Skip to Content, Navigation, or Footer.

Opinion

The Setonian
Opinion

Some encouraging results for women's rights

Much of the press this past week that was not centered on the triumph of Sen. Barack Obama has focused on the narrow victory of California's Proposition 8, which defines marriage as the union of a man and woman. For those progressives despairing at what is obviously a step backwards for the rights of homosexuals, however, take comfort in the fact that the one great progressive leap of electing Obama has not suddenly thrown all other reforms into reverse. On Tuesday, both Colorado and South Dakota, two states that voted Republican in both the 2000 and 2004 elections, struck down ballot initiatives that would in effect illegalize abortion.



The Setonian
Opinion

Taking back our reputation

Over the past few years, Greek life on the Hill was thought to have become a cloistered and taboo relic on the fast track to obscurity. A nationwide decline in recruitment, along with several shameful incidents perpetrated by a host of Tufts fraternities and sororities led many to believe that our Greek system was destined to a slow death. Many chapters in the past decade have skirted the threshold, barely surviving pressure to close down from their national organizations and the Tufts administration. It wasn't always like this. In the past, fraternities and sororities represented something more than the occasional hosts of weekend blowouts. The Greek community once hosted large campus-wide events, which students and faculty looked forward to. The individual houses spent large amounts of time and money on fundraisers and philanthropy, using their manpower and dues money to help the community and those in need. Fraternities and sororities even used to have faculty mentors and good relationships with professors and deans. In short, wearing letters around campus didn't automatically label someone as a drug dealer, bigot, hazer or womanizer.


The Setonian
Opinion

A modest response to Proposition 8

It seems to me that two conceptions of our country were altered following Tuesday's election: an African-American cannot be elected President and California is a state ruled by law and not by mob opinion.


The Setonian
Opinion

When the World Turned its Back on Darfur

It was July 31, 2007. The news had just come over the wires that the United Nations had passed Resolution 1769, authorizing a joint United Nations and African Union peacekeeping force to protect the civilians of Darfur. The force would be called UNAMID and would replace a weak African Union peacekeeping force that really had only been able to watch as Janjaweed militias massacred Darfuris from targeted ethnic groups, raped women and burned villages to the ground.


The Setonian
Opinion

Sept. 11 and Nov. 4th: The days that defined the decade

When Fox News called the state of Virginia for Barack Obama around 10:30 p.m. on Tuesday, it became apparent that when the clock struck 11, Barack Hussein Obama, the bi-racial, Hawaiian, Junior Democratic Senator from Illinois would become the 44th President of the United States. At the time, I was in charge of running the green screen map for JumboCast, and I broke the night's protocol in order to turn Virginia blue. That action led to a frantic countdown to 11 p.m., when California, Washington, Oregon and Hawaii, were going to make Obama the president-elect. With Obama's election guaranteed, the final minute resembled a New Year's-style countdown.



The Setonian
Opinion

Post-race, an end to racism?

