Opinion

What's so very wrong with 'Israeli Apartheid Week'

I think I first heard the phrase Israeli Apartheid" when I was a sophomore here at Tufts. It wasn't something I had ever heard before, and I'll admit that I was taken aback. That's an understatement: I was repulsed. Comparing the struggle of Israelis and Palestinians over ancient lands and modern dreams was, to my mind, nothing like the blatant denial of human dignity to which South Africa subjected a subset of its own population on the basis of skin color. To appropriate the struggle of blacks in South Africa to demonize the state of Israel disgusted me.

What Senate actually did

Dear Members of the Tufts Community Union,For the past year I have had the distinct honor of serving as your Tufts Community Union (TCU) president. I came to you last April with an upbeat attitude, an open heart and an ambitious agenda that reflected my values. This agenda was not left to sit on a shelf ...

Points of consideration - gaming rank voting

Those without a Birthright

We are writing this piece as six students who identify as Palestinian. We were born into different religions: Christianity, Islam, Judaism and atheism, although none of this should matter. What matters is that all of us identify as Palestinian because our parents and/or our grandparents (and generations ...

Reflecting on gridlock

Last summer's extended stymied action in the United States House of Representatives (113th Congress) was ludicrous as an example of representative democracy, and embarrassing to America's worldwide reputation; but it wasn't a unique instance in America's 226-year history. For a historical parallel, we need only refer to the 51st Congress of January 1890, when the newly elected Speaker of the House was Thomas Brackett Reed, Republican from the first district of Maine. Back then, the obstructing faction was the Democrats, mostly from the South, who opposed federal legislation designed to safeguard the right of Negroes to vote. The Republicans commanded a bare majority of 168 to 160, and the quorum - the number required to be present to do business under the rules of the House - was agreed to be 165.During a vote on a controversial measure, every Democrat without exception refused to answer the roll call, and thereby claimed the lack of a quorum. Speaker Reed ruled that a quorum was present, notwithstanding the Democrats' refusal to reply when their names were called. The parliamentary battle that followed was of the utmost stridency and lasted three days, until all absent Republicans could be summoned back to the House for the deciding vote, which came in at 166-0.

The two-state solution: necessary, just, possible

An opinion on opinions

Greenwashing

Just seven miles away in Waltham lies the corporate office of Spectra Energy, a company that extracts natural gas, refines it and pumps it throughout the U.S. Natural gas has been billed as a clean alternative to other fossil fuels. According to Spectra, natural gas is the cleanest burning conventional fuel," and as such the company is "committed to making sustainable choices... [and to] represent[ing] the best in economic, environmental and social values and practices." Unfortunately, natural gas's image as a "clean" source of energy has not proven true. Methane, the primary greenhouse gas emitted in natural gas extraction and combustion, is about 85 times as potent as carbon dioxide in its contribution to climate change (over a 20 year period).

I'm an English major who might be the assistant director of marketing

There's a myth out there that a degree in the humanities is a ticket to post-graduation employment behind a fast-food counter. As shown in a Tufts Daily article published last week, we've begun cultivating another myth that humanities and English majors in particular are only eligible to become journalists, teachers or publishers. The idea that English majors might understand something like (*gasp*) business has, apparently, become ludicrous.

Maciejewski for Tufts: a sensible vote

Joey service warrants improvements

While it may be the butt of jokes, the Joey is a very important part of life on the Hill, especially as the temperature drops. The Joey provides students with a quick and warm ride to Davis Square and back, allowing safe passage to the Davis Square T Stop, restaurants, convenience stores and everything else that Davis has to offer. That is, the Joey provides safe passage when it actually comes on time.

