For the first time at Tufts, I was not proud to be a student here while reading yesterday's Daily ("Students put trustees on the spot at luncheon turned confrontation"). I was shocked that such a fiasco, filled with immaturity and poor communication, would happen at an institution that prides itself on intellectual development and the exchange of diverse viewpoints. With Trustee Chairman Nathan Gantcher asking only to entertain questions from the audience, how could he expect to have the dialogue the trustees wanted? Did the trustees expect us students to tell them only what we love about Tufts?
I am disappointed that students acted immaturely with bitterness, irresponsibility, and anger. Students should not have attended this luncheon with the vision that by simply voicing their problems with Tufts they would be immediately answered and fixed. Rather, by making the trustees aware of certain campus issues, they could offer their ideas while asking the trustees' opinion.
Regardless of students' actions, though, the trustees should not have avoided certain questions or skirted around issues. Sometimes the hardest thing to do when being aggressively confronted is to respond with answers far more respectful than the questions posed. In the words of Trustee Alan Solomont, "Life's a two-way street."
I believe that the majority of the student body is very pleased and grateful with Tufts and all that it has to offer, which is thanks, in large part, to the work and generosity of the trustees. Tufts must not give up on student-trustee interaction simply because of this year's event. Engaging in dialogue to improve the life at and quality of this university is something that will benefit all involved and will make us proud to be here.
Mitch Lunn
LA'04