    Boy, does it feel good to be post-race. No, not that kind of race. Post-presidential race. No more election punditry, infomercials instead of baseball games, or Saturday Night Lives with political cameos.     It's exciting to say that the first time I voted for president, I voted for Sen. Barack Obama. My generation voted in record numbers to put the first black man in the most powerful office in the world. I have no doubt this is a generational shift in American politics.     Just as a student who earns a perfect score on the written driving test but has no road experience cannot drive, electing a black man as president doesn't mark the end of racism in the United States. One man in the president's mansion doesn't make us post-race (the other kind of race). Racism is perpetuated by historical and modern perceptions of people of color, and it will take an entire society — not just one man, no matter how powerful he is — to change these deep-seeded beliefs.     People could have voted for Obama for any number of reasons beyond race. Because they wanted to see the end of Vietnam-era leadership in Iraq, they didn't want to vote for a septuagenarian, among other reasons. In fact, I hope there were very few people who voted for Obama just because he is black, just like I hope people didn't vote for Sen. John McCain because he is white. This whole discussion denies the legitimacy of the structures of racism and nativism that condemn all people of color in the United States, not just people who are black or racially mixed.     This campaign has brought racism to the fore and has shown that many Americans can't articulate issues about race beyond the second- or third-grade level. One undecided voter in Nevada expressed concern that a black man might not be able to run the country effectively. An Obama supporter canvassing door to door, responded: "[Obama is] half white and he was raised by his white mother. So his views are more white than black, really."     People praised John McCain for cutting off a woman in Lakeville, Minn. who called Obama what is some Americans' new four-letter word: "Arab." McCain pulled the microphone from her hand and said Obama is not an Arab, but in fact is a "decent family man, a citizen." McCain implied that an American couldn't simultaneously be Arab and a decent citizen. That might not be what McCain meant, but that's what some people thought, and neither candidate has effectively engaged the issue.     It was politically prudent for Obama to avoid race during the campaign. He only made one speech specifically devoted to that issue, and that only occurred because he had to address it in the aftermath of the hubbub about Rev. Jeremiah Wright. But I hope that now that Obama is elected, he can lead a national conversation about race. We absolutely need legislative reform to fight institutionalized racism, but we also need a bold leader who won't shy away from controversy.     I see race everyday. I must in order to see and fight social injustice in the United States. Barack Obama won't change any of that. We cannot assume that the new president marks an end to American racism. Indeed, in some parts of the country, he might make it worse where people simply cannot accept the fact that Barack Hussein Obama is our president.     Obama does make me hope. Hopefully Obama's presidency will be the beginning of a conversation about marginalized people in the United States, not the end it. Duncan Pickard is a junior majoring in history and American studies. He is also the TCU president.


The Setonian
Opinion

Letter to the Editor

Dear editor:             As I write, it is late on election night and it looks like Sen. John McCain has lost the presidency to Sen. Barack Obama. My fellow Tufts Republicans and I are feeling the natural disappointment that comes from having invested so much in a losing effort. But we remain resolute. Although the historical winds were blowing extremely hard against him, McCain made a valiant effort. Despite an unpopular war, a flailing economy and a deeply disliked incumbent president, McCain presented his case to the American people with dignity and honor.     I will not recite empty platitudes about uniting behind our president-elect. Barack Obama's proposals remain the same disastrous, liberal policies today as they were yesterday. I opposed them then, and I oppose them now.     Some have treated this election as a test of America, rather than a test of the candidates. Having never viewed the contest in that light, I do not feel as though America has let me down. Instead, my fellow Republicans and I will work harder, with renewed dedication, to bring into new birth the America we love so dear. We will be back. Sincerely, Michael Hawley President, Tufts Republicans


