Opinion

Opinion

We're getting a little carried away

April 20

In light of the April 9 alleged bias incident on this campus, Will Ehrenfeld's April 14 column ("Alleging bias") has prompted an outcry of opposition on TuftsDaily.com. His argument, that the actual bias aspect of the event is exaggerated, was aggressively criticized, mostly by people who feel his opinion on what constitutes "bias" is invalidated by his status as a heterosexual, white male. As someone who has never met Will Ehrenfeld but supports the rights of all people, heterosexual white males included, I think dismissing his opinion based on his sexual orientation, race and gender is hilariously asinine, and doing so underscores the overall immaturity manifested by the Tufts community's response to the event.

---

Opinion

April 9, 2009 bias incident

April 15

The alleged bias incident of April 9, 2009 involving the Korean Students Association and a student whose name has not been released is a subject of controversy because it leaves many members of our Tufts community divided; some may feel this is a case of racism and discrimination while others may feel this is a case of reverse racism and discrimination.

---

Opinion

Response to 'Stuff Tufts People Like: Alleging bias'

April 15

We are sorry as well, Will Ehrenfeld, that the existence of the Korean Students Association (KSA) and its organization of a cultural show gave one of our classmates the perfect opportunity to allegedly carry out a racist act. This connects to the piece you wrote on April 7 entitled "Cliques" about your discomfort with groups that don't quite fit into the image of Tufts you have in mind. Let's think for a moment about what the Tufts community named in your "Stuff Tufts People Like" article looks like. For instance, in "Cliques" you stress that Tufts students want to belong to an oppressed group. Doesn't this formulation exclude those of us who are already members of oppressed groups? Or does it say something even more off base -- that we, minorities, especially covet our social distinction? Well, we think the Tufts you envision is the Tufts you experience as a straight-identified white male from Connecticut with self-identified mainstream, liberal political views.

---

Opinion

Somerville negligent in racial profiling case

April 15

When the Somerville police stopped six Latino Somerville High School students on their way home from school last month and wrongly accused them of being gang members, a situation that led to allegations of violent acts committed against the students, the city of Somerville reacted to what was believed to be a case of racial profiling. But in its quest for answers, the city only raised more questions.

---

Editorial

Solving the piracy problem

April 14

    Over the past week, the news has been peppered with reports of ships of all different countries of origin and a diverse range of cargo being hijacked off the coast of Somalia by bands of pirates. While that may conjure up the image of an eyeliner-sporting Johnny Depp and a recognizable Hans Zimmer score, the Somali pirates have become a serious threat to the safety of ships and crews en route from Asia to Europe and North America via the Suez Canal. Although President Obama has vowed to combat the piracy and is considering shipping envoys accompanied by naval gunships for protection or using the navy to locate and attack the pirate "mother ships," this only serves to address the symptom of a much larger issue that is going almost entirely ignored by the rest of the world.     Most pirates, both historically and currently, are in the business for plunder and profit. There is no doubt that the Somali pirates have made profits, raking in an estimated $150 million last year alone. The pirates, however, say their actions are not motivated by material gains. The pirates say that their actions are a direct reaction to the exploitation of unprotected Somali waters after the government's virtual collapse following the civil war during the 1990s. Foreign fishing vessels regularly fish clandestinely for yellowfin tuna off the Somali coasts, and many countries have seen fit to dump toxic chemicals and waste into Somali waters. With secessionist sentiments rampant in many of the nations that comprise Somalia, more authority is wielded by local officials and tribal leaders than by the internationally recognized central government, leaving it as powerless to bring an end to pirate attacks as it is to stop international abuses of Somali waters.     The internal political situation and the role of many of the "victimized" countries in creating the current situation in Somalia seems, however, to have escaped the notice of those who are currently attempting to "fix" the problem, including the United States. Naval actions and private guards on commercial shipping vessels may protect the interests of the countries and companies whose ships are the focus of the attacks — some of which are illegally in Somali waters. But these actions do absolutely nothing to address the actual issues: resentment over international abuses, a broken and dysfunctional government and tribal desires for secession. If nothing else, the United States' defense of the countries that have long been exploiting Somalia's weakness will create even more resentment and make the pirates even more determined to continue their actions — in reaction to a joint U.S.-French rescue mission on Friday that left five of their own dead, the pirates captured two ships today and took a total of 60 hostages.     The international community, and specifically the United States, needs to look beyond its own commercial interests and recognize that combating the symptom of the problem is not a viable long-term solution. They need to acknowledge the validity of the pirates' concerns and work with Somalia to establish control of its waters and surrounding countries to prevent further abuses as opposed to fighting fire with fire and augmenting the severity of the situation.

