The Tufts Daily - November 20, 2017 by The Tufts Daily

SPORTS FEATURE

John Mulaney makes rare sojourn into politics during ‘Kid Gorgeous’ show see ARTS&LIVING / PAGE 3

John Casey reflects on a life spent with Tufts baseball, as both player and coach

‘Riverdale’ delivers disjointed episode capped by surprising reveal see ARTS&LIVING / PAGE 3

SEE SPORTS / BACK PAGE THE

INDEPENDENT

STUDENT

N E W S PA P E R

TUFTS

UNIVERSITY

E S T. 1 9 8 0

T HE T UFTS DAILY

VOLUME LXXIV, ISSUE 50

tuftsdaily.com

Monday, November 20, 2017

MEDFORD/SOMERVILLE, MASS.

Dean Stavridis, Provost Harris hold discussion about Board of Advisors by Natasha Mayor News Editor

Three Tufts administrators held a discussion with students of The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy about the school’s Board of Advisors on Nov. 16, in light of a petition to remove Anthony Scaramucci (LA ’86) from the board. The talk was led by Fletcher School Dean James Stavridis, Provost David Harris and Board of Advisors Program Director Jonathan Kaplan. Harris opened the discussion by saying that when he first heard about the petition to remove Scaramucci about a month ago, he turned to Kaplan to find out what the process or precedent was for dealing with such a petition. “We have never removed anyone from a Board of Advisors at Tufts,”

Harris said he learned from his conversation with Kaplan. Because this issue has never arisen, Harris said it had never occurred to anybody to create a process. Accordingly, a draft of this process will be proposed to the Board of Trustees which they will discuss and decide on when they meet this January. Following the publication of an op-ed and a news article in the Daily on Nov. 6 and Nov. 7, respectively, Harris said they decided to hold two events: this one in which they could share information about the Board of Advisors and a public event in which Scaramucci will come speak with the community. “We’re a constructive engagement university,” Harris said. “We want people to come voice their perspectives, but part of the deal is, they’ve got to be able

SEOHYUN SHIM / THE TUFTS DAILY

Provost and Senior Vice President David Harris poses for a portrait on Thursday, Sept. 14. to engage with other people who may disagree.” Harris said Scaramucci will have an opportunity to speak about his experiences and what he has learned from them. Harris said he agreed with the Daily op-ed in that Scaramucci

should not be defending his position on the board, as that is not his call to make. “I cannot comment at this point — nor can Jim [Stavridis] or Jonathan [Kaplan] — about see BOARD OF ADVISORS, page 2

TCU Senate passes resolution to make Asian American Center more accessible by Emily Burke News Editor

Last night, the Tufts Community Union (TCU) Senate unanimously passed a resolution urging Tufts to relocate Asian-American identity-based housing from the Asian American Center to make the center more accessible to the community as a whole. The resolution was authored by Ana Sofia Amieva-Wang, TCU Historian Jacqueline Chen, Diversity and Community Affairs Officer Shannon Lee and Asian American Community Senator Charlie Zhen. The body also heard community updates and funding requests. TCU President Benya Kraus opened the meeting. After explaining the meeting’s agenda, she provided election updates, announcing that the Class of 2018, Class of 2019 and LGBTQ+ Community Senator elections will take place next semester. Kraus, a senior, also mentioned the Office of Residential Life and Learning (ResLife)’s efforts to increase and improve on-campus housing options, such as the renovations of Miller Hall and the bed optimization plan. Chen, a junior, read the full resolution. TCU Parliamentarian Adam Rapfogel, a junior, then invited the authors of the resolution to speak on its behalf. Amieva-Wang, a junior and an intern at the Asian American Center, emphasized that many Asian-Americanidentifying students have never been to the

Please recycle this newspaper

Mostly Sunny 41 / 35

/thetuftsdaily

center. Amieva-Wang also said that part of her job as an intern in the center is simply to open the locked door when people knock. AmievaWang pointed out that the locked door creates a barrier for visitors, and can make the center the inaccessible and unwelcoming. Amieva-Wang added that the locked door prioritizes the students who live in the house over the entire community, and makes it difficult for the clubs of the Pan Asian Council (PAC) to find meeting spaces, when it would be much more convenient for them to have access to the center. Amieva-Wang then read quotes from other students highlighting the problems with the center and expressing support for the resolution. In conclusion, AmievaWang reiterated that the Asian American Center has the potential to serve as an inclusive community space, but it needs to be made more accessible. Rapfogel then opened the floor for a question-and-answer period, during which senators asked questions related to student demand for the initiative, plans and timeframes for moving the current residents of the house and collaboration with the administration. Zhen, a junior, emphasized that the resolution is a first step toward making the center more accessible, and that this initiative will hopefully be implemented next fall. After the questions had been answered, the body voted on the resolution. The resolution was passed 21–0–0.