The Setonian
Opinion

As some doors open, others close

    The very same night that an African-American senator from Illinois tore down the racial barriers that for generations had tainted the nation, the residents of California decided to build a wall.     Voters in the Golden State elected to ban gay marriage Tuesday by a margin of 52 to 48 percent in a referendum called Proposition 8. Although the exact ramifications of this vote have yet to be determined — a cadre of gay rights advocates have filed a legal challenge to Proposition 8, labeling it an illegal constitutional revision  — it is clear that this amendment is a giant step backward for equality in America.     Eight years ago, California passed a similar proposition, Proposition 22, which, in similar wording, prevented the state from recognizing same-sex marriages. But in a landmark decision in May, the California Supreme Court ruled that marriage is a fundamental nondiscriminatory right under the state's constitution and overturned Proposition 22. Unlike Proposition 22, Proposition 8 is a constitutional change, making it very difficult to overturn.     This is a drastic setback for the rights of same-sex couples. While same-sex marriage remains legal here in Massachusetts, in addition to Connecticut, it is devastating for our nation's most populous state to firmly deny this fundamental right to a specific group. The measure's destructive power lies in its ability to inspire other states to follow suit — Arizona, Florida and Arkansas also passed similar measures yesterday — which could create a trend very difficult to stop.     This amendment targets a single group to intentionally obstruct one of its freedoms. That is not democracy; that is rule by mob and fear — something the founders desperately sought to prevent. That's the very tactic that ProtectMarriage.com, which was behind the proposition, used when it sent letters to business owners supporting same-sex marriage threatening to publish their names unless they also contributed in support of the ban.     A state's constitution is supposed to protect the rights of its citizens, not eliminate them, but groups like ProtectMarriage.com seem to have missed the memo.     Many supporters of Proposition 8 argue that the amendment is "not an attack on gay couples," pointing to the availability of "domestic partnerships" as an alternative for same-sex couples. They insist that the amendment is not meant to take away the rights of same-sex couples but to encourage "the best situation" for child rearing.     But if domestic partnerships and marriage are comparable, then why vote "yes" on Proposition 8?     This is discrimination. In fact, it's one of the last "acceptable" forms of discrimination in our society. Past generations fought a Civil War, marched in the streets and pushed for equal legislation, and since then, much has changed. But this vote shows us just how far we have left to go.     The vicious rhetoric and the misguided boycotts that turned this vote into an all-out battle for the souls of California residents should serve to bring this point home for the nation. But that doesn't even scratch the surface of the problem.     In one of the country's bluest states, certainly not everybody opposes same-sex marriage. In fact, several pre-election polls suggested that the proposition would fail. So what is to be said of the people who sit at home answering surveys, afraid to voice their true opinions for fear of being perceived as homophobic, only to, in the secrecy of the voting booth, elect to set back minority rights?     The fundamental problem is that while it is considered socially unacceptable to express homophobic beliefs, it is all too acceptable to be uncomfortable with homosexuality. This is an insidious form of discrimination because those who harbor it are the ones who are least likely to talk about it, making progress all but out of reach.     On May 15, California Chief Justice Ronald George delivered his majority opinion on gay marriage, enumerating his support for same-sex marriage. He wrote: "Excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples … [This] may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects ‘second-class citizens.'"     The passing of Proposition 8 must be viewed with the importance and gravity that was attached to previous civil rights clashes. This is undoubtedly just as important. As such, we condemn the passing of Proposition 8 and urge the California Supreme Court to overturn this discriminatory amendment.


