An Open Letter to:
James A. Stern, Chair of the Board of Trustees of Tufts University
Lawrence S. Bacow, President of Tufts University
Jamshed Barucha, Provost and Senior Vice President of Tufts University
Stephen W. Bosworth, Dean of The Fletcher School, Tufts University
Subject: Fanatic Nationalism at Tufts, U.N. Day, and Tufts' decision processes.
Dear Sirs,
The unjustifiable submission of Tufts University's administration to unreasonable demands of a fraction of the Tufts community is contradictory to the basic principles, democratic values and founding ideals of the United States of America. These very principles, values and ideals are the main reason why we and other international students come here. Today, we are disappointed.
The proceedings that led to the change of location of the fifth annual U.N. Day Flag Raising Ceremony on Oct. 24 at noon are of great concern to us. After a lengthy preparation for last week's U.N. Day ceremony to be held again at the flagpole outside Goddard Chapel at our University, we received an announcement that a decision had been made to shift the venue of the event, providing the Organizing Committee with less than 24 hours notice.
It has now been revealed that the Tufts University administration yielded to last-minute pressure by three groups of students at Tufts that maintained that the U.N. Flag Raising Ceremony would "dishonor the United States of America." We would like the Provost to confirm or deny the information that he conceded to far-right students' demands during telephone conversations with them the day before the ceremony on Sunday, Oct. 23.
Our main concern is that the process, the way this decision was reached, and the reasons behind it, appear to be in disagreement with the basic principles of any free society that aspires to call itself a democracy. We expect nothing less than full transparency and respect from an academic institution that fosters democratic ideals, such as ours.
We support the right of everyone to express him or herself freely. Peaceful and respectful coexistence of different perspectives is essential to our democracy and the preservation of diversity in our society. We understand any opinion that is based on logic and reason. We celebrate patriotism. But we can never tolerate, endorse or legitimize anything related to fanaticism, chauvinism or national socialism in the United States of America.
History has taught us that many of its ugliest periods have been started "with seemingly insignificant and gradual developments" due to threats and coercion of small groups that were allowed to gain momentum. In other words, the rest of us tolerating the intolerant.
The views expressed by the groups opposing the U.N. Day Flag Ceremony, namely Tufts' Right-to-Arms Club, Tufts Republicans and The Primary Source, do not represent the majority of the Tufts community. In fact, they are contradictory to the values of Tufts University, United States of America and the International Community. The Tufts Republicans cannot undermine the Republican ideals by proposing positions that contradict the one held by the United States of America and President George W. Bush himself, who encouraged the promotion of U.N. Day celebrations in his Oct. 24
proclamation.
We fear that this decision of the Tufts administration is setting a dangerous precedent. It is bordering on disgrace and is jeopardizing the public image of our University. The international outreach of Tufts University has been cultivated since its founding in 1852. The very core of our values and our competitive advantage is at stake. It is our duty, as loyal and honest members of this society, to cherish, defend and preserve it.
With Respect,
Gregory Dimitriadis and Teitur Torkelsson, Members of the U.N. Day Organizing Committee at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University.
The Provost issued a statement last week in a campus wide e-mail, and Dimitriadis and Torkelsson issued this response:
From the start and in the end this has very little to do with the flag code. Applying strict legal interpretation you could say that some people from these groups were themselves violating the flag code they were pretending to defend at the ceremony today by wearing the American flag as a bandana, when article 8 (d) of the flag code says that the flag should never be used as wearing apparel. But this is not really about the code or strict legal interpretations of it.
For instance, the U.S. State Department in Washington, D.C. raised the British flag on July 7 to show solidarity with the United Kingdom after the terrorist bombings this summer. Should they not do that if a small group of radicals would oppose it? We do not think many people would agree to such reasoning.
Provost Bharucha's decision was good as reactionary crisis-management and a de-escalatory move to avoid conflict on campus. We appreciate and thank the Provost for being forthcoming and readily available for discussion. But we cannot overlook that the administration has avoided taking a position on how it views these groups and what they want to achieve beyond the single event of today. This is about tolerance to the intolerant and whether the University has firm, ethical and professional policies toward such groups.
These groups wanted to make a point that they are here at Tufts. And they are. Alive and kicking. On a positive note, this whole incident brought Fletcher and the wider Tufts community together in solidarity to defend American values.
