When I was studying abroad in Ireland during the fall semester of 2008, I composed a lengthy research paper which, turns out, was pretty ok. It was one of three that was posted by the program on World Learning's website.
Here's the link. Check it out.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Last Regular Column
This is the final "Stuff Tufts People Like" column published in the Tufts Daily during the Spring semester of 2009. There is a commencement issue, to be published May 17 (commencement), with one more column from yours truly in it, but this is the last thing most readers will see from me.
The Bubble
Published: Tuesday, April 21, 2009
If you spend most of your time at Tufts and rarely venture off campus for anything more than a latte at Starbucks or a movie in Davis Square, you might become convinced that there no longer is a world outside the gates of our Medford/Somerville campus. Even if you regularly visit, shop and dine all around the Boston area, it’s easy to forget what real life away from Tufts is like. It happens to me on occasion. I get stuck in a routine: wake up, go to class, club meetings, anti-bias rallies, party on the weekend, then repeat ad nauseum. It can be difficult to keep in touch with what happens in the “real world” when we’re so insulated inside the Tufts Bubble.
Likewise, people can forget societal norms and the way things tend to work elsewhere when they are at Tufts for long stretches. When I go home for a weekend or for break, I’m often surprised that my friends do, in fact, say words like “fag” without a second thought about the impact it might have. After freshman year, I got in a serious argument with a good friend of mine over his use of that word because after living at Tufts, I knew that it promoted societal bigotry and heteronormativity (a word that, honestly, I have never heard outside of Tufts).
Then, as I became re-attuned to the norms of my hometown, I started thinking that if he wanted to use “fag” as an insult after I had laid out my arguments against it, I really had no place to tell him otherwise. Unlike Tufts, the real world — in my experience, at least — doesn’t have a bias awareness team; there is no thought police, and so slurs which really hurt people are occasionally uttered.
I’m not sure that I made the right decision to overlook future uses of the word, but I was concerned that I was starting arguments for the wrong reasons — I was never personally offended by the word “faggot,” but I still thought I should try to stop it from being used, for whatever reason. Doesn’t it feel good to accuse someone of bigotry? I enjoyed it, I really did. The moral indignation and self-righteousness just flowing through your veins — you feel empowered, like you’ve grabbed the higher ground and you’re not giving it up. In that moment, it feels good to be angry because you’re right, the “other” is wrong, and you’re fighting the good fight.
This is what occurred with many of those at the anti-bias, anti-drunk-freshman rally on Thursday. Even people from outside Tufts came and basked in the glow of righteous indignation emanating from people at the rally who take any and every opportunity to get angry and offended, regardless of whether they themselves have been specifically targeted. It becomes like an addiction — if you’re not decrying racism or sexism or whatever the -ism of the day is, you start to feel adrift and without direction. But that doesn’t justify the idiotic behavior being exhibited.
The real anger we have all seen in the pages of the Daily and at the rally wasn’t, in my opinion, over the alleged racial violence that occurred two weeks ago. It was about puncturing the Bubble. Let’s admit: Most of us are very proud to tell people that we go to Tufts, and when something like this happens, it betrays the image most of us have of our school. We think we go to a progressive, unbiased university that is not only not racist, it’s anti-racist.
So, when I write a column that questions the campus’ reaction to a particular incident that seems extremely clear-cut to some, I become a target. I’ve been ridiculed for my opinions in any number of ways and called terrible names that I won’t repeat in print, but the only comments that bothered me were those that suggested that there must be some unknown reason belying my opinions, whether it was my own race, my lack of education or sheer ignorance. I was told to take classes, read books, and even invited to meet by some readers, all in the interest of enlightening me and/or converting me to buy into every bit of liberal orthodoxy that Tufts represents to these individuals.
Want to know a secret? I have read books. I’ve taken classes that deal very explicitly with racism and discrimination, and I can’t control my whiteness any more than the Korean Students Association students who were involved in the fight can control their race. The fact that I have a different point of view doesn’t mean that I don’t know or understand the issues, and this assumption that I must be unaware of critical race theory because I don’t buy into it really bothers me.
This punctured my Tufts Bubble. I foolishly thought that, while Tufts has many viewpoints and a variety of backgrounds represented on campus, mutual respect exists which makes discussing and acknowledging our differences so fruitful and beneficial. I also was under the (apparently ridiculous) impression that no one’s view would be disregarded or given less credence because of his or her background — even if that background is straight, white and male. It turns out that I was wrong.
