Skip to Content, Navigation, or Footer.

Opinion

The Setonian
Editorial

Ability to unite gives Rattiner the edge

    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.


The Setonian
Opinion

Statement from the Dean of Student Affairs

On April 16, 2009, the Office of the Dean of Student Affairs called for an administrative disciplinary hearing to address the racial incident that took place in Lewis Hall lounge approximately two weeks ago.  The hearing was scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m., on Friday, April 24, 2009.


The Setonian
Opinion

Senate misguided on recovered funds

    Democracy on campus is in trouble.     You want proof? Just look at your (I would say beloved, but I know as well as you do that that is simply not true) Tufts Community Union (TCU) Senate.     Imagine an organization that you "elect" and that you expect to take your sentiments into account when deciding what to do with your tuition money. Now imagine that that organization just gave $230,000 to an organization that there's a decent chance you're on the e-mail list of, but an even better chance that you've never participated other than signing up.     I can understand giving the Tufts Mountain Club (TMC) a lot of money, but $230,000? That's ridiculous. If they needed the money so badly, maybe they should have transferred some of it from their fund to randomly place pumpkins in front of buildings or even from their fund to plan fake protests against the cutting down of trees that are not in jeopardy of being cut down. Couldn't the TMC at least let the student body use the Loj for free?     I'm not going to tell the TCU Senate how specifically to spend their money because I don't think that the money should be theirs at all. The system just doesn't work for college students.     How many college students do you know that would vote to pay for some student publication that is nationally or internationally known? I know a few, but they aren't on the TCU Senate.     How many college students do you know that have the time to run for office and have a need to lead people they don't have a desire to know? I know a few, but not very well; their organization is called the TCU Senate.     How many college students have that kind of time and also really have a beat on the pulse of the student body? Recent events show the vast majority of the TCU Senate either has no idea what the student body wants or just doesn't care; I'm not really sure which is worse.     It's time that we stop giving all of the power over our money to the winners of a popularity contest, because most of us who don't have time to run sure as hell don't have any desire to vote for a candidate who wouldn't listen to what we have to say anyways.     Maybe there can't be a revolution where the students overthrow their "elected" leaders and maybe we can't force the school to make changes, but we as students have to make our voices heard, to take a stand, to put the TCU Senate on notice, because we definitely can't go on like this.     In conclusion, I ask the student body not to vote in the upcoming election. Just don't vote, because we can't make our voices heard by voting. Instead of voting, I ask that, whenever you see a member of the TCU Senate or one of the class councils or executive boards, heckle them and make sure they know your opinions on issues. And if you don't have opinions on the issues they vote on, heckle them anyway so that they have to be conscious of the fact that they should be thinking about the student body, not just some club that doesn't need the money anyway.  


The Setonian
Opinion

Plan B: A good plan

    The Food and Drug Administration  (FDA) came to a decision on Wednesday that will now allow 17-year-olds to purchase morning-after contraceptive pills without a doctor's prescription, lowering the age limit by a year. The agency's choice coincided with the assessment of Judge Edward R. Korman of the Federal District Court in New York last month, where he ruled that the past limitation to those 18 and older was driven purely by politics, not science.     While the use of contraceptives has been widely debated, we believe that the policy change by the FDA was a correct one. In today's culture, we must realize that teenagers are going to have sex — and unfortunately, it will sometimes be unprotected. It has been the responsibility of our societal leaders to provide us with resources for keeping things safe. Morning-after pills, or Plan B, are a utility for women of all ages to prevent the unplanned pregnancies that they aren't ready for. Contraceptives have been restricted for too long. We, as young adults, have moved beyond the prospect of abstinence-only education. Sexually active teenagers are everywhere, and unplanned pregnancies among teens happen to be the most dangerous unplanned pregnancies of all. Prevention of these pregnancies should be easy to do.     Perhaps best put is the statement the judge made by essentially claiming the current standards are political decisions without scientific regard. Far too long have politicians been blinded by their biased platforms to realize that times have changed and the nation's younger generations are more involved, more aware and more active. The majority of premarital and underage sex concerns stem from the religious and moral views individuals question each day. Conservatives argue that this change disregards the rights of parents and may only lead to more teenage sex. The point is, though, that Plan B provides a dose of security for women that never used to be there. It teaches them to be responsible when having sex; to either use protection in the moment or protect themselves afterward. The FDA did not appeal the ruling by the judge because the administration appears to be accepting that politics have driven the scientific field for too long.     Scientific evidence has disproved the theories of increased abortions and unprotected sex as a result of easier access to contraceptives. While our elected decision-makers continue to oppose the availability of such drugs based on moral issues, it is without a doubt the beginning of a movement in the right direction. Our nation has been controlled by the campaign guidelines and abortion-related promises made by the politicians that represent us. The FDA and the judicial system prove now that change can happen. This ruling recognizes the state of teenagers in society today. And most importantly, it encourages the leaders of society not to politicize the fact that no matter what, teenagers are going to have sex, so they might as well have the tools to keep it safe.  


