Commentary

Tufts Votes; ECO Seeks to Raise Tuition Costs; Red Sox Rioting; Tufts “Non-partisan” Programming

Tufts Votes

In a previous issue, THE PRIMARY SOURCE questioned whether Tufts Votes should have targeted uninformed and otherwise unmotivated students to vote (for Kerry). Now THE PRIMARY SOURCE wonders whether it was sufficiently competent to do even that.

Several students who had trusted their voter registration to Tufts Votes were surprised to discover that their forms hadn’t been delivered to the voting bureaus in time for them to vote in the November 2 elections. In what has been attributed to a lack of organization and communication, some of the RA’s and organizers simply procrastinated in sending registrations until the deadline had passed. In a few cases, the students who were not able to vote because of this error weren’t even aware of it.

But the mistakes did not stop there. In some cases, Tufts Votes failed to verify whether students were required to register in Medford or Somerville, incorrectly mailing registrations to the wrong polling station. “I spent days on the phone with the Medford people trying to confirm my registration until we finally figured out that I was supposed to be in Somerville,” said freshman Alexandra Barker; “The woman said that it was a common problem that the Tufts people always send it to the wrong place… it was frustrating.”

Tufts Votes’ lack of research and preparation was even evident on Election Day itself. Barker reports that her driver was “very surprised” to find out that students were required to present proof of their residence in Somerville, especially after some of the Tufts Votes organizers had said something to the effect that they didn’t even think Somerville would check IDs.

People may be tempted to explain away the ineptitude of Tufts Votes and voting drives in general by pointing to their “good intentions.” The problem with this “it’s the thought that counts” philosophy is that people’s political voices are at stake, and no amount of good intentions will compensate for a person’s inability to vote. THE PRIMARY SOURCE expects a minimum of competence from people who take others’ votes into their hands. Tufts Votes, in taking on this responsibility, had an obligation to do the research and meet the deadlines. On the other hand, people who let Tufts Votes direct their voting should realize that trusting one’s voter registration to an unreliable group of student activists is like trusting one’s taxes to a mass of government bureaucrats. It’s just begging for inefficiency and incompetence.

Of course, all this raises the larger issue of whether or not Tufts Votes’ intentions were honorable to begin with. The purpose of a vote is to direct public policy. Tufts Votes, however, wanted everyone to vote regardless of their political awareness and education, if for no other reason than for voters to feel good about themselves. Furthermore, their claims of non-partisanship were undermined by the fact that Tufts Votes was run by liberals and targeted at a liberal-dominated school. In the end, it’s hard to believe that the Tufts Votes organizers had any goal other than to rally people behind their candidate. It’s okay for Tufts to inform and help voters who take their own initiative in voting. Instead, they stepped beyond the boundaries non-partisanship and what’s more, they failed in their most basic objective.

ECO Seeks to Raise Tuition Costs

Tufts Environmental Consciousness Outreach (ECO) wants to “institutionalize clean energy at Tufts,” an effort that would have Tufts purchase about 20 percent of its yearly energy from wind power, and would ask for only 25 percent of the student body’s vote to enact. This switchover to “clean energy” would involve adding a $20 “clean energy” fee to every student’s bursar bill. It is astonishing to see that ECO only needs 25 percent of votes, nowhere near a majority, in order to pass this referendum. Although the idea of making a positive difference for the environment is a worthy one, it is unfair to even consider passing such an act without the majority of students’ approval.

Luckily, it is very probable that this devious effort to seize students’ money will be in vain. The student senate may approve of ECO’s plans, but ultimately, it is very unlikely that the Board of Trustees, which has the final authority over additional fees charged to the student body, would acquiesce. Typically, student tuition fees increase annually somewhere in the range of 4 percent, and the additional activities fee increases correspondingly. However, if ECO were to add an extra $20 to the student activity fee, this would result in a 14 percent increase in that fee, a trend one would hope to not see continued on a yearly basis. Activities fees are meant only to fund student activities on campus, not other questionable purposes.

If an effort to make the transition to wind power had to be implemented by Tufts, it would be much more democratic to have a system, such as a positive check-off provision on bills, in which students or parents could decide for themselves whether they wanted to contribute to the effort or not. Underhanded efforts have been attempted and abandoned before. Groups like PIRG (Public Interest Research Group) have used the reverse-check system, in which a fee was automatically added to students’ bills unless students made the conscious effort to check the box stating that they did not want to waste their money. Interestingly, much of the money collected by PIRG was also used to support lawmakers, meaning that students were paying for other undefined expenses. This shifty model has already been declared illegal on college campuses.

There is already an effort being made toward incorporating solar energy at Tufts. The new Sophia Gordon Hall will use solar panels for, among other things, heating water. If ECO wants to consider making this additional, costly, questionable energy change to the Tufts campus, it is essential that they either first obtain the majority of students’ approval, or, even better, make it completely optional for each and every student.

