Skip to Content, Navigation, or Footer.

Opinion

The Setonian
Opinion

Socioeconomic class in the classroom and beyond

    On Feb. 10, Tufts Community Union (TCU) President Duncan Pickard wrote an open letter to the Tufts community, entitled "Let's talk about class," on the need for a dialogue on socioeconomic diversity at Tufts.     While Pickard mentioned some of the elements of socioeconomic class that might be visible on campus, I would like to address one that goes beyond the superficial indicators of class we might be familiar with. Class goes deeper than cell phones, iPods and designer jeans. Class goes further than the decision to put Matriculation on a week day (though I fully agree with Pickard on the need to change this). Class goes beyond determining whether a student can take that unpaid internship in New York City or whether he or she has to work a minimum wage job during breaks.     Class goes into the classroom itself. Our community health classes discuss health-care policy for low-income families in the United States and around the world. Our sociology classes address the consequences of urban poverty in America's cities. Our economics classes discuss the effects of the recession on manufacturing industries, and our political science classes look at different levels of income in determining issues important to constituents. I feel that Tufts does a decent job of addressing issues of class in the academic setting. In my opinion, it is not that Tufts needs to focus more on addressing issues of class from an intellectual angle. Rather, perhaps what Tufts needs is more perspective on issues of socioeconomic class.     I am reminded of one specific course in which the professor proposed the question to students: "What do you think is the median household income in the United States?" One student answered with a fairly confident $100,000. $100,000 seems fairly middle class, right? Another student proposed that $100,000 was too high and guessed $80,000. How many of us are aware that the median household income, according to the US Census Bureau, was $50,233 in 2007? Half of American households, therefore, make less than the cost of tuition plus expenses for one year of Tufts. The fact of the matter is, we need more students to be aware of the realities of low-income America.     If Tufts wants to continue to be one of the leading universities in the country, it needs to broaden its perspective. Fostering socioeconomic diversity at Tufts is one element of this perspective. To me, this is imperative. Tufts students are going to be the future leaders and policymakers of the country. We simply can't afford not to expand our knowledge and perspectives on these issues. The truth of the matter is that we can learn more about urban poverty by living in a low-income urban community than we can in a classroom. We can learn more about blue-collar America by working in a factory than we can by reading an article. Does this mean we all have to go out and live in an urban community or work in a factory? Of course not. However, we need to have more students with these types of experiences in our classrooms. Going need blind was a great way to start this process.     Second, we need programs to address the issue of socioeconomic class at Tufts. Tufts has worked hard in recent years to encourage programming for a variety of other elements of diversity, and it is about time that socioeconomic diversity makes this list. We do have some programs that address socioeconomic class for non-students like the Jumbo Janitor Alliance and the Leonard Carmichael Soceity's project to provide English as a Second Language classes for interested OneSource staff. We need more of these. We also need to do more on-campus to encourage Tufts students with unique socioeconomic experiences to share their valuable perspectives with the rest of the Tufts community. We also need to foster an environment in which students feel comfortable discussing these issues in classrooms. Just hearing our peers' thoughts and experiences can make a huge difference in broadening our perspectives. Like Pickard mentioned, class is a difficult issue to talk about and there will certainly be challenges. I am very excited to see what The Class Project is capable of.     As the future leaders and policymakers, we as Tufts students need to ask ourselves some important questions. How will we fully understand issues of urban or rural poverty without being aware of what it's like to live under these conditions? How will we make smart and balanced decisions on social programs like welfare if we've never met anyone who needs them? How will we allot funding to low-income schools if we aren't exposed to what it's like to be educated in one?  If we are not exposed to the realities of socioeconomic class, how can we hold true to our "active citizen" values?     I applaud the efforts of Pickard, the Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service, the TCU Senate and others for bringing class to the forefront of our discussions on diversity at Tufts.  I hope that The Class Project will open up avenues for dialogue on this complex but very pressing issue of diversity.


