The question of what role undergraduates ought to have in University decision making is a contentious issue.  Currently there exist a handful of committees which, at least nominally, incorporate students into the decision-making process.  The Committee on Student Life, led by Dean of the College, Evelynn M. Hammonds, discusses pertinent undergraduate issues like alcohol policy, hot breakfast, and final clubs.  It meets regularly and stands out as an effective channel of administrator-student communication.  Student Advisory Boards, on the other hand, have ceased meeting altogether and failed in their mission of allowing students to advise deans on academic issues.  The Educational Policy Committee, which makes crucial decisions such as approving secondary fields, includes two students, yet these students are appointed by Faculty of Arts and Sciences Dean Michael D. Smith, and the proceedings are not public. The Commission of Inquiry is charged with resolving serious problems outside the purview of the FAS. Yet, it meets less than annually and runs on no schedule whatsoever. There is currently not one forum that allows elected student representatives to weigh-in on University-wide decisions in a direct manner.

It is clear that most students would like to see an end to this unilateral approach in the administration’s handling of contentious issues.  The Undergraduate Council, one visible channel for affecting change, is perpetually under fire for alleged irrelevance and inability to meaningfully improve the Harvard student’s experience.  In light of the stagnant relationship between students and the administration, the UC, led by President Senan Ebrahim, have proposed the Harvard University Forum for Change.

Meeting twice a semester, this forum would be composed of faculty, administrators and students.  Each constituency would be allotted time to speak about relevant issues and be heard by the other groups.  HUFC would also serve as a multilateral channel of communication through which the administration could explain its actions to students, who could in turn voice their concerns.  We at the Crimson endorse this effort, with the hopes that it will give students more of a say in major university policy changes.

When it comes to complicated challenges like getting the administration to listen to students regarding contentious university policy decisions, it is important to be open to new and creative solutions.  Given that HUFC would entail only a handful of hours a year from the president and other top administrators, the administration should welcome the new committee. There is undeniably a failure in communication between students and the administration, and this good faith attempt at solving the problem ought to be taken seriously by all who have a stake in our community’s success.

This issue is important because Harvard ought to be a participatory community.  This is not to say that policy decisions must be handled in a democratic manner—we fully recognize the necessity of a hierarchical administrative structure—yet there must be forums for concerned parties to voice their concerns to those with their hands at the helm.  Princeton, Brown, and the University of Pennsylvania all have committees composed of students, faculty, and administrators that offer recommendatory votes on important policy issues. HUFC promises to provide an similar institutional framework that allows for open dialogue and discussion between University constituencies.

Since there have been several attempts made to ameliorate the poor state of communication between students and administrators, many will likely be skeptical about the success chances of HUFC.  And it is certainly possible that it will go down as another well-intentioned effort to resolve a perennial problem.  Yet, we urge the administration to seriously consider the proposal and approach it with good faith.  It is true that many of our peer institutions adopted such proposals in 1969, but when it comes to dealing with problems as fundamental as student-administrator relations, late is always better than never.