The Massachusetts State Senate's last-minute legislative acrobatics have highlighted a question that perpetually haunts the political realm: Must politicians work for the law, or must the law work for them?
As if one bias incident was not enough for the year of 2009, offensive posters plastered around Hill Hall this week by a freshman have ignited yet another storm. The posters, which featured an Asian boy and highlighted certain characteristics, namely his narrow eyes and poor English skills, were reportedly placed in close proximity to those of freshman Tufts Community Union Senate candidate Alice Pang, who is Asian.
I was in CVS last week, perusing the magazine rack, when I came across something that genuinely scared and saddened me. I had fought the urge to discover new ab-attaining, lady-sexing secrets in this month's Men's Health, ignored the breaking story of Obama's gay lover (secret bedrooms in the White House!) and gone straight for an old standby: Rolling Stone. Now, in recent years I have found myself somewhat disappointed in RS's overall output, but I still appreciate some of their artist profiles, editorials and album reviews.
What makes a top-tier, big-name university? While one could argue that it's a beautiful campus, a generous financial aid program or an outstanding record of career placement and graduate school acceptance, the real answer seems to be inextricably tied to one thing, and that is research. Universities like Tufts, in many ways, are like businesses in that they are judged by the quality of what they produce. It could be students who go on to be influential CEOs, politicians or artists. Or it could be groundbreaking research, past or present, that has made or reaffirmed a university's academic greatness.
As a student of the American Revolution, I must always remind myself that, during the Stamp Act riots of 1765, the Boston Tea Party of 1773 and even on the eve of Lexington and Concord in 1775, the Revolution itself was not a foregone conclusion. No one knew how the British would react to further attempts at rebellion. No one knew if every colony could unite behind the common cause of independence from Parliament and King George III. While the Revolution brought together unlikely coalitions — laborers and merchants, South Carolina's planters and Philadelphia's shipwrights — that agreed on the concept of home rule, many disagreed on who exactly would rule at home if the Revolution succeeded. These patriots were lawbreakers and their riotous actions led them onto uncertain legal and ethical grounds. If they failed and the British restored authority in the colonies, our Founding Fathers most certainly would have been hanged for treason.
Keeping your eyes trained on the professor at the front of the room just got that much more difficult: From here on out this semester, the Daily will be printing a fresh issue each day of classes.
Before I knew for sure that I would be attending Tufts, I found myself at the center of campus on the most beautiful day in April, surrounded by students throwing Frisbees and eagerly attacking pre-frosh about their club preferences. I accepted all the leaflets that were given to me on health requirements, the Harry Potter Society and Tufts Wilderness Orientation, to name a few, and stuffed them into the large tote bag I had been given earlier. It was tan with blue lettering, and as it got heavier with more and more information, I passed it to my parents. They agreed to carry it for me, and after we went home, the bag disappeared into the abyss of my closet for a while.
There have been some notable changes on the Hill since the end of last semester. Packard Hall has been completed, sophomores are once again allowed to have cars on campus, and –— most notably — a student's first alcohol-related offense now lands him or her a direct ticket to level-one disciplinary probation, or pro-one. No warnings, no My Student Body-earned freebies. Yet while Tufts has instituted a decidedly harsher policy, it has not put forward any considerable effort to increase dialogue on the subject of underage drinking. Even more disturbing, the university continues to uphold the misbegotten policy — now rendered even more dangerous — in which a student who calls for assistance from Tufts Emergency Medical Services (TEMS) for alcohol-related issues also receives an alcohol violation.
State Rep. Denise Provost (D-Somerville) is co-sponsoring Massachusetts House Bill No. 2759, which would effectively revoke the non-profit tax-exempt status of all independent colleges and universities in Massachusetts. Provost stated that her decision to back the bill can be directly traced to what she sees as the imbalance of benefits, fiscal and otherwise, between her home community of Somerville and its resident independent university — Tufts. We at the Daily can certainly understand some of the concerns Provost has brought to light. But we also understand that community benefits encompass more than mere tax revenue.