The Setonian
Editorial

Correction

Yesterday's article "EPIIC to kick off annual symposium tonight" quoted Institute for Global Leadership Director Sherman Teichman saying that of the four class years represented in this year's Education for Public Inquiry and International Citizenship (EPIIC) colloquium, the senior class is the one with the lowest representation. Instead, the article should have reported that he said that this year's colloquium includes fewer seniors than in years past.


The Setonian
Opinion

Taxation deserves representation

When Washington, D.C., was first established as the center of American government, the founding fathers envisioned it as a city of leadership, devoid of the presence of the masses.  Ceded by Maryland and Virginia, it was to be a legislative sanctum in which lawmakers and executives would convene to do the people's business.


The Setonian
Opinion

Corrections

The quote, "I was just doing it for sh--s and giggles," which was printed in the Feb. 13 article "The Daily presents: speed dating at Tufts" was off the record and should not have been printed. The Feb. 6 article "EPC proposal to restrict AP credits sparks debate" included a quote from a report by the university's Educational Policy Committee implying that the committee endorsed the view that "the university's present policies on advanced placement contribute to an uneven playing field for students from less privileged backgrounds." This was in fact a belief held only by some professors, and the committee did not endorse this view. The Feb. 13 article "Freshman senators join together for weekly office hours in the campus center" incorrectly stated that the Tufts Community Union (TCU) Constitution requires each TCU senator to hold two hours of office hours per week. The actual requirement is one hour per week for each senator, with additional hours mandated for certain positions. Also, the Senate bylaws, not the TCU Constitution, set these requirements.






The Setonian
Opinion

Keeping downtown from falling down: suburbanization and urban renewal

Suburbanization rose from a nuclear defense strategy. In the 1950s, President Dwight Eisenhower began the construction of a national network of highways — not for the sake of transportation, but primarily to allow for the free transport of mobile nuclear missile launchers. While there never was any occasion to send missiles along I-40, this system had significant but unforeseen consequences. At the same time that Washington was enabling itself to drive missiles from North Carolina to Illinois, Americans were enjoying a post-war economic boom. With this increase in capital came increases in spending power, and for the first time, members of the middle and working classes were able to move out of industrial zones and central cities into suburban developments like Levittown, N.Y., near New York City.


The Setonian
Opinion

Rights of sex offenders must be observed

Rights balancing is a tricky business, and sometimes it's just easier to look the other way. That's what happened when a Boston court sentenced Jeffrey Shields to civil detention last week as a sexually dangerous person. In this case, the court pulled a trick straight from "Minority Report" and locked up Shields, an ex-felon, to prevent him from committing future offenses.


