by Michael Nachbar | University president issues poorly conceived letter.
The carol incident, undoubtedly familiar to anyone reading this publication, evolved into a public relations nightmare for Tufts. President Bacow needed to respond in a manner that would address the concerns of the offended students and reiterate the university’s policy on affirmative action, which the carol called into question. In his December 15th letter to the student body titled “Reflections on events of the past week,” Bacow addressed these concerns inappropriately.
Bacow should not have addressed the carol and the suicide of Lily Karian in the same email. Though they occurred in the same timeframe, the two events were very different in nature, and grouping them together in the email suggested a parallel between them that should not have been drawn. There is no equivalence between a student’s death and a magazine’s offensive content. Suggesting otherwise is insulting and unfair to both parties. Bacow easily could have sent two emails, and he should have done so.
In his letter, Bacow did not directly reference the carol, but euphemized it as “…the juvenile, vengeful and hateful words of a small number of students.” The term “juvenile” is certainly a fair one; the Source itself has acknowledged that the carol was presented in bad taste, causing it to offend beyond its satiric intent. The words “vengeful” and “hateful” signify a lack of objectivity unbefitting of a university president. In addition, the words unfairly and incorrectly imply a malicious intent on the part of the SOURCE staff. As an example, when Al Franken spoke at Tufts last year, he mocked one student’s unintelligent question by suggesting that he only got into Tufts because he was a legacy or a lacrosse player. The audience laughed. Naturally, race is a very touchy subject, and jokes involving race will be deemed more offensive. Still, arguing that the carol attempted to deny the achievements of black students is logically identical to stating that Franken attempted to “vengefully” deny the achievements of lacrosse players and relatives of alumni, a conclusion that most people would not draw.
The fourth paragraph of Bacow’s letter attempts both to justify and deny the existence of Tufts’ affirmative action policies. He acknowledges that the school values diversity, including specifically ethnic and racial diversity. He then attempts to skirt around the issue of affirmative action by stating that each student is chosen individually based on his or her story and voice, rather than “a series of simple metrics.” This may be partially true, but admissions policy still relies heavily on test scores and grade point averages. In addition, any admissions heuristic, be it based on a formula or purely on subjective analysis, ranks applicants and gives admission to the those on the top of the list. Though it may not have a formula in which minorities are automatically given points toward admission, as with University of Michigan’s highly publicized former policy, Tufts still attempts to shape its incoming classes so that certain ethnicities are represented more than they would be without such policies. Though it is a reality that Bacow desperately attempts to sidestep in his letter, a consequence of this policy is that certain students receive admission that they would not receive were they of another race with the exact same credentials and background. This is not a shocking or racist statement, but simply what affirmative action does.
In his response to the carol, Bacow should have been forthright about the school’s policies. Though no law requires a private university such as Tufts to disclose its admissions policy, students deserve to know what comprises the school’s philosophy toward admissions and diversity, especially when that philosophy is so heavily disputed. Instead, Bacow, without directly lying, implied that the school does not use affirmative action. This is simply untrue, as Dean of Admissions Lee Coffin admitted in a Daily interview that Tufts “…use[s] affirmative action in its admissions practices.”
The harsh truth of affirmative action is that Tufts’ administration believes that it cannot admit enough applicants of certain ethnicities without relaxing its admissions standards for these students. Regardless of how vehemently Bacow attempts to suggest otherwise in his letter, of how many students deny it, and of how offensive or racist students may consider THE PRIMARY SOURCE to be for stating it, this is a fact that Tufts students need to accept.
By not illuminating the Tufts admissions policy, Bacow showed a tremendous amount of weakness. Though the letter may have temporarily appeased some angry and offended students, discussions on affirmative action will continue at Tufts, and eventually Bacow will have to admit that Tufts does in fact have these policies, and many will rightfully question what took him so long.
The SOURCE has long maintained that one of the barriers toward eliminating racism in America is the stifling political correctness that makes it impossible to discuss racial issues honestly and openly without the hurling of accusations of racism. Bacow’s letter exemplifies how this fear of appearing offensive has caused the president of our university to mislead his student body in a time of great concern and grief. Perhaps this can finally convince Tufts students and administrators that refusing to talk about a problem will not cause it to disappear.
Mr. Nachbar is a sophomore who has not yet declared a major.
Comments