For breaking news, our content archive and exclusive content, visit tuftsdaily.com @tuftsdaily

tuftsdaily

The body then moved on to committee updates. Kraus spoke on behalf of TCU Vice President and senior Anna del Castillo, who Kraus said has been collaborating with Administration & Policy Committee Chair Jamie Neikrie on holding a town hall about budget transparency. The town hall will be held on Dec. 5 from 5 to 6:30 p.m. in the Alumnae Lounge and will feature a panel including University President Anthony Monaco, Executive Vice President Patricia Campbell, Dean of the School of Arts & Sciences James Glaser and Provost David Harris. Education Committee Chair Phil Miller mentioned a new project to introduce a data science major. Vice Provost for Research Simin Nikbin Meydani told the Daily in an interview earlier this month that she hopes to have a data science major available in the School of Engineering by fall 2018. Miller also said that another goal is to work on establishing similar majors and minors in the School of Arts & Sciences. Class of 2021 Senator Grant Gebetsberger brought up collaboration with the administration on a pilot program for Tufts students to return to their home states as ambassadors, focusing on underrepresented communities. The ambassadors would visit schools that might not otherwise receive visits from Tufts during breaks. Gebetsberger said that this would be underway by next fall. Addressing senators’ concerns about compensation for these student ambassadors, Gebetsberger

said that students would receive some compensation for food and transportation, but would not be paid as of now. Class of 2021 Senator Janey Litvin brought up her collaboration with Kraus on initiating pub nights at The Rez, and announced that they met with Director of Dining and Business Services Patti Klos about starting a pilot program in January. Litvin explained that the pub nights will be designed to center around an event such as a poetry slam to create a relaxed environment, not to encourage heavy drinking. TCU Treasurer and junior Emily Sim opened the floor to discuss funding requests, several of which included yearlong budgets for organizations. After debate and some modifications of the request from Tufts Trading Fund, the body approved funding requests from Action for Sexual Assault Prevention (ASAP), Teach-in CORES, TEDx Tufts, Spoken Word Alliance at Tufts (SWAT) and Tufts Ballroom Team. Lee announced that Associate Dean of Student Success and Advising Robert Mack expressed optimism about the creation of a First Generation Center. Lee said that more public information will become available later. To conclude, Kraus announced that the body will hear the tabled request from Tufts Republicans to bring former Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro to campus as a speaker during the Dec. 3 meeting.

NEWS............................................1 ARTS & LIVING.......................3 COMICS.......................................5

OPINION.....................................6 SPORTS............................ BACK

THE TUFTS DAILY | News | Monday, November 20, 2017

THE TUFTS DAILY Gil Jacobson Editor-in-Chief

EDITORIAL

Eddie Samuels Joe Walsh

tuftsdaily.com

Tufts Debate Society hosts West Point team in mass surveillance debate by Alexander Davis Contributing Writer

Managing Editors Zachary Hertz Associate Editor Catherine Perloff Ariel Barbieri-Aghib Emily Burke Aneurin Canham-Clyne Daniel Caron Melissa Kain Anar Kansara Robert Katz Arin Kerstein Liam Knox Sophie Lehrenbaum Elie Levine Natasha Mayor Jesse Najarro Daniel Nelson Seohyun Shim Emma Steiner Hannah Uebele Juliana Furgala Kat Grellman Simran Lala Nina Joung Costa Angelakis Emma Damokosh Elie Levine Jessie Newman Sean Ong Emma Rosenthal Grace Yuh Michael Shames Fina Short

Cassidy Olsen John Gallagher Alison Epstein Justin Krakoff Libby Langsner Setenay Mufti Eran Sabaner Antonio Bertolino Tommy Gillespie Jack Ronan Arman Smigielski Maria Fong Shannon Geary Lydia Ra Rebecca Tang Deeksha Bathini Miranda Chavez Hannah Kahn Joseph Lim Sarah Nechamkin Madeleine Schwartz Maddie Payne Yuan Jun Chee Liam Finnegan Phillip Goldberg Savannah Mastrangelo Brad Schussel Caleb Symons Sam Weidner Sam Weitzman Liam Knox Angelie Xiong Ray Bernoff Ben Kim Rachael Meyer Vintus Okwonko Alexis Serino Seohyun Shim Ana Sophia Acosta Olivia Ireland

