Opinion

Letter to the Editor

Occupy's spirit, if not its approach, still has a place on the Hill

The spirit of the Occupy movement may not be as visible, but it hasn't lost its teeth. The passion, energy, and spirit of grassroots protest and collective action is alive and evolving at Tufts, at least as evidenced by the numerous active movements that appear to be inspired by a more refined and focused strain of the Occupy agenda.

Letter to the editor

Winter Bash reconsidered

I have heard several accounts of this year's recent Winter Bash in which students say they loved the event. But unfortunately, I have heard many others in which students have expressed dismay and embarrassment at the behavior of their fellow Tufts students. I was there. I saw both.

Winter Bash behavior merits serious reflection

The description in Dean of Student Affairs Bruce Reitman'sop?ed of widespread student misconduct at Winter Bash-attendees urinating in the lobby of the Westin Copley Place Boston Hotel, vomiting on the floor, acting rudely toward hotel and university staff and, according to Reitman, requiring hospital treatment for intoxication - is appalling and unbecoming of the Tufts community.

Craig Frucht | Axes to Grind

Walker Bristol | Notes From the underclass | Fostering consent

T he piercing Boston cold didn't stop them: a cluster of vigilantes were rallying cheerfully alongside the buses shuttling people to Winter Bash, dancing and singing and belting, "Consent is sexy - date rape is not!"

Impeachment may be in order, but only as a lesson

 The impeachment papers filed by two Tufts Community Union (TCU) senators calling for the impeachment of TCU Treasurer Matthew Roy express in no uncertain terms both the extent to which Roy has allegedly violated the TCU Constitution and Treasury Procedures Manual and the punitive measures desired. The allegations against him are clear breaches of the constitution; attempting to influence an internal election and making defamatory statements against the Allocations Board (ALBO) members in what the proposal calls "an unprecedented address" should not be taken lightly. But nor should they be blown out of proportion to the detriment of the students and student groups that the Treasury and its members work with.

In response to Rev. Kepler

In response to interim University Chaplain Reverend Patricia Budd Kepler's quotes in the Feb. 6 Daily article "Tufts Christian Fellowship wavers in pursuit of exemption from non-discrimination policy", we, as members of the Coalition Against Religious Exclusion (CARE), would like to clarify why we oppose the Dec. 5 Committee on Student Life (CSL) ruling regarding student religious groups (SRGs).

Reclaiming my body: Sexual Violence at Tufts

Recent Debates Reaffirm Importance of Judiciary and CSL

TCF debacle needs new transparency, decisive action by CSL

The debate surrounding the right of Tufts Christian Fellowship (TCF) to claim exemption from the university's discrimination policy playing out over the past months has brought the campus to an impasse. Since the Tufts Community Union (TCU) Senate derecognized the group and the process moved through the Committee on Student Life (CSL), the onus will now, presumably, land on the Chaplaincy and the TCU Judiciary determine a proper and final solution. In creating this situation, the CSL has shirked its responsibility to be a helpful player in this increasingly stagnant issue. What the student body deserves now is a measure of transparency from both the CSL and TCF in their deliberations, as well as the kind of mature decision-making that recognizes the extent to which this affects the lives of Tufts students. One of the biggest roadblocks through the past few months has been an abject lack of clarity on the part of both TCF and CSL. TCF's constitution is written such that that it cannot enumerate or clarify what the group looks for in its leadership, because following the "tenets of faith" and striving to follow ideals of a religion are innately vague and based on personal belief. Yet this opens up the possibility of deciding upon candidates for leadership with opaque measurements that make it virtually impossible to prevent discrimination in the group. The vagueness of the rules is inherent to the functionality of the group, but also allows the problem to persist. Still, TCF should absolutely clarify what it looks for in its candidates in its constitution, as is required for all other recognized clubs, or face continued derecognition and defunding. The question of whether TCF's leadership requirements merit religious exemption from any nondiscrimination policy is a separate discussion to be had, apparently, with the Chaplaincy. But apart from becoming a more transparent, both TCF and CSL must respect the need for open dialogue. The CSL is also at fault because of its failure to engage the student body or relevant parties on what has become a contentious and complicated debate. The CSL's determination that the debate over recognition for TCF should go to the Chaplaincy and TCU Judiciary offered no direction and, indeed, put a student issue in the hands of an inherently biased, unelected group - the Chaplaincy - as opposed to the office that is meant to handle campus-wide student life, the CSL. The debate had already gone on too long for the CSL to have not offered more guidance. In what it likely fears as taking a stance of objectivity, the CSL rather has shirked its responsibilities and left the issue in limbo. Certainly, Tufts needs the representation of all kinds of voices - religious, secular, gay, straight, of all backgrounds and beliefs - to truly live up to the liberal arts education it attests to offer. TCF's ability to exist and practice, as a conservative Christian group on a secular liberal campus, is as important to our mission as other centers or groups of all stripes are. Still, the tension revolving around questions of rights, morality and sexuality is not impossible to resolve. At the end of the day, what Tufts needs is equality of voices and people, together. It remains to be seen whether any religious group will take the opportunity offered to them by the CSL's policy, and the leadership of the Chaplaincy also appears to be on the verge of a change. If and when the Chaplaincy does take the responsibility handed to them by the CSL - the responsibility of essentially deciding a religious group's doctrine for it - they will need to do so with a steady and objective mindset, remaining critical of the CSL's actions. We expect nothing less of the Judiciary should TCF or any religious group apply for TCU recognition having been granted this exception. Given the difficult situation in which the CSL has placed each party, they should take a critical look at TCF's constitution as it stands and evaluate whether such a document has a place in a Senate-recognized organization. If TCF refuses to amend it to be more specific or less exclusionary in its wording, they should not be granted exemption or recognition, clear and simple. At the end of the day, however, standing still only widens a growing gulf between a needed part of our community and the misinformed student body.