Looking at Kagame in context, and why democracy is a privilege

This past month, Tufts invited President Paul Kagame of Rwanda to speak. After President Kagame’s lecture, an op-ed was submitted to the Daily criticizing the university for giving him a platform on our campus. The article — written by Alex Gladstein and published on April 24 — was one-sided in a way that is detrimental to any attempt at a complete discussion about the country and President Kagame's leadership. When analyzing Rwanda, it is necessary to look at the country's history. An open political space is a privilege of countries without legitimate worries about the takeover of genocidal ideology. It is true that, under President Kagame's leadership, there have been massive human rights violations. The Rwandan Patriotic Front takeover in 1994, while not genocide, did result in great casualties and war crimes, and the subsequent invasion of Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo) was similarly tainted. There is not complete freedom of speech in the country, nor is there space for dissenting political opinions. Rwanda is not a full and thriving democracy, but 20 years after the genocide, can it be? Twenty years ago, Rwanda was destroyed. After the genocide, in the wake of an unprecedented judicial backlog, ruined infrastructure and endless trauma, the country needed strong leadership. Today, that leadership is still needed. A 2010 survey showed that 39.9 percent of Rwandans agreed with this statement: "Although it is against the law, some Rwandans would try to commit genocide again, if conditions were favorable." I am not saying this to give President Kagame a free pass for political oppression, but for some people to slam the quelling of free speech without contextualizing the issue is rash and ill-advised. It is true that only two questions during the Q&A session were "hard-hitting," and those questions were important and deserve space in a discussion. But why delegitimize questions about economic development and regional and continental integration? Rwanda, while still an incredibly impoverished country, has seen notable economic growth. Eighty percent of firms in Rwanda were started between 2006 and 2011, and the country continues to attract foreign investment by being the safest country in the region. President Kagame is vocal about wanting to move the country away from dependence on foreign aid, and Vision 2020, an economic plan for Rwanda, hopes to make the nation a middle-income economy in the next six years. It is not a given that these goals will be accomplished, but it's worth talking about. In the face of a devastated economy in 1994, Rwanda needed a forceful leader. It was under President Kagame's leadership that the country has had such notable achievements. Only 20 years ago, the country needed to completely rebuild — basic necessities, like food and shelter, were prioritized. It is unreasonable to assume that a country where people struggled to survive is capable of implementing a democracy. President Kagame is not comparable to former president of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. If we are going to start clumping together all leaders who have committed human rights abuses, we should add many United States presidents and other democratic leaders to the list. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has issued a Cessation Clause for Rwandan refugees, essentially saying that it should be safe for all Rwandan refugees to return to the country and that Rwanda wants them back. This is indicative of the strides the country has taken to reconstruct the security and human rights status of the nation. President Kagame's actions must be contextualized by the real security threat Rwanda faces from political opponents and genocide deniers. Making radical comparisons does nothing to contribute to a conversation about why Rwanda might need a more authoritarian regime. I did not write this to minimize the many problems with the Rwandan government, but I do think it is necessary to take into consideration the context of Rwanda before hitting President Kagame with un-contextualized criticism. Twenty years ago, Rwanda was in the midst of genocide. Democracy does not happen overnight, and political freedom is a privilege. If we are going to make a space at Tufts for a discussion about Rwanda as it is today, then it must include both the criticism and an understanding of Rwandan society. Rwanda is still healing. The effects of the genocide are still relevant, and that must be taken into consideration when understanding the country today. I'm excited to have a dialogue about Rwanda on campus, but if it is not holistic, it will be unproductive.

Why college should not be the best time of your life

College is not the best time of your life, nor should it be. College is four years of hardship and struggle. We leave the forge of high school life to find ourselves in the crucible. Many students arrive and burn out within the first year, myself included. However, I had a realization: I was not ready ...

Engineering Mentorship Program is improvement on Tufts advising

Freshmen often enter college with vague ideas of what they want to study and have even more malleable ambitions for their future careers. With every semester of navigating academia, and with every mistake made and lesson learned, students fine-tune their interests in search of a major and, ultimately, a life path. The advice of upperclassmen, whose one or two years of seniority represent an innumerable quantity of wisdom, is an invaluable resource for their underclassmen counterparts. It is with this in mind that two juniors, John and Michael Kenny, founded the Tufts Engineering Mentorship Program, a group whose mission is to connect freshmen and sophomore engineering students with juniors and seniors who have similar goals and can offer their experiences to the benefit of both the mentee and the mentor. These partnerships would be assembled not just on a basis of shared interests, but on a basis of real compatibility, with the ultimate goal of providing underclassmen with a mentor with whom they feel comfortable on both an academic and personal level. Just introduced this school year, the program capped its membership at 70 students, but is looking to expand. While this student initiative should be widely praised, it raises an unavoidable question: Why does a program like this seem so necessary? Is the university doing enough to offer support and guidance to underclassmen? So little emphasis is placed on pre-major advising that incoming freshmen have relatively no say in the adviser to whom they are assigned. Students interested in biology, French and peace and justice studies may all be advisees under the same faculty member, perhaps a philosophy professor who only recently began teaching at Tufts. It is no wonder that freshmen often feel as if they are left to navigate the system on their own, guided only by unreliable snippets of advice and word-of-mouth suggestions about which classes to take. Yes, the first year of undergraduate education is a time to explore potential fields of study and take the classes that pique one's interest, but there are some requirements and advisable academic choices that cannot be ignored. Students should feel comfortable meeting with and seeking the guidance of their pre-major advisers, and should not feel as if they are only in place to offer logistical suggestions about how to fulfill foundation and distribution requirements. Peer mentorship programs should be helpful, but not necessary. Instead, the university should make changes to the existing pre-major adviser assignment system. This could be accomplished with a solution as simple as allowing incoming freshmen to select an adviser in their preferred area of study. While peer mentorships are a partial solution to problems presented by the current advising system, making changes to the system itself should be a university priority to help underclassmen find their paths in a timely, organized fashion.