The Bubble
Published: Tuesday, April 21, 2009
If you spend most of your time at Tufts and rarely venture off campus for anything more than a latte at Starbucks or a movie in Davis Square, you might become convinced that there no longer is a world outside the gates of our Medford/Somerville campus. Even if you regularly visit, shop and dine all around the Boston area, it’s easy to forget what real life away from Tufts is like. It happens to me on occasion. I get stuck in a routine: wake up, go to class, club meetings, anti-bias rallies, party on the weekend, then repeat ad nauseum. It can be difficult to keep in touch with what happens in the “real world” when we’re so insulated inside the Tufts Bubble.
Likewise, people can forget societal norms and the way things tend to work elsewhere when they are at Tufts for long stretches. When I go home for a weekend or for break, I’m often surprised that my friends do, in fact, say words like “fag” without a second thought about the impact it might have. After freshman year, I got in a serious argument with a good friend of mine over his use of that word because after living at Tufts, I knew that it promoted societal bigotry and heteronormativity (a word that, honestly, I have never heard outside of Tufts).
Then, as I became re-attuned to the norms of my hometown, I started thinking that if he wanted to use “fag” as an insult after I had laid out my arguments against it, I really had no place to tell him otherwise. Unlike Tufts, the real world — in my experience, at least — doesn’t have a bias awareness team; there is no thought police, and so slurs which really hurt people are occasionally uttered.
I’m not sure that I made the right decision to overlook future uses of the word, but I was concerned that I was starting arguments for the wrong reasons — I was never personally offended by the word “faggot,” but I still thought I should try to stop it from being used, for whatever reason. Doesn’t it feel good to accuse someone of bigotry? I enjoyed it, I really did. The moral indignation and self-righteousness just flowing through your veins — you feel empowered, like you’ve grabbed the higher ground and you’re not giving it up. In that moment, it feels good to be angry because you’re right, the “other” is wrong, and you’re fighting the good fight.
This is what occurred with many of those at the anti-bias, anti-drunk-freshman rally on Thursday. Even people from outside Tufts came and basked in the glow of righteous indignation emanating from people at the rally who take any and every opportunity to get angry and offended, regardless of whether they themselves have been specifically targeted. It becomes like an addiction — if you’re not decrying racism or sexism or whatever the -ism of the day is, you start to feel adrift and without direction. But that doesn’t justify the idiotic behavior being exhibited.
The real anger we have all seen in the pages of the Daily and at the rally wasn’t, in my opinion, over the alleged racial violence that occurred two weeks ago. It was about puncturing the Bubble. Let’s admit: Most of us are very proud to tell people that we go to Tufts, and when something like this happens, it betrays the image most of us have of our school. We think we go to a progressive, unbiased university that is not only not racist, it’s anti-racist.
So, when I write a column that questions the campus’ reaction to a particular incident that seems extremely clear-cut to some, I become a target. I’ve been ridiculed for my opinions in any number of ways and called terrible names that I won’t repeat in print, but the only comments that bothered me were those that suggested that there must be some unknown reason belying my opinions, whether it was my own race, my lack of education or sheer ignorance. I was told to take classes, read books, and even invited to meet by some readers, all in the interest of enlightening me and/or converting me to buy into every bit of liberal orthodoxy that Tufts represents to these individuals.
Want to know a secret? I have read books. I’ve taken classes that deal very explicitly with racism and discrimination, and I can’t control my whiteness any more than the Korean Students Association students who were involved in the fight can control their race. The fact that I have a different point of view doesn’t mean that I don’t know or understand the issues, and this assumption that I must be unaware of critical race theory because I don’t buy into it really bothers me.
This punctured my Tufts Bubble. I foolishly thought that, while Tufts has many viewpoints and a variety of backgrounds represented on campus, mutual respect exists which makes discussing and acknowledging our differences so fruitful and beneficial. I also was under the (apparently ridiculous) impression that no one’s view would be disregarded or given less credence because of his or her background — even if that background is straight, white and male. It turns out that I was wrong.
Shout out? What what!?
So, in the wake of the previous column, I got called out in an "anti-bias rally" that happened a few days later (in response to the original incident, not my column--at least ostensibly). See below the article from the Tufts Daily.