The Setonian
Opinion

Why John McCain lost

    Although the election has only just ended, it is clear why Sen. John McCain lost. It is not because millions of people viewed now-President-Elect Barack Obama as a beacon of hope in a harsh world, or because they thought he transcended ideological, racial and other traditional boundaries, or because countless voters believed that he could truly change the face of American politics. These are all reasons, but not the reason. And the reason why McCain lost is because he lost the moderate vote when he had every chance to win it.     The GOP base has never been enamored with McCain, and while social and religious conservatives publicly complain about the Arizona senator, the base still votes Republican. This was never in doubt. On the opposite end of the political spectrum, most Democrats were going to vote for Obama, even those dejected after he defeated Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) in the Democratic primaries. Alaska Gov.  Sarah Palin may have energized her party's base as McCain's pick for vice president, but the idea that she effectively drew Hillary supporters away from the Obama camp into McCain's is ludicrous. The voting bloc left standing, therefore, was the moderate vote.     For many moderates (or independents and undecided voters), McCain was the ideal candidate: principled, strong-willed, experienced in foreign affairs and a war hero. They admired his "straight talk" and his willingness to buck the party line for the good of the country. As in any election, both major-party candidates attempted to woo moderates to their side. But McCain turned his back on the kind of voter that could have propelled him to the White House. There are two main components of McCain's campaign that steered moderate voters toward Obama, and I'd like to illustrate these two points with a personal anecdote about a relative of mine who is a moderate voter.     This relative is around 60 years old and has lived his entire life in the swing state of Pennsylvania, which as we all know, was won by Obama on Election Day. My relative calls himself an independent and is educated but solidly middle class. He has a great deal of respect for McCain due to the senator's service to his country and his maverick reputation. In short, my relative epitomizes the kind of voter that McCain appealed to and counted on for support.     But the McCain that my relative and many other moderate voters knew in 2000, when he ran for president and garnered a great deal of support from both sides of the aisle, was not the same man in 2008. In his campaign against Obama, he used the same negative tactics used against him in 2000 that he so vehemently denounced at the time; his campaign seemed unpredictable and unsteady, impatient and excitable; and his political stunts, such as suspending his campaign to go to Washington, D.C. ostensibly to provide leadership in the midst of the economic crisis, were not well-received.     But to moderate voters, the most egregious stunt was McCain's choice of Gov. Sarah Palin as his nominee for vice president. It quickly became clear that behind the pretty face, there was an appalling lack of experience when it came to being on the biggest political stage. Palin may yet have a bright future in the GOP — rest assured, there are already plans for her in the coming years — but she represented everything that McCain (and therefore moderates) didn't: extreme conservatism, vast inexperience and little understanding of foreign policy. Moderates saw her as grossly under-qualified for the job, a concern intensified by McCain's age and medical history. For a man who touted himself as the candidate with better judgment, McCain's judgment was called into serious question, as was his mantra of "country first."     For moderate voters like my relative, they tried to ignore, subconsciously or not, the criticism being heaped on McCain for choosing Palin and his increasing negativity in his attack ads and rhetoric. But as the weeks wore on and Nov. 4 drew nearer, moderate voters who liked McCain saw fewer and fewer positive attributes. My relative sincerely wanted to support McCain, for while he didn't dislike Obama, he just couldn't vote for him based on a gut feeling — a common sentiment found among moderate voters nationwide. He never mentioned anything about Obama's inexperience or race; just that he just couldn't see him as our country's commander in chief.     In the end, my relative's mind won out over his heart. The weekend before Nov. 4, he made up his mind and decided to vote for Obama. He cited two main reasons: Firstly, the John McCain that my relative knew in 2000 was no longer the man he saw in 2008, and secondly, he simply got scared by the possibility of Sarah Palin in the White House. This viewpoint was shared by moderate voters all over the United States and doomed McCain's chance at the presidency.     The irony is that McCain had the best shot of any Republican candidate to win the election, despite his unpopularity with the party base. Given his record, he was better-positioned than any other Republican to overcome his association with the Bush administration. Simply put, however, he never did this.     There is much to admire in McCain. Deep down, he is an honorable, principled man who has served his country for the majority of his life. His maverick label has been tarnished, fairly or not, but he has reached across the aisle on big issues on multiple occasions. True, he did and said things during this campaign that go against the convictions that many people believe he holds true. But it was an exhausting campaign, and things are always said that are regretted later by both sides. He was gracious in his concession speech — probably the best speech he's given in the entire campaign — and he deserves our respect.     The reality is that McCain was caught in a catch-22. After the conventions, he was down in the polls, so he had to change things up. To win over more voters, his campaign advised him to aggressively and negatively attack Obama. In doing so, he went against the kind of values, like integrity and honor, which many of his supporters expected him to uphold.     In the end, McCain's campaign couldn't create or sustain a consistent message, which he desperately needed to connect with voters. The campaign reflected McCain's current public personality — restless, erratic and temperamental. This notion, coupled with the choices he made to mollify the GOP base, alienated the type of voter that he needed to attract in order to win the election, and sealed his fate as the underdog going into Election Day.     In the last few months, McCain talked a lot about the importance of character, but it was his own character that came into question by my relative and other moderate voters — his former defenders turned estranged opponents. Aaron Schumacher is a senior majoring in International Relations.


The Setonian
Opinion

Passing the baton

Every generation has its moment. Our parents' generation burst onto the national scene with the student protests over the Vietnam War and segregation in the South. Our generation has come of age through its opposition to the Iraq conflict and its support for the integration of the White House.


