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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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. --
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.
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.
With a new administration settling in and support for the executive branch at levels not seen in decades, there may be no better time to really shake things up. President Barack Obama has already done a fairly efficient job of this by ordering the closing of Guantanamo Bay and by addressing climate problems. But given the global economy's dire straits, is there anything he can really do until we climb out of this recession? As luck would have it, there is something he can do, something that could only be facilitated by this economic shakeup. This course of action would require mass spending of political capital and a lot of public support. But most of all, it would require the will to go out on a political limb. It would be a lot like stepping near a political third rail, and it would require President Obama to break one of his campaign promises: He'd have to raise taxes, but not income taxes. What is this idea? Two words: gas tax. Don't everybody jump at once. I understand any new taxes are hard to swallow. I understand nobody wants to pay the government any more than they have to, and yes, I know we're already paying a federal gas tax, along with state and local gas taxes. But given the current economic climate, there's no better time to raise the national gas tax. A lot of opposition to a gas tax is based (at least in recent times) around people not wanting to pay any higher than the absurd price they already have to pay to fill up. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the current national average for a gallon of gas is about $1.93 as of Feb. 9; that's certainly a lot lower than it's been in recent memory. With global economies in turmoil, the market on almost everything has fallen. While that's pretty much bad news for just about everything else, the price of gas is now low enough to feasibly consider implementing a national gas tax in addition to the individual state rates. Let's say it starts at about an additional 10 or 15 cents a gallon — not that much more tacked onto your daily fill-up. Is that so unreasonable? Of course, not everybody will be on board. And by that I mean pretty much everybody would be against this proposal in the beginning. Nobody ever wants to pay more than they have to, even if the gas is relatively cheap and the tax hike isn't that much in addition to what you'll pay every time you fill up. It's still more than you would have paid without it. But for a second, let's just imagine that the gas tax is passed at an additional 10 cents on the gallon. Suppose all the cars and trucks on the road in this country take 10 gallons of gas when they fill up, just for the sake of mathematical simplicity. That means that the U.S. government collects an extra dollar when somebody fills up. That may only seem like enough to get you a cheeseburger at McDonald's, but it's all about scale here. In 2006, there were approximately 244,166,000 registered vehicles in America according to the U.S. Census Bureau. That's a whole lot of cheeseburgers. To review, if we raise the average price of gas to about $2 with a 10-cent national gas tax, and for the sake of simplicity we assume that a typical fill-up in the United States is 10 gallons, that means that the government is making a dollar on every fill-up. Multiply that by the number of registered vehicles and the U.S. government just made over 244 million dollars. That's 244 million dollars every time America fills up. And then 244 million the next time they fill up, and so on and so on. Obviously every single car and truck in the United States isn't going to fill up at the same time; some vehicles might not get gas at all. But the bulk of that money is going to be made. And what exactly can the government do with all that money? It can start by fixing the American infrastructure; our bridges, tunnels and roads are in a sad state of disrepair. It's not only an annoyance to motorists, but it can become dangerous as evidenced by the Minnesota bridge collapse in August 2007. By investing in the infrastructure of this country you kill two birds with one stone: you fix what needs fixing and you provide jobs for American workers. People who have been laid off with the economic crisis can be hired to pave roads or weld bridges. It's work that people need and work that they can do. The problem is it'll be next to impossible to find politicians to back the proposal because raising taxes is a lot like political kryptonite. Obama promised he would cut taxes for "95 percent of workers and their families" during his campaign. Instituting a gas tax could theoretically be seen as raising taxes for 100 percent of Americans (or at least construed that way by administration critics). Opponents of the increase will be many and outspoken. Their argument will of course be that raising taxes during this recession is tantamount to playing with fire near a barrel of (sorry about this) gasoline: dangerous, irresponsible and stupid. A good deal of public response may well be similar. However, if President Obama truly wants to show he stands for change and bold new action, he should at least consider raising the gas tax. It may be highly unpopular, but why not take a shot at it? Our new president will need to work pretty hard to wrangle congressional and public support. But he's got political capital to spend and economic conditions are ripe for this sort of change — it's pretty much the only thing they're ripe for besides foreclosures and layoffs. The money generated from this increase could be immensely useful even at the relatively low 10-cent-per-gallon rate. Imagine what the government could do with it if the tax were 15 or even 20 cents on the gallon. America needs revenue, jobs and domestic investment. A nationwide gas tax could provide all of that. Think about it.