In the midst of the summer of our discontent over President Obama's proposed healthcare reforms, there has been an explosion of violence in Iraq. With the continued re-deployment of U.S. forces from Iraqi cities to fire bases in the countryside and the gradual removal of combat brigades to Afghanistan, Iraq has witnessed a massive spike in bloodshed over the past few weeks. Bombings in Baghdad and in Kurdish areas in northern Iraq have killed over 200 people and wounded over a thousand. U.S. commanders and politicians are keen to use the phrase, "When the Iraqis step up, we will step down," but it remains to be seen if Iraqi forces can act in a proactive, offensive manner, putting aside ethnic and religious divides for the good of a unified Iraqi government. Much has been made in political circles of the gains made through the Petraeus Plan, the surge which stabilized Iraq after its chaotic period of sectarian strife and which turned previously hostile Sunni elements against Al-Qaeda in Iraq. These gains have been substantial. With the training of Iraqi security forces, they should be able to handle a greater share of the burden. For all the successes in counterinsurgency, Iraq still has not developed the civil society, infrastructure and institutions that would lead to a modern country. In comparison to other American occupations, namely the occupations of Germany and Japan post-World War II, there was a greater emphasis on nation building. Iraq is a very different case. Both Germany and Japan have relatively homogeneous populations, with very few religious or ethnic minorities. Iraq was formed in the aftermath of World War I as the British Mandate of Mesopotamia. The British ruled Iraq through a puppet, King Faisal, and when the British withdrew, Faisal declared the Kingdom of Iraq. Faisal and the British began a policy of using the minority Sunnis to rule the country at the expense of the majority Shiites and ethnic Kurds. In Iraq, during the rule of Saddam Hussein, the trend continued with the minority Baath party ruling over the country's three main ethnic groups: Sunni Arab, Shia and Kurds, along with countless other minorities. Hussein held the country together by sheer cruelty, quelling rebellions of the Shiites in the south and the Kurds in the north. When Hussein was forced from power, the lingering hatred between the main ethnic factions made the rebuilding and the development of civil institutions and the division of oil revenues very difficult because each of the respective groups has its own ethnic interests at hand and not the interests of a federal government in Baghdad. In the days after the fall of Saddam Hussein, Coalition Provisional Authority, headed by Paul Bremer, disbanded the Iraqi army and fired the Iraqi ministrial staff. By doing so, Bremer essentially took the people who had the best grasp of the inner workings of Iraqi society and replaced them with pro-American administrators, many of whom were returning exiles. The main American-backed replacements were predominantly Shiite elements who had great contempt for the former Sunni rulers and were allied with Iranian interests. U.S. authorities were negligent in the period following the toppling of Hussein, and the development of the Iraqi economy was rife with corruption and mismanagement. But as the violence has calmed down, the economy in Iraq has improved. There have been steps to open the markets in Iraq, such as the privatization of all state-owned enterprises. During the fiscal year of 2008, the Iraqi economy grew at 6.6 percent, driven primarily by oil exports. Iraq does face serious problems, though, the largest being its extremely high unemployment rate, hovering at around 30 percent. If the Iraqi government can increase job creation and diversify its economy beyond oil-related products, then the country will benefit in the long term and not be subject to fluctuations in oil prices. Like everything else in Iraq, the long-term growth of the Iraqi economy depends on the active sharing in economic development of all parties involved, which still has not happened. As American security forces begin to withdraw from Iraq, the task falls to the Iraqis to provide the security and the development needed to govern their country. Currently, there are more questions than answers about Iraq's ability to govern itself. Real progress in Iraq will happen only when the Iraqi people reconcile their past differences and build a strong economy and an active civil society, free of sectarian strife. If this happens, it will be due to the Iraqi people stepping up to the plate and leading the reconciliation among Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.
