A timeline of events following the passage of three referenda in last November's UC presidential election.

Embedded in Article IV of the Constitution of the Undergraduate Council is a provision that allows for “any question” to be voted on as a referendum if supported by at least 10 percent of the student population in a preliminary petition. If approved in an election in which the majority of undergraduates cast a ballot, that referendum proposal becomes the official position of the UC.

In recent decades, the referendum process has been evoked in varying forms by undergraduates advocating for changes in student government representation, term-bill fees, and the final exam schedule, among other issues.

Last fall, after five years without any referenda, three student groups with three distinct policy aims rediscovered this method of activism and turned to the UC to provide a clarification of the referendum process. From these discussions emerged referendum questions advocating for divestment of the University’s endowment from fossil fuels, a revision of the College’s sexual assault policy, and the creation of a social choice fund. All three referenda passed with the support of an overwhelming majority of student voters in the UC presidential election.

But in the year that followed, this initial wave of student support has not always been translated into administrative actions.

As students prepare to vote on a referendum question later this month calling for the expansion of gender-neutral housing options, organizers of last year’s referenda acknowledge that the process has its limits. Though activists say the referendum process remains a valuable tool to demonstrate student interest in certain issues and raise awareness on campus about these topics, they say the events of the past year have shown that the process is no panacea.

CHOOSING SOCIAL CHOICE

Among last year’s three referendum proposals, just one—the creation of a social fund—has been enacted by the administration.

The social choice fund referendum, organized by the Responsible Investment at Harvard Coalition, called on the University to allow donors to make contributions that would only be invested in companies that make a “positive social impact.” Less than a month after 80.5 percent of the undergraduates voting in last fall’s UC election supported the referendum question, University President Drew G. Faust announced that Harvard would create a social choice fund, citing appeals from students and alumni.

Samuel F. Wohns ’14, a member of Responsible Investment, said he did not think the referendum alone convinced administrators to establish the fund. He credited his group’s spring 2012 establishment of the Fair Harvard Fund, an initiative pushing for the creation of a social choice fund, as another important contributing factor.

Yet Wohns said that while he thinks the Fair Harvard Fund and other forms of pressure would have eventually persuaded Harvard to establish the fund even without the referendum, he believes the referendum made the process easier.

“I think that that second wave of support and pressure...based on the very widespread, clear demonstration of support from the student body, was one of the critical steps of achieving our campaign goal of getting the University to create a social choice fund,” Wohns said.

Still, Wohns said he was not completely satisfied with the social choice fund’s implementation, saying he was disappointed by the extent to which Harvard administrators have publicized and promoted the fund. The referendum process should not be seen as a “be all and end all,” he added.

“Use [the referendum process] as an opportunity to get out the vote, to contact as many students as possible, and to really mobilize campus,” Wohns said. “But recognize that the University is in no way obligated to follow the will of the student body, that it is a powerful and important but limited tool for advocacy on campus.”