The Setonian
Opinion

Will Ehrenfeld | Stuff Tufts People Like

Following last week's column about unnecessary activism, I want to focus more directly on activism and its role on campus and in a Tufts education. "Civic engagement" is one of the big buzzwords that admissions and public relations spout relentlessly; the university depicts itself as a socially active institution that is heavily involved in community issues and service. Tufts people especially like working with poor or disadvantaged people who "need our help," and this becomes more central to our time at Tufts than any other ideas about education that might follow a more traditional path.     Those of us (I include myself here) who came to Tufts expecting to change the world immediately upon arrival in Medford have likely been disappointed in the progress so far. You (we) have almost certainly failed rather miserably in your (our) attempts to change the world and impact humanity in a positive way. And, sorry to burst your bubble, but your immediate prospects don't look too good, either. I'm not chastising you for your idealistic beliefs and outlandish ambition — I have those things, too — but I think you're confused.     Matthew Arnold, a 19th century English writer, once suggested that "poetry can save us." In this time of relatively deep unrest and growing economic turmoil, every prescription for salvation must be reviewed, so let's examine Arnold's idea in a larger context. Everyone need not read copious amounts of poetry, although Robert Frost never hurt anyone. Instead, poetry here is a metaphor for the humanities in general and education in its purest form, which is sadly lacking at our potentially great institution.     I believe that Tufts students are some of the smartest people I have ever met, and the potential here for deep engagement with education and learning is great, yet what many of us have been doing here is wasting our time. Stanley Fish, a professor and occasional blogger at the New York Times Web site, calls his column "The Last Professor" in a not-so-subtle jab at current academics that focus on changing the world instead of learning. One of his books on higher education, "Save the World on Your Own Time" (2008), pretty well describes his opinion on civic engagement and its role inside the classroom.     In multiple columns, Fish has argued that higher education, understood properly, can be distinguished by the lack of a relationship between its activities and measurable effects in the world around us. I can only bemoan the absence of this type of learning and engagement here. Tufts people seem more interested in appearing compassionate and involved than focusing on their own education. We are missing out on schooling for schooling's sake — poetry, philosophy and literature for example — where the goal is specially focused on understanding, comprehension and enlarging the mind; it is individual rather than instrumental.     You can spend hours, days or even weeks volunteering at a homeless shelter or a soup kitchen or, if you're lucky, traveling to Africa to help refugees. In fact, you ought to, if you have the opportunity — but that's not really an education. Don't delude yourself into thinking you are getting educated and learning how to create change as you do it. You might be helping a few people, but you are missing out on something wonderful if you avoid learning for your — and its — own sake.


The Setonian
Opinion

From the Public Editor | Another semester

Another semester, another controversy relating to something published in The Primary Source. This time, the editors of the publication billing itself as Tufts' Journal of Conservative Thought published a cover of Barack Obama photoshopped to resemble Jesus Christ in order to satirize the messianic quality our new president seems to take on in the eyes of some of his more ardent admirers.



The Setonian
Opinion

An interview with Walter Mondale, part two

    This is the second in a two-part series of Michael Bendetson's interview with former Vice President Walter Mondale. The first installment, which appeared in Thursday's issue, focused on Mondale's career as a senator, his vice presidency under Jimmy Carter and his 1984 presidential campaign. Today's focuses on Mondale's views on key political issues such as energy usage and the economy. Michael Bendetson: As a man who personally held the Senate seat [from 1964-1976], unsuccessfully ran against the incumbent [in the 2002 Senate election] and also is a Minnesota resident, you are in perfect position to provide commentary on the 2008 Minnesota Senate election. At this juncture in time, the people of Minnesota are represented by only one senator. Although the Minnesota Canvassing Board has already certified [an Al] Franken victory, the battle for the Senate has moved into the courtroom. What do you think will be done to resolve this situation? In addition, what do you think should have been done to expedite this process? Walter Mondale: I do not know how this election will turn out.  It is in the middle of what is referred to as "judicial contest" and in the process of looking at 4,000 absentee ballots. I have heard predictions that it will take months to resolve this situation … I do not think that anyone truly knows how long it will take. However, there are a few things we do know. The election was truly phenomenal. There were 3 million ballots cast, and the candidates came within 200 votes of each other.  As a result, every ballot had to be recounted. Our mechanisms for counting ballots are very efficient and effective and may be the best system in the country. The reason for the disputes is based principally on absentee ballots. The outcome has to be just. I also hope the process can be expedited because there is a lot of serious business going on in our nation's capital. Minnesota deserves two senators and America deserves 100 senators. MB: One of the main focuses of the Carter Administration was that of conservation of energy. While various steps such as the creation of the Department of Energy were implemented by President Carter to reduce dependency on foreign oil, the current United States energy policy appears to be nearly unchanged. Why do you feel there has been little movement on this issue? Also, what in your opinion needs to be done to create an energy-independent America? WM: Energy is one of those tough issues. Almost everything that you can do that would make a significant impact requires you to frontload pain and backload pleasure. This is not always a popular thing to do. We did it. We set up [the Department of Energy], deregulated the price of gas and oil and began the search for all alternative forms of energy. We studied solar, wind, geothermal and many other forms. Most of what we are enjoying now was started under Carter. When we left office, [Americans] were using 2 million gallons of oil less than when we entered office. If they kept those programs in place and built on them, by now we would be in a far better position than we are in now. Reagan and a lot of others felt there was no problem. They were optimistic. [Former President Ronald] Reagan said "There is more oil in Alaska than in the rest of the world combined, including the Middle East." Of course, it was not true, but it made you feel good for a while. As a result of this mentality, we lost a lot of time. Now I am hopeful that under the leadership of President [Barack] Obama, and as Americans see the awful consequences of these energy shortages including terrorism, global warming and a damaged economy, that we will focus more of our attention on energy independence.     MB: Throughout your years as senator, vice president and ambassador, you have done an extensive amount of traveling across the globe promoting American values and ideas. Based on your experiences abroad, why is America detested in so many areas around the globe? In addition, what can be done to improve the global reputation of the United States? WM: I think the worst thing that happened under our last president was the excess in hubris, displayed with the idea that America can push people around. There was also this extraordinary confidence [that] the military could force other governments and societies to respond to what we wanted. There was a belligerent and pushy way that the [Bush Administration] approached not only our enemies, but also our friends.  If you look at the polls and the international surveys, they show that we [America] have really alienated a lot of the world. I think our reputation can improve quickly if we change our approach, as Obama is beginning to do so. MB: With a Democratic Congress and an enthusiastic public, President Obama has a great window of opportunity to accomplish his proposed legislation. What are the main issues that President Obama should be focusing on? WM: That is a tough question. I have never seen a new president confront more tough and diverse issues than those that President Obama is forced to deal with. All of these issues are controversial and extremely costly. Right now, we are trying to get a stimulus package that will help pull us out of this deep recession. We have to try to get a better health care system. We need to do a better job in education. We need to do better with alternative energy and global warming. We need to restore America's reputation across the globe. We must find a better solution to dealing with Iran and their nuclear capabilities. There are so many issues that this president and this Congress have to deal with. However, I am optimistic because the American people have spoken and given a mandate to the new president.