Rally goers: We will not be silenced
Ben Gittleson
Published: Friday, April 17, 2009
Around 200 people gathered on the Tisch Library patio and steps midday yesterday, decrying hate crimes and bias incidents against all groups and demanding that the administration take substantive action to prevent racism and hatred from continuing to pervade the Hill.
Under a sunny sky, students, administrators, faculty members and others spoke against the prevalence of discrimination, stereotyping of and biases against Asian-Americans and other minority groups. A large percentage of attendees wore red clothing to mark the rally, which had the goal of raising awareness of what many presenters said were often seemingly invisible acts of hate.
An altercation in the early-morning hours last Thursday between members of the Korean Students Association (KSA) and a freshman spurred the organization of the event. The administration is conducting a judicial investigation into the alleged bias incident, which many rally participants yesterday labeled a hate crime.
"If this was truly an isolated incident, we wouldn't have given it too much thought," said Jenny Lau, the incoming president of the Asian American Alliance, during a speech yesterday. Lau, a junior, explained the rally's aims and said the incident was representative of a much greater problem.
"As students, we have the right to feel respected and safe on ... campus," she said, calling on the administration to include the study of Asian-Americans in the curriculum. "The Asian-American voice is only one example of many voices of people who have been ... marginalized."
Last Thursday morning, a drunken freshman shouted racial slurs at a group of 13 Korean students practicing in the main lounge of Lewis Hall for their weekend culture show, KSA members at the scene said; the freshman told the Daily in a statement that he yelled obscenities, but he did not mention uttering racial epithets or being drunk.
The racially charged alleged remarks came after violence broke out between the KSA members and the freshman, according to KSA members. Both parties said the other side started the scuffle.
The Daily is withholding the freshman's name because the administration has not taken any action against him.
Yesterday's rally did not focus primarily on the details of the event itself, but rather on the wider implications of what many speakers called hate incidents that occur too frequently.
KSA Co-President Young Jeong spoke on behalf of two members of his group who were in the Lewis Hall lounge on Thursday morning.
"'F--k you ... Go back to your country,'" he told attendees the freshman had said that night. "Imagine these words being thrown at you."
"We are not here to ask for retaliation or revenge or any kind of punishment," Jeong, a senior, said. "We are here to raise awareness ... to give voice to those who have been silenced."
Senior Lecturer of American Studies Jean Wu denounced certain online discourse, including comments on TuftsDaily.com, that suggested rally organizers and supporters are "addicted" to reacting to bias incidents and hate crimes, she said.
The remarks the freshman allegedly made, she explained, cut deep.
"For Asian-Americans, these words are not the garden-variety putdown," she said.
University President Lawrence Bacow's chief of staff, Michael Baenen, attended the meeting in Bacow's place.
"Expressions of bias are insidious ... they are always hurtful, they erode community and they are not what we want Tufts to be about," he said. "I don't think any of us, especially those in Ballou, thinks we are where we want to be."
But later during yesterday's event, Lau chastised Bacow for sending a representative in his place and Baenen for not using a stronger term than "bias."
Reached later for comment, Baenen said that Bacow had been on the Boston campus attending meetings with overseers of the School of Medicine. Those meetings had been planned months in advance, Baenen added.
Boston City Councilor Sam Yoon, the city's first Asian-American councilor, spoke at the rally, too. He said that he had experienced hateful speech when he was on the campaign trail.
"This is not an isolated incident," said Yoon, who is running for mayor of Boston. "It's something that's endemic in our society."
Asian-Americans have long had to face stereotypes of them as passive, defenseless members of society, although other groups have had to endure hate, as well, Yoon said.
"When injustice or racial hatred happens to one of us," he said, "it happens to all of us."
Seniors Sofia Nelson and Jen Bailey told the crowd about similar incidents that have occurred in the past few years, saying the fact that they were attending yet another rally against bias was disappointing.
Nelson also railed against what she called "unacceptable" media coverage of the incident, particularly calling out Daily columnist and junior Will Ehrenfeld's Tuesday article, "Stuff Tufts People Like: Alleging bias." She criticized the piece in an op-ed she co-authored with senior Sarah Robbins that appeared in yesterday's Daily.
Nelson expressed anger at a decision by Daily editors to insert the word "allegedly" at certain points in her article that dealt with the particulars of last Thursday morning's events.
"Nothing about this incident is alleged," Nelson said yesterday. "I know what happened."
Two students delivered spoken-word pieces during the latter half of yesterday's presentation, poetically expounding on race and stereotypes in America. A Harvard University lecturer and a lawyer from the University of Massachusetts Boston also spoke.
