This change would benefit the UC in its presentation of these policies to the administration. It would provide the currently lacking sense of legitimacy to the administration, indicating a clear student voice in demanding policy implementation or change. The administration is much more likely to address a demonstration of a detailed cost-benefit analysis coupled with a practical and possible policy proposal than it is seriously to consider a single-sentence statement of support.

Indeed, it is often the most researched policy proposals that the administration gives the most deference. The question of divestment (voted on as a referendum last year), for instance, was one of the most deeply researched, with detailed plans and considerations on the movement’s website. And while President Faust did not agree to divest, she did directly respond to the movement in an unprecedented official statement.

This is not to say that the administration will necessarily ignore referenda that do not come with detailed analyses. However, failing to create an implementable policy proposal does leave Harvard’s leadership with an easy way out by enabling them to simply state that the referendum need more analysis prior to its transformation into policy.  In fact, just last year, then-Dean of the College Evelynn M. Hammonds expressed that “the referendum questions need a great deal of further study” in response to the demand for sexual assault policy change. Such an avoidance of the topic would not have been as easy if a detailed plan had been ready to be put into place.

Simply put, referenda reform would go a long way toward increasing student influence in the way Harvard is run. Fleshing out our referenda questions is an easy fix that could have substantial implications for those seeking to change Harvard for the better.

Edyt J. Dickstein ‘17, a Crimson editorial writer, lives in Thayer Hall.