Executive News Editor News Editors

Assistant News Editors Executive Features Editor Features Editors

Assistant Features Editors Executive Arts Editor Arts Editors

Assistant Arts Editors Executive Opinion Editor Cartoonists

Editorialists

Executive Sports Editor Sports Editors

Investigative Editor Executive Photo Editor Staff Photographers

Executive Video Editor Staff Videographer

PRODUCTION Evan Sayles Production Director Ellah Nzikoba Executive Layout Editors Alice Yoon Betty Cao Layout Editors Connor Dale Julie Doten Kenia French Maygen Kerner Omeir Khan Clair Li Nasrin Lin Olivia Markowitz Aidan Menchaca Isabella Montoya Julie Murray Steven Schwab Seohyun Shim Emily Thompson Sebastian Torrente Astrid Weng Ezgi Yazici Astrid Weng Executive Graphics Editor Peter Lam Graphics Editors Allie Merolla Rifat Ralfi Salhon Belinda Xian Mary Carroll Executive Copy Editors Liora Silkes Norrie Beach Copy Editors Caroline Bollinger Alison Epstein Madhulika Gupta Anna Hirshman Tess Jacobson Melissa Kain David Levitsky Katie Martensen Jack Ronan Arielle Sigel Netai Schwartz Nihaal Shah Seohyun Shim Hannah Wells Jiayu Xu Vanessa Zighelboim Deepanshu Utkarsh Rachael Meyer Alexis Serino Asli Akova Anna Hirshman Mitch Navetta Seohyun Shim Ercan Sen

Executive Online Editor Executive Social Media Editors Social Media Editors

Assistant Social Media Editors

BUSINESS Rayane Haddar Executive Business Director Hannah Wells Receivables Manager

The Tufts Debate Society hosted the debate team from the United States Military at West Point for a debate about mass surveillance on Nov. 17, in front of an audience of students and Debate Society members. The Tufts team argued in favor of mass surveillance, while the West Point debaters argued in opposition. Each participating team consisted of four members selected from among the ranks of the respective debate clubs. The Tufts team asserted that mass surveillance can help prevent crime and increase the quality and accuracy of prosecution in the United States. They justified the existence of mass surveillance programs by stating that American citizens enter into a social contract with the government by choosing to live here. The “contract” allows the government to collect data in order to keep the people safe. By contrast, the West Point team argued that mass surveillance lacks sufficient oversight, unfairly targets minority groups and violates people’s right to privacy. According to the West Point debaters, mass surveillance is unconstitutional and the social contract justification is invalid. “Anything outside of the constitution is not part of this social contract,” one West Point debater said. Each team made three seven-minute speeches in support of its argument, followed by a question-and-answer round in which the teams posed questions to each other. To conclude the formal debate, each team was allowed one rebuttal speech. As noted in the event’s closing remarks, the opposing teams used markedly different debate styles. The West Point team is accus-

COURTESY CHAE CHUN

Members of the Tufts Debate Society speak during the Mass Surveillance Public Debate with West Point in Barnum Hall on Nov. 17. tomed to policy debate and thus relied on empirical data and statistics to support its arguments. The Tufts debate team usually competes in parliamentary-style tournaments and thus based its arguments more on theory than empirical evidence. At the end of the event, the audience was polled using their mobile phones in order to assess people’s opinions on the topic. Fifty-nine percent of the audience believed mass surveillance is justified, 35 percent believed it is not and six percent was undecided. This event marks the third time the Tufts Debate Society has hosted a public debate, according to its Facebook page. Mathew Lee, president of the Tufts Debate Society, said that the club is interested in hosting more public debates in the future

and sees these events as a way to facilitate dialogue on campus. Lee, a senior, added that he proposed the topic of mass surveillance to the West Point debate team due to its potential popularity among Tufts students and its relevance in current political affairs. “I think [mass surveillance] is both international relations-related and a timely domestic politics topic,” Lee said. Lee added that the Tufts Debate Society could play a larger role in facilitating campus conversation. “I’ve heard that there are debates people try to set up where there is a certain side that people are not comfortable taking,” Lee said. “We could step in as Tufts Debate Society members and not have to take the optimal view.”