---

Opinion

New season, same argument

April 14

Imagine you are sitting down to lunch, eating your favorite dining hall meal and you opened up The Tufts Daily to read about the latest happenings on campus April 7. After skimming the headlines, you settle on a column entitled "Cliques." As you read the article, it becomes clear that it is not about "cliques," but rather the writer's dissatisfaction with the Group of Six and the university's attempt to promote diversity. Unfortunately, Will Ehrenfeld failed at expressing this idea, by instead claiming that the Dean of Student Affairs pushes self-segregation on the student body.

---

---

Opinion

From the Public Editor | Impartially reporting bias

April 14

On Monday, The Tufts Daily led with an article detailing an incident in which a student allegedly assaulted members of the Korean Student Association (KSA) with racial slurs and, eventually, physical violence. The name of the student was withheld, and he was referred to throughout as simply "the freshman." His identity, at least for now and for most, remains a secret. Before I explore the Daily's choice to grant him this anonymity, I want to pose a question: Why do such bias incidents seem to capture the campus' imagination, spur action and inflame opinions?

---

Opinion

Regarding cliques

April 13

As a gay, black male from Connecticut, I have to say I was disconcerted by Will Ehrenfeld's April 7 "Stuff Tufts People Like" column, entitled "Cliques." Half-expecting an exposé on a resurging epidemic of "Mean Girls" (2004), I was surprised by what I read. He starts the column out recounting his curiosity at the messages from Group of Six Centers that appeared next to his "painstakingly" crafted name tags. He decides not to pass judgment on their presence since he felt that he cannot identify with, which I will read as an inability to sympathize with, these groups. Fair enough, as some people never learn how to sympathize. Our Daily- (and self-) appointed expert goes on to announce that Tufts people love belonging to minority groups, particularly a group "that at one point" — apparently during some distant, far-gone era — "has been discriminated against." He calls this a "thirst for victimhood," which, despite his hefty searches, as a straight white male from Connecticut he finds himself, to his mock disappointment, excluded.

