Skip to Content, Navigation, or Footer.

Opinion

Feature-Image_Place-Holder
Opinion

Why did Tufts give a platform to a dictator?

On Tuesday April 22, Tufts University gave a very warm welcome to Rwandan President Paul Kagame. Fletcher Dean Stavridis and President Monaco told a packed Cabot Auditorium audience that they were "thrilled" and "honored" to have His Excellency on campus to discuss Rwanda's road to recovery 20 years after the horrific Tutsi genocide. On an official event webpage, Kagame was described as Rwanda's first democratically-elected president, a United Nations leader and a statesman setting his country on a course of "reconciliation, nation building and socioeconomic development."After a 20-minute lecture by Kagame, Tufts officials posed three pre-selected questions, and he was able to answer four more from the audience. It was, by any measure, a wonderful event for the Rwandan leader, who had ample time to tout his achievements with regard to economic growth, private investment, ethnic harmony and the cleanliness, efficiency and stability of his country's cities. When finished, he received a standing ovation, and Dean Stavridis thanked him amid photo-ops for a "candid and wonderful" conversation. Tufts' public relations office released a statement saying that the university was "pleased that the event was well-attended and the audience fully engaged."The question is: how many of the organizers or audience members knew that Paul Kagame is a murderous dictator? Before you turn away in disbelief, consider the following facts.Despite Tufts officials' claims, Kagame is no democrat. He won his first election in 2003 with 95 percent of the vote, in a contest where critics said the opposition was "virtually excluded from campaigning." During his second election in 2010, Kagame jailed political rivals and shuttered critical newspapers en route to winning 93 percent of the vote. As The Guardian observed, "opposition groups have been excluded, journalists have been intimidated and dissenting voices have been silenced, sometimes violently." A former party official in exile was shot in the stomach after voicing criticism of Kagame. Meanwhile, a critical journalist was killed, and a deputy leader of an opposition party was found beheaded. One opponent, Victoire Ingabire, was arrested soon after launching her campaign. She is still in prison today.Once Rwanda's liberator, Kagame has spent two decades building a harsh authoritarian regime, working hard to consolidate power and extinguish dissenting voices. He operates a police state using the national army and his political party, the Rwandan Patriotic Front. According to Susan Thomson, a Rwanda expert at Colgate University, "The RPF saturates every aspect of life in Rwanda ... they know everything: if you've been drinking, if you've had an affair, if you've paid your taxes." Reporters Without Borders calls Kagame a "predator of the press," while Human Rights Watch has observed "a long-established pattern of assassination and attempted assassination of Rwandan government critics." Freedom House designates Rwanda with its lowest freedom ranking, on par with Iran and Zimbabwe and worse than Burma and Russia.After taking power, Kagame orchestrated massacres of Hutus in Rwanda and in neighboring countries. In a vivid recent report The Wall Street Journal describes how, in the chaos after the 1994 genocide, Kagame's army "conducted its own mass slaughters across Rwanda, rounding up unarmed Hutu civilians by the thousands and machine-gunning them." In 1996, Kagame started a war with neighboring Zaire, now the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The International Rescue Committee estimates that more than five million people have died as a result of this military campaign. I'll repeat: five million people.Remember Tufts' official campus statement about Kagame being a U.N. leader? Well, a U.N. investigation found that his army and allies "killed tens of thousands of innocent refugees" in the Congolese jungles, while pillaging a fortune in gold and other precious metals. According to a 545-page report, "the majority of the victims were children, women, elderly people and the sick, who were often undernourished and posed no threat to the attacking forces." Columbia University professor Howard French claims that Kagame's campaigns against Rwandan and Congolese Hutu have killed as many as 300,000 people.In 2012 the head of the U.S. war crimes office warned Kagame that he could face prosecution at the International Criminal Court for arming rebel groups in the Congo. Again, an official in the Obama administration has suggested that Kagame has committed war crimes. The U.N. has also presented detailed evidence that Kagame was financing M23, a particularly notorious death squad founded by Bosco Ntaganda. Nicknamed "The Terminator", Ntaganda is a warlord on trial in The Hague, where witnesses testified that he personally used child soldiers and ordered troops to rape and kill civilians.Despite all of the widely-available evidence, President Kagame did not have to face a single question at Tufts' April 22 event about human rights, attacks on dissidents, massacres or his support for armed groups. To the great disgrace of Tufts alumni, parents, donors and current students, the administration chose to genuflect before a man who should have been taken to task. When Columbia University hosted Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the school as an institution made it categorically clear that the Iranian leader was there to be heard in the spirit of a lively debate that did not exist inside the dictatorship of Iran, and the school's president sharply challenged Ahmadinejad on the controversial human rights issues. Despite the fact that Kagame stands accused of a much larger number of deaths than Ahmadinejad, Tufts made no such statement. Instead, anyone in the audience at Cabot would have had to figure out Kagame's crimes on their own, given that pre-event materials portrayed him as a democratic hero.12