This is the second in a two-part series of Michael Bendetson's interview with Newt Gingrich. The first installment, which ran in Tuesday's paper, focused on the effectiveness of the Republican Party's 1994 Contract with America and on Gingrich's views on ending the recession and reforming health care. Today's installation will focus on Gingrich's views on climate change, President Barack Obama's appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court and the future of the Republican Party. Michael Bendetson: Mr. Speaker, you have been a maverick within your own party when it comes to the issues of climate change. You acknowledge that climate change has the potential to be a major threat, but you remain skeptical of government creating too much regulation and litigation. Instead, Mr. Gingrich, you have introduced the concept of green conservatism. How would you define this term, and why do you feel it is the best method to deal with climate change? Newt Gingrich: Growing up and throughout my professional careers, I have always believed that we need to have a sound conservation program for our environment. However, I am very saddened at what happened to the environmental movement over the past three decades. [The movement] became in many ways intellectually dishonest, politicized and an instrument of the left to get bigger and bigger government. I think you need to have honesty and be clear about the science behind what you're doing. Finally, you need to have a bias behind innovation and entrepreneurship for better results. The current environmental models tend to be bureaucratic, punitive and litigation-based. This is exactly wrong. I cannot tell you for sure if we have global warming, and I do not believe anyone knows. We have huge, sweeping climate changes in the earth's history that are vastly bigger than anything we are currently talking about. I can concede that there has been an increase in carbon in the past 20 years. As the words conservation and conservative are related, I would minimize carbon loading of the atmosphere. When I tell you that, I do not wish to promptly go out and kill the American economy. This is what the Waxman-Markey bill does. [The bill] will drive businesses to relocate to China and India where they will have more pollution. MB: Throughout your career, Mr. Speaker, you have always advocated against judicial activism in federal courts. In recent months, you have voiced major disapproval in President Obama's selection of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. What are the reasons behind your strong objections to a Sotomayor judgeship? NG: I would probably have voted no if I were in the Senate. I want a more conservative justice closer to the Roberts-Scalia model. I found it very interesting that she testified in a way that distanced her from her own words. Since [Former Supreme Court Associate Justice David] Souter turned out to be so totally unknowable, it is going to be very interesting to see whom Sotomayor turns out to be. Her testimony was much more centrist than her speeches have been. If as a Supreme Court justice she is as moderate as her testimony, we [conservatives] will be surprised and so will her liberal supporters. MB: There are estimated to be over 12 million illegal immigrants residing in the United States. The question as to how to both address those here illegally and reform border security has resulted in much debate. You voiced strong opposition to McCain-Kennedy in 2007 for fear over amnesty. What types of reforms do you feel can be made that both enforce our laws and show our humanity? NG: I think we have three primary values that really matter to us. The first is security. The second is legality. The third is becoming an American. For the first one, you have to get control of the border. You need to know who comes in the United States. Every sovereign nation has the right to know who crosses its border. For the second, I believe people working in the United States should be here legally. I do not think we should have an underground economy. I do not think we should have people living in the shadows and in fear. I think that is fundamentally wrong. For the third, people who do come to the United States, I want them to become American. By American, I mean English should become the official language of government. They should also learn some American history. You start the discussion by saying we want to assimilate people into being American. We want them to be here legally and have control over our border. The secondary question becomes how would you design that? I would have a guest-worker program that was driven by economics. When you have a boom period, you have more people in the guest-worker program. When you have a recession, you have less people in the program. However, one thing I do not want to have is a blanket amnesty. This will send a signal to the world that it is okay to break the law, because America will have a third amnesty in a decade. MB: The Republican Party has now experienced back-to-back resounding defeats in national elections. The Democrats hold a supermajority in the Senate and a strong majority in the House. Nationally, the Republican Party appears to lack any true leadership. As one of the major leaders of this storied party, what are some of the essential measures the GOP needs to expand their base and return to power? NG: You take a governor like Bobby Jindal, who is a first-generation American and a brilliant policy innovator. You take someone like Governor Linda Lingle, who has won twice in one of the most Democratic states in the country: Hawaii. You take someone like Governor Tim Pawlenty, who has been a real reformer in Minnesota. I think we have a whole new generation of people coming down the road. We are much stronger than we were after Watergate; this [situation] is much closer to 1993. You are talking about a party that controlled the president for eight years and the House for 12 straight years. I do not think [Republicans] have problems; we had a performance failure that led people to decide that they did not like the product. You are now watching the Democrats have an even more discouraging performance failure.
