Over the past two weeks, the Clark-Mayopoulos victory and declaration of resignation in the Undergraduate Council (UC) election has fostered discussion about disillusionment with the UC as a true representative of the student body. Gus Mayopoulos’ recent reverse decision to stay in the UC and assume the presidency has raised further questions about the implications of the victors’ satirical campaign and surprising victory. Sam Clark and Mayopoulos’ win should not be dismissed as a humorous stunt, but rather be taken seriously due to the significant implications it presents for the UC and its relationship with students. This unique moment in Harvard history characterizes a point of no return, in which Harvard undergraduates have crossed a threshold, revealing their utter lack of confidence in the UC.
Clark and Mayopoulos’ victory has entrenched skepticism about the effectiveness of student government, helping create a dangerous cycle of low political efficacy among students. That students elected candidates who ran on a platform of instituting tomato basil ravioli soup and thicker toilet paper over candidates with serious platforms is discouraging, making a joke of the UC and decreasing the integrity of student government. By inciting low political efficacy, the campaign may have unintentionally further deteriorated the relationship between students and the UC, and thereby decreased the chances of real student issues being addressed, such as resources for students with disability and UC funding for student organizations. In addition, Clark and Mayopoulos’ campaign is disrespectful to the other candidates who have sincerely worked hard in the UC in the past in order to serve fellow students.
Furthermore, the discussion of the joke ticket has overshadowed the discussion of the four referenda. The focus on trivial matters, such as soup and toilet paper, has distracted from important issues such as gender-neutral housing and immigration reform. Although intended to be satirical, this focus on such trifling concerns masks the crucial issues at hand, suggesting a spoiled, elitist attitude on the part of Harvard students. Instead of caring about efforts to curb global warming, for example, Harvard students appear to mainly be disgruntled about soups in the dining hall.
The purpose of the campaign should also be critically examined. Was the goal of Clark and Mayopoulos’ campaign to make a sociopolitical statement criticizing the disengagement between students and the UC, or was it simply to make a joke? Initially, their resignation seemed to serve as a challenge to the present UC system, symbolizing the lack of student voice in a dysfunctional system with imbalanced power dynamics between the campus and administration.
On the flip side, it appeared questionable that the candidates were really aiming to change the status quo of the UC, considering that they immediately declared their plan of resignation upon victory. Mayopoulos’ recent announcement to stay involved in the UC, however, indicates that he has decided to take responsibility and lead the very institution his campaign critiqued. Therefore, even if the victors’ original intention was merely to be humorous, it now seems that they are trying to actually engage in the political process. What was once a joke has transformed into a serious reality.
The question is what happens now. Once Clark resigns and Mayopoulos assumes the presidency, Harvard students must still grapple with the truth of their disillusionment. Satire can only point out extant problems, without providing solutions. Mayopoulos seems to recognize this, as evidenced by his decision to serve as UC president. Yet, how can he effectively lead an organization that he recently exposed as fundamentally flawed? It may prove challenging for him to engage the very students who voted for him due to their disenchantment with the UC. Mayopoulos will have to reconcile his two contradictory images—a rebellious UC “outsider” who challenged the existing power structures and the future president of the ‘establishment.’ Already Mayopoulos appears to be arguing for the necessity of working within the system—the necessity of first tearing down the governing body, then reconstructing it from the bottom up.
The Clark-Mayopoulos campaign and victory has made a laughingstock of the UC, fed a cycle of low political efficacy, and distracted from truly important student concerns. Mayopoulos’ decision to not resign, however, has signaled his reversal in attitude—recognition that more than satire is need to solve problems. Perhaps only a revolutionary outsider such as Mayopoulos can improve relations between the UC and the student body. Yet, in spite of his popularity, Mayopoulos will have difficulty building faith among his disillusioned constituents and reconstructing the institution he essentially tore down.
