This is now the fourth week in a row that I've read Will Ehrenfeld's column, "Stuff Tufts People Like." Coincidentally, this is also the fourth week in a row that I've been wholly unimpressed and vaguely annoyed with said column. Last week, his topic of choice for stuff that Tufts people like was "Getting offended too easily."
The interdisciplinary approach that I learned at Tufts is the foundation of my professional life — a 15-year career in the State Department and eight years in the energy sector. That same approach can be the foundation for addressing two of our most pressing national issues — energy security and climate change.
In April of last year, Zachary Condon posted a mystifying message on the Web site of his intercultural music project, Beirut. He cancelled the group's tour and said he was in need of a creative shift: "It's come time to change some things, reinvent some others, and come back at some point with a fresh perspective and batch of songs," he wrote. "I promise we'll be back, in some form." Now Beirut has returned -- and indeed some things have changed.
By the middle of the spring semester (or, for those who are more on the ball than the average college student, the end of fall), the pressure is on as the seemingly impossible scramble for summer jobs and internships comes to the forefront of most students' to-do lists. With the downturn in the economy, it seems that no matter how many opportunities a student seeks, no matter how good the résumé, the odds are stacked against the modern college student, even for smaller unpaid internships — and the phenomenon of the paid internship seems to have faded into myth.
A theater review on Feb. 24 ("A.R.T. revives bleak ‘Endgame'") incorrectly listed the ticket prices of a production of Samuel Beckett's "Endgame" as ranging from $37 to $110. In fact, the ticket prices range from $25 to $79 with $25 student tickets and $15 student rush prices.
We all know the answer to that question is yes! Tufts is definitely better than Harvard and now we even have the cold, hard facts to back that up (at least in the realm of recycling). From where, you ask? The results for the first three weeks of Recycle Mania have come in! What's that? You don't know what Recycle Mania is? Well, some of you may have noticed the huge, brightly colored scoreboards hanging all over campus. But in case you missed them (or didn't bother to stop and read them), Recycle Mania is a friendly, 10-week competition held each year between colleges and universities all over the country to see which school is recycling the most. It started on Jan. 23, and I hate to break the news to you guys, but our results for the first three weeks have not been too good.
Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-La.) was supposed to be the Republican Party's equalizer. He was supposed to exploit the weaknesses of President Barack Obama's address to Congress Tuesday night. He was supposed to step into the national spotlight in the way Obama did four and a half years earlier during the Democratic National Convention. He was supposed to be the promising young face of a party that has appeared increasingly fractured over the last few years.
Less than five years after political conservatives of all stripes spoke with certainty about a permanent Republican majority, the party finds itself out of power, out of influence and, arguably, out of ideas. As it wanders in the political wilderness, the GOP must begin to make some difficult choices about what it intends to stand for; whether it will purge itself of the ideologically impure, or whether it will cut a deal with the devil just to stay viable. The growing divide in the Republican Party today is perhaps most clearly illustrated by the debate about President Obama's economic stimulus bill.
Alex Rodriguez came out of the closet. On Monday, Feb. 9, in an interview with ESPN's Peter Gammons, Alex Rodriguez admitted to knowingly and willingly taking performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) during his tenure with the Texas Rangers from 2001 to 2003. This confirms what was already known through a leaked positive steroids test from 2003. This also comes in the wake of a leaked result from Barry Bonds, whose urine tested positive for PEDs. The two are now inextricably linked with Mark McGwire through the amorphous cloud that is steroids.
On Feb. 12, junior Alice Tomic wrote an letter to the editor taking the Tufts Daily to task for what she saw as overly sympathetic bias in coverage of street artist Shephard Fairey, whose mural now adorns the wall outside of Jumbo Express. What caught my eye in the piece was a sentence decrying a "lack of professional journalism when it comes to Barack Obama" on campus.
Sunday night's presentation of the Academy Awards was elegant, star-studded and epic. In other words, it was nothing out of the ordinary for an industry fueled by adoration and self-congratulation. Yet faced with a near-certain decrease in revenues resulting from the global economic downturn, the Academy did little to strengthen its bond with the American public aside from host Hugh Jackman's half-hearted joke about "scaling back" during the opening monologue.
Guided by Voices' milestone record, "Bee Thousand" (1994), might make you think that Pete Townshend had a crazy idea one day. It sounds like he put Sonic Youth, Dire Straits, The Modern Lovers and Neutral Milk Hotel in a room with one guitar amp, a bass amp and a drum set and told them all to plug in and start playing without much attention to planning songs or testing levels.
