which was formed to examine the role of students in college governance. Those recommendations eventually led to the birth of the Undergraduate Council (UC), out of the ashes of its predecessor, the Student Assembly—an organization among whose accomplishments were securing free toilet paper in the River houses, a (failed) rock concert, and, at one point, “a poorly attended spring picnic.” Now, Professor Dowling is set to head a new committee with a similar name (it’s being called Dowling II) to review the current, but still flawed, student government: the UC. Perhaps, some things never do change.

And if they do change, it’s typically for the worse. For worse is the only possible way to describe the resolution passed by the UC last Monday, demanding that the UC be responsible for selecting the students serving on Dowling II. The resolution, which states that the Council should “recommend and/or appoint” the five students belonging to Dowling II, stands in firm contradiction of the idea of impartial review. No institution should be able to pick its own review board, and any institution that does so risks looking inept at best and corrupt at worst. The UC should be no exception. If the administration allows the UC to choose its own reviewers, then Dowling II will be hijacked by the UC’s personal interest and will no longer be able to legitimately claim that it represents the wishes of the student body.

The resolution, which is intended to protect the UC’s interests, illustrates the UC’s main failure: its inability to transcend its own interests as a student group to become a proper student government. Ideally, a student government should not have any interests of its own. Representatives to the UC are elected not to further promote or protect the institutional interests of the UC but rather to represent the interests of the student body. If the UC interests in fact coincided with those of its constituents, then it would not be loath to screen its reviewers.

The UC, however, is far from ideal. Paralyzed by petty politicking and internal chumminess, this student government seems only to further the student body’s issues if doing so simultaneously furthers the UC. Allowing the UC to pick the five students (two of whom will be from its own ranks) who review it will only perpetuate the current, self-serving cycle of UC politics.

The formation of Dowling II is an important step towards reforming student government at Harvard. The UC has already had 26 years to reform itself from within. Considering past failed attempts at internal reform, the UC’s desire to select its own reviewers is even more absurd. Giving charge to the same people who have yet to successfully effect structural change will only lead to continued failure and widespread disillusionment with Harvard’s student government. The administration should consider all applications to the committee without a UC-run screening process. Perhaps if this time around the administration prioritizes student interest over the vested interests of the existing UC, then 27 years from now, students will look back at Dowling II and say, “Sometimes, things change.”