Red Sox Rioting

The ecstatic joy shared by Red Sox fans following the Game 7 win over the Yankees became a somber hush in the aftermath of the Kenmore riots. For one Emerson student, the rioting cost this young woman her life. As the Red Sox rejoiced over scoring their first ticket to the World Series since 1986, the friends and family of Victoria Snelgrove mourned their tragic loss.

Sox fans lucky enough to obtain tickets to Games 1 and 2 of the World Series encountered a duality expected more from inner city race riots and war protests than at a baseball game. As they made their way toward Fenway park, ticketholders passed armies of Boston police in full riot gear facing groups of people holding signs protesting police brutality and armed law enforcement.

Although it is still unclear what exactly transpired that led to the shooting of pepper spray projectiles into a crowd of mostly college students, it is certainly fair to sit back and question the current state of law enforcement. In an age of terrorism and uncertainty, police do need to be on higher alert. Increased vigilance, however, should not come at the price of public safety. In our overzealousness to prevent terror-related crime, we need to reconsider the appropriateness and cost of training non-military public servants to shoot indiscriminately.

The problem, however, does not rest entirely on the shoulders of law enforcement. Whether the shot that killed Snelgrove was a horrible accident or a misjudged order, much of the blame can be pinned on out-of-control Red Sox fans, or more specifically, irresponsible Northeastern and BU students. Although the Boston police officers culpable for her death are certainly not exonerated from blame for their actions, their presence would not even have been required at the scene if it weren’t for the notoriety of college students’ abominable behavior. These students, many of whom conveniently become Red Sox fans for the duration of four years, have in the past destroyed property, turned over cars, and set dangerous fires. There is certainly precedent for having law enforcement on the scene.

This year, downtown Boston students’ behavior hardly improved. The SOURCE witnessed one young man climb a maintenance staircase behind the Green Monster, throw his shirt into the crowd below, run away from the security officer who appeared on the landing, and fall backwards over the railing onto the cement sidewalk of Lansdowne Street. Rowdy fans threw garbage cans at the Kenmore Square McDonald’s sign and set fires in garbage bags. This behavior, luckily exhibited by the minority of those present, grossly undermined the good spirit of the Red Sox victory.

The police were completely unprepared for the onslaught of rowdy fans, as exhibited by the lack of officers present on Lansdowne and Yawkey Way, and a disorganized chain of command witnessed as one SOURCE writer tried to report the injured Green Monster scaler. Eventually, police moved the crowd to make way for EMS personnel. The Red Sox win rightfully led to massive celebration throughout the streets of Boston. Nothing should have put a damper on the festivities. Sadly, for Victoria Snelgrove, there will be no next year.

Tufts “Non-partisan” Programming

The election has come and gone, and about 83 percent of this campus is in tears. The sun dawned November 3 on a Tufts community wondering how it is so out of tune with the rest of the United States. “I thought everyone hated Bush except those backwards hicks,” they were thinking. As ridiculous as that is, it is not really a surprise, because this campus is “blissfully” isolated from conservative viewpoints.

In the weeks leading up to the 2004 election, Tufts and its student groups brought no fewer than ten liberal speakers to campus, in an effort to sway their vote. These names included Carl Sciortino, recently elected representative of the 34th Middlesex District and ultra-leftist activist (TuftsLife advertised Sciortino as being a representative before he had even been elected); Jack Corrigan, a Kerry adviser; and Ken Roth, a man who outwardly denounced George W. Bush on his human rights record. The Tufts Republicans tried to counter this wall-to-wall liberal onslaught by holding a forum regarding issues of homosexuality. The effectiveness of this program was questionable, however, as only two groups showed up en masse to watch: the Republicans themselves and the gay community which attended solely to voice its indignity and clearly did not listen to the speakers. The event was immediately called “controversial,” not because it was creating a major stir, but merely because it was composed of conservative speakers. Sciortino’s speech on clean elections and public funding, something that is debated by many credible and intelligent people, was not branded “controversial” or “divisive.” Apparently, only conservatives can be edgy and offensive. In all meaningful ways, Tufts students have only been exposed to the ideas of the Left.

For a university that prides itself on developing students’ intellects, Tufts has done an abominable job of actually fostering this development. Liberals are invited to campus nearly every day, and the timing of these speeches makes them even more atrocious. If Tufts endorses student voting, it is morally obligated also to promote educated, informed voting. This does not come from hearing only liberal speakers; neither side has a monopoly on truth or knowledge. This biased political programming must immediately be denounced as a dishonest attempt to influence students. It is not problematic because it is liberal; it is problematic because it is not balanced by any other viewpoint. Although students here may wish conservatives would disappear, the fact remains that George W. Bush won the greatest number of popular votes in history and maintained a four million vote lead over John Kerry. Tufts is certainly not representative of the country. If anything, students here are under-informed, too one-sided, and intellectually incapable of understanding conservative viewpoints. The University must take a stand and provide more prominent conservative voices, and not denigrate the few that do come as being controversial. The sooner college students learn to deal with conservatives, the easier it will be for them to make the jump from this bubble to the real world, where Republicans currently control every branch of government.