ther given the option of serving on subcommittees dedicated to tackling specific topics. Stavridis followed with a discussion of why the Board of Advisors is important to Fletcher. He emphasized the fact that the members work all across the globe and bring their own international expertise to the table. “We turn to the board to get a set of mature, outside eyes looking at things that we’re doing around the school,” he said. On top of providing expertise and advice, Stavridis said the board also serves as a robust network to help find and create job opportunities for Fletcher students. Advisors further help the school by aiding its fundraising efforts. “Our fundraising goal at The Fletcher School two years ago was $7 million,” Stavridis said. “We raised $18 million. About half of that derived from contacts provided by board members.” The second half of the event consisted of a question-and-answer session with attendees, most of whom were current students and faculty. Harris fielded most of the questions and generally avoided answering direct questions about Scaramucci, instead commenting on the Board of Advisors as a whole. In response to a question about conflicts of interest, Harris gave an example of a board member joining President Barack Obama’s administration and subsequently stepping down from the advisor position. Carter Banker, a second-year master of arts in law and diplomacy candidate who started the petition to remove Scaramucci, then brought up the fact that Scaramucci was also briefly in the government, as President Donald Trump’s White House communications director. Stavridis said that the policy had, in fact, been invoked, but the con-

flict of interest was mitigated because Scaramucci served in the Trump administration for fewer than two weeks. Banker asked for an explanation of what the timeline of creating and executing the process will look like. Harris said a policy recommendation will be sent to the Board of Trustees before it meets in January. They will likely finalize a policy at that meeting which can then actually be applied. In a statement Banker made to the Fletcher student body regarding her thoughts on Thursday’s meeting, she called it a “net positive,” as the administration will be creating a procedure for removing a member of the Board of Advisors. However, she said she wished there was more definitive evidence that Scaramucci could be subjected to this new process, if it were to go into effect. “The disappointing aspect of the meeting was that from here it all becomes a bit of a black hole,” she wrote in an abridged version of the statement sent to the Daily. “We were not able to get a definitive statement that once the procedure is in place that Scaramucci would be subjected to it. ” Banker said there will have to be a discussion as to the correct response to Scaramucci’s actions. “Is Scaramucci’s behavior bad enough to warrant removal, or simply the non-renewal of his position on the Board when his term ends in three years?” she said. Banker said if the removal process involves a vote of the Board of Trustees, she would try to gather statements from Fletcher students, alumni, faculty and staff “in an attempt to give us some access to the process.” Scaramucci’s conversation with the community later this month will be closed to press.

Tufts administrators discuss uniqueness of proposal to remove advisory board member BOARD OF ADVISORS

continued from page 1

what the implications of this process will be for Anthony Scaramucci because there is no process for me to rely on,” he said. Kaplan then went on to explain the purpose of a Board of Advisors, the process of appointing members and the expectations the university has of them. He said there are a total of 10 boards between the various schools at the university. The roles of advisors are to provide advice to the deans, philanthropically support the university and serve as ambassadors of the university. “Unlike the Board of Trustees, advisors do not have decision-making authority for the university,” Kaplan said. “They do not have fiduciary responsibility. They’re really advisors and friends of the university.” Kaplan explained that advisors are appointed for five-year terms which are renewable with the approval of the dean. New advisors are made aware of the guidelines and sign a conflict of interest statement accordingly. The Fletcher board typically meets twice a year, once on the Fletcher campus and once in Washington, D.C. “The formal nomination process is done with a combination of the chair on that board and the dean making a recommendation to the provost and our senior vice president for university advancement,” Kaplan said. “Once everyone is in agreement that this is someone we’d like to consider to have on our board, it is then taken to the Executive Committee on the Board of Trustees and they are the ones who make the decision.” Kaplan said the advisors discuss topics such as admissions, fundraising, curricula, student life and marketing. Advisors are fur-

Monday, November 20, 2017

ARTS&LIVING COMEDY REVIEW

John Mulaney performs ‘Gorgeously’ during four-day residency in Boston by Lexi Serino