The Setonian
Opinion

Yes, we really can

What we have witnessed over the past 21 months, culminating in the events of yesterday's general election, is historic in its own right. The rapid ascent of Barack Obama — the 47-year-old Hawaiian-born son of a Kenyan man and a white American woman, a junior senator with under four years of Washington experience on his résumé — to the presidency of the United States of America is nothing short of miraculous.


The Setonian
Opinion

Go vote

Two years ago, when half of this campus had yet to matriculate, the campaign for president began. The vast field swelled to include eight Democratic and seven Republican contenders. These hopefuls aimed to give us an election for the record books, and talk abounded of our first African-American, female, Latino or Mormon president.


The Setonian
Opinion

Where the Republicans went wrong

In 2004, the Republican Party appeared on the verge of controlling Washington for years to come. President George W. Bush had just won reelection and the GOP had picked up a, few key seats in Congress.


The Setonian
Opinion

Too much, too quickly

After enduring endless months of campaigning, this nation has finally arrived at Election Day. Our minds and news sources are consumed with election politics, but at this time of year, one cannot help but consider another great American November tradition: Thanksgiving Day, an opportunity to enjoy family and food and relax on the couch with something other than election coverage on TV.


The Setonian
Editorial

Top Ten | Homegrown athletes from Arizona and Illinois

    After months of mud-slinging, name-calling and petty negative attacks, the day is finally here: Top Ten's take on the the Presidential election. With Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama squaring off today, we at Daily Sports wanted to throw our two cents in on the greater electoral chaos.     So in honor of today's presidential dust up between the great senators from Illinois and Arizona, Top Ten dives headfirst into the best that each state has to offer to the greater world of sports. 10. Doug Mirabelli (Ariz.). The former famed catcher of Tim Wakefield's knuckleballs was born in Kingman, Arizona. Currently a free agent, Mirabelli has given his services to four different MLB teams and is most known for his years playing in Boston, where he was a part of both the 2004 and 2007 championship squads. 9. Sal Fasano (Ill.). Another mediocre catcher, this time from the Prairie State. Career batting average: .221. Career home runs: 47. Career moustaches: one. And it was awesome. 8. Ted Danson (Ariz.). Danson played the famous character Sam "Mayday" Malone on the TV sitcom "Cheers" from 1982 to 1993. Malone was a washed-up, but supposedly once-decent, relief pitcher for the Boston Red Sox whose potentially great future was ruined by alcoholism. In real life, though, Danson grew up outside Flagstaff, Arizona and hasn't battled alcoholism, though his love affair with Whoopi Goldberg probably had the same effects. 7. Dick Butkus (Ill.). The once 6'3", 245-pound Chicago native did just about everything right in his career, garnering numerous Pro Bowl selections, NFL Player of the Century considerations and a Pro Football Hall of Fame nod. His only mistake was becoming the XFL's director of competition. 6. Henry Cejudo (Ariz.). At the age of 21, this wrestler from Phoenix, Arizona, became this summer the youngest-ever American to win an Olympic Wrestling Gold Medal. Cejudo, the son of undocumented immigrants, was able to turn a passion for wrestling into a life-changing opportunity — one on which he capitalized. 5. Rickey Henderson (Ill.). Simply put, he's the greatest of all time. Just ask him. 4. Ian Kinsler (Ariz.). The young second baseman for the Texas Rangers, born and raised near Tucson, might as well have been the "Lone Star" on his team in the second half of the season, as Home-Run Derby standout Josh Hamilton saw his star status dwindle after the break. 3. Jim Thome (Ill.). One of the most feared hitters of the past decade, the Illinois native has knocked out 541 pitches to the bleachers, ranking 14th on the all-time home runs list. Among MLB's elders, Thome is 38 years old, making him eligible as a write-in candidate in today's election if you're hankering for someone from the Prairie State not named "Barack." 2. Phil Mickelson (Ariz.). The undisputed second-best, or second-most renowned or second-highest paid golfer in the world, Phil Mickelson has had quite a career. Raised in Arizona, he attended Arizona State University on a golf scholarship and was America's top golf prospect for at least — well, actually, Tiger's always had him beat, despite being five years younger than Phil. 1. Jackie Joyner-Kersee (Ill.). Hailing from scenic East St. Louis (yes, it's still in Illinois), Joyner-Kersee is one of the all-time best in the women's heptathlon and long jump. With three gold medals to her name, she was arguably one of the best things to come out of Illinois since Honest Abe.