Letter to the Editor

To the Editor, The Daily article from April 23 entitled "External influences impact TCU election" raises the question: who exactly is "external" to the process of electing the TCU President? The influences discussed in the article are Generic Candidate, the creation of Tufts junior Ben Kurland, and posters made by Tufts senior Evan Moulson. TCU Parliamentarian Brian Tesser was quoted as saying, in reference to Generic Candidate, "I think that it could have kind of swayed votes in a way that they shouldn't have been swayed. It was coming from something that, in my opinion, wasn't credible because no one was tying themselves to it." In the same article, N??ez's campaign manager Hannah Deegan referred to Generic Candidate as an "outside force [which] came in and sort of changed" the positive campaigns both candidates were running. Everyone must come to his or her own conclusion as to how much credibility to afford anonymous speech, which begs the question: May Generic Candidate's critique be judged on its merits now that Kurland has taken ownership of it? But how should votes be swayed? Implicit in Tesser and Deegan's words, and in the article's headline, is the idea that legitimate discussion of the election must simply weigh the candidates against one another, never questioning the fundamental premises of their campaigns. The fact that people involved with TCU Senate, presidential campaigns and the Daily take this attitude only underscores the validity of Moulson's claim, in his op-ed of April 23, that "the nominating process is designed to stifle dissent and unpopular views." Moulson and Kurland are current Tufts students; their views should be no more "external" to the campaign process than, for instance, those of a Senator or campaign manager. Moulson's other major point in his op-ed, that "TCU Senate is, for all its bluster, very limited in its power," also ran through many of Generic Candidate's strongest pieces of satire. Here I disagree slightly with Moulson's proposed solution. Rather than investing TCU Senate with the powers held by the Committee on Student Life, I'm inclined to think we should ignore presidential candidates' promises to take actions that far exceed the scope of their office and instead focus more on elections for the CSL itself. In any case, Moulson's and Kurland's criticisms of electoral campaigns at Tufts ought not to be dismissed simply because they are "external" to the messages of sanctioned candidates for office. Sincerely, Sam Duncan Class of 2016

Letter to the Editor

To the Editor, The Daily article from April 23 entitled "External influences impact TCU election" raises the question: who exactly is "external" to the process of electing the TCU President? The influences discussed in the article are Generic Candidate, the creation of Tufts junior Ben Kurland, and posters made by Tufts senior Evan Moulson. TCU Parliamentarian Brian Tesser was quoted as saying, in reference to Generic Candidate, "I think that it could have kind of swayed votes in a way that they shouldn't have been swayed. It was coming from something that, in my opinion, wasn't credible because no one was tying themselves to it." In the same article, N??ez’s campaign manager Hannah Deegan referred to Generic Candidate as an "outside force [which] came in and sort of changed" the positive campaigns both candidates were running. Everyone must come to his or her own conclusion as to how much credibility to afford anonymous speech, which begs the question: May Generic Candidate's critique be judged on its merits now that Kurland has taken ownership of it? But how should votes be swayed? Implicit in Tesser and Deegan's words, and in the article's headline, is the idea that legitimate discussion of the election must simply weigh the candidates against one another, never questioning the fundamental premises of their campaigns. The fact that people involved with TCU Senate, presidential campaigns and the Daily take this attitude only underscores the validity of Moulson's claim, in his op-ed of April 23, that "the nominating process is designed to stifle dissent and unpopular views." Moulson and Kurland are current Tufts students; their views should be no more "external" to the campaign process than, for instance, those of a Senator or campaign manager. Moulson's other major point in his op-ed, that "TCU Senate is, for all its bluster, very limited in its power," also ran through many of Generic Candidate's strongest pieces of satire. Here I disagree slightly with Moulson's proposed solution. Rather than investing TCU Senate with the powers held by the Committee on Student Life, I'm inclined to think we should ignore presidential candidates' promises to take actions that far exceed the scope of their office and instead focus more on elections for the CSL itself. In any case, Moulson's and Kurland's criticisms of electoral campaigns at Tufts ought not to be dismissed simply because they are "external" to the messages of sanctioned candidates for office. Sincerely, Sam Duncan Class of 2016