The Setonian
Opinion

Administration must help amend problems with elections

The TCU presidential election concluded yesterday after more than a 12-hour delay in the release of results due to some technical problems experienced by the TCU Election Commission (ECOM). Students voting off-campus (via wireless networks other than tuftswireless) had difficulties submitting their votes, and students were required to use a temporary username and password to log into to VoteNet.


The Setonian
Opinion

Justice for janitors: demand an end to contract violations and mistreatment

The Tufts' janitorial staff is in a precarious, and often confusing, position. I would like to clear up the situation, in hopes of paving the way for further student and administrative action on behalf of the Tufts janitors. Because the janitors are not directly employed by Tufts University, but through a subcontractor, DTZ/Unicco, the daily realities of their working conditions are at the mercy of this contractor. They are not afforded the same standing as direct Tufts employees. Fortunately, as members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 32BJ, as they explained to us, Tufts janitors have some protections through a hard-fought contract, such as a required level of full-time employment across the staff, specific payment methods and more. Unfortunately, DTZ has continuously violated this contract since they took over custodial operations at the beginning of 2013. In our experience, when such concerns have been brought to the attention of President Anthony Monaco, Executive Vice President Patricia Campbell and Vice President of Operations Linda Snyder, they have expressed sympathy for the janitors' situation. However, this sympathy has not taken form as action. As indirect employers, Tufts administrators have repeatedly ignored their responsibilities in ensuring that their hired contractors treat workers on Tufts campuses well, or even abide by their legal contracts. Members of Tufts Labor Coalition believe otherwise. We believe that it is the responsibility of the Tufts administration to ensure that workers on this campus are treated fairly, regardless of who directly employs them. Ultimately, it is Tufts' money that reaches — or fails to reach — the janitors. As students we also have a responsibility to demand that our tuition money goes towards supporting workers who make our time here possible, rather than lining the pockets of the corporate middle man.Three pressing issues are currently at stake for the janitors, two of which are direct contract violations. First, as reported to us by the janitors themselves, fewer janitors are currently classified as full-time workers than their contract calls for. Right now, only 58 percent of janitors are full-time employees, while the contract binds DTZ to employ 75 percent of the janitors full-time and to aspire to employ 90 percent full-time. It is our understanding from conversations with the janitors that DTZ has been manipulating the janitors' schedules in order to refrain from classifying more as full-time. For example, they will work full-time hours for two weeks, then have their hours cut for one week, so as to never accrue the scheduling necessary to be classified as full-time. Similarly, when full-time janitors leave Tufts, DTZ does not always fill those positions, instead opting to split that workload between several part-time janitors. Full-time classification is vital to workers' livelihood because it affords job security and important benefits such as health insurance.Second, the janitorial staff explained to us that DTZ has not been following the specific payment methods as prescribed in the contract. The most recent problem that has come to light is the following: The contract states that janitors should be paid with individual weekly checks during their paid vacation time, rather than one composite check for the entirety of their vacation. While this seems like a minor difference, it was a hard-fought specification in their contract. Getting paid for vacation time with a larger composite check ends up meaning that the janitors have more of their total pay taken out as taxes. As we understand, the DTZ manager on Tufts’ campus acted swiftly to try to correct this, but his superiors at corporate DTZ would not comply. This is indicative of problems that have occurred repeatedly with DTZ corporate and payment headquarters in the past. It has been extremely difficult, if not impossible, for janitors to obtain pay accidentally taken out of their paychecks. These are claims that should be routine and easily fixed.Third, the janitors told that us over the past several years they have acquired larger and larger workloads. They have been forced to take on responsibility for cleaning more space and buildings, often in less time and with fewer co-workers. Weekend hours were cut drastically, meaning that cleaning up on Monday mornings is an even more arduous task. Often, janitors are responsible for three, four or five buildings every day. DTZ does not maintain staff available to cover the ground of janitors who take a sick day, so entire buildings are routinely added to a janitor's daily load. This results in increased work strain on the janitors. The janitors explained that they are instructed implicitly and explicitly that they must sacrifice quality in order to clean the buildings they are assigned. Tufts janitors take pride in their work, and asking them to compromise in this way devalues what they do. Furthermore, our living conditions suffer. When students notice that their dorms and academic buildings are dirtier than they should be, they often choose not to complain because they worry it will reflect poorly on the janitors. In fact, the opposite is true. Until the student body makes a fuss about these trends, DTZ will continue to cut corners. It is quite likely that DTZ is employing fewer janitors for fewer hours than necessary in order to cut their costs, keeping more of the overhead from the fixed amount that their contract with Tufts provides.12