---

Opinion

Zach Drucker and Chris Poldoian | Bad Samaritans

April 13

Gone are the days of the burly, strapping, macho heroes like Tom Cruise, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone. Now, America appreciates the goofy, awkward, out-of-shape protagonists like Jonah Hill, Seth Rogen and Jason Segel. Okay, Segel's not out of shape per se, but the man wore Uggs to the beach in "I Love You, Man" (2009). Need we say more? This recent transition from brawny to scrawny has swept the country due to the efforts of one producer/writer/director/god of the harvest: Judd Apatow. Apatow's characters may not be weightlifters, but they have the only muscle that matters: heart.     Apatow's humble beginnings came in television, where he worked on NBC's "Freaks and Geeks." The show featured Rogen and Segel in all their pimply, teenaged glory. Unfortunately, the series was simply too smart for its own good and was cancelled after one season. Both Segel and Rogen had dropped out of high school, thinking that "Freaks" was their golden ticket to the land of milk and honey. With their floundering futures on his conscience, Apatow decided to place the boys in his movies.     This past month has seen the release of Apatow-less films starring two of his comedic prodigies, each to differing levels of success.     Jason Segel's "I Love You, Man" has already garnered $58 million in four weeks and thrives off of its bromantic humor and Apatowian qualities. Apatowian-influenced films like "Knocked Up" (2007), "40-Year-Old Virgin" (2005) and "Superbad" (2007) all have raunchy exteriors with deep friendships, character-driven plots and witty dialogue. The best scenes in "I Love You, Man" have the instantly quotable banter between Rudd and Segel. When you watch this movie, you can easily picture yourself having the same conversation with your BFF. Rudd and Segel's onscreen chemistry holds together the movie's relatively flimsy plot. While you won't find Apatow's name in the credits, there's no denying his influence on this comedy.     Seth Rogen's "Observe and Report" (2009), on the other hand, focuses on one character: an unlikable mall cop. There are no chummy, buddy-buddy scenes. Instead, we get date rape, beatdowns and tasers. The movie is so dark and transgressive that one often wonders how it even got a mainstream release. We don't mind the pitch-black humor and mean-spiritedness of Rogen's new film. In all honesty, we enjoyed seeing Travis Bickle shine through Rogen's portrayal of the bipolar Ronnie Barnhardt, but judging by its $11 million opening weekend performance, it looks like "Report" will be as fiscally flaccid as "Zack and Miri Make a Porno" (2008).     Apatow may have paved the way for young actors like Rogen and Segel, but he also holds the key to their success. As soon as they stray from the Apatovian formula, these actors lose their appeal.     We know that actors should always strive to be multifaceted and flexible. But take a look at Dennis Quaid. He has been playing the "wise, middle-aged dad who is just reaching the end of his prime, but still sort of has sex appeal if you are into the whole male cougar thing" role for his entire life. And our boy is still making bank.     Anyway, we have words of advice for Apatow's disciples: stay within your element. Currently, Apatovian comedies are some of the most financially successful and critically acclaimed films out there, so why ruin a good thing? If Seth Rogen wants to continue voicing CG characters named Hogsqueal and B.O.B., that's fine by us. Otherwise, maybe Apatow and Rogen's upcoming 2009 collaboration "Funny People" will help Rogen hop back on the Apatovian bandwagon for good.

---

Opinion

I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore

April 13

The recent decision by the Tufts Community Union (TCU) Senate to fund construction of a new Trips Cabin in New Hampshire has caused a good deal of controversy around campus. Some members of the Tufts community support the project; many oppose it.

---

Opinion

Not-so-appealing reasoning

April 13

The United States' democratic system encourages candidates to go above and beyond to get every possible vote. That system encourages high-quality candidates, rewarding them with benefits to their careers and egos. But as campaigns have become longer and more expensive, some otherwise worthy candidates are too easily tempted to exploit the system for their own personal gain. Rest easy, freshmen Senators, we're not talking about life at Tufts today.

---

Opinion

From the Editor-in-Chief | When news breaks...

April 12

The past four days have been taxing for us as a newspaper. Ever since word got out early Thursday morning of an alleged bias incident in Lewis Hall, we have been working tirelessly to dissect the story, separate fact from rumor and present to you, our readers, exactly what we believe happened.

---

Opinion

A botched election

April 9

The Tufts Community Union (TCU) political system, complete with its executive, legislative and judicial branches, has always existed as a microcosm of the system in place in America today. While only present on a smaller scale, the political ideals, ambitions and alliances formed in our university's student government are very real, and for the most part, we at the Daily have enjoyed watching the political process in action.

