by Sharon Silverman | Alleged atrocity, real backlash.
A quick look at Tufts reveals a population of students eager and desperate to prove themselves tolerant of all cultures and races. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that when a student makes the serious claim that he was attacked because of his race, the campus would be very concerned. Unfortunately, a stifling atmosphere of political correctness frequently causes this concern to mutate into premature conclusions and rash action.
On April 30, at approximately 3:00 AM, there was an altercation in front of the Sigma Phi Epsilon fraternity between a passerby, Riyadh Mohammed, and unknown persons milling about. The precise details regarding the incident remain unconfirmed, but as Mohammed was walking by the house that night, he alleges racial slurs were shouted at him. He later returned to the fraternity, and claims that he was further assaulted verbally and physically.
After the incident, Mohammed identified fraternity brother William Toner as the main aggressor. Toner, on the other hand, claims he was not present during the initial name-calling, that he at no point in time used a racial slur towards Mohammed, and that Mohammed was in fact the one screaming obscenities when he returned to the fraternity for a second time. Despite these conflicting accounts of what happened that night, it was Toner who bore the brunt of the punishment in ensuing campus discussion. Immediately expelled from the fraternity, Toner now faces possible expulsion from the school. The following day, the Tufts community was first exposed to a Daily article accusing Toner of bias and assault, and then received an email from President Bacow lamenting racism and intolerance. The email was vague and seemed to purposely emphasize the possibility that it was a hate crime rather than a drunken confrontation.
These factors contributed to a prevailing campus climate in which blame was placed only on the fraternity brothers, with Toner at the forefront. Following the initial hype, word of a rally being organized featuring speakers bemoaning the immutable presence of intolerance on campus began to spread. The speakers at this rally included Tufts students, administrators, and faculty eager to stamp out what they perceived as prejudice. In doing so, they laid full blame for the incident on the Sigma Phi Epsilon brothers. Ironically, these same speakers demonstrated blatant prejudice themselves by jumping to hasty conclusions based solely on unverified information. The rally suggested to observers that the alleged altercation was much more serious than a regular physical confrontation, which is still only a theory. A fair Tufts administration would have waited for the TUPD investigation following the incident to conclude before taking drastic action (sources tell THE PRIMARY SOURCE that the matter is still not closed). This way, the physical confrontation between the boys and the sudden paranoia over racial intolerance would not have been so intertwined. The fact that the Bias Response Team, an arm of the Dean of Students Office, took part in organizing the rally served to place additional, premature blame on the fraternity brothers. According to their website, the function of the Bias Response Team (BRT) is “to provide resources for the student community to effectively respond to incidents of bias and harassment.” However, in this case their participation led students to infer that the BRT had verified racist motivation in the altercation, even though this was not necessarily the case.
If, as appears was the case, authorities were not absolutely certain of what exactly took place the night of April 30 then the e-mail, Daily article, and rally should not have jumped to a hate crime conclusion. After all, questions lingered about Mohammed’s alleged own use of worse slurs, his reason for returning to the fraternity (the poor judgment of an innocent victim or the foolish mistake of someone looking for trouble), and whether the whole incident was nothing more than drunken instigation that turned into a brawl.
In their quest for tolerance and diversity, students, faculty, and administrators at Tufts all-too-often feel compelled to jump to hasty conclusions. Such conclusions can prematurely impugn non-minorities in disputes, causing potentially irreversible damage. The falsely accused never fully recover in the sphere of public opinion—the stigma will remain for a lifetime, following them wherever they go.
It is very possible that every one of the allegations against the Sigma Phi Epsilon brothers and especially Toner is true, in which case they deserve punishment. But in the United States, an individual is supposed to remain innocent until proven guilty. The Tufts judicial system should be no different. The student body and faculty must learn to respond to situations such as this one rationally, basing their conclusions on facts as they are gradually acquired and verified, rather than on their feelings and the sensational rumors that feed into them. Only in this way can students live without the fear of being unfairly judged and persecuted for their social interactions.
Miss Silverman is a sophomore majoring in Electrical Engineering.
Comments