Anybody eavesdropping on a campus tour will hear the tour guide mention the multitude of unique student groups that exist at Tufts University, intending to appeal to potential applicants who might be interested in joining those groups or even starting one of their own. It is true — Tufts has a lot of student groups and many are certainly unique. Given the recent Tufts Community Union Judiciary (TCUJ) recognition of Discourse, which highlighted students' abilities to create a new group, it seems appropriate to clarify exactly how the process works. The new group recognition process, though not familiar to many Tufts students — even current Tufts Community Union (TCU) senators — is one taken seriously by the elected members of the TCUJ.
The process starts with an Office for Campus Life-mandated meeting, which a representative of the potential new group (PNG) must attend, and at which this representative must fill out the necessary paperwork. Then the PNG must hold a general interest meeting, obtain potential new membership lists, be able to present proof of activity (ranging from flyers to T-shirts) and, finally, draft a working constitution. When the PNG is prepared, they coordinate with the new group recognition chair to schedule a hearing where they will present their group to the TCUJ. After the presentation of materials and group goals, the TCUJ has the opportunity to ask the representatives questions before going into closed-door deliberations, in which a decision is made on the night of the hearing to either recognize, table or not recognize the PNG.
The TCUJ recognizes groups who have the intention of serving the campus and the ability to thrive for many years to come — not just while the representatives are at Tufts. It requires that groups affect Tufts students in a broad-based and positive way; students on the membership list should be neither all freshmen nor all seniors. Finally, the TCUJ works to prevent constitutional overlap with pre-existing groups serving a similar or identical function on campus. It is important to echo the facts reported in the Daily's Nov. 5 article: Judiciary decisions about whether to recognize prospective student organizations are completely divorced from funding considerations. This is mostly because funding is not the sole reason for recognition. Recognized groups can use the room-reservation system to hold meetings, events and functions on campus and can publicize events and fundraise, among other things. Additionally, the TCUJ has no intention of undermining the TCU Senate Treasury in its capacity and ability to allocate our student activities fund. In the same way that the TCUJ holds group recognition (both old and new) to be our area of expertise, we so view the Senate with regard to funding. We wish to make clear that by practice and by our understanding as arbiters of the TCU Constitution, the Senate retains the sole right and ability to fund or not fund groups — regardless of their TCU recognition status — as it sees fit.
It is our hope that this op-ed has not only clarified the student group recognition process, but also has clarified the role the TCUJ plays in this process. Though dealing with student groups is not all that the TCUJ concentrates on, it is certainly one of our priorities. The fall semester is dedicated to facilitating and hearing potential new student groups, while the spring semester is devoted to ensuring the groups we have recognized are functioning and adhering to their constitutions; in fact, we already have robust plans for making this process more efficient and effective starting this year. Finally, as a functioning, concerned and constitutionally bound student group, the TCUJ hopes that our peer student groups recognize our capacity and ability to carry out our constitutionally delegated functions. The recognition of Discourse was, in fact, no abuse of the recognition process. We know this because we actually know the process and basis for group recognition. Any abuse of the recognition process would have been uncovered during the hearing. While there can be legitimate differences of opinion on whether or not Discourse deserved to be recognized — and there were, with multiple dissenting votes in their recognition hearing by members of the TCUJ — the integrity of the process was upheld.
--
Lindsay Helfman is a junior majoring in political science and serves as chair of the Tufts Community Union Judiciary. John Peter Kaytrosh is a sophomore majoring in Judaic studies and serves as vice chair of the Tufts Community Union Judiciary.