Feature-Image_Place-HolderOLIN
Opinion

Blame the Senate for boring candidates

Congratulations to Andrew Nu?ez on your election to the position of President of the Tufts Community Union Senate! Or congratulations to Robert Joseph on your election as president! I'm very sorry — despite reading everything I could, I still can't discern the differences between you.


Feature-Image_Place-HolderWINTER31
Opinion

Kagame visit should not go without scrutiny

Rwandan President Paul Kagame visited Tufts yesterday to give a speech to students and guests on his country's recovery from genocide, ethnic tensions and its future. The lecture was so popular that tickets for the event were gone within an hour of their public release. While Jumbos should feel lucky that the university continues to bring in elite speakers, thinkers and media figures, it's important to remain aware of Rwanda's full story.


The Setonian
Opinion

Robert Joseph is right choice for Tufts

Between the exams and papers that overwhelm students during the last week of school, it is important to read about the candidates for Tuesday’s Tufts Community Union Senate presidential election. Beyond allocating funds to student groups, the members of TCU play a significant role in campus culture and help shape university policy by acting as spokespeople for the student body. This year’s candidates, juniors Robert Joseph and Andrew N??ez, both offer impressive ideas for how to remedy on-campus issues and better the Tufts community. Tomorrow’s election features two candidates who are competent, capable and incredibly passionate. In fact, Joseph and N??ez share similar perspectives on many key issues: Both are strong proponents of revising Tufts’ sexual assault policy; both are in favor of increasing financial support for students through various measures, including need-blind admissions; both advocate for reforming the role of the Resident Assistant and for a University Pass (U-Pass) program. With each contender boasting such comparable, progressive platforms, it’s impossible for Tufts to lose in this election. Regardless of the outcome (unless Generic Candidate swoops in for the win), the Tufts community will be in good hands. The only question is, in whose hands will Tufts thrive more? Ultimately, we believe that Tufts will benefit the most with Robert Joseph as TCU president. Joseph has continuously emphasized his open-minded, inclusive leadership style. Were he elected head of the TCU Senate, Joseph will build bridges between all organizations and people, from The Group of Six to Tufts’ athletics teams – something that the Daily feels is critical in order to create a more unified student body. To his credit, N??ez has been a particularly vocal advocate for a number of groups on campus, especially for members of marginalized or disadvantaged communities who often need a louder voice. He has and is encouraging the university to set up a scholarship fund for undocumented students and said he would like to push for increased equity for transgender students through gender-inclusive faculty training and gender-neutral bathrooms. His idea to form a lending library to reduce textbook costs for students on financial aid is both compelling and feasible. And last year, as part of the Equal Education Opportunity Committee, N??ez was also a staunch objector to the Committee on Student Life’s highly controversial “justified departure” policy. Yet, while there’s no doubt that N??ez has students’ best interests in mind, Joseph has vowed to reach many of these same groups and more. What sets Joseph apart is not just the wide range