Nearly one year ago, student government at Harvard College was ensnared by a variety of controversies. Following an election cycle where the winning ticket pledged to dismantle the system, scandals arose over alleged financial irregularities, debates over constitutional interpretations, and accusations of bullying. The Crimson, in an effort to fulfill its journalistic responsibilities, covered each meeting and reported out to students about the imploding system.

But that was a year ago. One year later, it appears that The Crimson is more interested in reporting on a system marred with controversy and chaos than it is sharing with students information about pertinent programs and initiatives — even if it means manufacturing the controversy.

To conceptualize this, one can take a look at the headline of the most recent HUA article, titled, “‘Not Here as a Receipt Police’: HUA Grant Usage Not Typically Monitored, Officers Say at Weekly Meeting.” At this meeting, which lasted over one hour, the Harvard Undergraduate Association allocated $9,000 in funding to promote academic inclusivity and help offset the cost of books for students. Moreover, the organization and its members voted in favor of a referendum to create two new teams, the Inclusion Team and the First-Year Team — both of which were requested by students. Rather than reporting on these developments, however, The Crimson appears to have latched on to minutiae to prompt scrutiny and criticism.

The truth is that the HUA’s receipt review process was designed based on the expert recommendations of professional auditors from Harvard University’s Office of Risk Management & Audit Services. To set the record straight, we routinely audit the purchases made by student organizations, and the book fund program requires receipts. It is disappointing when information about major developments and proposals is omitted in favor of clickbait.

This is a recurring pattern when it comes to The Crimson’s reporting on student government. Another example of The Crimson’s provocative coverage of student government occurred when the organization allocated money to support students through a professional clothing closet and funded DataMatch, an organization that exists to help foster connections between students. The title of the December 2022 article, “Harvard Undergraduate Association Allocates Nearly $17,000 in Funding at Final Fall Meeting,” bears no mention of either initiative. Compare that with the headline of an article published in 2021, and one can see the glaring difference in coverage emphasis. Why is The Crimson suddenly opposed to publishing headlines about projects such as the professional clothing closet, which will remove financial barriers for low-income students?

It is critical that The Crimson use its platform to share balanced and accurate information about student government with its readers. In fact, there’s precedent for it. Prior to the collapse of the previous student government system, headlines regularly mentioned the types of projects the organization discussed and voted on. Today, that is the exception rather than the norm — and it isn’t due to a lack of initiatives. Student government deserves scrutiny when warranted, but it is also imperative that students have accurate information on which to base their scrutiny and thoughts.

Travis Allen Johnson ‘24, a Government concentrator in Winthrop House, is the co-president of the Harvard Undergraduate Association.