President Obama gave a speech two days ago to students around the country, emphasizing the importance of working hard and staying in school. And unless you've been locked in a basement somewhere, you've probably heard about it. That is in large part because, as soon as the White House announced Obama's plans for the speech, the right wing launched a hailstorm of attacks at the president. One of his most vocal critics was Jim Greer, the Florida Republican Party chair, who said that Obama was abusing his power in order to inculcate young students with his own "socialist ideology." In another baffling remark, Greer said the speech was intended to "justify [Obama's] plans for government-run health care, banks, and automobile companies, increasing taxes on those who create jobs, and racking up more debt than any other President." A speech on what can only be considered a universally appreciated value — that of keeping one's nose to the grindstone and working as hard as necessary to accomplish things one believes in — cannot be logically construed as a push for radical policymaking. Indeed, Obama's address turned out to be relatively innocuous, promoting education and personal responsibility. Nonetheless, because of charges like Greer's, many parents chose to keep their children out of class on Sept. 8 and a number of schools were compelled to provide contingency plans for students whose parents felt uncomfortable about Obama's telecast. A school district in Arlington, Texas decided it would be inappropriate to show its students Obama's speech. Yet the same Arlington community leaders have no problem shuttling off students later this month to hear an address from former President George W. Bush at Cowboys Stadium. Clearly, it is not the speech itself that is drawing the objections. The controversy generated by Obama's straightforward, pro-education speech highlights the opportunist partisanship that has defined the American political scene in recent years, a partisanship that has serious, detrimental effects on our lives as citizens. Politicians have chosen to use a speech touting the basic value of hard work to frighten Americans into believing that their president is out to maliciously indoctrinate and manipulate 10-year-olds. Meanwhile, what issues have they been ignoring? The irony in all of this is that students of all backgrounds and family ideologies can learn a lot from Obama. Everyone knows the story of the president's upbringing: His father abandoned him when he was two years old, leaving his poor, single mother to raise him alone in Hawaii and then Indonesia before sending him to live with his grandparents. Obama rose from these modest beginnings to graduate magna cum laude from Harvard Law School and eventually become president of the United States. Scare +tactics and propaganda are nothing new in politics. But in the future, perhaps we can save the bickering for the issues that truly merit contention.
You're headed for your first day of chemistry class in Pearson Hall, and you walk into a read-through of a calculus syllabus: You're actually in Bromfield-Pearson Hall. You make plans to meet a friend for lunch at the cafeteria, but you walk right past it without even realizing. You're on your way to Anna's Taqueria in Davis Square, and you end up peering up at Rudy's Café — in Teele Square. No matter what you're doing or where you're wandering, right now Tufts' campus probably looks a whole lot bigger than it really is. As a Tufts student, you share your academic dean with 1,200 other people and your lecture class with 200. You live in a dorm with countless other students. Unless you're confidence and charm incarnate, this can be as intimidating as an international relations professor's superiority complex. But there is one big number that might feel more welcoming: The Tufts Community Union (TCU) recognizes over 150 student organizations, from the Queer-Straight Alliance to the Tufts Investment Club to the Backgammon Club. That's why the cannon rarely spends more than a couple days with the same hues. So if you have an interest, there is a high likelihood that you can find a niche somewhere on campus, whether it's onstage in Aidekman, in that strange-smelling lecture hall in Barnum or buried in the cozy depths of the Curtis Hall basement. All things considered, Tufts is a small school torn between its New England college feel and its research university reputation. That leaves us with more exciting classes than one can count, many of which remain available even at first-years' ignoble registration time. Equally importantly, it leaves the campus bursting with well-funded clubs and organizations, many of which are hungry for anyone they can find, from helpers to leaders. At the risk of sounding like Tufts tour guides, there's no better way to discover your own hidden talent or passion, to meet people or to simply kill time without letting it die, than to seek out a quirky club meeting and throw your name on the e-mail list. If you've never danced before, check out the Ballroom Dance Team. Always been kind of quiet? Join HYPE!, the mime troupe. There is a lot more to college than lectures and note taking. And at the risk of sounding like a recruitment agent, the Daily is a perfect example: Tufts is the smallest university in the country with an independent daily paper, and the newspaper office always feels a touch understaffed. But we make up for our small stature with a reliable print product every day of classes, including daily arts and features sections — rarities in the newspaper business — as well as a Web site with a growing multimedia presence. Each semester we fight an uphill battle to fill out our staff, which means that everyone who chooses to join the Daily, puts in the time on assignments and shows sufficient interest can find himself or herself rapidly vaulted to a prominent position. It's the same story with any number of interest groups and other organizations on campus. Just don't expect a free ride onto the TCU Senate as a freshman candidate. (Wait a couple weeks — you'll see what we mean.) In short, while this campus may seem huge today, it is small. And though it is small, it is dense. The Hill is packed with theater and a capella groups, cultural houses and ethnic organizations, publications of all stripes and venues where aspiring musicians can perform. So at the risk of sounding like all of your mothers on a Monday morning in high school, get moving.