of students he will serve, but also his approach to understanding their needs. He has a long history of reaching out to disparate faculty and student groups, and actively involving them in the process of finding solutions. This spring, for example, Joseph began pushing to establish education as a possible second major for undergraduates. Before penning his resolution, Joseph made a point to speak with knowledgeable and interested faculty members, in order to get input from those who had the most thorough understanding of the discipline. In regards to the U-Pass, Joseph didn’t simply announce his support – he actually joined Tufts Transit Coalition, helping the group gain over 2,000 signatures. Joseph has additionally pledged to work with student activists to improve the sexual assault policy and has even approached others on campus, including Tufts RAs, with his ideas. Through these conversations, he concluded that there should be individuals trained to help victims of sexual violence stationed in every on-campus living space who are separate from RAs, so that he or she will not be forced to report confidential information. These examples make it abundantly clear: Joseph is not just willing to work for the Tufts community – he wants to work with them, too. In this race, there is no reason to vote against either candidate – only a seemingly infinite number of reasons to vote for each of them. Joseph and N??ez are both dedicated, enthusiastic Senators who will undoubtedly bring fresh ideas to the table. But, ultimately, Joseph better understands the role of TCU President: to be a negotiator. He is a person who can orchestrate change without alienating people in the process. His strategy of interacting with both the “experts” who know the most about the issues and those who will be most affected by university decisions is commendable, and is something Tufts should look for in a TCU president.  



Feature-Image_Place-HolderPRESLAWN
Opinion

Why I run with Rojo

I met Robert Joseph the fall of my freshman year. In both senses of the word, Robert is one of the best friends I have ever had - we are very close, but he is also one of the most loyal, genuine people I have ever met. I ache at the thought of taking him to Dewick because I know he will run into 20 students. He'll know all of their first and last names, majors and absolutely must have a conversation to ask how they're doing and how classes are going. And it's effortless. Robert doesn't work at memorizing facts and placing names with faces to advance himself in any way - he comes from a place of honest care and concern 100 percent of the time.


Feature-Image_Place-HolderPRESLAWN
Opinion

The reasons I run

Many aspects of Tufts' student life have changed since I first arrived here in the fall of 2010. I can no longer study at the REZQuad Caf? behind Miller, and my freshmen from Tufts Wilderness Orientation can only imagine the spectacle that was NQR. Our president is different, our gym is different and how Lewis Hall was not featured in an episode of "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" (2003-2012) surprises me to this day. As the proverbial book of my undergraduate career comes to a close, I am once again reminded just how fortunate I am: fortunate to be surrounded by my friends and my family; fortunate to have been given another opportunity to learn; and fortunate to have called this campus home for the past four years. In this home, one thing has certainly not changed, and that is the strength of our community. What comes next is a disjointed attempt to explain exactly why I feel so.