The Setonian
Opinion

An open letter to President Bacow

    At the rally last week organized to protest anti-Asian racism on the Tufts campus, President Bacow did not speak. In his stead he did not send the provost, the dean of arts and sciences, the dean of engineering, the dean of students or the dean of undergraduate education. The surrogate he chose to speak for him nevertheless assured the assembled crowd that President Bacow cares deeply about the issue of racism on campus. The president's spokesman praised students for speaking out and urged them to continue having discussions on the issue.     Here is what is wrong with this response: President Bacow should have been there. If he could not attend, he should have chosen a high-level dean to speak in his place. Further, the message delivered on the president's behalf was completely specious. To tell students to deal with the issue of racism on campus by talking about it is to shirk institutional responsibility. It is not the job of Tufts students to educate this community about the reality of racism on this campus, why it is wrong, and why hate speech is unacceptable. It is the job of the administration and the faculty to do that, and we are failing miserably. The allegedly racist verbal assault on Asian-American students in Lewis Hall and the racist and homophobic verbal attacks on anti-racist activists and allies in the comments on the Daily Web site reflect the depth of that failure. Other institutions take racism and homophobia seriously. Tufts needs to take them seriously as well.     Our mission is education. Tufts needs to require all faculty to attend diversity-training workshops so that pedagogy, mentoring and courses actively model anti-discriminatory values. Tufts needs to require all students to take at least one diversity-focused course designed to show how systems of oppression and privilege operate in the United States, why they are undemocratic and unjust, and how to combat and dismantle them. Neither faculty nor students can discuss or deal with issues of racism or homophobia intelligently and responsibly in a culture of ignorance. Yet ignorance — including tolerance for hate speech — is what is currently allowed to prevail as long as we do not have a clear anti-hate speech policy in place and a comprehensive educational plan to actively counter discrimination.     For at least 30 years, some of us have been pointing out the failure of the university to provide education for faculty and students that creates an environment where all faculty, students and staff have an equal opportunity to thrive. Also, many voices have been raised to call for a clear anti-hate speech policy at this university. Enough is enough. President Bacow needs to provide strong, personal leadership on this issue. Faculty and administrators need to demand proactive change. Sincerely, Elizabeth Ammons Harriet H. Fay Professor of Literature    Department of English


The Setonian
Editorial

The middle-class squeeze

    In a March 11 e-mail to the Tufts community, University President Lawrence Bacow wrote, "To our knowledge, no undergraduate has had to withdraw from Tufts due to financial distress."     Anecdotal evidence and common sense suggests some students may be affected more than Bacow and the administration are aware. Amid a deepening recession and the rising cost of tuition, families everywhere are having more and more trouble keeping their students in college. Though Bacow and the Tufts administration can pledge to fill students' financial needs, this may prove to be a very difficult promise to keep. While their intentions are good, and they have taken several positive steps in order to maximize funding for students, such as the financial aid budget having been raised by 12 percent, there is no guarantee as to when the recession will end and no assurance Tufts will continually be able to meet enrolled students' needs.     This issue is part of a larger problem, however, that is by no means limited to our own campus. Across the nation, universities with limited funds are struggling to maintain current levels of financial aid, and universities like Tufts that seek to practice need-blind admissions have an even more difficult task before them. By pledging to meet the need of any student who is accepted, these universities are forced to spend large amounts of their funds on students from lower-income backgrounds, while a significant number of middle-class students are being shortchanged the relatively small amount of funds they need to get by.     This is a difficult conversation to have, partly because it threatens to upset the careful progress Tufts has made toward a need-blind admissions process — in itself a worthy goal. But Tufts needs to be focused on ensuring the financial stability of as many of its students as possible, and middle-class students need to be part of the equation.     That is not to say that Tufts should prioritize students with fewer financial needs over students with more. Ideally, qualified students (and certainly current attendees) should not be hamstrung by circumstances that are almost entirely out of their control. Nevertheless, amid a deepening recession, Tufts needs to recognize the plight of its students and look for creative (and often unpopular) ways to manage their well-being along with that of the university as a whole. In an effort to remain competitive with other top-tier institutions of higher learning, Tufts must necessarily improve and expand — whether that means raising prices, cutting budgets or acknowledging the difficulty of an entirely need-blind admissions process.     There are no simple solutions for these problems. Tufts finds itself in the unenviable position of having to make difficult choices between losing top students, losing its need-blind status and losing its competitive edge. None of these options is appealing, and any step forward requires significant sacrifice, but we at the Daily hope that the Tufts administration will recognize that there is something wrong. The road to recovery will not be easy — but the first step is admitting we have a problem.