---

Opinion

How to disarm Iran

April 8

    The policies of former President George W. Bush's administration did little to contain the spread of nuclear weapons. Just last week, North Korea conducted a test rocket launch over the Pacific Ocean, allegedly demonstrating the country's commitment to acquiring nuclear capabilities despite years of failed sanctions and diplomatic actions. Iran and its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have reportedly sought nuclear capabilities. The combination of sanctions and saber rattling up until this point has done little to temper Tehran's appetite for weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, we applaud President Barack Obama's decision to begin high-level multinational talks with Iranian diplomats. Only through active diplomatic engagement will the United States produce lasting results in disarming Iran.     The talks should come as no surprise to foreign-policy observers. Obama signaled his willingness to meet with foreign leaders during his long campaign for the presidency, often to heavy criticism. His opponent, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), criticized Obama for his expressed willingness to speak with hostile leaders and called Obama's foreign policy judgment reckless and inexperienced.     We concede that Iran is dangerous and its leaders are despicable. Ahmadinejad has been quoted claiming the Holocaust is a lie and has made numerous other anti-Semitic comments. Iran has also made subtle and overt threats toward Israel, one of the United States' strongest allies. Republican criticism of talking to Iran, however, does little to change that Iran and other rogue nations have only increased their efforts to obtain nuclear weapons since the United States adopted hard-line tactics. Continuing to take a hard line on Tehran will only produce the same failed results. Thus, we welcome the Obama administration's desire to move past the Cold War mentality that plagues America's foreign policy.     While the meetings are a strong first step, the talks must include good-faith bargaining. Iran's supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was quoted in The New York Times as saying, "Our people do not like to be spoken in the language of deception or intimidation." The Obama administration must take care to ensure that Iran is treated fairly. If the talks consist only of disingenuous lectures to Iran's leaders, the country will only continue its nuclear programs.     We also hope that the talks will also spur the United States to think about its own nuclear arsenal. It is hypocritical for America to ask Iran to disarm when the United States unabashedly maintains the world's largest nuclear arsenal. Recently, the Obama administration has signaled a willingness to talk with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev about committing both countries to reducing their respective nuclear stockpiles. We applaud this willingness and hope the talks produce a treaty that commits both sides to deep nuclear stockpile reductions.     Lastly, part of being a leader is confronting one's friends as well as one's enemies. Although a stalwart ally of the United States, Israel has operated a clandestine nuclear operation that it neither confirms nor denies. President Obama must be clear: Israel's nuclear program threatens the stability of the Middle East. One of the reasons Iran is pursuing its nuclear weapons is to counterbalance Israel's increasing nuclear capabilities. Only by addressing the capabilities of the United States and its allies will Iran be persuaded to disband its nuclear programs.     Nuclear weapons are devices capable of unleashing extreme destruction. The horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki must never be allowed to happen again. The Obama administration must work to contain nuclear arms. That means not only dissuading Iran and North Korea from continuing their nuclear programs, but also examining our own arsenal and the stockpiles of our allies.

---

Opinion

Remembering Russia's transition

April 8

Anyone trying to come to grips with today's Russia, and particularly with the rise of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, would do well to take a closer look at the transition period following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Put bluntly, it was catastrophic. Jeffrey Sachs and a team of Harvard economists advised then-President Boris Yeltsin and his policy team to implement the so-called "Washington Consensus": liberalize (open the market to free trade, internal competition and foreign investment), stabilize (cut government spending and debt to bolster the currency) and privatize (reduce government control of businesses). Sachs specially advocated "shock therapy" -- rapidly implementing said reforms -- based on that strategy's success in Poland's post-Communist transition. But in Russia, shock therapy failed miserably. Severe economic depression ensued, worse than America's Great Depression, culminating in a financial meltdown in 1998. Not only did Yeltsin's actions in this time of economic and social chaos leave Russia with the institutional legacy of a strong executive, but public participation in government suffered a blow from which it has yet to really recover. But how on earth did the economic transition fail so miserably?

---

Opinion

Military solutions for a political conflict?

