On widely supported referendum questions calling for divestment and sexual assault policy reform, the UC and administrators have not moved beyond the discussion table.

Although Raghuveer explained that mental health “continues to be on every agenda for [her and Zhu’s] meetings with College administrators,” there have yet to be any policy changes.

And after revelations that administrators had secretly searched the email accounts of resident deans as they sought to trace a leak of information related to the Government 1310 cheating case, the UC voted in April to express “tremendous concern” over the searches, calling for clarification of the existing student email privacy policy. That clarification never came.

And when the University’s changes have aligned with the UC’s objectives, administrators have not confirmed whether the changes were in response to pressure from the Council.

In December, just weeks after the passage of the referendum calling for the establishment of a social choice endowment fund, University President Drew G. Faust announced that one would be created. She said in a statement that the decision was based on support from both students and alumni, but she did not mention the UC.

NO LEVERAGE

UC representatives recognize that at a fundamental level, they are not able to cause change directly.

Leverett House Representative Aaron E. Watanabe ’14 said that when the Council asks for policy changes their success is controlled largely by the administration.

“We don’t have lots of money, we don’t have control over admissions, there aren’t ways for us to directly effect policy change,” Watanabe said.

He also pointed out that the UC is not the only group—and certainly not the most powerful one—that asks to be heard by the administration.

“They have a number of other constituencies. Their alumni, other administrators, there’s the [Harvard] Corporation, there’s the faculty,” Watanabe said. “There are more powerful constituencies than the UC or students in general.”

UC representatives have responded to their perceived powerlessness by taking either a nihilistic approach or a hopeful one.

In the November election, Spenser R. Goodman ’14 and Darren C. McLeod ’14 ran unsuccessfully for the positions of UC president and vice president on a platform calling solely for the improvement of social life. The candidates eschewed working with or pressuring administrators for change, suggesting that such efforts were a lost cause.

“Being a voice for students is great, but it doesn’t mean anything when that voice is never heard,” Goodman wrote in his profile on the campaign’s website.

But Raghuveer said she will not claim she can solve long-term, systemic policy issues by the end of her term precisely because of the complicated nature of these issues and the bureaucratic nature of the University. Rather, she said, by pressuring administrators now and convincing future leaders to continue that pressure, she believes that something eventually will have to change.

“If someone isn’t constantly pushing the button on something...the energy totally dissipates,” Raghuveer said.

—Staff writer Steven S. Lee can be reached at stevenlee@college.harvard.edu. Follow him on Twitter @StevenSJLee.