Recently many people have criticized Sen. David Pryor's decision to reconstitute the student leadership at the Institute of Politics (IOP). An opinion article in yesterday's edition of The Crimson described the Director of the Institute of Politics' move as "insultingly dismissive of student input." In my mind Pryor has made the right change at the IOP--he has chosen to make the Institute a place where all students can participate in the decision making process. Furthermore, he had little option but to take action without first consulting the students on the Student Advisory Committee (SAC).

Three issues in particular are essential to this discussion. First, Sen. Pryor's decision means there will be more, not less, student voice and involvement at the IOP. Democratic elections and the reconstitution of SAC were necessary moves in order to increase student involvement at the Institute. Secondly, the IOP Student Advisory Committee should accept this reconstitution as part of the ongoing movement to improve the Institute. Last year the IOP staff was restructured, and now it is time for the student leadership to go through the same process. Third, although the IOP has been compared to student organizations on campus, this comparison is inappropriate.

Implementing democratic elections is necessary in order for the IOP to reach as many students as possible. The IOP's mission is to inspire undergraduates to pursue careers in politics and public service, but the old system has caused student participation to plummet. The number of students attending meetings or events at the IOP has been steadily decreasing for the past five years. Because under the old system student leaders were chosen in an undemocratic and somewhat secretive process, many students were discouraged from taking part in the leadership of the IOP.

SAC was very unlikely ever to implement that necessary change of its own volition. As a senior and a SAC member myself (until December 1), I am confident that we as a group would never have consented to democratic elections.

Three years ago a few SAC members suggested implementing democratic elections at the IOP, but SAC as a whole rejected the idea. Furthermore, many SAC members have rightly stated that we have spent much of the past year working to make the Institute more inclusive for Harvard's undergraduates. Unfortunately, during that time period the idea of democratic elections was never once considered.

It seems unreasonable for students now to complain that Sen. Pryor should have consulted SAC before making a change that will transform the IOP into an open, democratic institution. SAC would have refused the very change that will help end the favoritism and exclusion inherent in its particularly self-selecting system.

As for being interested in student input, Sen. Pryor has made himself as open as possible for input from all students. He has not laid out a complete plan and does not intend to do so by himself. Rather, he has asked that all interested students come to the IOP and help create and flesh out a new system. Recognizing that it will take a great deal of time to do this, he is planning to appoint next semester's committee chairs. This is not an effort to take away student control, but an acknowledgement that it is necessary to have a transition into the next semester. Sen. Pryor has announced that his door is open and that he will gladly receive telephone calls and e-mails about the changes that will take place.

Furthermore, one major complaint from many SAC members is that it is unfair for the director and staff to demand that SAC change. However, reconstituting the IOP student leadership is merely part of a two-year transition process that has affected the entire Institute. Last year the IOP staff was restructured--some staff members were given additional tasks while some had their responsibilities diminished or changed. Overall, the staff has been restructured much to the improvement of the Institute. Now it is time for the same measures to apply to SAC.