This year, several Tufts undergraduates came together to form Rat-a-TAT, Tufts Activist Theater. We were excited. Last year, we had seen many shows that could have been activist but were not given the proper space. Instead, shows like "Piece of My Heart," "Corpus Christi" and "Uncommon Women and Others" were only seen as entertainment. Each play had a strong message, but audiences were not given the opportunity to start real conversations based on the thoughts that the plays brought up in a structured and informed way. Instead, audiences left feeling that they had learned something new, but having no way to figure out exactly what they had learned or what to do with it.
Armed with all of our paperwork, passion and support, several members of Rat-a-TAT went to the Tufts Community Union Judiciary (TCUJ) to seek recognition. When we arrived, members of the TCUJ bombarded us with questions, trying to find reasons for refusing to recognize us. Despite the fact that the Judiciary had invited us to come and knew the purpose of our group, none of its members had taken a few minutes to research the other theater groups on campus - if our purpose was too close to another organization's purpose, it would have been that of other theater group.
Instead of defending our own organization in an informed manner, we were forced to first spend 15 minutes describing the other theater organizations on campus. It was surprising and disappointing to learn that members of the committee that decides whether or not organizations can exist on campus know so little about the organizations already in existence - organizations which some of the current members of the Judiciary have either recognized or re-recognized. We were shocked to realize that individuals in such a powerful position seemed out of touch with the school right outside their conference room in the campus center.
Once we had described the other theater organizations, the third degree began. Why weren't we under the umbrella of another group? Was it about money? If there was more money available for, say, Pen, Paint and Pretzels (3Ps), would we be part of their group? Was our group seeking recognition to get money? Were the other groups excluding us due to prejudice? Question after question was either about money (when we were asking for recognition, not funding) or about other groups, which put us in a position of either slandering other groups or not receiving a favorable response to our request for recognition.
However, the mood as we left was one of peacefulness; we had been given the impression that we would be told to restructure parts of our constitution and come back again once the issues had been fixed. Instead, the response to our request was e-mailed at 3:30 a.m. (an hour and a half after promised), saying that we had been rejected and that the only explanation was "our decision had to be made following the Committee on Student Life's criteria outlined in the Pachyderm, which Rat-a-Tat did not satisfy."
At the bottom of the e-mail was a list of e-mail addresses for the Committee on Student Life (CSL), whom we contacted right away to appeal. In addition, we wrote back to the chair of the Judiciary, requesting specific reasons for the rejection so that we could address them for the appeal. Two days later, we received an e-mail requesting our constitution, which was immediately sent. In the meantime, the CSL had suggested contacting Dean of Students Bruce Reitman, who could facilitate an arbitration to settle the matter more quickly.
Six days after the original request for recognition, the only people who had been remiss in responding to requests were the members of the TCUJ. Rat-a-TAT was left with their hands tied, since Reitman could not decide if the arbitration was warranted when he had not been informed of why we were rejected. Although we have support from 3Ps, Bare Bodkin and several faculty members from various departments, we are not allowed to plan events, book rooms or do virtually anything until this matter is settled.
A full week after the TCUJ rejected Rat-a-TAT's application for recognition, an explanation was sent. The group explained that it we had been rejected on four points. One of these was the result of a question asked during the meeting about money. Half our reply had been ignored. Other reasons resulted from confusions that had not been brought up during the meeting and could easily have been rectified had Rat-a-TAT been given the chance to explain. The most frustrating part of the entire explanation was that we had not been granted an opportunity to answer the questions that came up during the Judiciary's deliberation, nor were we allowed to re-submit a revised constitution that addressed these issues.
Perhaps the most frustrating element of this whole mess is the fact that Tufts University claims to encourage student service and involvement, and yet it is the students themselves who prevent their peers from serving the community. Instead of making recognition a battle in which the group must slander others, why can't we make recognition a simple task where one must intelligently and articulately explain and defend one's organization? It is hard enough getting a new group organized enough to present a case to the Judiciary. It should not be the J's job to thwart the excitement and possibilities of new student groups.
Christina Hanson is a senior majoring in English and women's studies. Allie Bohm is a sophomore majoring in English and peace and justice studies.
