Council members count as achievements the preservation of unlimited storage, the establishment of annual teaching awards, an open forum on the Ad Board, a forum on the Core Curriculum, and development of internal rules.

"There was definitely a strong increase in the levels of activity on campus this spring as a result of the grants process." --Second term Council Chairman Sesha Pratap '84

"The reflection of any student government is entirely a reflection of the work and care put into it."   --Dean of the College John B. Fox Jr. '59

"My theory is that new arrangements of this sort last about a decade."   --Dean of Students Archie C. Epps III

As anyone familiar with undergraduate life at Harvard will readily acknowledge, changes here have been traditionally slow and few. It took 10 years, for example, before an "experiment" in co-educational living became an accepted fact. And some things, like the scheduling of exams after winter break, never change at all.

But last year, Harvard witnessed the most extensive effort ever to alter perhaps the most consistent source of undergraduate grievances: students inability to influence the college decisions that affect their lives.

Two and a half years in the planning, the new Undergraduate Council emerged last fall with an election turnout unprecedented for a student government at Harvard. More than half of all students voted in the three-day balloting, narrowing the field of more than 200 aspirants who competed for the council's 89 seats. On the surface, it was easy to understand the excitement. For the first time ever, undergraduates had a fully recognized representative organization, with direct links to the College's major advisory bodies. In addition, the student government sported a budget--$58,000 in all--collected from a voluntary fee on student term bills.

Finally, it seemed, Harvard's legacy of ineffective student government would undergo a long needed transformation, transcending the constant struggles to attract participants. If nothing else, council proponents argued last fall, the new government would assuredly remain useful and popular through its annual allocation of up to $35,000 to fund the projects of needy student organizations.

It was, on Harvard's painfully slow scale of progress, almost revolutionary.

That's partly why, 11 months and numerous meetings after the council's first October gathering, some find it difficult to understand why enthusiasm for the new student government is decidedly reserved, among administrators and students alike. While many eagerly volunteer that the council met or exceeded expectations, few are ready to say that the new government will ultimately prove any more viable than its many unsuccessful predecessors.

"I haven't made up my mind about the council yet," says Dean of Students Archie C. Epps III, who consulted with leaders of the new government more this year than any other University Hall official. Epps points to a variety of reasons for remaining cautious about the council, especially as it attempts to gain much needed respect from both administrators and students during its formative years.

One problem, officials and council leaders agree, lies in the checkered record of the council over its inaugural session. Essentially, it provides a study in contrasts: At its irregular best, the council operated with an efficiency and maturity surprising even to seasoned administrators. More often, however, the council struggled with the frustrations of inexperience, at times moving forward with boundless enthusiasm only to discover later that it had faltered.

On the positive side, student delegates point to the council's first major victory the preservation of unlimited on-campus summer storage privileges. In scoring perhaps the most distinct victory for students in years, the council maintained unlimited storage through an in-depth research study that contradicted official claims that House renovations and Summer School needs would cause severe cutbacks in the traditional student service.

Council members also count as achievements the establishment of a series of annual teaching awards, an open forum and booklet on the Administrative Board, the College's closed-door disiplinary body; a forum and study related to the Faculty's review this year of the Core Curriculum; and the year-long development of the council's internal rules, including well-received procedures for the awarding of grants to student groups.

Widespread praise for the council's accomplishments, though, has been tempered largely by the flip side of its initial scorecard: Recurring indications of the council's tendency to follow the quick-and-easy way of reacting to student concerns that has inevitably caused past student governments to fail. The most obvious symptoms were the council's endorsement this spring of several "political" positions. In responding to the call for Harvard to divest from holdings in businesses operating in South Africa and the Food Workers' Union demands during ongoing contract negotiations, the council supported groups without protracted debate, often basing its decisions on incomplete or inaccurate information.