The Setonian
Opinion

Top Ten | Top Ten Awesome Things That Make Us Feel Totally Rad

Dude, here at the Daily, we're, like, totally stoked that Blink-182 is reuniting and crap. Because we, like, totally so didn't dig Tom DeLonge's side project Angels and Airwaves and whatever. In the spirit of de-harshing our collective buzz, brah, we've compiled a super-awesome list of Awesome Things That Make Us Feel Totally Rad. Did we mention how incredibly wicked awesome this stuff is? 10. Lisa Frank: Lisa Frank is the woman responsible for every folder or notebook you owned in the first through fourth grade, or, if you're still awesome, until now. Her school — nay, lifestyle — supplies portray sickeningly adorable animals and mythological creatures at play. Those unicorns are frolicking so hard. 9. Mario Cart for Wii: Most of us can't drive normally, so what's better than practicing running into walls and flying off cliffs with a hand-held steering wheel? Not to mention the awesome commentary from each character, such as "Aha!" from Waluigi as he smokes your Baby Toad in the final lap. Try the level where the track is a rainbow; just be sure not to use psychedelic drugs beforehand. 8. French comic operettas: Jacques Offenbach is awesome. From French comic operettas we get the can-can, lots of pirates, adulterous gods and some kickass music. French composers knew how to party. 7. Tina Fey: She was hysterical on SNL with her anti-Bush jokes, she wrote the screenplay for the movie "Mean Girls" (2004), which we all secretly (or perhaps openly) love, and now she writes and stars in one of TV's most exciting new shows, "30 Rock." Liz Lemon, her character on "30 Rock," is often quoted: "I want to go to there." However, we at the Daily Arts Department beg to differ: "We want to go to YOU, Tina!" 6. Extremely gory movies: A guilty pleasure for many Americans, the so-called "torture porn" genre is extremely profitable. Films like "Hostel 2" (2007) and "My Bloody Valentine" (2009) push the envelope of grotesque kills and psychopaths, but audiences still line up to see them. Why? Because they're AWESOME. 5. Finger painting: The best thing about finger painting, aside from the fact that it is a great excuse to make a mess, is that no matter how much you suck at art, it doesn't matter. It's all just squiggles and colors and fingerprints anyway. 4. The Interwebs: The series of tubes that gives us free music, free movies, free porn, endless viral videos and more entertainment than anything else just can't be beat. Oh, it's a pretty good research tool too, so I guess that counts for something. 3. The Hold Steady: As anyone who's ever been to a Hold Steady show can tell you, there's so much joy in the classic-meets-punk-rock songs played by these Midwesterners-turned-Brooklynites. With lyrics about sex, drugs, booze and rock and roll, where can you go wrong? Their keyboardist even has a frigging handlebar moustache. Bottom line: If you don't love this uniquely American-sounding band, you're probably a terrorist. 2. High fives: Is there nothing more beautiful than a really good high five? It is an artistic expression of the shared emotional experience of "awesome" given sound and physicality in the form of the meeting of two palms. It's like a beautiful dance, and a soulful orgasm for the hand… 1. Sex on the Joey: …and speaking of orgasms, sex on the Joey seems pretty awesome, just as long as no one is queefing.  Yeah, we're looking at you, Crane… —compiled by the Daily Arts Department