Feature-Image_Place-HolderTISCH
Opinion

The ethics of Gov. Chris Christie

In a recent public announcement, Randy Mastro, Gov. Chris Christie's hired attorney, said that the Governor was exonerated of any involvement in the George Washington Bridge scandal that occurred last September, in which lanes of the busiest commuter bridge in the United States were closed, thereby causing massive traffic congestion. This congestion caused so much gridlock that commuters couldn't commute to in New York and students were unable to attend school, among other problems. It is alleged that Gov. Christie (R -NJ) and members of his immediate staff executed the order to close the bridge to exact political retribution on the Mayor of Fort Lee, the town where one end of the George Washington Bridge is located, because he refused to endorse Christie in his recent re-election campaign. Other media personalities such as Rachel Maddow have questioned whether the Governor was looking to exact political revenge on the Mayor of Fort Lee or his outspoken critic in the State Senate, Democratic State Senator Loretta Weinberg. Officials who closed the bridge tried to defend the closures under the veil of a "traffic study," which was quickly proven to be a false claim. These allegations sparked the ongoing investigation of the State Assembly and the US Attorney's office in New Jersey into the office of Gov. Christie. Their investigations have reviewed thousands of documents and discovered a slew of strange memos and relationships within the Governor's office. If there's one legacy that has remained in the state of New Jersey throughout the decades, it has been a series of shady politics. Seriously, watch "The Sopranos" (1999-2007), "Boardwalk Empire" (2010-present) or "American Hustle" (2013), and you'll be reminded that New Jersey has long been a cross-section of political machines, organized crime and dark dealings. What makes Gov. Christie unique from past New Jersey corruption investigations is his "hide in plain sight" attitude throughout his executive term. He searches for expedient and often politically questionable solutions to any challenges to his authority. When an email was uncovered reading "Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee" Christie swiftly fired his staff members responsible for the email, thinking that people would respect his fast and powerful strike of the executive hammer. Christie also employed this tactic when the Legislative Committee began its investigation. He spent taxpayer dollars to open his own personal investigation with his personal law firm in the hopes that his quick initiative to find the answer himself would hush his confused and angry constituents. Of course, the report his private law firm produced came as no surprise, finding zero shreds of guilt for Christie even after they "reviewed" thousands of documents. This past week, a Superior Court judge ruled that Bridget Anne Kelly, Christie's chief of staff, and Bill Stepien, a New Jersey Port Authority official and Christie's high school buddy, both key characters in the Bridge scandal, did not have to release any documents to the State Assembly Legislative Committee in protection of their 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. The Governor may view this ruling as a victory, seeing as fewer incriminating documents need to be released, but it won't stop the investigations until the truth is uncovered. The Governor is well known across the state for silencing those who challenge his viewpoint, whether he ignores public discontent or quickly labels his dissenters, be they citizens or legislators, as "idiots" or other derogatory terms. Though he no longer serves as the US Attorney for New Jersey, his prosecutorial character has never left him when addressing his political opponents. They are the defendants, and he presents the case that they are, without a reasonable doubt, wrong. In another abuse of taxpayer dollars, Christie spent $24 million this past summer to hold two special elections for one of New Jersey's US Senate seats. His motivation for such an expense was to divide his gubernatorial election from the special Senate election where popular Democratic contender Cory Booker would have posed a threat to the Governor's vote count if the elections were held on the same day. He enacted his privilege through a haze of executive powers listed in the Constitution and state law to guarantee his own re-election in a majority Democratic state. Christie has exerted a dangerous control over the state's courts by instilling an aura of fear. Judges are afraid of making too "liberal" rulings in fear of being called out and potentially removed from the bench in place of a more favorably conservative judge appointed by Christie. This is also part of the reason why there is a surprising number of vacancies for judges throughout the state. Whether or not Christie himself was behind the order to close the George Washington Bridge is unclear. What is clear is his absolute neglect of his appointees and staff and his willingness to control the state's attention through his political bullying and quick fixes. Even if he were 100 percent uninvolved in the process of communication, which is highly unlikely, this scandal would mark a huge inconsistency with his micro-management style of governance. Former Governor of Pennsylvania Ed Rendell (D-Penn.) has publicly commented that Christie must run a reckless and opaque office to have his own chief of staff and other employees execute retribution of this scale without his knowledge or approval. Rendell says, "There is no way that eight people in my administration would be part of something and I wouldn't know about. There is no way they would dare do something like this without getting clearance from me."12