The Setonian
Opinion

Signs' of prejudice

    Over a long weekend in February, 32 students traveled to Germany with Hillel on a trip to examine how the community of Berlin has dealt with the legacy of the Holocaust. We looked specifically at the ways in which the Holocaust has been memorialized so that the history is not overwhelming but rather pervasive. In Berlin, the present is infused with bits of memorialized history. These memorials serve as reminders, not only for the historical events that took place but also for how those events have transformed the community.     A particularly striking Holocaust memorial was located in Berlin's Bavarian Quarter, a once-vibrant center of Jewish life. This memorial was designed to commemorate the restrictive Nazi laws that were imposed on the Jews in the years leading up to the Holocaust. The memorial is composed of 80 street signs that are spread out around the busy Bavarian Quarter. On one side of each sign is a law stating a specific limitation placed on Jews, and on the other side is a simple picture which represents that limitation. These signs hang on lampposts all throughout the Quarter and serve as reminders of the marginalization of Jewish life during Nazi rule.     Walking through the Bavarian Quarter, it was easy to imagine what the neighborhood once looked like. Since the Holocaust, it has again become a bustling area with busy streets. The memorialized lampposts, however, remind those who pass through that this neighborhood is drastically different from the way it once was. The lampposts compose a "web of remembrance," which chronicles the persecution of the Bavarian Quarter's 16,000 Jews. This web illustrates how the rights of a group of people were slowly stripped away in a modern, intellectual community. It asks the questions: How could it come to this? How did the community allow Jews to be marginalized, especially when these restrictions were placed so publicly?     Tuesday, April 21 is Yom HaShoah, Holocaust Remembrance Day. It is essential that we use this day as an opportunity to think about addressing prejudice in our own community, in our country and in our world. As part of a series of Yom HaShoah events, a group of students who went to Berlin have created a replica of the Bavarian Quarter memorial here on the Tufts campus. Ten street signs hang on the lampposts leading up to the library steps. As you walk the library steps, ask yourself how you would react if such laws were introduced in your own community.     Prejudice does not become powerful overnight. Rather, prejudice takes small steps, building momentum over time. By ignoring even the smallest signs of hatred, we give intolerance dangerous power. We cannot afford to be passive when any "sign" of intolerance appears in our midst. The students who built this replication hope that by installing the "signs" that many people in Berlin chose to disregard, we at Tufts will hopefully be provoked to think about and address the intolerance that goes unnoticed in our community.     Join us. On Wednesday at 12:00 in the afternoon on the library patio, 17 campus groups will join to make a pledge to "Never Again" allow prejudice and injustice to remain unchallenged. Please show your support by attending this short ceremony.


The Setonian
Opinion

Corrections

A standalone photo on Tuesday's front page ("All revved up") was mistakenly credited to Emily Eisenberg. It was actually taken by Tim Straub. The photo of Alan Solomont in Tuesday's paper was mistakenly credited to Aalok Kanani. It was actually a Daily file photo.


The Setonian
Opinion

Finding common ground

The story of Roxana Saberi, an American-Iranian journalist sentenced to eight years in prison after an Iranian court convicted her Saturday of spying for the United States, is both disheartening and unnerving — not only because, according to the State Department, the judicial process was not carried out fairly, but also because of the impact the decision could have on discussions between the Obama administration and Iran over the country's nuclear program.


The Setonian
Opinion

Endorse away

It's that time of year again: The temperature is heating up, and so is the race to succeed Duncan Pickard as president of the TCU Senate. We all enjoy the witty campaign slogans and the fact that we see the charming faces of every presidential candidate in every nook and cranny of campus, but there is a dimension of the race that appears to be even more prominent this year: the battle over organizational endorsements.


The Setonian
Opinion

Letter to the editor

Dear Editor,     As a Tufts graduate with student-loan debt who has worked in the non-profit sector, I was both excited and proud when my alma mater launched the Loan Repayment Assistance Program (LRAP) in September 2008. This program should encourage Tufts students to pursue public and non-profit careers and lessen the financial burden of those already working in the field. Yet I would encourage LRAP's administrators to consider changing the program application due date from September 1st to rolling applications. Non-profit and public sector jobs tend to not follow the recruiting cycles of the private sector in which positions begin in July or August after fall recruitment. Those accepting positions at NGOs and governments often begin their jobs at many points in the year, which could restrict and delay their ability to obtain LRAP funds. With a firm Sept. 1 due date, someone starting to work in September or October would have to wait an entire year to apply and an additional four to five months to receive loan repayments.


The Setonian
Opinion

We're getting a little carried away

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.


The Setonian
Opinion

April 9, 2009 bias incident

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.


The Setonian
Opinion

Response to 'Stuff Tufts People Like: Alleging bias'

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.


The Setonian
Opinion

Somerville negligent in racial profiling case

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.


The Setonian
Editorial

Solving the piracy problem

    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.


The Setonian
Opinion

New season, same argument

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.


The Setonian
Opinion

From the Public Editor | Impartially reporting bias

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?


The Setonian
Opinion

Regarding cliques

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.


The Setonian
Opinion

Zach Drucker and Chris Poldoian | Bad Samaritans

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.


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

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