This weekend, supporters of President Barack Obama who believed that theirs was a vote for change experienced shock, disappointment and disillusionment when the administration announced that it would uphold a policy of denying constitutional rights to the 600-some detainees of Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan — a policy that prevailed under former President George W. Bush. This decision seems to go directly against Obama's anti-torture, pro-human rights rhetoric, the symbolic closing of Guantanamo Bay and his repeated insistence that his administration seeks peaceful relations with countries in the Middle East. This is a direct betrayal of the expectations and values of the many who supported him, and it is liable to create doubts among other nations about just how much change Obama is bringing to Washington. Several personnel at the Bagram Air Base were investigated in 2002 and later prosecuted after autopsies revealed the deaths of Mullah Habibullah and a 22-year-old farmer and part-time taxi driver known as Dilawar — both Afghani civilians suspected of terrorist activities — to be homicide induced by severe blunt force trauma. Dilawar, it was later revealed, was found innocent. Despite these past infractions of human rights, the administration argues that, because Bagram is located in an overseas war zone, its prisoners, who may be a threat to security, can be considered part of continuing military involvement (as opposed to Guantanamo, which is not located in a war zone). The administration also says that keeping the detention center open is a matter of security and that prisoners will be released when they no longer constitute a threat to that security (arguments that sound eerily similar to Bush's justifications for allowing Guantanamo Bay to remain open). This is not the legacy that President Obama promised to uphold in his campaign or in his inauguration speech —in which he even addressed the issue of torture — and it is certainly not something that bolsters the United States' image abroad or fulfills the promises that Obama made at home. It is, in effect, a violation of the promises he made, an insult to the hope and optimism he instilled in his supporters and a warning sign to tenuous allies and potential enemies with whom he had hoped to build bridges. It says to the world that the United States only supports human rights when it is convenient, that inspiring words about equality and humanity should not be trusted and that change will only ever be halfway. President Obama should remember that the United States is still fragile and bruised from recession and disappointed hopes, looking to define its future as a virtuous, prosperous nation, and that much of the outcome of that quest will depend on decisions such as this one.
Usually, you think that peace and justice studies majors would praise activism, not chastise it for being "aggressive" and "nervy." Yet, in his Feb. column, "Stuff Tufts People Like: Unnecessary activisim," Will Ehrenfeld believes otherwise, decrying the atrocious "excessive" activism found rampant on Tufts' campus. I tend to disagree.
As the federal government prepares to dole out $787 billion in stimulus money, $12 billion of which will go to Massachusetts, towns across the state are scrambling to put together project proposals in hopes of getting the biggest possible slice of the deal. While the influx of cash into local economies will certainly allow many towns to avoid massive layoffs — and in some cases, provide more jobs — and hopefully spur improvements in schools and infrastructure, local governments must ensure that the money is not used as a Band-Aid for persistent budget problems or for projects that will end up sucking more funds from the state once the stimulus money runs out. It appears that many Massachusetts towns plan to spend their piece of the stimulus money wisely, for which we at the Daily commend them. It must be emphasized, however, that using the money to invest in projects that will require more money to maintain than the state will be able to provide once the flood of stimulus money has ebbed, or to fill in discrepancies in the town budget, would have decidedly negative long-term consequences and would distract the state from other well-needed projects. Much of the stimulus money should be directed toward infrastructure improvement, a strategy that, as we learned in the Great Depression, does an effective job of creating many jobs relatively quickly and having a lasting positive impact on the community. Investment in improving roadways and schools, refurbishing the older areas of certain towns and encouraging the construction of new buildings are all viable and wise options for local governments to consider. While the jobs created by these avenues would not, unfortunately, be permanent, they would, however, provide at least temporary income for many people — hopefully enough to tide them over until the economy begins to move in a positive direction again. These investments would also encourage future businesses to open in local communities, whether now or in more conducive economic times. While it most certainly is true that any project, whether it be roads, schools or new buildings, will require money from the town and its residents, their overall benefit in terms of both jobs and future use make them worthwhile investments in both the long and the short term. Somerville would feel the benefits of newer roads (for those of us now accustomed to the bumpy Joey excursions down to Davis Square) and transportation systems that would make the town more navigable and all around easier to manage. The development of Assembly Square would provide numerous stores, which would provide jobs, and hopefully bring a newer and cleaner face to an area of the town is otherwise rather under-utilized. A sudden influx of stimulus money will create a unique opportunity for improvement and development across the state, but it must be used carefully and precisely in order to confer the greatest amount of benefits.
On his second day in office, President Barack Obama reaffirmed his commitment to protecting abortion rights by marking the 36th anniversary of the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. He said the ruling "stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters." The statement stood in stark contrast to the remarks made by former President George W. Bush exactly a year earlier when he told March for Life participants he was "proud to be standing with" them. But as the state of North Dakota proved yesterday, neither the new president nor Supreme Court decisions are going to hinder the progress of pro-lifers and their march toward entirely eliminating abortion rights in this country. In a 51-41 vote, the North Dakota House granted fertilized human eggs the same rights as human beings, ruling that "a human being includes any organism with the genome of Homo sapiens." State Rep. Dan Ruby (R-Minot), the bill's sponsor, argued that the legislation does not automatically ban abortion but merely defines the time at which life begins. Essentially, he asserted, the bill is completely compatible with Roe v. Wade and is "not as aggressive as the direct ban legislation that [he has] proposed in the past." But of course it's aggressive. Direct or indirect, the legislation challenges the very tenets of the 1973 ruling. Rep. Ruby is seriously fooling himself if he thinks pro-choice proponents — or really anyone — will buy this argument. The very fact that the North Dakota House defined life as beginning upon fertilization inherently bans abortion from occurring within state borders. If the Senate passes the bill, any abortion carried out within North Dakota will be considered murder. It could not be more simple. With one vote, the North Dakota House has put a bill in front of the state's Senate — which will likely vote in the next two to three weeks — that will effectively force the state government to "intrude on our most private family matters." But that certainly won't be the end of it. Ruby may claim the bill goes hand-in-hand with the Roe v. Wade ruling, but it is no secret that provided the Senate passes the bill, North Dakota will challenge the basic principles underlying the decision President Obama was celebrating just a month ago. It will likely cost the state millions of dollars to defend — a fact that concerned many critics of the measure. We at the Daily hope that it doesn't come to that. Let's hope the Senate has enough sense to see the bill for what it is: a direct threat to Roe v. Wade.