Free the T

When I first toured Tufts, the view from the library roof made me want to come here. It sounds shallow, but it's true. I had finished my informal look at campus and was heading back to my car when I decided to stop on what I would come to know as the best spot at Tufts. From there, I could pick out the familiar Boston landmarks. It was getting dark, and over the distance, it looked like some modernist holiday display: towers strung with lights, pushing up against the darkened sky. It's still a point of pride for me that I can take my out-of-towner friends up there and give them a visual tour of the city from afar, saying to them, "We can go there, soon." There's a subtle trick at play in that phrasing, though. We are able to go there, in a loose sense. We are able to wait for the Joey or trek down to the Davis Square T stop; we are able to sit on the train, take it all the way across the river. But we can only do all those things if we have the time, the money and the will required to put the easy campus entertainment aside and burst the infamous "Tufts bubble." As much as I hate to admit it, up on the Tisch Library roof, there are significant barriers between pointing at Boston from afar and actually going there. This is, of course, a shame. Boston, for all its petty provincialism and much-maligned early bedtime (the T shuts down at 1 a.m. on the weekdays), is a beautiful, vibrant city. It is worth pointing out that there are over 250,000 college students in Boston and Cambridge alone; that count doesn't include geographical outliers like Tufts, or Boston College or the schools connected to Boston by commuter rail. It is essentially a mega-sized college town, with all the wonderful weirdness that entails. With this many students in one relatively small area, there will never be a shortage of culture, entertainment or fun ways to waste time. The only problem for Tufts students is getting there. This is the reason that I support bringing the U-Pass program to Tufts, and why I joined the Tufts Transit Coalition: to make that goal a reality. There are countless reasons to support the program: Using public transportation is environmentally friendly, an influx of students into Boston would encourage the T to stay open later, the increased T revenues from wide adoption of the U-Pass could lead to a similar program for local high schools, thus increasing opportunity for those students ... the list of benefits goes on and on. For me, though, the most important thing is that the U-Pass would make Boston accessible. A university-subsidized pass providing unlimited T rides at a deeply discounted price would allow every Tufts student freedom of movement. Freshmen like me would be able to expand and enrich our college experience immeasurably with such a program. Instead of standing on the Tisch roof, pointing at places we may never be able to visit, my friends and I could stand there and make plans. This reason — simple freedom to expand my world — is why I support the TTC and U-Pass. You may not share my reasons, and I don't expect you to. The other TTC members and I don't even expect you to immediately jump on our bandwagon. There are so many reasons to support this program — I haven't yet been to a meeting of the group where two people voiced the exact same motivations for their support. Ask me questions, if you want. Ask any one of us questions. We've been lucky to see such strong support from the Tufts community so far, including from newly elected TCU President Robert Joseph. However, ceasing our efforts now won't help anyone. So, keep the U-Pass in mind over the summer and into the fall. I ask you simply to think over the reasons to free the T and open up the city. To sit on the doorstep of a city like Boston is a wondrous thing. Why would we not knock and enter?