Dean of Undergraduate Admissions Lee Coffin, who delivered a short speech, said that he was proud of yesterday's rally, even though it came during the biannual diversity-focused Telescope event that yesterday brought admitted students to campus.
"I want prospective students to see Tufts in action," he said.
Over 40 student groups co-sponsored the event, which was organized by members of the KSA and other students encouraged to act after last week's incident, according to Kim. Part of its title, "We will not be silenced," became a refrain during the rally.
A number of Greek organizations came out for the event, including a couple Alpha Omicron Pi sisters who handed out stickers reading, "Hate is not a Greek value."
Estelle Davis, a senior, wore red and stayed on the patio after the event. She said she attended yesterday because the conversation that arose after last week's incident was "an incredibly emotional, personal experience" for her.
"This points to ... a lack of understanding about the way race and power structures work at Tufts," she said, calling on the administration to act by altering the curriculum and hiring more diverse faculty. "It's more than just talking about it ... Not just saying racism is bad, but saying that we understand that this is part of a deeper issue."
Rally goers: We will not be silenced
Ben Gittleson
Published: Friday, April 17, 2009
Around 200 people gathered on the Tisch Library patio and steps midday yesterday, decrying hate crimes and bias incidents against all groups and demanding that the administration take substantive action to prevent racism and hatred from continuing to pervade the Hill.
Under a sunny sky, students, administrators, faculty members and others spoke against the prevalence of discrimination, stereotyping of and biases against Asian-Americans and other minority groups. A large percentage of attendees wore red clothing to mark the rally, which had the goal of raising awareness of what many presenters said were often seemingly invisible acts of hate.
An altercation in the early-morning hours last Thursday between members of the Korean Students Association (KSA) and a freshman spurred the organization of the event. The administration is conducting a judicial investigation into the alleged bias incident, which many rally participants yesterday labeled a hate crime.
"If this was truly an isolated incident, we wouldn't have given it too much thought," said Jenny Lau, the incoming president of the Asian American Alliance, during a speech yesterday. Lau, a junior, explained the rally's aims and said the incident was representative of a much greater problem.
"As students, we have the right to feel respected and safe on ... campus," she said, calling on the administration to include the study of Asian-Americans in the curriculum. "The Asian-American voice is only one example of many voices of people who have been ... marginalized."
Last Thursday morning, a drunken freshman shouted racial slurs at a group of 13 Korean students practicing in the main lounge of Lewis Hall for their weekend culture show, KSA members at the scene said; the freshman told the Daily in a statement that he yelled obscenities, but he did not mention uttering racial epithets or being drunk.
The racially charged alleged remarks came after violence broke out between the KSA members and the freshman, according to KSA members. Both parties said the other side started the scuffle.
The Daily is withholding the freshman's name because the administration has not taken any action against him.
Yesterday's rally did not focus primarily on the details of the event itself, but rather on the wider implications of what many speakers called hate incidents that occur too frequently.
KSA Co-President Young Jeong spoke on behalf of two members of his group who were in the Lewis Hall lounge on Thursday morning.
"'F--k you ... Go back to your country,'" he told attendees the freshman had said that night. "Imagine these words being thrown at you."
"We are not here to ask for retaliation or revenge or any kind of punishment," Jeong, a senior, said. "We are here to raise awareness ... to give voice to those who have been silenced."
Senior Lecturer of American Studies Jean Wu denounced certain online discourse, including comments on TuftsDaily.com, that suggested rally organizers and supporters are "addicted" to reacting to bias incidents and hate crimes, she said.
The remarks the freshman allegedly made, she explained, cut deep.
"For Asian-Americans, these words are not the garden-variety putdown," she said.
University President Lawrence Bacow's chief of staff, Michael Baenen, attended the meeting in Bacow's place.
"Expressions of bias are insidious ... they are always hurtful, they erode community and they are not what we want Tufts to be about," he said. "I don't think any of us, especially those in Ballou, thinks we are where we want to be."
But later during yesterday's event, Lau chastised Bacow for sending a representative in his place and Baenen for not using a stronger term than "bias."
Reached later for comment, Baenen said that Bacow had been on the Boston campus attending meetings with overseers of the School of Medicine. Those meetings had been planned months in advance, Baenen added.
