This editorial represents the views of 10 student leaders, including presidents of the South Asian Association, Asian American Association, Harvard Democrats, Chinese Students Association, Institute of Politics, Black Students Association, the Student Ambassador of the Committeee on Ethnic Studies, and two Undergraduate Council representatives. When we read yesterday’s Crimson staff editorial, which called for “a drastic reorganization of the UC and a scaling back of the mission and responsibilities of the group,” we were struck by the discrepancy between their description of the Undergraduate Council and the UC we know. We were also surprised by the Crimson staff’s position that the UC should be abolished besides the Finance Committee. There are many criticisms in the editorial that members of the student body and the Crimson staff can most likely agree upon: The UC must become more accountable, more transparent and more diligent in its work.  However, instead of characterizing the undergraduate council as “impotent” and “neither effective nor irreplaceable”, we posit that students should approach the UC constructively, to more effectively empower the UC and ourselves.

The Crimson’s editorial makes several claims, the most prominent being that “our governing body cannot achieve substantial change,” and that the Undergraduate Council “gives students the appearance of having a say with the administration.” The Crimson’s conclusion, therefore, is that the Undergraduate Council, aside from the Finance Committee, be abolished. Such a conclusion, however, represents a step backward from student involvement and engagement with the University’s policy processes.  The UC represents the elected voice of the Harvard undergraduate population, and as such it has the ability to engage with top administrators with a unique credibility and mandate to advocate.

The Undergraduate Council has worked hard to improve the undergraduate experience in a number of ways. Lamont only became a 24-hour library in 2005 after the UC’s “strong push.” In 2004, a strong advocacy effort from the UC led to the installation of the Blue Light emergency response system throughout campus. In 2010, the UC addressed Harvard’s chaotic, decentralized room reservation system in a centralized website for student groups. This year, UC President Senan Ebrahim and Vice President Bonnie Cao fulfilled a campaign pledge by creating the Social Programming Task Force, which recently brought together some 30 student groups at Diversitas. To address freshman social life, the Council created the Freshman Class Council which will soon begin to operate as a “HoCo” for the Class of 2015. The Council also debuted its new UC Restaurants discount initiative, which the Crimson praised just last week as a “bread-and-butter” accomplishment, and succeeded in convincing Harvard Shuttles to begin operating on Holidays.

But perhaps most importantly, this Council has led the charge for a true student voice at the upper levels of the administration with the proposal for a “Forum for Change,” which just one week ago the Crimson praised as a “a great way” to achieve the goal of “[seeking] student opinion in a systematic way.” For student leaders and UC members alike, “the extreme ease” with which the administration sometimes ignores our recommendations, and our lack of “any actual influence” on key University decisions, such as those concerning budget cuts, remain a cause of concern. However, we hope that students, the Crimson, and the UC can work together to ensure a consistent student voice in University decision making. Such an effort can only succeed when undergraduates unite, rather than working against one another and discounting the advocacy efforts of their elected leaders.

Ironically, Monday’s editorial concludes with a powerful negation of the UC’s role in advocacy, contending that students “are more than capable of stepping up and fixing [problems] outside of the UC system,” citing the successful campaign to switch to cage-free eggs in dining halls as specific evidence for this assertion. Harvard students are, of course, more than capable of advocating for causes in which they believe. But according to Marina N. Bolotnikova ’14, the coordinator of the cage-free movement, this policy change was “in large part due to the UC's official endorsement of the cage-free eggs campaign and UC President Senan Ebrahim's personal engagement with the campaign,” adding that  “disbanding the UC and effectively eliminating our most prominent channel of communication is not the solution.”

Addressing long-term problems such as social space on campus is not easy. UC members dedicate many hours every week painstakingly working through Harvard’s labyrinthine bureaucracy in order to address campus concerns. Instead of casually dismissing the issues of social space and student-faculty interaction as a “stagnant annual refrain,” the Crimson staff should recognize the UC’s role as an organizing force in driving these key student life concerns to the forefront of campus discourse. Regardless of the perceived merits or shortcomings of any of this year’s presidential tickets, the integrity of the Harvard Undergraduate Council as an institution of student expression should not be dismissed so carelessly. Individuals have criticized the Undergraduate Council before, and will do so again in the future. Such criticisms can be helpful in some cases, but the best way to take part in this dialogue is to participate actively in the process. The Undergraduate Council, ultimately, is shaped by our votes and represents our interests.  Students should unite with the UC and embrace it as a forum for expression of student advocacy.

Michael A. George ’14 lives in Quincy House. He is the UC Secretary. Chase Hu ’13 is an economics concentrator in Quincy House and the president of the Asian-American Association. Jeffrey F. Solnet ’12 is a government concentrator in Mather House and is the president of the Institute of Politics.