Preliminary Plan for the Third Committee:

A New Mandate for the Campus Life Committee

By Magnus Grimeland (Mather ’07) and Raul A. Campillo (East Yard ’09)

 

This is a preliminary plan, we believe that all of these issues are important but would like any input you have to draft legislation for the third committee.

 

Introduction

 

            There is more to be done by the UC, not less. Efficiency does not equal smaller numbers. Efficiency equals enthusiasm, energy, good leadership, clear mandates and direction.

            The 24^th session of the Undergraduate Council has shown many of the weaknesses in the structure of the council, along with doubts about the purpose of the council, and in particular, the Campus Life Committee (CLC). 

Now, we are faced with a “2X2” plan which would eliminate 16 working members on the council and would limit the scope of involvement of the Undergraduate Council. Such a proposal would eliminate services entirely.  In effect, should the council leave the Student Affairs Committee (SAC) and the Financial Committee (FiCom) alone in their duties, it would be saying that not only does the council not have any ideas about how to better serve the student body, but that the council is not willing to experiment and discover new ideas. 

Many proponents of “2X2” favor it because they believe that it will be more efficient. However, efficiency can be created in many ways and cutting representatives is not the right way for the UC. Instead we should look at the tremendous tasks that lie ahead of us, and get efficient members on the council, replacing the inefficient ones, not cutting them. In some cases a lower number of people will make a more efficient group; in the UC’s case we need representatives to work on a myriad of issues, some of which are mentioned below.

The CLC that exists today is in a state of disarray, primarily due to its lack of purpose since Harvard College has created the College Events Board.  Half of the responsibilities of the CLC have been given to the CEB in order to better assure that social programming receives the attention and funding it deserves; this is a positive step towards providing the student body with enjoyable events. Collectively, the council agrees that the CLC lacks purpose and mandate with only services in their list of duties, and we agree.  However, the worst response to such a situation is removing a third of the council.  Instead we need to focus on all the issues that have been raised by the student population and those not yet addressed. 

Thus, we present in this proposal a new plan for a revamped Campus Life Committee with a new mandate. In short we believe that the new CLC should be responsible for:

·        A UC endowment

·        Working on a Student Center

·        Services

·        Issues beyond Harvard

·        HoCo funding and the Party fund (carried on from the old CLC)

·        Student Surveying

 

We believe that he committee should still be called the CLC, since every part of it will be concerned with Campus Life.

 

UC Endowment

 

The Problem

Student groups are poorly funded. They do some of the most admirable work on campus - often on a shoe-string budget. The small grants from the UC Finance Committee don't go far, and there is rarely any substantial funding available for student groups.

 

The Solution

If the UC itself were to raise $1m from alumni, to be matched by $1m from the College, then the $2m endowment could generate ~$150,000 per year to support student groups on campus. Harvard Management Company manages the investment, while the UC oversees the new financial resources.

 

FICOM and SAC do not have the mandate to take on the task of creating and overseeing an UC endowment. This is also such an important task that it should not be taken on by temporary committee, but be the responsibility of a standing Campus Life Committee. Other universities have a student endowment, and so should Harvard. “2x2” will not be able to address this issue.

 

Earlier this semester the UC formed a committee on UC funding and one of the roaring conclusions of this committee was that such an endowment should be formed. To that we need a third committee.

 

Student Center

 

The CLC would spearhead the creation of a Student Center. Harvard needs a student center on par with other top-level universities. While the UC has attempted to advocate for the student body on the issue, no headway has been made.  If advocacy can not fulfill the job, then the UC, listening to student opinion, should approach the problem in an innovative way. The UC should take the initiative and invite the administration to join them in the quest to create a student center. With a successful endowment program to aide the cost of such a project, the Undergraduate Council can cease turning a deaf ear to the possibility of a student center at Harvard.  With such an important project at the center of the UC’s focus, the committee to execute the project, in unison with the creation and oversight of the Endowment Fund, will be the CLC.