Boston City Councilor Sam Yoon, the city's first Asian-American councilor, spoke at the rally, too. He said that he had experienced hateful speech when he was on the campaign trail.
"This is not an isolated incident," said Yoon, who is running for mayor of Boston. "It's something that's endemic in our society."
Asian-Americans have long had to face stereotypes of them as passive, defenseless members of society, although other groups have had to endure hate, as well, Yoon said.
"When injustice or racial hatred happens to one of us," he said, "it happens to all of us."
Seniors Sofia Nelson and Jen Bailey told the crowd about similar incidents that have occurred in the past few years, saying the fact that they were attending yet another rally against bias was disappointing.
Nelson also railed against what she called "unacceptable" media coverage of the incident, particularly calling out Daily columnist and junior Will Ehrenfeld's Tuesday article, "Stuff Tufts People Like: Alleging bias." She criticized the piece in an op-ed she co-authored with senior Sarah Robbins that appeared in yesterday's Daily.
Nelson expressed anger at a decision by Daily editors to insert the word "allegedly" at certain points in her article that dealt with the particulars of last Thursday morning's events.
"Nothing about this incident is alleged," Nelson said yesterday. "I know what happened."
Two students delivered spoken-word pieces during the latter half of yesterday's presentation, poetically expounding on race and stereotypes in America. A Harvard University lecturer and a lawyer from the University of Massachusetts Boston also spoke.
Dean of Undergraduate Admissions Lee Coffin, who delivered a short speech, said that he was proud of yesterday's rally, even though it came during the biannual diversity-focused Telescope event that yesterday brought admitted students to campus.
"I want prospective students to see Tufts in action," he said.
Over 40 student groups co-sponsored the event, which was organized by members of the KSA and other students encouraged to act after last week's incident, according to Kim. Part of its title, "We will not be silenced," became a refrain during the rally.
A number of Greek organizations came out for the event, including a couple Alpha Omicron Pi sisters who handed out stickers reading, "Hate is not a Greek value."
Estelle Davis, a senior, wore red and stayed on the patio after the event. She said she attended yesterday because the conversation that arose after last week's incident was "an incredibly emotional, personal experience" for her.
"This points to ... a lack of understanding about the way race and power structures work at Tufts," she said, calling on the administration to act by altering the curriculum and hiring more diverse faculty. "It's more than just talking about it ... Not just saying racism is bad, but saying that we understand that this is part of a deeper issue."
Alleging Bias
This article discusses the issues surround an altercation, the events of which can be learned about here. This is the one that made me famous (sort of), and also probably the most hated guy on campus, for a little while at least. Check out the comments (and myriad op-eds in response).
Published: Tuesday, April 14, 2009
By now, everyone on campus has heard about the alleged “bias incident” that occurred in Lewis Hall last week involving a dance group from the Korean Students Association (KSA) and a drunk freshman. Personally, I got multiple e-mails from friends and one from Dean of Students Bruce Reitman, and an invitation to a Facebook group (which at last count had 1,824 members), and I came across multiple Facebook “notes” about the situation.
I’m not going to rehash the story. It’s been told many times, with input from both sides. My question, though, is this: What makes this a bias incident? Was there “bias” when the drunk kid started imitating the dance the KSA was doing? Maybe — they were, after all, practicing a dance for a cultural show and not just an average, mainstream dance for an average, mainstream show; if TDC were rehearsing and the incident proceeded similarly, I don’t think it would be called a bias incident, and I doubt people would be quite so up in arms about the situation in general, but I’ll get to that.
Was it a bias incident because of what the kid said? He allegedly employed racial slurs to verbally abuse the dancers after the physical altercation had ended, calling them names and telling them to “go back to China.” I suppose this makes what up until then would have been considered merely a fight or, depending on which side you fall, assault, into an incident of racial bias. I know what you’re thinking: Well, duh. But think — what do the kid’s words after a fight have to do with the apparent motivations for the fight?
Before the violence began — we’re not sure who made the situation physical, although I’m inclined to believe the KSA members as they corroborate each others’ stories and they were sober — there was no mention of race or ethnicity. According to the Daily, the freshman allegedly called the dance “gay,” but most of us have been in groups where using that word as a placeholder for “stupid” or “bad” is common. That doesn’t make it acceptable, but it happens all the time, and the student body doesn’t get up in arms over something like that. In any event, no epithets were uttered, and no racial threats or comments were made before the violence began.
