Intimidation pledge is inadequate

President Bacow is to be applauded for his refusal last week to sign a statement written by several other university presidents containing "anti-intimidation" pledge that specifically mentions crimes against Jewish students. Bacow rightfully recognized that by citing incidents involving students of one particular religion, the statement was manifestly narrow in its plea for better relations.

Sept. 11 and its political and social aftermath continue to evoke strong emotions across the world, and the races and religions that have been targets of hate crimes and intimidation represent a much broader spectrum than Jewish students alone. The spirit of the statement would be vastly improved if it avoided singling out any specific group as bearing the brunt of hatred.

The statement also avoids the larger issue of actually resolving hate issues on college campuses. Making a sweeping statement about creating a "non-intimidation" atmosphere is an asinine way of dealing with this very real problem. It is self-evident that colleges (and all places, for that matter) need to be free from intimidation, prejudice, and hate. To reiterate these views in a pledge does nothing to help accomplish this goal.

As learning institutions, colleges need to use education as a primary tool for ending the type of intimidation described in the pledge. The classroom can be used to open students' minds with expanded courses about religious history and contemporary issues of injustice, and campus religious groups can use their resources to promote understanding of other races and religions. Tufts religious organizations have already been very successful in creating open exchanges between their respective groups.

In addition to using its academic assets, Tufts has and continues to take a hard stance against racial, ethnic, or any other type of persecution that occurs on campus. Those instigating hate crimes against others based on their identity should be subject to swift and severe punishment, including expulsion from the University.

The power of words is limited in solving such complex and deeply rooted problems. The only real way to change people's minds and opinions is to help them better understand each other through education and dialogue.