Walt Laws-MacDonald | Show Me The Money

Oh, the fiscal cliff? That thing Congress was totally going to take care of before the deadline, atoning for that time they said they were totally going to take care of the debt ceiling before the deadline. Guess what? No, don't even guess, just assume: it didn't happen on time. Thank you Republicans - I mean, Democrats - I mean, Obama - I mean ... Commies? I understand why putting together a deal did not happen in the timeliest manner. I had preached for months that this was the most important political issue that our nation faced this year- and then two shocking tragedies struck the country, barely a month apart. First, Hurricane Sandy destroyed thousands of homes along the East Coast, causing billions of dollars of damage and leaving entire neighborhoods with no place to live, just as temperatures began to drop below freezing for most of the Northeast. With many families still reeling from the aftermath of Sandy, tragedy struck again - this time in an even more unthinkable, heartbreaking way. The country went into full crisis mode again, after a mentally-ill gunman murdered more than two dozen elementary school students and teachers in Newtown, Conn. The event moved President Obama to tears in his press conference, and, like all events of this kind, left the country asking how anyone could do such a thing, or more importantly, how we could allow such a thing to happen. Suddenly - and, rightfully so - the fiscal cliff was no longer the most important issue Congress needed to work on. Sandy relief efforts, gun control, and mental health services jumped to the forefront of every politician's mind. No one wants to be the one to say "Hey, I know millions of people are suffering right now, but can we talk about the economy for a sec?" And so, the fiscal cliff momentarily fell to the back of everyone's mind. And yet, despite the seemingly one-sided, unassailable arguments - the areas hit by Sandy need federal aid; we do not need assault rifles with 20-round magazines - Congress inevitably turned both issues into questions about party politics and what our founding fathers would say. It seems that every issue in contemporary American politics has been polarized to the point that if you know where the Republicans stand, you can assume that the Democrats stand on exactly the opposite side - and vice-versa. Sandy relief is no longer about getting money to families in need, but about stopping reckless spending and "pork" money. Gun control is no longer about making our towns and cities safer, but rather Second Amendment rights and authoritarian government. Let me set the record straight: Congress is spending too much, and tougher gun laws will not necessarily stop gun violence. But to look at these two horrific events, see the suffering they have caused, and then turn around and say, "Now we have some real power," is truly ludicrous. And that is why Congress cannot get anything done: they do not debate, they fight. The fiscal cliff, Sandy relief, and gun control talks produced such vitriolic comments from both sides of the aisle that I find it hard to believe Congress ever agrees on anything. I want to trust Congress, because America is still great; indebted, pugnacious, and perhaps a little bit crazy, but great. But they must learn to think outside their party lines. So if any of you Jumbos make it to the Hill - and I hope many of you do - do not pull this sort of crap. And maybe balance the budget while you're there.

Craig Frucht | Axes to grind

No, divestment isn't enough - but it's a crucial first step

Jonathan Green | Drug Justice

When Washington Staterstoked up some legal doobies in December, Americans celebrated the first time since 1937, when the federal government criminalized cannabis possession, that a state attempted to legalize marijuana.

Letter from the Editor

When TCF debate ends, CARE still has a place

Senior Nights not the place to look for discrimination

The complaint leveraged against Senior Class Council Senior Night venues that restrict attendance to students of legal drinking age is an unnecessary debate and, while it might have a basis in reason, it stretches the concept of discrimination too thin.

2 Chainz for Spring Fling

Tufts, allow me to state my most controversial opinion: I think the best headliner that Spring Fling 2013 could offer us is one TauheedEpps, better known by his current moniker, 2 Chainz.