During the daily bustle of classes and homework, Tufts students seem secure and confident about their life in a world landscape now marred by the fear of terrorism. Most are more worried about upcoming mid-terms than the possible date and location of another attack.
On Tuesday, Vice President Dick Cheney told supporters at a campaign event that "the biggest threat we face now as a nation is the possibility of terrorists ending up in the middle of one of our cities with deadlier weapons than have ever before been used against us - biological agents or a nuclear weapon or a chemical weapon of some kind to be able to threaten the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans."
But Cheney's statement does not seem to hold much sway with Tufts students. Even when posed a concocted situation, such as a presidential debate held at Tufts (like the candidates' first quarrel at the University of Miami), no questioned students said they would leave the campus in fear of what could happen and only a few said such a risk would even cross their minds. These students recognized there would be a greater chance and fear of an attack, but said that it wouldn't change their day-to-day life.
Such cavalier attitudes betray little of the stigma and worry that gripped the nation's citizens, especially those who were traveling, in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks.
"I wouldn't be hesitant at all to attend or be anywhere near [a debate at Tufts]," freshman Dan Resnick said. "I wouldn't think of a debate in terms of a target."
Another source of confidence for some students seems to be increased security throughout the country and certainly at an event like a presidential debate.
"I doubt the terrorists would think of attacking a debate here," sophomore Rocky Pacifici said. "There would be so much security around, with Secret Service people and everything, that it would be fine."
Even for a hypothetical debate, the security is impressive. "We would be taking every precaution to avoid any incident," said Captain Mark Keith of the Tufts Police Department. "The details of the security would depend on its location, what people would be coming, and world events, but certainly it would be high security."
"This sort of thing would take weeks, if not months, to prepare, and we would have most, if not all, of our personnel active, in addition to working with federal authorities, secret service, state and local police," Keith added.
For instance, one of the Presidential Debates of 2000 was held in a chapel at Wake Forest University that was encircled by six-foot-high fences and guarded gates. There was only one doorway through which the crowd could enter.
In addition, according to Howstuffworks.com, there were separate security checks, including metal detectors and hand-searching of bags. The security procedures took approximately a half hour to be completed.
On Monday, President Bush signed the appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which equals about $1.8 billion more in funding for the Department for the next year, an increase of about 6.6% over last year's budget. Students, however, are skeptical towards this department and its effectiveness.
Neither do students have much faith in the government's color-coded alert system, which runs from green to red, each increasingly red color representing an higher level of danger.
This system is often ridiculed by public opinion, for varying reasons. Some, like Resnick, blame their lack of faith in the government's intelligence, amplified by recent developments dealing with the validity of information in the Iraq situation.
"I don't place trust in the alert levels because I don't believe that our nation's security information is always as accurate as it should be," Resnick said.
Pacifici has stronger sentiments against the alerts. "I pretty much think [the system] is bulls**t," he said. "They search your bags more at the airport but it seems kind of arbitrary."
Senior Nia Stoykova agrees with criticisms of the system, adding that she views it as partly a political tool - and therefore wrong. "Of course, it has many functions, [like] to inform the general public of the threat," she said.
"But it is politically driven because in times of trouble, people rally around a leader," Stoykova said. "By creating such a device, it keeps the issue in the minds of the people and keeps them worried."
Another view against the alert system shared by a few of the questioned students was that they are pointless and it's not worth wasting time worrying about if and when an attack will come.
Those who were more receptive to taking the alerts seriously admitted that there is not much to do or any reason to change routines, with the exception of avoiding specific local places that are sometimes targeted in the alerts, such as the Citigroup building and financial centers this past summer.
"I suppose [if] an attack is more likely it would concern me, but that's not my primary worry," junior Adam Bunnell said. "It doesn't change my life."