The Setonian
Editorial

Bosworth's visit an encouraging sign

While most students on the Hill rightfully place their focus on the enduring U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq — and the danger that terror camps and violent extremists pose there — when contemplating the regional and global threats that the United States faces, the dilemma posed by North Korea's nuclear threat often goes overlooked.


The Setonian
Opinion

The art of giving

    I just got my first real job. Almost seven years after graduating from our esteemed university, I can finally boast of full-time employment, a salary, benefits, the whole enchilada. My employment lag might not be a welcome data point for the brochure extolling the virtues of higher education, but I feel pretty darn lucky at the moment. Now I just have to decide what to do with all of this hard-earned money.     I know exactly what Tufts would like me to do with it. They would like me to send it to them in monthly installments, and some fortunate student employee on the phone line would get a bonus. This is a very tempting scenario. I loved my time at Tufts University. I met wonderful people, I learned a myriad of facts and life lessons, and, really, can there ever be enough brick to brighten one's day? Tufts relies on the support of alumni like me, and maybe supporting them is fair payback for the use of their name on my CV. (Just ignore the fact that it took this long to help me — I'm sure I'm an outlier).     I only have one niggling little question: What the hell is Tufts going to do with this money? Examining the historical record doesn't exactly inspire confidence. Despite attempts at research into the endowment, Tufts has done a very good job of covering their tracks. Only when a huge mistake is made, like having a toe in the Bernie Madoff fracas, does Tufts fess up.  But what about the rest of it?  How do I know where my money will go? What if it is used to support causes that I don't believe in, causes that violate my own moral code? What if by donating to Tufts, I am tacitly sponsoring a variety of unethical business practices that I don't agree with?     OK, I know the connection between my potential donation and the support of heartless scum who delight in making money off of misery seems a bit tenuous, but I think that when we give our money away (to Tufts, to investment bankers, to the government) that we should seriously consider where that money is going. For investment in sustainable, socially conscious, community-supporting business, I give it a big thumbs up. Investment in the rape of the natural world and screwing people over gets a thumbs down.     Even if I trusted that Tufts was only spreading sunshine and good cheer with its endowment dollars, I would hope that Tufts as an institution would jump at the chance to (transparently) brag about how ethical their investments are. And as the Students at Tufts for Investment Responsibility (STIR) members so helpfully point out, our proverbial Joneses (enviable neighbors such as Harvard, Swarthmore, Columbia, Williams and Barnard) are already doing this. Let's keep up with them on the things that really matter.     So while I do wish Tufts well, I am going to withhold any direct donations to their coffers until they cough up some transparency and make a commitment to investing money in ways that make the world a brighter place, and I'm going to encourage other alumni to do the same. However, since I do sincerely believe that one of the best things about Tufts is its students, I'm going to use my hard-earned paycheck to support the Tufts Progressive Alumni Network (TPAN) Social Justice Fund (full disclosure, I'm on the exec board and it rocks). That way I can still support the institution I love, but with the smug knowledge that my money will go to Tufts students working to make their school live up to its full potential. --