Executive Social Media Editor

With six seasons of writing for “Saturday Night Live,” one comedy album, two Netflix specials, a Broadway show and a spot as a voice actor on Netflix’s new animated series “Big Mouth” (2017–) all under his belt, stand-up comedian John Mulaney performed a total of seven shows of his “Kid Gorgeous” tour between Nov. 14 and 17 at both Symphony Hall and the Wilbur in Boston. From the outset, Mulaney hooked his audience with his awkwardly charming style of humor. He briefly joked about his fondness for the city, in spite of strange experiences he’s had with Bostonians, before delving into an act filled with his usual light-hearted, self-deprecating anecdotes, largely about his Catholic upbringing in the 1980s suburbs of Chicago. Mulaney found his rhythm in quipping about his relationships with his family, explaining how he does not have much to talk about with his mom, as she’s a traditional Catholic woman and he’s a “married 35-year-old without kids, and my mom doesn’t really understand my career.” He later went on to talk about his wife of three years, mentioning how she often critiques his “desperate need to be liked by everyone,” even salesmen at Best Buy (a worker there asked him if he was a Best Buy rewards member, and his polite, quizzical response was “No, I wish”), portraying one of many examples of Mulaney making humor out of his self-awareness. Besides humorous familial storytelling, Mulaney is most well known for his ability to interact and connect with his audience authentically, and his performance in “Kid Gorgeous” further proved this strength. When he mentioned that he was an English major in college, a person in the front row clapped, and he asked them how they could “dare to applaud the worst decision [he’d] ever

COURTESY SEVEN VENUES

The poster for the Emmy Award-winning writer and comedian John Mulaney’s national tour is pictured. made.” This small moment of dialogue between him and an audience member in and of itself perfectly demonstrates Mulaney’s comedic style: simultaneously self-critical and lighthearted, straightforward and understated. While largely sticking to his usual narratives about family, childhood and adult life, Mulaney surprised the audience with an entire bit about the current presidential administration. While many other comedians frequently use political events as material, Mulaney has largely avoided this method so far in his career. He’s rarely joked about or given his opinion on political issues; the most political he’s gotten before was describing meeting Bill Clinton as a child in his stand-up special “The Comeback Kid” (2015). Nonetheless, Mulaney strayed from his typical avoidance of politics and joked about the oddity of being a stand-up comic in today’s political climate and, despite never actually uttering Trump’s name, likened his presidency to having an untamed horse running loose in a hospital, joking that “I think everything’s going to be okay, but this has never happened

before. I have no idea what’s going to happen next, and none of you know either.” While the horse in a hospital anecdote was a bit muddled at times, Mulaney largely managed to employ his creative wit to explain the unprecedented political climate Americans have found themselves in. Most pervasive in this act, though, was his insistence on optimism: that even if the horse fires the horse-catcher and fights with a North Korean hippopotamus with a nuclear bomb, we’ll somehow, someday, manage to get him out of the hospital. Mulaney’s whimsical attempt at political humor served as a reminder of the impermanence of not only our political climate, but small occurrences of our everyday lives as well, whether it be trips to Best Buy, awkward conversations with your parents or mistakes made in adolescence. We can’t help but be affected by the political chaos going on in our world right now, but Mulaney’s lighthearted comedy reminds us that we can choose how we let it affect us. His uncomplicated wit teaches us to find humor in the simple things or, at the very least, to make light of tough situations as best we can. Maybe that’s the lesson we need most right now.

TV RECAP

Despite the Sugar Man, Chapter 19 of ‘Riverdale’ is more sour than sweet by Alison Epstein Arts Editor

Content warning: This article mentions sexual assault. It was going to be hard for this week’s episode of “Riverdale” (2017–) to top last week’s action-packed installment. And well, it didn’t. “Chapter 19: Death Proof” felt a little disjointed and seemed once again to serve as more of a set-up episode, although we did get a decent reveal at the end. At least Cheryl finally got the airtime she deserved, and Kevin solidified himself as the king of one-liners. We jump back in the morning after last week left off. Betty runs over to The Five Seasons to see whether the Black Hood followed through on her instructions to kill Nick St. Clair and discovers him alive but moody. Apparently, he’s a little bitter that he got beaten up by a bunch of very angry girls the night before, and to make matters for him worse, the sheriff shows

up to take him to the station to question him about his attempted assault of Cheryl. Soon after, Betty gets a call from the Black Hood saying that he didn’t kill Nick because he’s not one of Riverdale’s own, but that he’s happy he finally got Dark Betty to come out and play. He might be the only one who enjoys Dark Betty. This prompts Betty to decide that she’s done answering the Black Hood’s calls, but approximately four hours later, she picks up the phone once again, and she receives her next and potentially final assignment. She has to find out the identity of the true sinner of Riverdale, the person who is the source of all the drugs in town and who goes by the pseudonym “the Sugar Man.” The Black Hood informs Betty that the Sugar Man worked with Clifford Blossom before he died, so Betty heads over to the Blossom residence to see whether Cheryl has any information. We also discover that morning that Toni Topaz had spent the night at Jughead’s house. Kevin was basical-

