Dear Editor,
After reading Charles Skold and Nadia Nibbs' op−ed "Yes on 3" in yesterday's Tufts Daily, I wanted to make two comments.
First, I do not see in the text of Referendum 3 a provision allowing groups to "identify their own core group of leaders" to submit to a student−wide vote, as the op−ed says. The referendum text allows for the Center director (for Center−affiliated reps) to review candidates, but does not allow for any candidate to be eliminated prior to the student body vote.
Second, my concerns about Senate's general effectiveness directly relate to minority representation. This past year, I saw at least two specific concerns — one about changes to the Voices of Tufts diversity recruitment program and one about metal detector use at campus events — that appeared to be handled solely by arranging meetings with administrators. With Voices in particular, the Office of Undergraduate Admissions showed little interest in addressing the concerns, so aside from talking with other administrators, that was that, based on what I observed at Senate meetings.
Senate was never asked to take a formal stance on either issue. If I hadn't gone to every Senate meeting this academic year, I would've thought that Senate didn't care about these concerns. Having been to the meetings, I know that Senate doesn't not care, but I think these were missed opportunities to demonstrate to the student body, and to minority communities in particular, that Senate engages in issues presented to it.
Sincerely,
Christopher Snyder
Class of 2011
