On Tuesday, March 8, The Tufts Daily published an article, "Senate backs more lenient marijuana policy," in which sophomore Alex Baskin, president of Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP), adamantly fights for ... well, what exactly was it again? The right to smoke weed? You have a better chance of being disciplined for talking after quiet hours than you do for smoking marijuana outside. In the article, Dean of Student Affairs Bruce Reitman was quoted as saying that he did not believe anybody had been disciplined for marijuana this year. Yet SSDP garnered the support of 500 students who would like to challenge the policy and "reduce" it to a fine. Choosing an enforceable fine over an unenforced policy is hardly sensible.
I use the example of the SSDP not to call them out, but to draw attention to a larger trend. That is, many people at Tufts will simply support a cause that seems right. Often, what seems right is right, and these groups generate positive, informative discussions, which are an essential part of the Tufts identity. Tufts Against Genocide, a part of Tufts Hillel, recently sponsored an event during which we heard from genocide survivors from around the world. I was blown away. Genocide education is a worthwhile cause. Awareness raised. Great success.
The irony comes when the "awareness raisers" do not thoroughly consider the facts themselves. My freshman year, there was a protest early in the fall semester. Fliers appeared overnight along with chalking: The administration was allegedly going to cut down the large tree on the president's lawn. Students flocked to the scene. You all know this tree because it's still there. Nobody was cutting it down. The information was a hoax. The most disturbing part of this story is that about 30 overeducated Jumbos attended the event, and not one of them thought to verify the rumor. Cutting down a tree that size is expensive, and Tufts is tight on cash (Damn it Madoff!). Nobody considered the possibility that if the administration was cutting down the tree, they might have a valid reason. The hoax exposed the fact that people will back a cause that appears worthwhile at first glance without submitting it to any scrutiny.
I once saw a lecture on the dangers of global warming. The speaker was ridiculing the United States for not signing the Kyoto protocol. I asked her, "Why didn't George Bush sign the Kyoto protocol?" She didn't know. "Thank you," I said, and sat down. What bothered me was not the politics. The environment is worth protecting. What disturbed me was that someone who considered herself an expert on environmentalism did not even bother to find out exactly why she disagreed with her opponents. She had no interest in their reasoning. Instead of disproving the counterpoint, she labeled those with a different opinion as evil and called it a day.
Very recently, Tufts University was ranked in the top−12 worst schools for free speech by Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). The article appeared on the Huffington Post's website. I was surprised myself, especially when I saw that the major transgression they cited was the university's finding of the Primary Source, Tufts' only formally conservative publication, as guilty of harassment for publishing a satirical article. The assertion that free speech suffers at Tufts seems to contradict this any−cause−goes attitude. On the surface, it may seem that we have plenty of free speech. However, students at Tufts spend so much time fighting for what is right, that it is sacrilegious to hold the opinion that something may already be right.
At Tufts, the majority of the vocal population is comprised of those who want to see major change. In many cases, I agree with them. In my opinion, Tufts' acceptance of the gay community is unmatched in the real world or at other colleges I have encountered. There are still steps to be made, but the Tufts community should be proud of what it has accomplished. However, this progress was made by persuading people with facts, not requesting blind acceptance. Sadly, at Tufts, a great deal of effort is spent inspiring discussion — but only the correct type of discussion. What often passes for honest discourse at Tufts is really like−minded Jumbos nodding at one another, which only widens the gap between two sides of an issue.
At Tufts, certain causes have been deemed "good." Saving trees is good. Fighting bias is good. Awareness is good. And these things really are good, but not everything done in the name of these "goods" is necessarily right. Tufts students must break the habit of neglecting to consider the opposing argument. Who knows? It just might be sensible.
--