ly all of us when he found out Betty and Jughead broke up, exclaiming “#Bughead is no more?” But don’t worry Betty (and Kevin), according to Toni, it was just a “PG-13 grope session.” And turns out she’s more into girls anyway. That’s all well and good, but then why has Toni been all over Jughead since the second she saw him? Seems like a pretty quick switch from determined home-wrecker to uninterested rebound. Jughead has bigger problems than the fact that he didn’t seal the deal with Toni the night before, though. Some of the Serpents want to form an alliance with the Ghoulies. But Jughead doesn’t want to get involved with the Ghoulies, who he knows are the main drug dealers in the area from his reporting for the Southside High newspaper (despite the newspaper teacher’s explicit instructions not to see RIVERDALE, page 4

3 tuftsdaily.com

Mina Ghobrial Thoughts from Places

Dewick

The dining halls celebrated Thanksgiving a week before the rest of the country — a welcome surprise on a cold and rainy Thursday night. The hustle and bustle of a crowded cafeteria contrasts sharply with the nearly silent gathering back home. My small family celebration never quite evokes the same feelings of warmth and appreciation as the one here does. Somehow, the significantly less textbook, slightly too early ordeal at Dewick felt even more picturesque and memorable than the 17 other attempts at Thanksgiving I have witnessed. The internet seems convinced that gathering a group of friends together for a meal involving turkey, gravy and all sorts of pies should be deemed “Friendsgiving,” and by that metric, that is exactly what this meal was. It is not inconceivable that this particular gathering was more entertaining that the one to take place a week later. It was blessed with all of the delicious foods (apparently the dining halls can make good food, they just choose not to), and none of the marinate-all-night, cook-all-day hassles. There were no frustrated mothers begging for help in the kitchen or grandmothers squabbling over whose apple pie has the right amount of cinnamon. No induced faithless prayers were sent up before the ceremonious digging-in. Awkward discussions were entirely avoidable, and the topic of Donald Trump only came up to satisfy the need for an echo chamber and not a debate stage. There were no awkward, drunk aunts, and no little kids cajoling their parents for a fourteenth slice of pie. At Tufts, any lulls in conversation were quickly avoided or otherwise ameliorated by the sheer presence of people who know you in a more real sense than even your family does. Perhaps it’s called Friendsgiving because it serves as a reminder for what many of us forget to fully appreciate sometimes — our friends. Literally nobody besides myself from the last four graduating classes of my high school has opted to come to Tufts, leaving me with a blank slate and no friends. Initially, the prospect was exciting; getting to reinvent both myself and my inventory of sidekicks could be life changing. Three short months later, I have found myself subject to the cheesy cultural phenomenon of both missing my old friends and surrounding myself with new ones (not just those from orientation, but perhaps still limiting myself to those individuals from my dorm). Taking time away from chemistry textbooks and psychology studies three-fourths of the way into the semester to appreciate the forgotten aspects of social engagement was a pleasant way to spend a Thursday night. Although the dread of an awkward Thanksgiving dinner at home confounds my excitement to revisit a place that is still deemed “home,” (and my dogs), I know that there are several reasons to be thankful. Apart from the delicious meal at Dewick, my ability to access a beautiful campus and recieve a world-class education surrounded by many of those dearest to my heart truly gives me plenty to appreciate.

Mina Ghobrial is a first-year who has not yet declared a major. Mina can be reached at mina.ghobrial@tufts.edu, and this column can be followed on Instagram @thoughtsfromtufts.