It is embarrassing that the party scene at Harvard on Friday and Saturday is formed around Final Clubs (where only certain people are allowed in), room parties (that either is congested or exclusive) or bars where you need a valid ID to enter. This part of the social scene at Harvard compares to going several decades back in time. A student center would form a haven where everyone belongs.

Besides the obvious advantages of having a Student Center, which could include a variety of stores, arcade games, a lounge area, meeting rooms, and a restaurant, the CLC would make sure that the Student Center provides storage facilities to house valuable belonging that students do not wish to leave in their houses over the summer due to safety concerns.

Finally, the Student Center would have the official office of the Undergraduate Council.  It would serve as the primary tool for student opinion to be voiced and would allow for dialogues with the students, such as town meetings to discuss important issues and standardized meeting times for representatives to sit in and take questions or operate services.  Likewise, the UC would hold its meetings in the Student Center, providing a good environment for students to come and participate in council debate and processes.  This would also help solve the problem of finding a meeting place elsewhere on campus, and meetings could be held at regular times as the UC would not be removed from the building by Harvard Security when meetings run long. 

 

Office Hours

In the Constitution of the Undergraduate Council, it requires that each delegation of the UC hold tabling in their respective dining halls before each UC meeting.  This responsibility is neglected by nearly every UC member.  Thus, to ensure that students have a fair and honest chance to voice their concerns before the UC meetings, the CLC will be required to hold office hours at regular times of every week day in the UC office. 

Additionally the CLC member in each house will be responsible for tabling during dinner before each UC meeting in their house.

 

Services

            The continual and proven strength of the CLC in the past has been the services it provides.  Logan Airport shuttles, Harvard-Yale shuttles, $1 Movie Nights, and Moving Boxes have been the best examples of this.

            With the successful endowment plan, we can provide more shuttle services at Thanksgiving, Winter break, and Spring break as not all students take the shuttle to Logan Airport on the same day.  The CLC would provide shuttle service on more days and thus serve more students.

            But the new CLC should not stop with only those in mind.  For many years, student opinion has shown that cable television is a high priority, and the UC has taken steps to provide it, but it has not yet been able to due to a lack of initiative.  We propose that this be implemented in the next year by the CLC.  Without a committee to carry out the execution of such a service, student voice will continue to go unheard and cable television will not become a reality at Harvard.

            Likewise, freshmen often do not have the time to check their mail regularly, especially those who live in the dorms that are further away.  The CLC should take steps to create a system of bringing mail to the students’ dorms directly on a weekly basis, taking all the precautions necessary in assuring mail is delivered correctly.

            We do of course encourage the HSA to take on any of these services, but as long as they don’t have the desire to do that, the UC should provide them.

 

Student Surveying Duties:

 

            One thing the UC should do on a regular basis that now doesn’t happen at all is student surveying. Every year, in unison with the UC Presidential elections, the CLC will conduct a campus wide survey.

            This survey should cover five main areas:

·        Housing and dining

·        Academics

·        Athletics

·        Extracurriculars

·        Performance of the UC

 

The performance of the UC should be the first focus of the surveying duties of the CLC.  With a record of the approval and disapproval of the council as a whole and with legislation and activities in particular, the UC can respond to student opinion faster and more accurately.  It would also provide a solid groundwork for the incoming president and vice-president to work towards along with the campaign platform of the winners. 

Housing and dining would also be a very important part of the surveying duties.  Housing and dining concerns reach across the entire campus, and with general and specific concerns, the UC can better serve the student body with direct suggestions on how to improve the housing and dining experience, especially as the College plans to build student housing across the river in Allston. 

In addition to these facets, academic, athletic, and extracurricular issues have been important to the student body for many years now, and they will be included in the survey that the CLC will conduct with the presidential election.