April 7

    Bomb blasts, gunmen attacks and suicide bombings: These events seem to dominate news channels. The Middle East and South Asia, with crisis-ridden countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, make CNN and BBC headlines for terrorist or military attacks every other day. What surprises me when I read or watch these reports is not the number of causalities of terrorist attacks, but the number of civilian deaths and injuries caused by state-led military attacks. Terrorists, being agents of terror, attack innocent civilians to instigate fear among the general populace. Their ruthless aim of spreading terror turns them into an inhumane and brutal force. However, it is hard to comprehend why the military, a legitimate state agent put in place to protect the state's citizenry, would actually hurt them.     Recently, such civilian casualties of state military attacks have surged in Sri Lanka. Following the end of the 2002-ceasefire between the Sri Lankan government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in January 2008, the state started a military offensive against the rebel group. Unlike in the past, this time the Sri Lankan army has intensified its attacks in all the northern regions of the country that have historically been rebel strongholds. In January 2009, the army captured the town of Kilinochchi, the rebel's administrative headquarters for the last 10 years and currently claims to have pushed the rebels out from their last remaining stronghold in the region. But amid this much awaited "victory," the army seems to have forgotten that these regions under attack are home to Sri Lankan civilians, mainly of Tamil ethnicity, who have no affiliation with the LTTE.     Human-rights groups and the United Nations have criticized the government for not taking enough measures to protect civilians during the attacks. According to Human Rights Watch, more than 2,700 civilians were killed in the attacks in this year alone. Furthermore, intense fighting has affected the supply of water, food and aid to the region. The lack of security prevents aid groups from helping those affected in the conflict zone. To make the situation even worse, the fighting is currently going on in a "safety zone," an area created only for civilians within the rebel region. After being pushed out from all of their territories, the rebels have taken refuge within a designated civilian area to possibly force the army to decrease its attacks. But the army's response has been brutal. The fighting within the safety zone is as intense as it was in other regions, and extreme war tactics, such as shelling, are being used.     Such inhumane strategies aimed at attaining "victory" are appalling. The government is not only taking innocent lives, but is breaking up families, creating orphans and definitely causing long-term trauma to those who have not done any wrong. It is dislocating families from their homes, and creating a sense of terror among civilians of Tamil ethnicity, who are of Sri Lankan nationality and are not associated with the LTTE. Surely, the LTTE needs to be blamed for taking shelter in civilian havens and using innocent people as human shields. But the government's end goal of defeating the rebels cannot justify the present forms of attack, which do not respect civilian lives. Moreover, given the historical tensions between the Tamils and the Sri Lankan government, increased attacks against innocent Tamils might only amplify their skepticism towards the Sri Lankan state's commitment to preserving Tamil rights.     Frankly, I don't understand the Sri Lankan government's strategy to end the civil war. Does the government really believe that just wiping out the LTTE or decapitating it will prevent it from causing any trouble again? In the short-run, a military defeat might leave the rebel group handicapped. But it's hard to believe that the LTTE will give up its fight for an autonomous Tamil state. The rebels have been actively demanding autonomy since the inception of the group in 1976. To date, they have been one of the most brutal separatist groups with an extensive external support network. The current military offensive has shattered their structure and capacity, but it would be naïve to believe that the many LTTE leaders, who have already gone underground, will not begin organizing again. Actually, other cases of military offensives against terrorist groups, like the U.S. military offensive against Al Qaeda, show that without peaceful negotiations, militants can still thrive and grow as an underground guerrilla force, even after their larger structures are shattered.     This leads me to believe that a military end to the conflict is only a temporary solution. Unless there is some form of peaceful understanding and reconciliation between the state and the LTTE, Sri Lanka's civil war will not come to a permanent close. It was after the peace accord in 2002 that the rebels gave up their separatist ideology and cut down on their demands for an autonomous state. I want to be optimistic and think that with further negotiations and talks, the LTTE and the Sri Lankan government can still come to a better understanding. Therefore, regardless of the bitter experience of the past, the Sri Lankan government should rise above the militants and initiate a peace accord with them, rather than create more bitterness between the two groups by using unrestrained military force.     If you are interested in learning more about this topic, come to the student-faculty discussion "Military Solutions for Political Conflict: The Case of Sri Lanka" today during open block (12- 1:20 p.m), in Cabot 102. The discussion will be led by Ram Manikkalingam, senior adviser to former Sri Lankan President Kumaratunga on the peace process with the Tamil Tigers.

---

Opinion

Is the Trips Cabin really worth $230,000?