On Jan. 24, Shepard Fairey visited our campus. Invited by the Education for Public Inquiry and International Citizenship (EPIIC) program, he covered the wall by Jumbo Express with his signature street art. Talking with my peers, I gathered that there was a mixed reaction to his work. Some felt that it was out of place; the bold red and black color scheme seemed to signify something ominous. Others decided that it was cool to have a celebrity come to campus. Whether or not his mural pleases everyone's artistic tastes, Fairey gave us something more important than just a colored wall: He gave us dialogue, character and public art. On a campus that lacks public art of any kind, Tufts should be grateful for this bold addition. Since coming to Tufts, I have felt that the campus lacks a cohesive character in terms of art and architecture. The buildings on the academic quad harmoniously interact with one another, but the view of '70s-style Miller Hall strikes a discordant note. Yet, campus cohesion does not necessarily mean a single unifying style. Cohesion lies in buildings and space interacting together to create a welcoming atmosphere. Where we live, and the buildings and people we interact with, touch each person's life intimately. Whether we are in the slums of Mumbai or the polished apartments of the Upper East Side, our built and decorated environment has an impact on us. The idea of space is both an abstract and concrete one. By setting up walls and buildings, humans change and construct the space they occupy. Our perception of that wall or building, however, can define the space. The outcome of these barriers may hold cultural or political implications. Take Baghdad for example. The walls surrounding the Green Zone are heavily protected. They are almost impenetrable in order to protect the international agencies and government offices inside. Though the area may be secure on the inside, the immediate area surrounding the Green Zone, the Red Zone, is perceived to be the opposite. The security may be keeping out threats such as insurgents, but one must also consider that these intimidating walls also separate the Iraqi citizens from international help and their government. This separation of space may have a negative effect on the psyche of the Iraqis. Ultimately, this has contributed to the Balkanization of Iraq, creating a divided and not cohesive city. The definition of a wall is something that divides space, but it can also reconstruct space. The fortified walls around the Green Zone created an enclosed enclave which excludes the rest of the city. Fairey's mural on the campus center wall reconstructed the space surrounding it. One could hardly call the patio outside Jumbo Express anything besides a corridor or the place where the shuttle from Davis Square stops. It was stale. That wall's only function was to hide the dumpsters behind it. But now, public art has redefined the underused space as a marker for Tufts. Consider Union Square in Somerville. It can hardly be thought of as a square, as it is the intersection of several major roads. It is inaccessible by the T but reachable by the 80 bus line. Union Square would otherwise be a busy and impersonal intersection, but it is filled with little cafés. Even so, a collection of cafés does not define a place. Davis Square is a large brick patio. Harvard Square is characterized by the architecture of its namesake university. Newbury Street is known for its brownstones. What is Union Square known for? The vibrant collection of murals that decorate many walls. According to a friend, the murals are markers signalling that you are in Union Square. Once the murals disappear from sight, you know you've left the area. In other words, the wall art is the glue to an otherwise potentially disjointed space. The street art has involved the Somerville Boys & Girls Club and the residents of the area. The murals have not only given that space an identity but also have created a community. On the Tufts campus, the Shepard Fairey wall will give our school more definition and physical distinction. Although the mural is only projected to last for up to four years, it has already given our campus a refresher and a stimulator. Just as the mural is glued to the wall, the mural will serve as a type of glue for the campus, bringing our ideals and ideas together. "Obey Peace" is a simple and powerful message. The reworking of Communist propaganda reflects Tufts' constant goal to innovate and make better what already exists. We need more public art to spruce up this campus. When the trees have lost their leaves and the flowers have crawled underground during the winter, the bright points of this campus that remain will be the art. The statue of Jumbo outside Barnum is great, paying homage to our mascot. People interact with it, climbing on top of it in the middle of the night. The cannon is a beam of color and communication, drawing people in to connect with it and each other over its next coat of paint. And the little elephant statue outside of Tisch Library reminds me every day of my community. Tufts needs more bright points. The barren Res Quad and other empty, underused lots around campus are screaming to be included in the everyday life of this school. We need to start thinking about public art not as just a pretty sitting duck, but as a catalyst of dialogue and community. Public art can be dynamic and active. As a university that stresses active citizenship, our physical campus also needs to reflect our ideals. Fairey's mural is a poignant reminder of art and space.
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