 

Beyond Harvard

The CLC will also have a role beyond the Harvard Campus. It should work with the university to hold the annual job and internship summit during the Spring Semester, to provide students with an easy, accessible means of getting in contact with possible employment opportunities.  The CLC should organize the event by inviting many corporations and businesses, public and private, to this summit, allowing each presenter to interact with students, and properly promote the event to the student body.  This will provide students with more options to pursue during their summers away from Harvard or their careers after Harvard, apart from the “usual suspects”.   As Harvard students are sought after as the best students from across the globe, we expect that the turnout from such companies will be high, and that everyone on campus will benefit from it.

 

HoCo and Party Fund
            The CLC will retain the duties of funding the several House Committees and the present Party Fund from the Committee Fund.  Due to the funds now available as the College Events Board has been created to fulfill the former social programming role of the CLC, House Committees funding and the Party Fund will
be increased from previous years.

 

Conclusion

 

            In conclusion, whether or not you agree with all of these proposals, the UC can and should do more and not less. There has been a problem with inefficiency in the UC, this problem should not be solved by limiting the UC’s scope and size, but by attacking the problem in itself.

            A third committee needs a clear mandate and invested members; at Harvard those future members of the new CLC members exist. CLC has existed for a long time, with some successes and some adversities, but with this new mandate it will be successful. If the UC adapts the “2X2” proposal, the issued mentioned above will be thoroughly postponed and might indeed never happen.

            Again, efficiency does not equal smaller numbers. Efficiency equals enthusiasm, energy, good leadership, clear mandates and direction.

I know the UC has called for greater student involvement in the search for a new Dean of FAS, but I'm just wondering, what exactly do we (as students) want in/from a new Dean that requires student invovlement in the search process?

This is a post I just sent to the UC-General List in response to the notification given to the Prefect Program that it will be dissolved:

"I think, unfortunately, this was a decision that was long coming.

I am surprised that the process was not more inclusive of the Prefect program and consultative.

At the same level, U-Hall has consistently expressed concerns about the program.

That being said and this is obviously no consolation to the Prefect Program, Monique does seem to be quite concerned for the whole of the freshmen experience. She has been very actively soliciting student input (though obviously this decision might represent a deficit in this respect) and brings a health appreciation for the strengths and drawbacks of centralized programmatic design. She came from Princeton where they essentially suffer from the exact reverse of Harvard - far too much centralization. I was impressed with her knowledge of the Harvard landscape already and hope that, despite this big mistake, people will still work diligently with her.

Cheers,
Jack"

The genesis of this decision started a number of years ago. Between the FDO and U-Hall, the Prefect program has seemed to be something of a target for dissolution. I am not suggesting that this decision is right or wrong, but just recognizing it as the evolution of a process.

This decision, by the new Dean for Undergraduate Adivsing, will be tragic if the program is not supplemented by a greatly strengthened Advising program. But, one cannot argue that the Prefect program was the lynchpin component of a successful peer advising program. In fact, despite the existence of the Prefect program, freshmen continue to view advising at Harvard in a dismal light.

Is this the Prefect Program's fault? No.

However, if the advising system is so far gone, perhaps the correct decision is to rebuild it from the ground up.

What do you all think? What should be the components of a revamped peer-advising program, considering that U-Hall's verdict on the Prefect Program has already been rendered?

Finally, just as a bit of a disclaimer, I have met with Monique, the new Dean, and find her to be a wonderful advocate for students. While this decision might not, currently, represent the epitome of this type of character, I am very optimistic about her potentially to dramatically improve advising. Yet, her task is not without many potential pitfalls, the most significant of which is of course the decentralization of advising in each department. I hope she does not take a Summers-esque approach and attempt to force change. Consensus building will necessarily be the name of here game. At this point though, I hope everyone has reached the consensus that advising sucks at Harvard. If this is still up for debate, her job is going to be a lot more challenging.

Apparently the Prefect program has been disbanded.  Copied below is a letter from some of the people involved with the program. 

Dear Prefects,

We are surprised and saddened to tell you that the Prefect Program has been
disbanded effective next year, from above, and without consultation with the
Prefect Board. Sunday night, we met with the new Dean of Advising, Monique
Rinere, who told us that our program would not exist next year.