Peace starts with us

    The misplaced focus of Israeli-Palestinian dialogue both on campus and nationwide is  disappointing and deplorable.      While it is embarrassing that Israeli leaders have thus far been unable to grant the Palestinians their own state, and it is shameful how Israel has, at times, treated Palestinians and other non-Jews both within its borders and across the Green Line, those with a sincere desire to bring about a better future for the Palestinian people should be vociferous and aggressive in advancing the current negotiations for a two-state solution, rather than solely demonizing Israel. As rational and judicious students we must ensure that the separation between healthy criticism of the Israeli government's policies and offensive attempts at the delegitimization of Israel's very existence remains intact.      If Israel expects continued support from human rights and democracy-valuing Americans, its violations must be addressed. That being said, intimidating rhetoric - which defined anti-Israel expression on campus in early March - only tells us that the participants are averse to engaging in dialogue and unwilling to respect alternative perspectives, narratives and histories.      These actions also deter us from the more immediate issue of the negotiations that has been hardly touched upon on campus. After years of political stalemate, United States Secretary of State John Kerry has overcome incredible obstacles to bring the Israelis and Palestinians back to the negotiating table. Now that these talks have hit an impasse, we, as Americans, must funnel our energies into supporting the continuing of negotiations. With little time remaining until the April 29 negotiations deadline, now - while we still have the chance - is the time to join a struggling Kerry in the "great constituency for peace" that he has asked of us and to affirm our country's stance on the issue.      Maintaining the status quo between Israeli and the Palestinians is unsustainable for both sides. For Israel, its democratic, egalitarian character is on the line. Also facing increasing international threats of isolation, it is gambling with a future as a pariah state. Slowly being dissolved by ever-growing Israeli settlements and led by an aging Abbas, Palestine would sacrifice the sole peaceful means of achieving sovereignty. Should the peace talks collapse, both sides of the Green Line would certainly face further despair - or worse.     Altering the present dynamic into a single, bi-national state is an unachievable delusion and a recipe for disaster. What reason do we have to believe such a state could avoid the type of divisive inter-ethnic conflict that has ravaged nearby Lebanon, Syria and Iraq? Only through two states for the two peoples can both the Israelis and the Palestinians set the foundations for productive futures. Both the Jewish people and the Palestinian people have valid desires for self-determination that must be recognized. Though their histories are vastly divergent, the two nations experienced their formative years in the same Judean cradle and trace back to the same prehistoric Canaanite tribes. Both can rightly be called indigenous to the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. Their differing evolutions over the millennia, however, have produced two separate nations that both maintain deep and interconnected historical claims to that land. Like all of the other ethnic movements for self-determination that have defined the modern era, the wills of the Jewish and Palestinian peoples deserve to come to fruition.     Despite attempts on either side, the tragic histories of both cannot be erased. Only through painful compromises can the Palestinians be given a tangible, cohesive territory on which to build a state, as well as letting Israel have its own legitimate security claims guaranteed. Roughly two-thirds of Israelis are willing to forfeit sovereignty over much of Judaism's birthplace, the West Bank. The Palestinians must acknowledge that a massive influx into Israel proper is just as unacceptable as Jewish settlement expansion in the West Bank, as it would lead to Israel's demise. Kerry offers an unprecedented and vital non-partisan approach to such difficult issues. Not supporting his initiative is forfeiting one of the last true opportunities for a two-state solution - it equates to not really supporting peace at all. And peace is the only form of justice for all.     For the experts invested in this conflict, it is not only clear what has to happen for peace to occur, it is formulaic: borders based on those of pre-1967, dividing Jerusalem and making land swaps. It is also clear that, to this day, the United States has not been willing to pay the political price necessary to bring about two states. Are all of us students invested in this conflict doing what we can to push the U.S. to make that leap? No side wants the status quo - the state of "limbo" between one and two states - to persist for another generation. And no one wants to see Israel inch down the path towards apartheid.     It is easy to give in to emotions. It is easy to dwell on Israel's violations against Palestinians and other non-Jews. But it is far from practical to avoid advocating for a two-state solution altogether.     Now is not the time to be fueling hatred and intensifying polarization. We, as Tufts students invested in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, must channel our hopes and frustrations toward something truly productive. Join us at J Street U in voicing support for Secretary Kerry's tireless and remarkable efforts. Help in bringing the dreams of both nations closer to true fruition through a negotiated settlement that would allow all to enjoy the rights of peace, recognition and security.     We invite you to join us next semester for bi-monthly inclusive, pragmatic and values-driven conversations.

Why does Tufts want rapists on its campus?

Trigger warning: This article discusses sexual assault and rape.Have you ever had that feeling, after walking alone off-campus late at night, when you finally cross onto campus you feel a bit safer? I remember that feeling. I also remember when I stopped feeling that sense of security. I remember when ...

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 ...