With these facts in mind, I find it hard to call what happened a bias incident; there was bias, and there was a conflict, but they seem somewhat disjointed. I’m really disconcerted by the focus on comments that were made at the tail end of the incident as a whole when a lot occurred beforehand that’s worthy of our attention. All signs point to serious physical violence with injuries sustained on both sides. And then — afterward — a drunk freshman allegedly said something stupid and yes, offensive, inappropriate, “biased” and totally unacceptable. I’m not here to defend this kid who, for the record, I don’t know and have never met. I don’t know any of the people involved, for that matter.
The real issue here isn’t racial insensitivity. It’s not “bias,” no matter how you define the word. We should be talking about violence and resorting to violence as a solution to our problems. My biggest worry is not a stupid comment that was obviously hurtful enough to raise a ridiculous furor at Tufts. Tufts people love an uproar, but apparently we also like overlooking the real issue. There’s no evidence the attack was motivated by racial anger or “bias,” but it’s obvious that both the freshman student and the five KSA members thought it totally acceptable to use violence to solve their dispute. I don’t want to discount the danger and perniciousness of racism, but it’s more worrisome to me that violence has so pervaded our school and our society that we find a racial slur more notable than a serious violent conflict.
Published: Tuesday, April 14, 2009
By now, everyone on campus has heard about the alleged “bias incident” that occurred in Lewis Hall last week involving a dance group from the Korean Students Association (KSA) and a drunk freshman. Personally, I got multiple e-mails from friends and one from Dean of Students Bruce Reitman, and an invitation to a Facebook group (which at last count had 1,824 members), and I came across multiple Facebook “notes” about the situation.
I’m not going to rehash the story. It’s been told many times, with input from both sides. My question, though, is this: What makes this a bias incident? Was there “bias” when the drunk kid started imitating the dance the KSA was doing? Maybe — they were, after all, practicing a dance for a cultural show and not just an average, mainstream dance for an average, mainstream show; if TDC were rehearsing and the incident proceeded similarly, I don’t think it would be called a bias incident, and I doubt people would be quite so up in arms about the situation in general, but I’ll get to that.
Was it a bias incident because of what the kid said? He allegedly employed racial slurs to verbally abuse the dancers after the physical altercation had ended, calling them names and telling them to “go back to China.” I suppose this makes what up until then would have been considered merely a fight or, depending on which side you fall, assault, into an incident of racial bias. I know what you’re thinking: Well, duh. But think — what do the kid’s words after a fight have to do with the apparent motivations for the fight?
Before the violence began — we’re not sure who made the situation physical, although I’m inclined to believe the KSA members as they corroborate each others’ stories and they were sober — there was no mention of race or ethnicity. According to the Daily, the freshman allegedly called the dance “gay,” but most of us have been in groups where using that word as a placeholder for “stupid” or “bad” is common. That doesn’t make it acceptable, but it happens all the time, and the student body doesn’t get up in arms over something like that. In any event, no epithets were uttered, and no racial threats or comments were made before the violence began.
With these facts in mind, I find it hard to call what happened a bias incident; there was bias, and there was a conflict, but they seem somewhat disjointed. I’m really disconcerted by the focus on comments that were made at the tail end of the incident as a whole when a lot occurred beforehand that’s worthy of our attention. All signs point to serious physical violence with injuries sustained on both sides. And then — afterward — a drunk freshman allegedly said something stupid and yes, offensive, inappropriate, “biased” and totally unacceptable. I’m not here to defend this kid who, for the record, I don’t know and have never met. I don’t know any of the people involved, for that matter.
The real issue here isn’t racial insensitivity. It’s not “bias,” no matter how you define the word. We should be talking about violence and resorting to violence as a solution to our problems. My biggest worry is not a stupid comment that was obviously hurtful enough to raise a ridiculous furor at Tufts. Tufts people love an uproar, but apparently we also like overlooking the real issue. There’s no evidence the attack was motivated by racial anger or “bias,” but it’s obvious that both the freshman student and the five KSA members thought it totally acceptable to use violence to solve their dispute. I don’t want to discount the danger and perniciousness of racism, but it’s more worrisome to me that violence has so pervaded our school and our society that we find a racial slur more notable than a serious violent conflict.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
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?
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?