The Prefect Program means a lot to all of us, and it is with difficulty that we
are forced to terminate our most promising comp yet.

As some of you have seen, a new "Student Advisory Board" is currently being
recruited. Dean Rinere's presentation on Sunday night engendered in us serious
concerns about the future of the freshman experience at Harvard. Given our lack
of information, we are not ready to endorse or condemn the new Peer Advisor
program. The Prefect Board will be joining the Student Advisory Board, fighting
for the interests of the freshmen.

We have enjoyed working with all of you, and we trust that you will continue to
serve your entryways until the end of the year. Please convey this information
to your freshmen as soon as possible.

Thank you for making the Prefect Program amazing. We encourage to speak to us
with any concerns.

With love,

Lauren Broughton (brought@fas)
Haining Gouinlock (gouinloc@fas)
Maura Graul (graul@fas)
Shaan Hathiramani (hathiram@fas)
Allison Keavey (keavey@fas)
Aidan Kelly (makelly@fas)
Nicholas Molina (nmolina@fas)
Sandra Ullman (ullman@fas)

About 100 Harvard undergrads volunteer for the Mission Hill After School Program to "provide a safe, fun and uplifting experience for children in the Mission Hill community." It's an admirable program, and I have huge respect for the students who make it happen. MHASP recently applied for a $2500 grant from the UC Finance Committee to fund transportation, by van, to Mission Hill. FiCom rejected the grant application, on the grounds that FiCom policy is to only fund transportation by T.

This caused significant controversey, and last Sunday the UC sent the grant back to FiCom for reconsideration. A delegation from FiCom met with MHASP to discuss the application. When FiCom rejected the grant again on Tuesday, it led to a string of passionate emails from MHASP to UC reps. It sounds like MHASP are planning to turn up, en masse, at tomorrow's UC meeting (7pm in Harvard 104) to protest.

Should FiCom change its policy on transportation, or make an exception (as it has done in previous years) for MHASP? My preference would be for MHASP to resubmit a new grant application that requests support for part of the program that FiCom can support. It is a worthy program with significant undergraduate benefit and we should try our best to find a way to help them. What do others think?

The CLC just issued a position paper on Springfest, which in the years I've been here has been about as much fun as a facial from a lepor.

You should check out the paper, which is on UC open.  It's not inspiring, but it is on point.  I would've also added something where we ask schools that do it well (Brown, Penn) what they do and try to learn from them.  We're funny that way as a school - if it didn't start here we figure its probably not a great idea.

All in all, good to see the UC at the very least talking about some of the right stuff.  Let's see how the execute.   

No matter how hard you try, you won't find the information I'm about to share anywhere else on the Internet. You are one of only a few students on campus who will know. This is a CampusTap exclusive.

The Undergradaute Council meets on Sundays at 7pm in Harvard Hall 104. All UC general meetings are open to the student body.

I think it's a shame the UC doesn't do a better job of promoting UC general meetings to the whole student body. Especially since tonight we will be voting on important issues, including the First Year Social Committee budget, the search for the new President, putting first aid kits in freshman dorms and the creation of an Exploratory Committee on UC Funding. We'll also be voting on the second spring semester grants package, which is not without controversy.

If you haven't been to a UC meeting before, I'd fully recommend coming along. Hope to see some of you there.

Christopher Hitchens always one of my favorite writers and polemicits led a pro-Denmark rally at the Danish Embassy in Washington D.C. today...

Hitchens: "...we take a stand of democracy against dictatorship. And when the embassies of democracies are burned in the capital cities of dictatorships, we think the State Department should denounce that, and not denounce the cartoons. "

Full Speech Here.

The UC recently passed a bill in support of having condoms provided for freshmen in freshmen dorms.  Seems ridiculous this wasn't already in place. 

I'm not understanding the logic behind the opposition against providing condoms to freshmen.  The Crimson had a dissenting opinion to today's staff ed in support of the initiative and some argument is creeping into the UC's open list.

