Janitors' rights. Objectification of women. Sexual harassment. Tufts seems particularly abuzz with social activism of late; barely a day goes by without a discussion panel or a demonstration. And while some say that free speech is at the center of the most recent controversy - Iris Halpern vs. The Primary Source - others point to sexual harassment as the central issue.
The Committee on Student Life recently ruled in favor of the Source, but this is not the first time two Tufts "camps" have been pitted against one another on the subject of constitutional rights. Twice over the past 12 years, the University has issued rulings stipulating exactly what students can say and where they can say it.
The first of these two decisions governing student speech occurred in 1998 after a male sophomore sold T-shirts listing 15 reasons "Why Beer is Better Than Women at Tufts." After a female student complained to administrators, the male student was placed on probation and ordered to perform 50 hours of community service.
But the charges were eventually dropped after it was discovered that Tufts had no rules explicitly prohibiting offensive speech. As a result, Tufts instituted a "speech zone" policy, whereby "zones" on campus were assigned varying levels of tolerance for speech that could be interpreted as racist or sexist. Academic buildings had limited degrees of tolerance, while dormitories were no-tolerance zones. Violations were punishable, sometimes to the degree of expulsion. Tufts said that racist or sexist language created an "intimidating, hostile, or demeaning environment for educational pursuits."
Some students, however, felt differently. Soon after the policy was implemented, a group of students formed the "Tufts Free Speech Movement" that protested the new policy by physically marking off the free and non-free speech zones. Students also staged demonstrations and alerted local media. Confronted with accusations of constitutional infringement, both on campus and across the nation, Tufts withdrew the policy.
A few years ago, the former Vice President of Arts, Science, and Engineering, Mel Bernstein, introduced a pamphlet entitled "Confronting Intolerance" to the Tufts community. The pamphlet advised students to report harassment to the administration. "If you are experiencing harassment, you need to know that it can be stopped," read the pamphlet, which went on to list name-calling as a punishable offence.
Other offenses included using derogatory slurs, stereotyping individuals on the basis of their group identity, treating individuals differently due to their appearance, joking about the background of others, and using words or images on signs to create public hostility. Even attributing complaints to hypersensitivity was prohibited.
Many said the new policy was more restrictive than its predecessor, which allowed for specific free-speech zones. The stated goal of the pamphlet was to promote student safety, but administrators eventually determined that the new policy was also in violation of the First Amendment, and it was rescinded.
Beginning this semester, students can turn to an established peer group for constitutional interpretation. Freshmen Jeffrey Finkelman and Rachael Tabak have founded a Tufts chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
Finkelman, who was involved with the ACLU in high school, says he was surprised that Tufts did not have a chapter, since the Massachusetts affiliate is one of the larger regional chapters. Although the group is just getting started, the large turnout for the chapter's introductory meeting demonstrated strong interest.
The Tufts ACLU plans to hold a forum on Sept. 11 events, as well as to distribute "Know Your Rights" cards to educate students about their rights as citizens.
Finkelman said the position of the ACLU concerning the Source charges is that the publication's comments and illustrations were "tasteless, but censorship isn't an effective solution." But Finkelman agreed that material similar to what was published in the Source, which included a cartoon depicting SLAM protestor's breasts and comments about "well-endowed SLAM members" and "oh-so-tight tank tops," often promotes sexual harassment.
While Finkelman does not believe in censorship, he realizes that not all speech is inoffensive. "Censorship just forces attitudes below the surface," he said. "Freedom of speech allows for both sensitive and insensitive speech."
Finkelman feels that forums, similar to the sexual harassment panel held on Dec. 3, are much more effective than new rules at changing circumstances on campus. "The best way to fight speech is with more speech," he said.