Column 3/31: Wingnuttery
Wingnuttery
Published: Tuesday, March 31, 2009
People at Tufts love thinking that they are the first to have an idea or hold a particular position, but if that’s not a tenable stance, Tufts people act this out by staking out extreme positions. This is particularly popular when it comes to politics. There aren’t a lot of moderate Democrats or conservative leaners, but there are lots of people who could be called radical. Conservatives at Tufts especially like to venture into wingnut territory.
Enter David Horowitz, wingnut extraordinaire, who came to campus on Monday to discuss ... well, since this column was submitted before his speech, I’m going to make up what he said, and feel free to fact-check me when I exaggerate or blatantly fabricate things (which is possible, but probably unnecessary given the subject matter*). The planned topic of his talk, given in Barnum 008 at 8:30 last night, was academic freedom. As a liberal peace and justice studies major, I have an odd feeling that he’s not that worried about my academic freedom.
You might remember Horowitz’s name from Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, organized by Horowitz, which brought Daniel Pipes to campus. The gist of the week was not only to raise awareness of Islamic terrorism itself, but also to highlight what he perceived as leftist support for terror.
Besides nobly raising consciousness of the threat from Islamo-Fascism — a term that I don’t quite understand, to be honest — Horowitz has been working on academic freedom for years. When I hear “academic freedom,” I picture unfettered class discussions and a general atmosphere of open and unconditional exchange of ideas. Horowitz’s conception of the term is a bit different. In addition to blaming them for terrorism, he derides left-leaning academics for indoctrinating students rather than teaching them. For Horowitz, academic freedom means hewing to a strict conservative ideology.
To prove his claims of liberal bias in higher education, Horowitz probably told a story about a student at the University of Northern Colorado who was supposedly failed for refusing to write a paper arguing that George W. Bush was a war criminal. Well, as it turns out, the story is pure fantasy. The university disputes each piece of the story, including the assignment, the grade, and the reasons for the grade. He may have also talked about a Penn State biology class which showed Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) before the 2004 elections, with the professor hoping to influence his students’ votes. Later, he admitted that this story couldn’t be verified and maybe could be untrue — which is the best we can hope for from Horowitz.
Unlike him, I have no problem with anyone speaking on campus — academic freedom, what it actually means, allows Horowitz to have a voice here. Good for him. But maybe we should warn him: His arch-nemesis Noam Chomsky was here this past Friday, speaking to a peace conference. In April 2005 at Columbia University, Horowitz distributed pamphlets portraying Chomsky, a linguistics professor at MIT, with a turban and long beard and the heading “The Ayatollah of Anti-American Hate.” I’ve met Noam Chomsky — he has extreme political views, certainly, but he’s really a nice, mild-mannered guy, and he’s certainly not a Muslim — not that there’s anything wrong with that. What point is Horowitz trying to make by dressing his foe in Middle Eastern garb? Unlike Horowitz, Chomsky doesn’t rely on theatrics or overblown rhetoric to make a point, and he doesn’t engage in attacks based on race or ethnicity — something else I bet you heard from Horowitz on Monday. That kind of “academic freedom” has no place at Tufts
Published: Tuesday, March 31, 2009
People at Tufts love thinking that they are the first to have an idea or hold a particular position, but if that’s not a tenable stance, Tufts people act this out by staking out extreme positions. This is particularly popular when it comes to politics. There aren’t a lot of moderate Democrats or conservative leaners, but there are lots of people who could be called radical. Conservatives at Tufts especially like to venture into wingnut territory.
Enter David Horowitz, wingnut extraordinaire, who came to campus on Monday to discuss ... well, since this column was submitted before his speech, I’m going to make up what he said, and feel free to fact-check me when I exaggerate or blatantly fabricate things (which is possible, but probably unnecessary given the subject matter*). The planned topic of his talk, given in Barnum 008 at 8:30 last night, was academic freedom. As a liberal peace and justice studies major, I have an odd feeling that he’s not that worried about my academic freedom.
You might remember Horowitz’s name from Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, organized by Horowitz, which brought Daniel Pipes to campus. The gist of the week was not only to raise awareness of Islamic terrorism itself, but also to highlight what he perceived as leftist support for terror.
Besides nobly raising consciousness of the threat from Islamo-Fascism — a term that I don’t quite understand, to be honest — Horowitz has been working on academic freedom for years. When I hear “academic freedom,” I picture unfettered class discussions and a general atmosphere of open and unconditional exchange of ideas. Horowitz’s conception of the term is a bit different. In addition to blaming them for terrorism, he derides left-leaning academics for indoctrinating students rather than teaching them. For Horowitz, academic freedom means hewing to a strict conservative ideology.