The Setonian
Opinion

Fixing the 'trick turning' glitch is sensible

The way students eat on campus is evolving, and we should embrace the change. After years of "trick turning," Tufts Dining will officially put an end to the glitch in the meal-swipe system that has allowed students on the Premium Meal Plan to go to Hodgdon after eating at either Carmichael or Dewick-MacPhie dining halls. In a press statement released on April 9, Tufts Dining said that the change was necessary, and that the Services Committee of the TCU Senate had been consulted about the change. The statement calls students "savvy" for tricking the system. A bug in the meal-swipe system enabled students on the Premium Meal Plan to "trick turn," and while it's very likely that administrators knew what was going on, it's also likely that the system's fault has finally become unsustainable. The reality is that students on the Premium Meal Plan pay for access to the dining halls or the Hodgdon's Good-to-Go Take Out for each meal, not both. This change may come as a surprise to those who were unaware that “trick turning” was a mistake, but we should embrace the change because the expense of cheating the system is not just paid for by freshmen on unlimited plans. Rather, the cost is spread out throughout the whole system, making every meal plan more expensive than it has to be. Additionally, this fall, students on the Premium Meal Plan will go from getting 10 guest meals to just four. According to the press release, students will instead get $80 in JumboCash to replace six of the previous 10 guest meals. Four meals is actually the average of number of guest meals used per semester. This is also a welcome change, as students will be able to use the $80 anywhere that uses JumboCash. Instead paying for and possibly wasting guest meals, students will be able to use JumboCash anywhere it is accepted, which is a more efficient solution. This change comes on the heels of the recently implemented late-night dining at the Commons and a new Kosher Deli. Tufts Dining offers nine different eating locations on campus, and while trick turning was a favorite for freshman students who are all on the Premium Meal Plan, next semester’s incoming students will get a fairer, more reasonable system. Because of "trick turning," the Good-to-Go Take Out has transformed from a place to get quick meals into a pseudo-market where students go to stockpile on food after eating at a dining hall. The decision to fix the glitch in the system has been long overdue. Our campus should embrace Tufts Dining's decision to make sure Hodgdon is used in the way it was intended, and we should support expanded dining options like the Commons' expanded hours and the new Kosher Deli.


The Setonian
Editorial

This is why we can't have nice things

The weekend late-night dining operation at the Commons in the Mayer Campus Center has rolled back its closing time from 2 a.m. to 1 a.m. in an apparent attempt to alleviate the stress placed on the facility and Tufts Dining Services (TUDS) employees by generally unruly and inebriated students in search of food.


Feature-Image_Place-HolderWINTER2
Opinion

Response to the last senate meeting

Many of us are aware that Tufts has a diverse international body on its campus. Over the last few months there has been debate over the creation of an International Community Representative in the Tufts Community Union Senate that would address issues that many, if not all, of the international students on campus face. Many of the arguments in favor of an IC Rep emphasized how international students are excluded from things like internships, job opportunities, financial aid and other material disadvantages. Although this argument is extremely valid, I was disappointed about how little of our oppression was discussed as intersecting identities. The international community often feels oppressed not only because of our identity as being international, but also because of other ascribed, attained or adopted identities that intersect with what some of the other centers represent.


The Setonian
Opinion

Relaying for a change

"Why do you Relay?" You may be surprised at how infrequently we, the Co-Chairs of Tufts Relay For Life, are asked this question. We Relay because we know cancer too well. In fact, all of Tufts knows cancer far too well. Whether you have watched a loved one struggle against cancer or simply been moved by the story of an acquaintance battling this disease, cancer has affected all of our lives in one very real way or another.


The Setonian
Opinion

TCU Senate deserves recognition for successes

The TCU Senate, which held its elections yesterday, has in the past faced an uphill battle against low turnout and attention to its policies, except for controversial matters such as the debates over the exemption policy for religious groups. While the results and turnout percentages for yesterday's election have yet to be released as this is being written, it's unlikely that the low turnout trend will have suddenly shifted. That being said, perhaps it is something that should, especially after the quality of work that the Senate has put in this past year.



