Dear editor:
I applaud Matt Shapanka for making an excellent case for giving part of the recovered funds toward financial aid. As Shapanka wrote, "The very essence of a university is its students. The very essence of Tufts is the diversity of thoughts, ideas and backgrounds that a robust financial aid system generates and fosters." Of course, Shapanka makes the mistake of surmising that because the administration is committed to making ends meet, it will somehow magically solve a $36 million shortfall through ... what exactly? It seems that to Shapanka, being committed is enough. By Shapanka's standard, doing everything in one's power is the same as having absolute power. Thought equals action. Desire equals results. What if we lived our lives by that logic? According to Shapanka's standard, anyone who is committed to anything doesn't need any help. The commitment itself is enough. We're all committed to eradicating world hunger -- so there will be no more world hunger, right? The Bush administration is committed to eliminating AIDS in Africa -- why should we help, then? Problem solved. If the White House is committed, AIDS will be gone by Tuesday.
Does commitment mean we should not contribute our own resources because some higher power will take care of it? I don't see Shapanka's logic being applied in reality. Instead, individuals and NGOs work hand-in-hand with the government toward a greater cause when it comes to, well, everything worth fighting for. And if, as Shapanka writes, financial aid is "the very essence of a university," why would we suddenly stand aside when our diversity is threatened -- when we have something worth fighting for? Shapanka's argument simply does not make sense.
Shapanka's argument is fallacious twice over, since we're not even talking about assisting people whom we'll never meet on some distant continent. This crisis is at home -- where we live, where we study, where we work. It's in our midst and therefore not a matter of charity, but instead of our own self interest. Shapanka might not know how deep the economic crisis is. I'm glad he isn't an economist. If Shapanka doesn't think we're in a crisis right now, then when will he? We've been in a recession since 2007. Millions of jobs are going up in smoke. Banks are still going under. People aren't spending. The entire financial system is broken in a way it hasn't been in recent memory; these systemic issues won't go away overnight just because Shapanka can't see them.
Tufts, like every other private university, is in serious trouble, to the tune of $36 million. Any penny that we give to assist financial aid will help the administration in its herculean task of saving every student, academic program and staff member. We're all part of this organism named Tufts University. Every other part of our body is sacrificing entertainment and flab for the greater good -- all these were funds that were also originally intended for another purpose, although I'm sure Shapanka will find excuses for TCU exceptionalism until the cows come home. The TCU cannot offer anything that comes close to the vital services the university administration provides. New tables and chairs for the campus center, student parties and clubs -- do these things really define Tufts? Perhaps they're up there with financial aid to Shapanka, but not to the rest of us.
As Shapanka wrote, "Those who have been blessed with means have a responsibility to take every available opportunity to use their resources for good, to help those who need it more." The TCU's $1.3-million budget is sound. Every student group's need is already met, from the Monty Python Society to the Beelzebubs to Jumbos for Life. Our student activities are already vibrant and successful. In fact, the TCU has a significant annual surplus that can accommodate any emergencies, as well as new groups. That surplus won't change during the crisis since we're just about the only organization in these times with a fixed income. So why on earth wouldn't we help, when the TCU has nothing to lose?
The Tufts administration will do everything in its power to resolve this financial mess. But the administration does not have power over everything. After all, funding every Tufts student's education is a moral imperative. Shapanka never made a plausible case for why we should be exempt from that imperative. Gestures and words won't keep Tufts afloat. Only action will. But while I believe Shapanka's views aren't representative of the student body -- and the recovered funds survey bears this out -- there are many senators like him who won't give money to the greater good unless given no other choice. Despite all attempts to reach a compromise and split the recovered funds with equitable results, they insist that not a penny of the funds be given to financial aid. The rest of the community will continue to make sacrifices, while the TCU plays the part of the band that refuses to stop playing music while the rest of the ship fights hard to plug a hole in the keel. The hole may eventually be filled and the ship may resume full speed, but the rest of the crew will not forget the unwillingness of a select few to help when they had the choice.
Sincerely,
Toby Bonthrone, TCU senator
--