The Setonian
Opinion

In support of decriminalization

Arguably the most controversial issue on the Massachusetts ballot this fall is Question 2, which, if passed, will decriminalize the possession of one ounce or less of marijuana. While at first glance, this ballot issue raises an alarm, especially for those who are strongly opposed to marijuana legalization/decriminalization, upon further examination it is a logical approach to what many consider a common problem.


The Setonian
Opinion

Lack of voting requirements is reckless

Americans are fueled by a sense of entitlement. Many of us, having never struggled for the rights and opportunities afforded to us, are content to indifferently reap the benefits. As this election season comes to a close, it's time to look at one of the most basic rights granted by our country: voting.


The Setonian
Opinion

A last appeal

Election Day is tomorrow. Polls seem to indicate a comfortable victory for Barack Obama. I know this article will not prevent Tufts students from voting in droves for the Democratic candidate, but I would be remiss if I did not make one last appeal for you not to.


The Setonian
Opinion

A problematic trend

    What is an A? Or a B, C, D or F? These five designations have dominated the lives of students since they entered schooling. However, according to a recent Boston Globe article by Experimental College professor Phil Primack, Tufts, along with most other universities, has all but eliminated those last three letters. It seems that professors, facing complaints from students and their parents, have become as hesitant to give out C's and D's as they used to be about giving A's and B's. Of course, we're talking about grade inflation, the big elephant in the room.   Grade inflation is running rampant on college campuses and has been for quite some time. A study encompassing 29 colleges and universities (not including Tufts) revealed an average GPA jump from 3.11 in 1992 to 3.26 in 2002. Tufts has an even higher average GPA: 3.39 for the 2007-2008 academic year.     Why are universities inflating grades? The simple answer is to please their students. However, the inflation does not just happen because of one person or on one level. Instead, the problem of grade inflation can be traced to professors, administrators, and yes, even us, the students.   Grade inflation is a self-perpetuating problem, a vicious cycle. Universities want their students to be accepted to the most prestigious medical and law schools so they do not restrict the amount of high grades professors can give out. The last thing professors want is to gain a reputation for giving out a heavy workload and lots of low grades. Additionally, professors do not want to incur the wrath of spurned students and their increasingly omnipresent parents, who are shelling out tens of thousands of dollars to attend University X.     Grade inflation would be a fixable problem if it were localized. But it is not. In addition to all grade inflation created by the tenuous relationship between students and professors, competition between universities creates even more inflation. If University X thinks it sees University Y inflating grades, the natural reaction is for University X to inflate grades as well. With everyone looking over each other's shoulders, grade inflation is hard to stop.     If the trend that is in place continues, grades will become meaningless. It is already beginning. Whereas A's used to be a mark of perfection or excellence, they are becoming standard. A's should be reserved for those students that go above and beyond what is asked of them. Those that simply meet the minimum requirements should be given B's or C's. Students need to realize that grades are not everything and that by forcing grades to become inflated as such, the grades become worthless.     The key here is that everyone (students, professors, administrators) is too concerned with how others perceive them, while underplaying what college is all about: learning. Although we cannot advocate Tufts setting out on a crusade  alone to eliminate grade inflation, as this would undoubtedly hurt students in the short term, we believe it is the responsibility of universities across America to come together to set standards to eliminate grade inflation. One college or university eliminating grade inflation does not solve the problem, but if enough join together, then real reform can be effective.


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