April 6

    After the initial decision on the Tufts Community Union (TCU) Senate recovered funds, I co-wrote an op-ed on Feb. 4 concerning fiscal and moral responsibility. I believed, and still believe, that the two can coexist and that we can serve our constituents while still being fiscally responsible. I believed that was true until the final vote concerning the recovered funds.     In the final TCU Senate meeting of the year on Sunday, April 5, the TCU Senate voted to allocate $230,000 to the Tufts Mountain Club (TMC) to build a Trips Cabin as an addition to the existing Loj facilities in New Hampshire. The property is owned by the University but is managed by the TMC.     I find this absolutely appalling and a far cry from fiscal or moral responsibility. We voted down the Loj as a possibility during the initial discussion on the recovered funds, but things have apparently changed since then … somehow.     I spoke about this during the meeting, so I have nothing to hide concerning my true feelings on the subject. Under any normal circumstances, I believe that I would support adding to the Loj. I have used it and enjoyed my visit. I plan to go in the future. However, as senators we have an obligation to vote how we believe our constituents would vote.     Over the past few days, I have talked to a number of people and I have often asked, "Do you think that an addition to the Loj is an appropriate use of the recovered funds?" The answer that I got that came closest to approval was that of ambivalence.     Given that information, I went to the Senate on Sunday night with the intention of allocating no money for this project. I went, endorsed the motion of $0 and entered debate. As debate drew on, I could sense that the body was moving toward awarding the full amount. A total of four senators, consisting of two seniors, one sophomore and me as the lone freshman, spoke up against the allocation of any money for the Loj. Yet the amount passed through the Senate with only five dissenting votes, with another senior senator adding her resounding "no" when the role call vote came around.     I left that vote infuriated but hopeful that the money would ultimately be spent wisely. I hoped that I was wrong in my initial reaction. I realize now that my initial reaction was correct and that it is money wrongly spent.     I have the utmost respect for those in the Senate but find myself very disappointed with them. The TMC argued that Senate uses the Loj for our retreats and that we know how much an additional sleeping facility would mean to the Loj experience. The majority of the Senate seemed to vote with their own experiences in mind rather than what would best serve their constituencies. This self-service went so far as to even lead senators to ignore potential conflicts of interest. While no one is forced to do so, senators are encouraged to abstain from a vote if they are part of the organization being voted on or have other things to gain from the vote. For instance, there are two members of the Senate who are proud to admit that they are members of TMC. They spoke passionately about their side of the argument, as I did. However, when voting came around, rather than abstaining, they voted "yes." I don't know if they forgot or simply chose to ignore it, but they had a conflict of interest in this vote that was neglected.     Concerning the remaining senators in the room, I realized an interesting trend after the vote had finished. Of the five seniors that were able to vote, three of them ultimately voted "no." This was the highest ratio among the other classes, with the "no" votes ultimately coming to 0 juniors, one sophomore out of 10, and only one freshman out of seven.     Is it possible that, since the seniors will not be returning in the fall, they have clearer heads as to how the Tufts community would want them to vote? Is it possible that, in their time at Tufts, the seniors have gained a higher level of understanding of what is truly important to the students? Possibly.     I have been talking to people since this vote and have not found a single person who is pleased with the decision. The best I have gotten is ambivalence. This leads me to believe that the Loj is not a proper use of the money that truly belongs to every student at Tufts, the money known as the recovered funds.     I think that we senators need to get back in touch with those whom we represent and really vote based on what they want. With this vote, we effectively exhausted the recovered funds that were not already allocated for a Student Activities Endowment to be set up by the Senate. In addition, we as a body blatantly disregarded how our constituencies would have wanted us to vote.     We could have achieved so much, but rather chose to effectively give a single group $230,000. This is absolutely ridiculous to me. It is ridiculous that most senators did not consider how their class would want them to vote. A few said that they had spoken to some people and a few of them said that those people advocated for the Loj. In these cases, I suppose it just depends on who you talk to. For the people that I talked to, the Loj was not even an option to be considered. So to those senators who voted based on what they were told by their constituencies, I apologize and I do not direct my frustrations at you.     Later that night, the Allocations Board, the financial leg of the TCU, came to us with a recommendation of giving no money to Torn Ticket II. Torn Ticket II wanted to replace the sound system in Cohen Auditorium, a system in dire need of repair, cleaning and potential replacement. Yet the Senate did not approve any money, on the grounds that the University would eventually take care of it, even though this would not necessarily occur in the foreseeable future due to the economic crisis. The same was said for the Loj earlier this year. They said that the University would provide the renovation at some point, while not necessarily in the foreseeable future.     Although the Cohen request was only for $15,000 and the nature of the requests were completely different, I still believe that the cases of Torn Ticket II and TMC seem to follow the same logical train of thought, yet in the end, they yielded different results.     If you are as angry about this decision as I obviously am, tell your senator. You are all represented by the Senate and the members deserve to know your feelings on this. If you support the decision, let them know. If you disagree with it as I do, tell them that, too. If you really do not care one way or the other, then they deserve to know that. Do not sit idly by and watch your money go to waste! Stand up and make your voice heard.