THE TUFTS DAILY | Arts & Living | Monday, November 20, 2017

Henry Stevens The Weekly Chirp

Birds and coffee

offee — it fuels people around the world, but especially Americans. And it looks like our generation of driven, multi-tasking millennials are drinking the most. That’s right, Americans ages 19–34 account for close to half of the total coffee consumption in America — and that number keeps rising. Starbucks and Dunkin Donuts giggle with excitement as millennials guzzle down their ridiculously overpriced coffee and come back again the next day for another round. Most of you probably don’t care. After all, it’s just coffee … Why does it matter? Well, what if I told you that each time you decide to grab another cup o’ joe, you could be jeopardizing the lives of innocent songbirds? All the millions of pounds of coffee that we down each year must come from somewhere, and that somewhere is Central and South America. Traditionally, agriculture in Latin America followed the shifting cultivation system, where farmers would grow crops in one small section of land, and then move onto a new section the following season. This required no outside inputs or major habitat destruction, as farmers could simply use the same five or six agricultural plots. However, in order to accommodate the massive demand for coffee worldwide, the shifting cultivation system historically employed by so many farmers has been replaced with intensified agriculture. Among a suite of downfalls, this intensified agriculture has resulted in the conversion of grasslands and forests into farmland, which has displaced hundreds of species of tropical organisms. Your cup of coffee costs way more than a couple of bucks — while we contently sip our coffee, birds pay the real price. However, not all agricultural practices follow this intensified model. There’s a species of coffee plant that grows better in shaded areas, which gave rise to shade coffee farms. In these special coffee plantations, the understory of forests is cleared and coffee plants are introduced, effectively retaining the natural forest canopy and causing minimal disturbance to the surrounding ecosystem. As you may guess, this drastically improves the livelihood for local organisms — especially avian insectivores and pollinators, who rejoice from a buffet of insects (mainly coffee borers snacking on coffee beans) and abundant flowers eagerly awaiting pollination. Local birds in turn benefit the farmers as well by providing them with ecosystem services like pest control, thereby reducing their dependency on harmful chemicals like pesticides. Moreover, shade coffee simply tastes better than the mass-produced coffee grown using intensified agriculture. Most coffee consumers don’t intend to harm birds; they simply just don’t understand the entire system from bean to cup. To address this disconnect, organizations like the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center have identified certain shade coffee operations as “Bird-Friendly.” These certified coffee farms meet a predetermined list of extensive criteria, ranging from the presence of leaf litter around each coffee plant to the overall, herbaceous structural diversity of the entire farm. This allows consumers to easily select coffee brands that practice sustainable agriculture, and therefore directly support bird (and tropical ecosystem) conservation. We can choose to consume sustainably! And as intelligent millennials, it is our responsibility to lead the charge. Love, Henry Henry Stevens is a junior majoring in biology. Henry can be reached at henry. stevens@tufts.edu. Interest in birds? Email me at tuftsornithologicalsociety@gmail.com.

tuftsdaily.com

‘Riverdale’ goes ‘Grease’ with drag race episode RIVERDALE

continued from page 3 investigate the drug scene). After consulting with his father in jail, Jughead decides to challenge the Ghoulies to a street race. If the Serpents win, the Ghoulies stop dealing at Southside High, but if the Ghoulies win, the Serpents have to give up a huge chunk of their turf. Bring on the race. But first, Betty decides it’s a good idea to spill the truth to Veronica. She also comes partially clean to Jughead, telling him she had to break up with him for a reason and she’ll explain everything later. Great, Betty, the Black Hood was definitely kidding about murdering Veronica and Jughead if you continue to be close with them. And now, the street race between the Serpents and the Ghoulies, along with Kevin’s best line of the night: “Not the kind of drag race I ever imagined myself going to, but at least the guys are hot.” Kevin is iconic. Jughead, channeling Danny Zuko, is ready to drive to victory, but first Betty tells him she never stopped loving him. Jughead hops into the car and takes off, determined to save his school and the Serpents’ territory. Archie is in the passenger seat (is this a real thing? Danny was alone in “Grease,” and that’s obviously the only source of this reviewer’s road-racing knowledge) and, as it turns out, he has another plan in mind. He grabs the emergency brake and stops their car at the last second, allowing the Ghoulies to fly ahead and right into the trap that Archie laid for them: several police cars in place at the finish line ready to arrest the Ghoulies for

racing. But as Jughead points out, this only temporarily solves their problem. At least for now, Danny Zuko lives to see another day. Now go get your Sandy. Okay, finally time for Cheryl. Poor Cheryl is not having a good episode. First, as she tries to process what happened to her with Nick, her mother victim-blames her and says there’s no reason to press charges. Then she gets yelled at by her mother again when she tries to inquire about the Sugar Man on behalf of Betty. The most horrifying scene of the episode comes when Cheryl runs into Nick at Pop’s. She confronts him about what he did (Cheryl is so tough), but Nick shows no remorse, telling her she was “high, naked and begging for it.” Chilling. Cheryl, strong woman she is, informs Nick she is going to press charges after all, only to find out that the St. Clairs paid off Penelope Blossom in exchange for Cheryl’s silence. A distraught Cheryl finds the check from the St. Clairs, and in an amazing and moving performance from Madelaine Petsch, Cheryl confronts her mom about how she never protects her. She then informs her mother she’s withholding the money until Penelope spills about the Sugar Man. She also finds out that the Lodges are still in business with the St. Clairs and passes this information along to Veronica. Outraged, Veronica comes clean to her parents about Nick’s attempted attack on her as well. This prompts Hermione to swear they’re done taking money from the St. Clairs and prompts Hiram to turn into the Riverdale version of the Godfather. Sure enough, at the end of the episode, we find out that the St. Clair family has been