Dear Editor, We are writing in response to the Feb. 4 edition of "Campus Cribs," which featured the Wren 430s. As the brothers of what was elected both Tufts best fraternity and the second best off campus dance club at Tufts in the Daily's 2008 Best of Tufts survey, we would like to voice our condescension toward the best-frat playboy wannabes currently inhabiting the 430s. While it sounds like the inhabitants of the 430s have invested a great deal into the decoration of their common room, the inhabitants of the 440s are unimpressed by what can only be described as an uninspired effort to conform to an aesthetic better suited to houses lining Professors Row. Sure, the stereo is nice, and we are all sure that the "Lord of the Rings" music provides great ambiance for Dungeons and Dragons. The 440s, however, was decked out with a TV, complete with cable, a DVD player and a Wii. Instead of 100 beer bottles, the windows were lined with bottles and bottles of André and growlers. To top it all off, we had a palm tree named Cleo. Decorating our walls were hand-drawn sketches and posters of various kinds. To add civility to our bro-main, we posted a number of rules that required universal compliance. However, the most important distinction between Da Kewl Krew and the 440s were our parties. According to current RAs in Wren, the 430s have not had any impressive parties. The 440s, however, were not rated the best fraternity on campus without reason. At our parties, which had themes ranging from prom to techno-rave to "Oregon Trail," we would fit dozens of people into the common room for some of the craziest dancing of all time. While we are men of taste and character, we are unabashed in bragging that at one party in particular, girls were dancing without shirts on our couches. Let me be clear: the Wren 430s couch had poop on it; ours had girls dancing shirtless. As a final point, we find it curious that in order to cultivate a sense of brotherhood, the current occupants of the 430s had to come up with a name like "Da Kewl Krew." We appreciate the effort, but more because it reminds us of Krispy Kreme than because of its intrinsic humor or descriptive value. To be a real brotherhood, you don't need a series of Greek letters to describe yourselves. You don't need a couch. You need each other, something which the 440s will never be without. Sincerely, Nicholas Burns, Gabe Frumkin and James Kennedy On behalf of the Brotherhood of the Wren 440s 2007-2008
The incidents reported at last month's Winter Bash have sparked a dialogue between students and the Tufts Programming Board, the event's organizer. While it is obvious that the behavior displayed by some students is unacceptable and intolerable, the coordinators' response raises a greater issue of how major Tufts events in general are conducted.
People don't like to talk about class. I've tried, and I get that. But that doesn't mean we're not aware of it. How often have you dressed up — or dressed down — to place yourself in a certain social class in the eyes of your peers? How often has that effort put you in a different class from the one you identify with? Personally, I've done it more times than I can count.
How does journalism examine itself? How does an organization tasked with dispassionately relaying the world analyze its own shortcomings and oversights? How have I already broken a cardinal style rule by asking three rhetorical questions?
The Educational Policy Committee's proposal to cap the number of Advanced Placement (AP) courses allowed to fill distribution requirements at five has met with both praise and criticism from the Tufts community. To date, the suggestion has divided the Tufts Community Union Senate but garnered widespread support among the faculty. Whichever side of the issue you stand on for whatever reason, this decision illuminates a deeper issue that stems not from the school but from the AP system itself. AP tests and classes are some of the most memorable (although not necessarily enjoyable) parts of high school. But if you ask any two people what their AP experiences were like, you could get two entirely contrasting answers. Some AP classes come complete with a seemingly insurmountable workload and a teacher who grades harder than most "tough" college professors, while others are naptime disguised as academic courses. Some teachers spend all school year teaching to the AP tests, while others focus on developing valuable skill sets that benefit students for years to come. At the end of the year, the test for both of these classes is standardized; the courses, however, certainly are not. And that seems to be the root of the problem. While AP scores do manage to say something about the information learned in an AP course, they say very little about how the course was taught, what skills the students learned, or how prepared they are to understand higher-level material in college. This disparity means that woefully unprepared students could be passing into classes they are not prepared for based solely on an AP score. Conversely, however, limiting the number of AP classes allowed to fill distribution requirements could force students to take classes with subject matter similar to that which they have already completed. From the perspectives of universities like Tufts, limiting the number of AP classes used to fill distribution requirements ensures that all students are assured of a liberal arts education that AP tests may not be able to provide. In this way, Tufts recognizes that there is a flaw in the system and is doing what it can to alleviate the problem. Of course, not accepting certain AP scores or capping the number of scores students can use doesn't come close to addressing the issue — it merely puts a bandage over an ax wound. It does not change the fact that there is immense pressure in many high schools to take as many AP classes and exams as possible or that many students are taking AP tests long before they know which colleges they will be attending and which AP courses those schools accept. It cannot force high school teachers to all teach the same way and cover the same material or prevent them from solely teaching to a test. While the Tufts community stands divided over the issue, it is important to remember that there is much more at work in this situation and that the AP system can only say so much about a student's level of proficiency in any given subject.
With glowing four-part harmonies and bandying baroque counterpoint, the flannel-clad quintet Fleet Foxes invoke blissful summers, Baptist hymnal sing-alongs, toasty winter fires and cross-country car rides. And their debut album, released last summer, happens to sound a lot like the Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young classic "Déjà Vu" (1970).
Last Thursday, we were pleasantly surprised to read Benjamin Silver's op-ed, "We had a deal!", and find that old axiom, "If it seems too good to be true, it is," violated. Mr. Silver, unfortunately, had broken his indefinite New Year's resolution to never look at The Primary Source, and it's only February! If he had only read a little further in the Jan. 28 issue (still on newsstands), he would have realized that he is portraying the stereotypical "silly leftist" role that the Source takes such pleasure in highlighting.
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
