{shortcode-7ef017063bad023cfa2be9bf13d925631dd425b5}

Last week, the Undergraduate Council announced its attempt to bring autonomous food-delivery robots to Harvard’s campus, in collaboration with the robotics company Starship Technologies. The proposal is currently awaiting Cambridge City Council approval to hit the streets.

We believe that this proposal — though whimsical in the best of the ways — is yet another example of the UC's shortsightedness. Whether these robots can operate successfully on Cambridge’s narrow sidewalks around hordes of tourists is already a dubious question. But perhaps more than that question or even the one of aesthetics — both of which we leave to the capable Cambridge City Council — we here hope to look at the broader issues that the UC’s “automation revolution,” however trivial, may overlook.

We have often reflected on the changing face of Harvard Square, lamenting the loss of affordable food and other shopping options. Alongside the arrival of Spyce — a restaurant with robotic chefs which is coming to Harvard Square next year — these food delivery robots add to the socioeconomic degeneration of the neighborhood by taking jobs from Cambridge-Boston-area workers. On its website, Spyce notes that its organizational motivation was “being priced out of wholesome and delicious food.” In that sense, robots here are meant to replace workers. The delivery robots no doubt also will affect the number of delivery persons employed in the Harvard Square area. These workers may no longer be able to eat in the area themselves, but they certainly benefit from the service jobs it sustains. The UC should not contribute to the lessening of their employment.

On another note, these robots represent a culture on the UC of fantastical start-up-style projects that rarely come to fruition. We believe that such self-congratulatory initiatives are a waste of the UC’s time and money — money taken from the student body, their constituents, through a yearly fee. With this in mind, we believe that the UC should not concern itself with minor issues when there are bigger issues on campus that remain unaddressed.

Not least among these pressing issues is Harvard students’ struggles with mental health and the sense of isolation that both produces it and is produced by it. With 13 dining halls on campus Harvard students do not lack convenient access to food. What many students do lack, however, is immediate interactions with real people. As students pass from their bedroom, to lecture hall, to the library, back to their bedroom, what they really need is more interpersonal connection, not less. Physically going to the dining hall or to a restaurant is a great way to form connections; ordering a meal from a robot is not, no matter how cute that robot may be.

On a related note, we would urge the UC to be cognizant of how this initiative might be disrespectful to the hard work that Harvard University Dining Services puts into creating a positive dining hall experience for all students.

In the future, we hope that the UC will put more consideration into how its proposals may affect the Cambridge community at large. And, while we hope that the UC will continue to be an organization in which anyone can feel comfortable bringing forward unique and creative ideas, we maintain that the UC’s focus must be on the pressing issues which matter the most to Harvard’s student body.

This staff editorial solely represents the majority view of The Crimson Editorial Board. It is the product of discussions at regular Editorial Board meetings. In order to ensure the impartiality of our journalism, Crimson editors who choose to opine and vote at these meetings are not involved in the reporting of articles on similar topics.