Cliques (a lousy title, I'll admit)

This column definitely got the...most interesting reaction on the Daily website. Check out the comments here.

Published: Tuesday, April 7, 2009

As a resident assistant in a freshman residence hall last year, I had to make and put up name tags on each door before freshmen moved in. As move-in day approached and more upperclassmen arrived to help with orientation, I noticed that a few doors had something else posted next to the name tags that I had painstakingly created. On my floor these included welcome and invitation messages for international students, African-Americans, and Hispanics. The messages included encouragements for students to stop by the Africana Center or other locations for the respective groups and contact information for a potential mentor of a similar background.

At the time, I was curious but not really bothered by these messages. My thought was that it’s really not my place to pass judgment on overtures from and within communities that I don’t belong to and can’t identify with. Tufts people, including those mentioned above, have this need to belong — naturally. But the need here is more than just membership in a group of friends or even in a larger group with which they can identify.

Tufts people love belonging to a minority group or, at the very least, a group that at one point has been discriminated against. I’m going to call this a thirst for victimhood. Me? I tried pretty hard to find a maligned group that I could be a part of, but I’m a straight white male from Connecticut, I don’t identify with any religious sect, nor do I have particularly outrageous political views (although I have conservative friends who might disagree). I also wonder if there are some Republicans on this campus who are really moderates in disguise — political affiliation or beliefs can be an outlet for the thirst for victimhood too.

The interesting thing isn’t wanting to belong to a group of similar peers; psychologically and sociologically, it makes sense for a minority individual to seek out other minority group members within a larger group with whom they can identify. My concern is the self-segregation of these cliques, where groups typically don’t mix and “outsiders” aren’t welcome. We can have diversity, but it’s meaningless without social interaction.

I’m not talking about affirmative action or anything to do with admissions — it’s the orientation process and the Dean of Students’ Office’s explicit focus on encouraging cliques that concerns me. The Group of Six is comprised of the Africana Center, Asian American Center, International Center, Latino Center, Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender (LGBT) Center, and Women’s Center. The centers are under the auspices of Dean Reitman’s office and also receive funding directly from his office. In their defense, the Group of Six houses mainly hosts events that are at least nominally open to all members of the Tufts community regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation. Sometimes this is true in practice, too — I’ve availed myself of the delicious food at several barbecues at the Africana and LGBT centers. But that isn’t really the point, is it?

Why is the Dean of Student Affairs pushing self-segregation within the student body? I applaud efforts from the Group of Six to make Tufts a welcoming environment for students from groups that have faced historical and often current discrimination, and I’m not trying to make an attack on these groups individually or the students involved. My problem, instead, is the compartmentalization and yes, segregation, albeit voluntary. What’s the benefit of diversity if everyone is separated?

My favorite so far

Getting offended too easily
Will Ehrenfeld

Published: Tuesday, February 24, 2009

This is a column that I’m really excited to write. On Friday, if you didn’t see it, senior Kevin Dillon (no, not Johnny Drama) wrote an op-ed in the Daily called “Things Tufts’ Campus Needs,” which basically criticized me and my column, specifically the one titled “Unnecessary activism.” As an apparent necessary activist, I am not surprised Kevin took issue with some of the ideas from my column.
But that’s not (directly) what this column is about. With Dillon’s passionate and somewhat jumbled response piece as exhibit A, I’m hoping to discuss that characteristic of Tufts that everyone surely is intimately aware of: the proclivity to get offended. I can’t imagine how those at Tufts who commonly get offended — so offended, in fact, that they may write an angry letter to the Daily — will fare in the future. I really worry about people like Dillon who seem to get worked up very quickly and often, even about things that really aren’t a big deal. This column? Not a big deal. The Jumbo Janitor Alliance, of which Mr. Dillon is the founder, is not the biggest deal in the world, either — although, after mentioning them in a column, several people have defended them, both in person and in print, so I’ll leave that alone.
I don’t want to focus on one person, though. Dillon isn’t the only one who gets irrationally offended by irrelevant things. Ben Silver, author of the infamous Feb. 5 op-ed attacking the Primary Source for their cover featuring President Obama as the messiah, also appears to be offended very easily. I worked with Silver on the Obama campaign, so I realize this is an issue close to his heart, but ... really? Of all the offensive things the Source does, this is what you pick out to criticize? And then the editors of the Primary Source, not to be outdone in the easily offended department, were eager to respond in similar fashion, nitpicking and attacking Silver’s letter. Is that what the Daily’s op-ed section has become — a forum for silly flame wars?
Why do people do this? Think of the boy who cried wolf. But I suppose this is more like the upper-middle-class white kid who cried, “That’s offensive!” What will happen if I start saying truly inflammatory things? It could happen. The activists who would lead an uprising have already used their primary weapon, the sanctimonious letter to the editor — so what next? After my next “offensive” column, will there be rallies and demonstrations on the quad, replete with signs featuring creative slogans?
It actually seems like people at Tufts enjoy getting worked up and offended, so much so that they invent things to get upset about. Why? Illogically, Tufts people often seem to seek out things that are unrelated to themselves to get offended by. Take the Primary Source, for example. One would think that the primary offend-ees of the Source would be the groups it tends to attack — Muslims, African Americans, peace and justice studies students — the list goes on and on. But who do we see writing angry letters to the editor about the offenses the Source commits? Self-righteous liberals — a sad trend, especially because I am a proud liberal, although apparently my level of self-righteousness is not quite up to par.
While I work on that, I have an assignment for the (surely myriad) readers of this column. I want this column to be participatory. I know I’m not the only one with ideas about stuff Tufts people like; in fact, this column was partially inspired by a suggestion from a reader. So e-mail me your ideas! Or, better yet, write an indignant op-ed in the Daily. Even if it’s not always complimentary, I want to hear from you.