Frank Zappa once said, "If you want to get laid, go to college. If you want an education, go to the library." Zappa wasn't entirely correct (his statement also leaves us wondering about the role of the college library, which one can only imagine is the most stimulating place on campus). Not only have students at Tufts grown intellectually over the last four years, but we have also deepened our understanding of ourselves, our interests and our priorities. Any successful college student who has built his life around Louis Sachar's "Sideways Stories from Wayside School" (1978) remembers a story about a student named Calvin who, when given the opportunity to get a tattoo, opts for a potato on his ankle. The point is that you don't have to make the most popular choices — to take the most traditional jobs or opportunities (and in this economy, you probably won't) — in order to be happy with your decisions. Tufts has confirmed what many members of the Class of 2009 may have always suspected to be true: that the world is full of quirky, interesting people, and we deserve to be among them. Most importantly, however, college teaches its students how to fail. While opportunities for failure certainly existed before higher education, the environment Tufts provides its students to engage their most idealistic whims has changed the scale and scope of those failures entirely. In a speech to the Sorbonne, Theodore Roosevelt praised the man "who comes up short again and again … who fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." College is, for many, a time of unbridled impracticality; it seems as if there never was a time when college students did not claim that they would one day change the world. Of course, our generation has been spoiled in some ways by seeing the success of its activism; in the past two years, the notion that the youth of this country could affect — even dictate — events has gone from inconceivable to indisputable. Though pundits may argue about the scale of the effect of youth's judgment, they no longer dispute its inevitability. But in the world outside college, victories of the most idealistic sort may be a little harder to come by. Those who graduate today will find themselves in the worst job market in recent memory as America's economic system teeters on the brink of collapse. In faraway lands, young men and women fight for their country as shadowy enemies seek to do them harm. Our planet is in danger as temperatures rise, our global citizens live in fear as diseases run rampant and our leaders steel themselves for battle as a race for weaponry in the Middle East and Asia raises the specter of nuclear war. It's a tough time to save the whales. But if Tufts has taught its students anything — and we at the Daily submit that it has — it is that idealism is good. There is a saying that "close" only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades; that aside from sports and explosions, "almost" simply isn't worthwhile. That misses the point. Though they may not always pay off in the short run, impossible crusades are often catalysts for public advancement and social change. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. never saw a black man elected governor, let alone commander-in-chief. Leonardo da Vinci never built a successful flying machine. Dr. Michael DeBakey never performed a full human heart transplant, despite his decades of work in the field. Close counts because it represents progress; it means thought and debate and movement. The closer we come to our objective, the more clearly we can see our destination. That is why America's founding fathers built a nation based on the pursuit of a more perfect union; though we may never find fulfillment, every progression shortens the distance between ourselves and the possibility of a better future. In 1963, amid the waves of violent uprisings in Ireland, President John Kennedy stood in the well of the Irish Parliament and said, "The problems of the world cannot possibly be solved by skeptics or cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. We need men who can dream of things that never were." This sentiment was perhaps even more clearly articulated by his brother Bobby, who said, "Do we have to accept that? I don't think we do. I think we can do something about it." The Class of 2009 is graduating at a time of great challenge, apprehension and unease. This is not a time for careful reticence, nor is it a time for men and women to hold their tongues and await their moment. This is a time for those steeped in passion to step to the fore and chart the course of history. This is a time for almost — for idealists to find their voice and lead their cause in search of that more perfect union, however they may find it. Franklin Roosevelt once said, "A man who has never gone to school may steal from a freight car, but if he has a university education, he may steal the whole railroad." As you go forth on this day, we at the Daily urge you not to balk at grand enterprise. Failure in the service of a dream is not a lamentable experience, but a bold conquest; it provides inspiration to others who may share your conviction and serve your vision. Out of challenging times come great opportunities, and for the Class of 2009, your education on the Hill has given you the tools and the gusto to make your dreams reality. Let's go change the world.
