Letter to the Editor
Published: Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Updated: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 00:01
As the authors of the op-ed titled “Discrimination by any other name is still discrimination” published on January 16, 2013, we would like to offer some clarifications. First, we certainly do maintain the overall sentiment and spirit of the piece— that the CSL’s decision undermines the university’s commitment to an open and inclusive campus and that the nondiscrimination policy should be inviolable.
Second, the op-ed was written with the intention of providing further explanation of the motives for the resolution we, along with Joseph Donenfeld, introduced at the last Senate meeting of fall semester. We did not believe the Daily had adequate time to publish a story about the Senate meeting because of the time at which the Senate meeting was expected to adjourn. Therefore, we wrote the op-ed to explain our rationale to the Tufts community in a timely fashion in the event that the resolution we proposed was passed by the Senate.
As the authors, we were told by the Daily that our op-ed was not going to run in the Daily last semester and that the only way for the op-ed to run in the Daily this semester would be if we resubmitted it. Seeing as none of the authors submitted the piece again this semester, we can only assume that a miscommunication occurred somewhere in the Daily’s office. It was never our intention to speak on the behalf of the Senate without the Senate’s formal consent and we certainly do recognize that the outcome of the last meeting indicates that Senate is not willing to speak with a unified voice on this issue at present.
Of course, the authors of the op-ed will be diligent in working to ensure a safe, affirming, and just campus for all students at Tufts and will be tireless in their efforts to ensure that the university’s nondiscrimination policy is restored, that discrimination is called for what it is.
Logan Cotton, Meredith Goldberg, Andrew Núñez and Joseph Thibodeau