---

Opinion

In defense of the Trips Cabin

April 6

    The recent decision by the Tufts Community Union (TCU) Senate to fund the Trips Cabin at the price of $230,000 has sparked much debate on campus. What should be a simple question about benefiting the school is quickly becoming a politicized argument. As the current president of the Tufts Mountain Club (TMC) and an officer of TMC's Trips Cabin Committee, I would like to address some of the concerns raised by the student body.      Let me start by saying that the past 24 hours have been amazing. So many members of the Tufts community poured hours of effort into this project, and to see it finally happen has been my most rewarding accomplishment here.      Members of the TMC and others who have enjoyed the Loj have sent me e-mails and approached me in person to share their excitement. The construction of this new building will have many positive effects on past, present and future Tufts students. By solving our overcrowding issues, the Trips Cabin will soothe the tensions that often arise between groups seeking a social retreat from campus and individuals seeking a base of operations for an outdoor adventure.     By giving us more space, it allows the TMC to pursue a long-held goal of our club: to encourage people to go outside and enjoy the natural world. In the past, our outreach activities were limited by the small capacity at the Loj. Now, we look forward to introducing more students than ever to the beauty and adventure of the New England backcountry. As part of our negotiations with the TCU Senate, the TMC is launching a multifaceted publicity campaign to introduce many more students to the Loj this fall.       In addition to the benefits to our club, we truly believe that the Trips Cabin will be an asset to the entire student body. The point of this project is not just that our members get more sleep; the point is that we can have a shared space for all Tufts students to gather and relax. Student groups use the Loj almost every weekend as a place to escape the hectic day-to-day life on campus. Groups often use their TCU Senate budget to fund retreats to the Loj, and this semester, we have a waiting list of seven groups who cannot use the Loj simply because the demand is too high and the number of beds is too low. The Loj is a place to bond, to play board games in your pajamas and to sit around the fire and talk about life. By maintaining a fleet of cross-country skis and hiking maps, we do our best to make the outdoors accessible to people of all levels of experience.      The Loj keeps its doors open to alumni and hosts several on any given weekend. I have personally learned more about Tufts traditions and heritage from alumni that I met at the Loj. TMC alumni were so thrilled by the thought of this cabin that we raised nearly $12,000 over the past year.  For hundreds of former Tufts students, the TMC and the Tufts Loj trigger wonderful memories of their college experience.      The recovered funds represent a unique and special opportunity for the student body to do something significant for our university. In keeping with the nature of these funds, I am glad to see that they are being spent to improve the quality of student life. I understand that the Loj is not used by every single student at Tufts (yet!), but a recent Senate survey shows that nearly 23% of students use it at least once a semester. As a senator recently put it, the recovered funds could be used to give every single student a cupcake. Every student would see the benefits, but one cupcake per student doesn't go very far. The point is that no feasible use of the funds could benefit all students equally. I think the Trips Cabin gives the biggest bang for our buck, especially since the sum could not make a significant difference in the university's quest for wireless Internet or a renovated campus center.      Initially, the project was designed to be funded by a loan from the university to the TCU Senate that would be paid back by the Senate over a number of years. In light of the economic situation and the Tufts building freeze, the project had been put on hold indefinitely. The administration, while supportive of the project, could not commit to fund it for the foreseeable future. Frankly, if the Senate had not stepped up with these funds, the project may never have happened.      To those who still don't feel comfortable with this expenditure, I invite you to come up to the Loj. Bring some friends and an open mind, and take a weekend vacation. Just like the campus center or the gym, the Loj is a place for anyone to enjoy. As our club so often encourages its members, I encourage the Tufts community: Go outside!