I don't buy that the mere existence of a condom is going to promote sex.  Sex promotes sex.  And safe sex is better than unsafe sex. 

I'm not just saying that because I think I'm right.  The evidence seems pretty overwhelming.  A World Health Organization review discussing the issue cited 19 different studies of sex education and found that there is no evidence that providing condoms or sex education leads to more or younger sex.  There have also been a bunch of national studies supporting this conclusion, including one published in the American Journal of Public Health.  The study indicates that having condoms around doesn't make more kids jump in the sack - it does, however, make them more likely to wrap it up.  And considering the very obvious benefits to that, I say condoms all around.

So to the people against this initiative, where's the evidence?

From this Monday's issue of the Crimson, in opposition to the UC holding a referendum on student support of Summers:

On a similar note, we hope the UC does not act on suggestions of holding a campus referendum of student confidence in University President Lawrence H. Summers. Setting aside our opposition to the Faculty of Arts and Sciences? (FAS) upcoming vote, conducting a student poll would have a highly tenuous basis. The relationship between Summers and students is often ambiguous and students? understanding of that relationship far from adequate. These problems are compounded by the fact that any phrasing of the question would have undue influence over the outcome of a binary poll. Finally, we are concerned that such a poll would only be public posturing that would not aid the crisis the University appears to be on the brink of.

And then the leading article by the Crimson reads Poll: Students Say Summers Should Stay.

How is the Crimson's poll any different from what the UC referendum would be? The Crimson only ask two questions, both binary in nature, and this article will undoubtedly be used for "public posturing" by both sides of the Summers "debate."

It's either a turf fight between the Crimson and the UC or the Ed Board forgot to communicate with the News Board and I'm hoping the Independent will be game to investigate. Come on Dartboard - what's the deal?

It was pointed out to me that Tara Gadgil is studying abroad and that's why she isn't on the UC semester. My bad. Still, I think the sore loser point stands in general. When you lose, you should still stick on with the organization, it proves that you are committed to something larger than yourself and that the organization is bigger than any one person.

I know I already posted about Connor, but he's got a great post up about media coverage of the Iraq war.

He argues that:

"1. Media coverage is incomplete and predisposed towards certain types of reporting - we are not getting the entire picture, no matter what the Washington Post or New York Times would like you to think.

2. Economic realities shape everything in the world - even journalism."

I'm not completely sold but I think Connor has a point. Media outlets prioritize a certain type of journalism because they are for-profit entities trying to make a profit. At the same time, I think there are other considerations (see my comment).

This is good stuff...good conversation...

Longtime UC member and campus politico, Connor Wilson, now has a blog. It's called Common Conservatism and I urge anyone reading this to check it out. Connor always has an interesting perspective...the key with him is to make sure he shares it.

The big news from today's Crimson is that Professor Fisher is circulating a motion asking the Corporation to step into the "Summers situation" and for all intents and purposes fire the President.

I think this is less a statement of Summers' weakness but rather just another example of the Faculty's impotence. The Faculty has already passed one no-confidence vote, are set to pass another, and have widely expresssed their dissatisfaction both here at Harvard and through the broader media. Yet for all their efforts, Summers still seems to have the clear support of the Corporation.

The Faculty is pissed off and doesn't want to take it anymore but they don't seem to have a choice (other than leaving).

Just to expand on my last post, I think that when you run for a position, lose, then quit the organization, it says that the position and title are more important to you than the future of that organization. I understand and accept that many people might want to pursue other opportunities but to just suddenly quit when things don't break your way seems to be a bit selfish, i guess. I don't know.

Am the only one a bit bothered by the fact that the three UC members who lost their bid for the Presidency or Vice Presidency (Grimeland, Voith, Gadgil) are all no longer on the council? It seems to speak volumes about their true committment to the UC. I think if you run for President of an organization, you should at least maintain some level of involvement even if you lose.