The Setonian
Opinion

Corrections

Yesterday's News article "‘Disrespectful' behavior mars Winter Bash, organizers say" attributed the following quotation to Programming Board Co-Chair Vanessa White: "The police paid no regard to students' alcohol intoxication levels at all." The quotation was actually from sophomore Programming Board member Karen Andres. The photo accompanying yesterday's women's track and field article ("Theiss breaks school record in final home meet") was mistakenly credited to James Choca. The photo was actually taken by Alex Dennett. A photo accompanying Friday's women's basketball article ("Title game rematch set for Saturday as first-place Tufts travels to Amherst") was mistakenly captioned as a picture of sophomore guard Lindsay Weiner. The photo was actually of sophomore guard Colleen Hart. The photo accompanying Thursday's News article "Former congressman expounds on conflict resolution" was mistakenly captioned as a picture of former U.S. Rep. Howard Wolpe (D-Mich.). The photo was actually of Professor of Classics Bruce Hitchner.


The Setonian
Opinion

Israel deserves center-right leadership

    Yesterday, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni's centrist Kadima party pulled slightly ahead of Benjamin Netanyahu's right-wing Likud party in the country's general election after trailing for months in the polls.     While Livni and her supporters hailed their apparent two-seat victory, two things should give them pause. First, the ongoing counting of soldiers' ballots has the potential to add another seat or two to Likud. Second, even if Kadima manages to hold a one- or two-seat lead in the Knesset, the ability to hold power in Israel is dictated by a party's ability to build a coalition with other parties.     Kadima already tried and failed to build a majority coalition for six weeks in September, and their position has not improved. The smart money says that Netanyahu will be Israel's next prime minister, and the only question is about the makeup of his governing coalition. With 30 parties on the ballot during this election, the relatively strong showing of right-wing parties gives Likud the ability to build a coalition that excludes Kadima and other left-leaning groups entirely.     We at the Daily, however, would like to offer a somewhat radical approach: we believe that Likud should form a coalition with Kadima.     At first glance, this partnership makes little political sense. A split government between these two evenly-matched parties would be more of a power-sharing agreement than a governing coalition, and there would be a push for power and advantage by officials from each group that could make running the country difficult.     Indeed, the easiest coalition for Netanyahu to form would be solidly right-wing to far-right; in order to cut out the headaches of a broad-spectrum inter-party squabblefest between liberal and conservative elements, Likud could potentially partner with Avigdor Lieberman's secular nationalist party as well as the ultra-Orthodox Shas Party and other religious nationalists. This would spare Netanyahu a prolonged power struggle and solidify his position as the undisputed leader of the nation.     That is not, however, the coalition for whom the Israeli public voted.     What should be noted, and what we at the Daily would like to address, is that the voting was largely center-right rather than right-wing. The largest voting blocs went for centrist Kadima (29 seats), center-right Likud (27-28), Lieberman's right-wing secular party (14) and Labor's left-wing party (13). Though the electorate is split, it is clustered largely in the center-right of the political spectrum, separated only by a small matter of degrees.     Netanyahu has the ability, at this point, to build a solidly right-wing government by adding Lieberman's party and a handful of other right-wing or hawkish groups to his coalition. He also, however, has the ability to build a center-right coalition more in keeping with the vote of the Israeli people by adding Livni's Kadima to his government. This move will not be easy — in the fractious world of Israeli politics, few things are — but it has the potential to give the Israeli people a government populated by the people for whom they cast their ballots.


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