---

Opinion

A questionable allocation

April 6

As reported in yesterday's Daily, the TCU Senate has approved $230,000 in funding for Tufts Mountain Club (TMC) to build a Trips Cabin. This new project would be an addition to the Loj, a Tufts-owned retreat located in southern New Hampshire. After being denied funding over four months ago by the Senate, the group convinced the senators to approve their proposal, this time by a 20-5 vote. Last September, the Senate received just under $700,000 in compensation for allegedly embezzled student activities funds. After specific investments and allocations, $300,000 remained in a savings account without any specific plans for how it would be spent. While the project will certainly benefit many Tufts students, the means by which the TMC received these funds remains questionable.

---

Opinion

Students' sex lives given greater context

April 5

    You think college students know sex? Tonight, Dr. June Reinisch will ask you to think again. At 9 p.m. in Cabot Auditorium, Dr. Reinisch will be giving a lecture entitled "Sexual Myths: Art, History, Culture, Erotica and the Demimonde." As the second lecturer of the Tufts Burlesque Troupe's new "After Hours" speaker series, Dr. Reinisch brings a host of remarkable academic credentials to a field that is often made light of in college communities. The director emeritus of the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction, Dr. Reinisch stood at the forefront of sex research in America and continues to carefully keep her finger on the pulse of sexuality today.     Last semester, the Burlesque Troupe inaugurated its "After Hours" speaker series to promote healthy sexuality and body image on campus. The troupe welcomed Grant Stoddard, acclaimed author and sex columnist, to speak about his experiences, writing, and what it truly means to have a healthy sexuality. After the success of the event, the troupe invited Dr. Reinisch to address sexuality from her impressive background in science and research.     As the former director of the Kinsey Institute, the national epicenter of sex research, Dr. Reinisch oversaw the creation of resources for scholars, programs of research, presentation of interdisciplinary conferences and seminars, provision of information services for the general public and development of student-oriented sexuality information online. Dr. Reinisch served as director of the Kinsey Institute and the department of psychology at Indiana University from 1982 to 1993. Aside from her work at the institute, Dr. Reinisch has a very colorful and interesting background, including, according to Dr. Reinisch, years in a band, a very successful career in the recording industry in the '60s, and extensive work at the New York City Museum of Sex. She often speaks at universities and focuses a great deal of her time on providing accurate sexual health information to young people.     Tufts has seen speakers on sexuality in the past, but none have come from as prestigious an academic and research-based background as Dr. Reinisch. Her lecture will provide much-needed academic and scholarly validation to a field that is extremely important to college students and is often treated inappropriately. By introducing reputable and informative speakers about human sexuality on campus, Tufts can spark and continue important dialogues regarding young people's perceptions of themselves, their body image, their sexuality and how these issues affect their relationships with each other. In an environment of tolerance and comfort, students can create open discourses about this personal topic and develop a sense of camaraderie and community.     In tonight's lecture, Dr. Reinisch is sure to excite with erotic art samples spanning the past 6,000 years. Historically, sexuality has been an integral part of human behavior throughout history and across cultures, and yes, it has all been done before! Tufts students are not alone in their explorations of sexuality. In fact, there has never been a road more traveled.     Tonight's event is free and open to the entire Tufts community.

---