The Setonian
Opinion

McCutcheon decision devastates campaign finance law

The United States Supreme Court yesterday chipped away further at campaign finance regulations and solidified its stance that political donations are equivalent to political speech, allowing individuals to donate more money to candidates and parties in an election cycle. The court’s opinion dangerously props the floodgates open even wider for money to influence federal elections less than seven months away from the 2014 midterm election. The court struck down the Federal Election Commission’s $48,600 limit on the total amount of money an individual can give to candidates collectively and its $74,600 limit on the total an individual can give to parties or PACs in an election cycle. While the court left the central regulations regarding donations to individual candidates in place, it has all but gutted the electoral reforms enacted post-Watergate via its rulings in Citizens United v. FEC (2010) and now in McCutcheon v. FEC. Counterintuitively, the McCutcheon ruling will likely bring some of the soft money funneled through Super PACs after 2010 back into the national party structure, empowering party leaders and tying them directly to big donors. By opening the door on unlimited direct contributions to national parties, the ruling benefits big donors the most. The ultra-wealthy can now bypass the shadowy PAC system and directly influence party leaders, ensuring their interests are more than represented. In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts argued only preventing the explicit corruption of politicians is a sufficient public interest for restricting political contributions corruption, not ensuring the integrity of government institutions or leveling the political playing field. Clearly, the time has come for a constitutional amendment process aimed at reforming campaign finance to begin. The Roberts court has cemented its stance that money is speech, and the individual candidate limit may be the next to fall. According to a June 2013 Gallup poll, nearly 79 percent of Americans would support limiting a congressional candidate’s fundraising and spending capabilities. The stance is effectively universal across demographic categories. Senators Tom Udall, Michael Bennet and Jon Tester have proposed a constitutional amendment to regulate the flow of money into electoral campaigns. With so much money betting against such an amendment, however, it’s unlikely one would come from Congress without significant external pressure. Americans should get behind a push for an amendment and reclaim the democracy from the highest bidder. With no help coming from the Roberts court, it is time for the American public to take democracy into its own hands and give it back to the people.


The Setonian
Editorial

We must do more to stop sexual assault, support victims

The Harvard Crimson this week published a first-person account of a student's on-campus sexual assault. The young woman, who wrote the piece in her dining hall seats away from her victimizer, said she lost herself after her attack, largely because of Harvard's inaction. 



The Setonian
Opinion

We're here because its happens here

Observed in April, Sexual Assault Awareness Month (SAAM) is an annual campaign designated to raise awareness about sexual assault and rape, and educate on how to prevent sexual violence. The 2014 SAAM campaign is particularly relevant to our campus, specifically because it focuses on healthy sexuality and young people. Whether you're a freshman just finding your fit on campus or a senior preparing to graduate and enter the "real world," this month is about promoting a healthy foundation for relationships, health and sexual violence prevention.


The Setonian
Editorial

Jumbos should keep an eye on local politics

Massachusetts State Representative Carl Sciortino, who represents the 34th Middlesex District, including parts of Medford and Somerville, announced that he is resigning, effective Friday, April 4, to become the executive director of the AIDS Action Committee of Massachusetts. Sciortino, a Tufts University Class of 2000 graduate and one of only seven openly LGBT members in the state legislature, has spent his nine years in office productively advocating, in true Tufts fashion, for changes aimed at achieving social and economic justice. For example, in 2012, Sciortino was a lead sponsor of the Transgender Equal Rights law, which guarantees legal protection against discrimination based on gender identity or expression in Massachusetts.


Op-ed submissions are an integral part of our connection with you, our readers. As such, we would like to clarify our guidelines for submitting op-eds and what you can expect from the process.

Read More
The Tufts Daily Crossword with an image of a crossword puzzle
The Print Edition
Tufts Daily front page