Dear Editor, As Tufts alumni, we were very dismayed to learn recently of University President Lawrence Bacow's efforts to suppress the organizing efforts of the Tufts Employee Association on campus. This is not the Tufts that we know and that we hold dear. The Tufts that we graduated from emphasized its role in preparing students and alumni to be global citizens, in fostering a sense of community and a commitment to service and justice. The university administration's current heavy-handed efforts to discourage the administrative and clerical employees from choosing to form a union are anathema to the values upon which Tufts has been built. These employees help make Tufts such an amazing place of learning, and they deserve to decide how, and whether, to organize themselves, free from inappropriate interference, pressure and coercion from the administration. For students and alumni, Tufts is and always will be a place of study. It is easy to forget that for the employees who make Tufts run, from the custodial staff to the professors, Tufts is also their employer. As an employer, and one with a stated commitment to the needs of the community, Tufts has an obligation to treat its employees with fairness and dignity. The decision of whether to form a union belongs to the employees alone. Sadly, recent history is filled with numerous examples of universities using every tactic at their disposal to undermine employee efforts to organize. It would be tragic if Tufts joined this unfortunate and self-defeating trend. If the university administration really wants to show its administrative and clerical staff that they are appreciated and respected, it will stop trying to interfere with their communications on this question and let them decide for themselves. With many alumni (including some of us signing this letter) returning soon to campus for reunions, and elections for the Tufts Board of Trustees coming up, we expect that this will be a topic of much discussion among those of us who are proud to call Tufts our alma mater. We encourage President Bacow and the university administration to stop its use of tactics of disinformation and pressure to try to sway the decision of its employees. Sincerely, Maria Soledad Caballero, GSAS '02 Muriel Calo, Nutrition '05 Daniel Coplon-Newfield, LA '96 Gina Coplon-Newfield, LA '96 Robin DeRosa, GSAS '02 Sean Desilets, GSAS '96; Ph.D. '07 Cara Fineman, LA '96 Richard Heppner, GSAS '03 Ingrid Hoogendoorn LA '88 Nick Jehlen, E '93 Amor Kohli, GSAS '05 Amy Livingston, LA '95 Melissa Novakoff, LA '95 Trish Settles, UEP '94 Alex Sugerman-Brozan, LA '94 Jodi Sugerman-Brozan, UEP '94 Ali Young, LA '95
People. People are surprising. Throughout my four years at Tufts, as I walked around campus, it was very easy to overhear pieces of conversations. Some of the time, it was complaints about the social life at Tufts, or complaints about a specific class, or just complaints about Tufts in general. If these bits of conversation were the only thing creating an image of Tufts for a prospective student, he or she may think that every single person is unhappy at Tufts.
