Successive Senates hear fewer national issue resolutions

The role of national issues in the Tufts Community Union (TCU) Senate came up for debate last week for the first time in over two years, in light of a proposed Academic Bill of Rights.

The Academic Bill of Rights, proposed by Students for Intellectual Diversity, an off-shoot of the Tufts Republicans, asks the University to disregard political and ideological beliefs when making hiring, firing, tenure and grading decisions.

The resolution is based largely on a similar proposal by conservative critic David Horowitz currently being debated in the U.S. House of Representatives and on several other college campuses.

The Senate's executive board chose not to bring the resolution to the full Senate for a debate because it did not fit the TCU Constitution's constraints of "the needs and interests of the TCU" for Senate consideration. A subsequent vote by the Senate upheld the executive board's decision.

"Taking up issues of national importance would be a violation of the TCU Constitution," TCU President Chike Aguh said.

The decision to not hear the proposal is the latest example of a recent trend of the Senate to shy away from issues of national importance.

The last time a national issue came before the Senate was during the 2001-02 school year, when a resolution called for the Senate to weigh in on the TCU's view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That year's Senate chose not to hear the resolution for the same reason as this year's Senate.

"We are elected on our views on Tufts matters," Aguh said. "We can't stick the TCU's name on something of national importance."

According to Senate log-books, however, the Senate has over the past two decades passed numerous resolutions on several national issues.

In September 1996, the Senate passed a resolution recommending "that the governing boards of Tufts University and all departments therein adopt policies prohibiting the purchase of goods and services from PepsiCo International" because of Pepsi's refusal to withdraw from Burma.

The resolution also called for the University administrators to "promote human rights and democracy in Burma and call on corporations to withdraw from Burma."

In March 1995 -- in probably the most analogous scenario to last week's Academic Bill of Rights proposal -- the Senate passed a resolution supporting the creation of a task force on student rights.

"The issues that the task force will investigate shall include, but not be limited to: freedom of speech and expression, freedom of association, freedom of religion, privacy, nondiscrimination, due process and the students' role in the decision-making process at the University," the resolution read.

Despite Aguh's insistence that matters on the national scene are beyond the bounds of the TCU Constitution, this 1995 task force used the University of Connecticut at Storrs's Student Bill of Rights as a model.

Though the task force was given $250 in funding and ordered to report to the administration, faculty and student body by Jan. 1, 1996, there are no further records in the Senate log-books of the task force on student rights or of any report.

In Feb. 1994, the Senate passed a resolution recommending the University not reinvest in South Africa until democracy was established. This followed previous Senate calls for complete divestment from Apartheid South Africa.

During the 1985-86 school year, after two senators were not allowed into the Board of Trustees meeting to discuss divestment from South Africa, the Senate sponsored a boycott of dining halls, initiated a letter-writing campaign and pushed students to turn in their University IDs out of protest.

In March 1992, the Senate voted to recommend the University end its association with the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) program by 1998 because of the U.S. military's ban on gays and lesbians.

The TCU Judiciary (TCUJ), however, said the Senate had overstepped its constitutional boundaries and voided the 1992 resolution.

The Students for Intellectual Diversity have the option of appealing the current Senate's decision to the TCUJ.

During the 1990-1991 school year, the Senate voted to urge the University to divest nearly $2 million from Hydro-Quebec because of environmental damage caused by one of the company's power plants.

Several factors may account for the refusal of recent Senates to bring national issues up for debate.

According to 1997-98 TCU President Andrea Friedman, "there are no standards for rule on how we interpret the TCU Constitution." She said this allows for each successive Senate to redefine the limits of consideration.

Aguh said the two TCU presidents prior to him, Eric Greenberg and Melissa Carson, interpreted the limits the same way he did.

The short institutional memory of the Senate may be caused by the relatively quick turnover rate for senators. "A student's history is recent," Director of Student Activities Jodie Nealley said. "It's whatever precedent is most recent."

Nealley, who has advised the Senate since the fall of 1998, added that "very few people have any interest in the archives."

Another reason for the Senate's lack of action on national matters may be that senators feel a resolution will have no effect on the administration or national politics. When the boycott of Pepsi was being debated, Friedman said, some senators said that "the Senate isn't going to change national policy."

She said, however, "people looking at the Apartheid model said, 'That isn't true.'"

Speaking of last week's resolution, Friedman said if current senators believe in the merits of the Academic Bill of Rights, a resolution could strengthen the cause on the national scene.

Nealley said in light of the fear of "crying-wolf," the Senate rarely passes resolutions that are unlikely to be acted upon by the administration. "The Senate is very picky on what they bring up the Hill," she said.

"They have to believe that the resolution they pass represents their constituents," Nealley said.

Friedman explained that the trend away from national issues is not a result of "big-picture strategic planning." Instead, she described it as "a natural evolution" in line with sentiments across the country.