To prove his claims of liberal bias in higher education, Horowitz probably told a story about a student at the University of Northern Colorado who was supposedly failed for refusing to write a paper arguing that George W. Bush was a war criminal. Well, as it turns out, the story is pure fantasy. The university disputes each piece of the story, including the assignment, the grade, and the reasons for the grade. He may have also talked about a Penn State biology class which showed Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) before the 2004 elections, with the professor hoping to influence his students’ votes. Later, he admitted that this story couldn’t be verified and maybe could be untrue — which is the best we can hope for from Horowitz.
Unlike him, I have no problem with anyone speaking on campus — academic freedom, what it actually means, allows Horowitz to have a voice here. Good for him. But maybe we should warn him: His arch-nemesis Noam Chomsky was here this past Friday, speaking to a peace conference. In April 2005 at Columbia University, Horowitz distributed pamphlets portraying Chomsky, a linguistics professor at MIT, with a turban and long beard and the heading “The Ayatollah of Anti-American Hate.” I’ve met Noam Chomsky — he has extreme political views, certainly, but he’s really a nice, mild-mannered guy, and he’s certainly not a Muslim — not that there’s anything wrong with that. What point is Horowitz trying to make by dressing his foe in Middle Eastern garb? Unlike Horowitz, Chomsky doesn’t rely on theatrics or overblown rhetoric to make a point, and he doesn’t engage in attacks based on race or ethnicity — something else I bet you heard from Horowitz on Monday. That kind of “academic freedom” has no place at Tufts
Column 3/24
Organic food
Published: Tuesday, March 24, 2009
With Michael Pollan coming to campus today to give the Richard E. Snyder lecture, I decided it was time to address a glaring gap in knowledge that many Tufts people seem to have. It's about food. Organic food. Michael Pollan will almost certainly shed some light on this issue, and more intelligently than I ever could, but since the Daily comes out before the lecture, I get first dibs.
Lots of people assume that organic food is healthier, more ethical, better for the environment and, in nearly every way, superior to food without that organic label. But what does organic really mean? If you're walking through Shaw's or any other grocery store, how do you make a decision between the bananas with the organic sticker and those without? They look the same and taste the same to me; to most consumers, the only noticeable difference is the price and that sticker.
Organic food, according to the USDA, is free of chemical fertilizers and insecticides, does not contain genetically modified ingredients and is free of hormones and antibiotics. Well, mostly. In fact, food that carries the USDA organic label is only required to be 95 percent organic; that is, a product can display the label if everything in it is organic except a small amount. Products with between 70 and 95 percent organic ingredients can display an alternate label that promises "made with organic ingredients."
This still sounds good, right? Organic food is good for a number of purposes -- if you want your food to be friendlier to the environment, for example, organic seems like the way to go. No pesticides or insecticides means organic food must be great for the environment, right? Sort of. If you really hope to reduce the carbon footprint from your diet, experts agree that locally grown food is the best way to go. Likewise, a vegetarian or vegan diet would have a significantly lower impact on the environment than even an organic, locally grown omnivore diet.
Perhaps you eat organic food because you're concerned about the way animals are treated before they are slaughtered. I'm not a vegetarian, but it occurs to me that if you are concerned about cruelty to animals, you probably shouldn't be eating steak at all -- even if the beef is organic. But organic meat isn't necessarily raised in a more humane way than other types of meat. Animals must be given time outdoors; how much time is left up to the farmers. And, interestingly enough, much controversy has arisen over the organic labeling process itself. Inspections are contracted out by the USDA, and oversight is minimal at best.
This begs the question: Is organic food safer or better for you? This is the third and arguably final potential reason for selecting organic products. Around the beginning of February, there was an outbreak of salmonella in peanut products. The contamination was traced back to factories in Texas and Georgia that were found to be totally unsanitary but, according to the USDA, organic. Some of your favorite organic companies like Clif Bar and Cascadian Farm had items that were contaminated with salmonella and pulled from shelves.
So should you buy organic? Sure, if you can afford it. Organic food is generally safer, though not always, and the label does require all-natural fertilizers and pesticides, which is good. But if you have the choice, buy local AND organic. Try to limit the meat you eat in order to improve health and reduce your carbon footprint. And lastly, as Michael Pollan will surely explain, stop eating processed food-like substances and stick to fresh produce as much as possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)