"…the stories of their journey embellished or misread or lacking a true bard, a song associate, something with starlight in it, blue lilac starlight and the sound of dipping oars." -Deborah Digges
Early on the morning of April 9, an altercation occurred in Lewis Hall that shook the Tufts community to its core. First, accounts in the Daily referred to an "alleged bias incident." In student op-eds and on various sites on the Internet, controversy swirled about whether the event was indeed primarily racist, or even racist at all. Some saw the problem instead as drunkenness, others as violence. There were many who complained of overreaction to a commonplace, if particularly ugly, act of discourtesy. I'm a white male of 61 who, with the exception of about two years total of study and travel abroad, has spent his whole life in the United States. I read the flurry of publications that appeared just after the incident occurred. By now, I have also read the confession from the white student involved, the concerned students' open letter to University President Lawrence Bacow, the formal agreement between the parties, the response of Dean of Student Affairs Bruce Reitman and the reflection of a handful of administrators led by the president. It turns out the incident did involve racial slurs, drunkenness, discourtesy and some violence. It is also the case that the white student will be disciplined. But, as I see in the paper and on the Internet, disagreement remains about what makes the incident so unsettling. A few have even suggested that the issue of race has been tendentiously used to turn a blunder into an act of racist hate. Because of this disagreement, I thought it might be of interest to see how a person like me reads the narrative of what happened in Lewis Hall that early Thursday morning. My reading is, of course, an attempt at understanding from the point of view of someone with my mind and my experiences. Since I'm white, and the freshman at the center of the altercation is white, too, my point of view may just reveal something about his on that day as well. Looking at things as if from behind the freshman's eyes, this is what I see. I'd be entering a room with about a dozen people in it, all of whom, I noticed from the very start, had Asian faces. One of the first things any of us picks up about anyone we meet is that person's apparent race. When whites meet whites, the fact may not consciously register. When whites meet people of color, they take note right away. It's often the first thing a white will say about the other person in any later reference to the event. In this case, I would also notice that some of these people were dancing. Their moves were unfamiliar to me. Otherwise, why would I push myself in among the group, attempting to imitate them and insisting that they teach me the steps? All the dancers were Asian males. Since I started calling the moves "the gayest s--t I've ever done," I was probably already feeling my own superiority over the dancers. "Gayest s--t" is never used by people of the freshman's age group to refer to something they like. It's a put-down, with homophobic overtones. It is definitely not something I would say in this particular context unless I was feeling especially safe and privileged, among people I didn't mind offending. What happened next probably took me by surprise. First, I was asked by the dancers to leave. When I gave no sign of doing so, I was asked again. Privilege and superiority almost immediately gave way to rage and to thoughts of violence. I probably made a move to intimidate my confronters, pushing one or two about. The result was a bit unexpected, even alarming. The dancers began some pushing and shoving of their own. Before I knew it, one had me in a headlock while others pinned me to the floor. I began to feel scared. I screamed out that I couldn't breathe. Fortunately, my antagonists all released their hold. It was, of course, time for me to leave. My friends, who'd been standing watching all the while, realized that and helped by pulling me away. Things hadn't happened the way I wanted. The rage was still in me, the same clear knowledge that these were all Asians I was dealing with, and a little shame that I had come off so poorly. At least I had the language of the American street on my side. "You f--king chinks, go back to China." To assure myself, and perhaps even my antagonists as well, of my privilege, I added a touch of commonplace xenophobia: "Go back to your f--king country; you don't belong in this country." Since by now I viscerally despised these people, I started spitting. Behind the eyes of the Korean-Americans and Koreans, I can imagine that some things looked the same, others quite different. First of all, we would have noticed a white male, drunk, coming into the room and going straight at us. We would also have guessed that this person didn't care if he offended us, in fact apparently assumed that he could inconvenience us with impunity. Here was privilege, a lot of trouble, and maybe even danger, too. By his dance imitations and what he said, this white male made it clear he looked down on us, probably even felt a kind of macho superiority. We had to find a way to stop what was going on. It wasn't really surprising that our efforts to get this guy to leave were met with anger, obscenity and even schoolyard threats. The spitting did catch us off-guard. When he started pushing and shoving, our own rage had already begun to rise. While he lashed out, we grabbed him, pinned him down and held him tight around the neck. Only his cries that he couldn't breathe cut through our anger. We let go; he backed off, and his friends did their job by helping to take him away. Then, of course, it came. Somehow we knew it was on the way, but to hear it made us gasp all the same. "You f--king chinks, go back to China." Before we even had time to think about the stereotyping that made our actual ethnic heritage irrelevant, there came the words of exclusion. Exclusion even here in our own university. "You don't belong in this country." Back to me, the 61-year-old who wasn't there. Chances are that my imagination has gotten some of the details wrong in both my "behind-the-eyes" accounts. But I would bet that neither is very far from the mark. Too often, I've lived through similar episodes or witnessed something like it. Too many friends and non-friends have told me about their own analogous and unsettling experiences. At the very least, I advance it as a plausible reconstruction. What my reconstruction makes me think is that, regardless of the incivility, the drunkenness and the violence, it still is the racism that deserves our closest attention in all that happened that Thursday morning in Lewis Hall. And I believe that as we examine our own reactions of the past weeks and in the coming months, it is by our response to the racism that we should expect to be judged. A community of people living and working together and committed to giving all its members the respect that each deserves cannot rest easy when such a scenario unfolds within it. Any of us in such a community reluctant to take effective and unambiguous steps to see that such an encounter does not recur — and that all on campus recognize the intolerability of racist acts among us — are simply putting in doubt our willingness fully to belong to the whole. So far, I have seen few among the student body, but maybe more importantly, even fewer among the faculty or the administration — all the way to the top — who have done much to remove this doubt. That is surely the saddest thing about this profoundly saddening story. I hope that by the fall, Tufts — administrators, staff, faculty and students — proves itself readier to become the amicable and equitable community that, as a university, it ought to be.
The Class of 2009 graduates today, and it has been through a lot of historic events. Back when we first entered high school in September 2001, in the wake of Sept. 11, we saw America come together like we haven't since to rally around the heroes who lost their lives that day. Back when we first arrived here at Tufts in 2005, New Orleans was experiencing the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, and our generation hosted students from the area and went down to Louisiana to help rebuild much of what was lost. And now, as we leave for the working world, military service and graduate school, we are in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Our class has been through a lot, and we will certainly be through much more, but where many see signs of future despair, there is hope.
After a week and a half of campaigning including debates, concerts, face-to-face introductions and interviews with various campus organizations, the Tufts Community Union (TCU) presidential race has narrowed to a battle between two equally qualified and thoughtful individuals: junior Brandon Rattiner and sophomore Chas Morrison. Having served on Senate for two years apiece, both possess the leadership skills, knowledge base and general vision to excel as president. All things considered, these two individuals have put together memorable campaigns focused, foremost, on uniting the Tufts community. Having followed both candidates, listened to their debates and spoken to each individually, we believe Rattiner will ultimately better serve the university during the 2009-10 school year due to his more polished, well-rounded and realistic vision for the school, in addition to his approachable style of leadership. Although both Rattiner and Morrison have similar political résumés — Rattiner having served as co-chair of the Senate's Education Committee and Morrison as chair of the Senate's Administration and Policy Committee — Rattiner's extra year at Tufts shows through in his policy objectives. Both have emphasized the need for more campus involvement, especially among upperclassmen, yet Rattiner's vision for fostering campus unity is more realistic — likely the result of the perspective awarded by his extra year on the Hill. While Morrison argues that the university should offer upperclassmen more reason to come back to campus for activities — most specifically, he believes Hotung Café should host a Senior Pub Night — Rattiner has clearer ideas on how to diversify between on- and off-campus programming. Rattiner's vision seems born from a greater understanding of the relationship between upperclassmen living off campus and their school community. Rather than bringing students to the school, Rattiner believes the school should bring itself to the students, a policy that will not only be better received by a group of students intent on developing a certain level of independence from the school but will also increase the physical boundaries of the university to the bordering neighborhoods. During their two years on the Senate, both candidates have similar voting histories, although on one of the most contentious of issues — the Senate's allocation of $230,000 of recovered funds toward building a Trips Cabin alongside the Loj in New Hampshire — the two fell on different sides of the argument. While we commend Morrison for his judgment and disagree with Rattiner's decision to support the initiative, we do not think this is a make-or-break issue in his bid for the presidency. We respect the opinion of those who disagree, and we certainly expect that Morrison's caution with the recovered funds will win him plenty of votes in today's election. But Rattiner's defense of his vote reveals a deep understanding of the forces at play in the Tufts community. We believe Rattiner will carry this deep level of thoughtfulness with him to the presidency. We support Rattiner with the firm belief that he will more aptly connect with students across all four years through a vision that is experience-driven and realistic. Morrison is disciplined and ambitious; his approach keeps a keen eye on long-term growth and improvement. While Morrison would no doubt be an effective leader, we still lean toward Rattiner; on a personal level, his leadership style is laid-back and approachable while at the same time remaining policy-focused and articulate. While both candidates possess the necessary knowledge and experience expected of a president, we believe Rattiner to be the one best equipped to unite the Tufts community.
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