involved in a devastating car accident. They survive, but face several months of recovery. This must’ve been easier for Hiram than getting his hands on a horse’s head. Finally, Penelope discloses the truth about the Sugar Man. There have been many “monsters” over the years that worked with Clifford in the secret drug business and contributed to the series of events that led to Jason’s death. In an act of solidarity with her daughter, she also throws the check from the St. Clairs into the fire. She then agrees to give Cheryl the name of the current Sugar Man. Cheryl immediately calls Betty to inform her of the Sugar Man’s identity (although viewers can’t hear Cheryl’s end of the call), and Betty decides to give the name to the police so the Sugar Man can be brought to justice the right way, instead of being hunted by the Black Hood. She also informs the Black Hood that she’s coming for him next: “I’m breathing down your neck. Can you feel it? Can you feel me?” This is definitely supposed to be intimidating, but yuck. Dark Betty is kind of creepy and gross. And finally the big reveal. It turns out the current Sugar Man is… drumroll… the newspaper teacher! (Does anyone know — or care about — his actual name?) No wonder he didn’t want Jughead digging around about drugs in Riverdale. He gets thrown behind bars, but despite Betty’s intentions, the Black Hood finds his way inside the jail to shoot the Sugar Man himself. Sweet dreams. “Riverdale” airs at 8 p.m. on Wednesdays on The CW. Full episodes available on cwtv.com and Netflix.

Applications Now Being Accepted for the

2018 Elections Commission ECOM *Manage all aspects of the TCU Student Government Elections *Application and Interview Required *Term from January ’18 – January ‘19 *Salary of $250 Per Semester upon completion of duties. For Application go to:

https://www.tcu.tufts.edu/about-ecom/ email ocl@Tufts.edu with questions.

Monday, November 20, 2017 | Comics | THE TUFTS DAILY

tuftsdaily.com

Comics

LATE NIGHT AT THE DAILY Gil: “We could kill Garfield.”

Comics

Puzzle 1 (Easy, difficulty rating 0.40)

SUDOKU

9 9

6 8 7 4

5 6

NON SEQUITUR BY WILEY MILLER

1 2

8 3

BY JIM DAVIS

GARFIELD

5 7

Difficulty Level: Not getting along with your family at Thanksgiving.

LINDA C. BLACK ASTROLOGY

Generated by http://www.opensky.ca/sudoku on Mon Nov 20 00:18:59 2017 GMT. Enjoy!

Friday’s Solution

Scorpio (Oct. 23-Nov. 21)

Writing and creative projects come together today and tomorrow. Your muses are available. Accept advice from loved ones and especially children. Take detailed notes. RELEASE DATE– Monday, November 20, 2017

Los Angeles Times Daily Crossword Puzzle Edited by Rich CROSSWORD Norris and Joyce Nichols Lewis

ACROSS 1 Gospel truth 5 Previous time of life 9 Broadway bombs 14 Southwestern stewpot 15 Texter’s modest “I think ... ” 16 Choosing rhyme starter 17 Hand from the audience 20 Actor __ Ivory Wayans 21 Castle barrier 22 Con man’s sucker 23 Robert of “The Sopranos” 25 Is the right size 27 Group one likes to hang with 34 Prefix with logical 35 Shrunken Asian sea 36 Braid 37 Jump 39 Blue cartoon papa 42 “Zip-__-Doo-Dah” 43 Clear, as an argument 45 Holiday trees 47 “Hometown Proud” supermarket chain 48 Area in which one has power 52 Royal sari wearer 53 Indian nurse 54 Plugs for products 57 Swallow hard 59 Frightened, in dialect 63 1970 Temptations hit with the subtitle “That’s What the World Is Today” 66 Sing like Bing 67 Actress Jessica 68 Creative spark 69 Frets 70 Close at hand 71 Droops like an old sofa

55 Pointed pub flier 40 Costa __ DOWN 1 Road split 56 __ gin fizz 41 How the wise 2 Skin soother 58 Flag holder men came 3 Game with 60 Verdi title 44 Fire-breathing suspects princess beasts 4 Kind of acid in 61 “Walkabout” 46 Major mix-up red wine director Nicolas 49 Sufficient, in texts 5 First settlers 62 Genetic carriers 50 Tin Man’s need 6 Big initials in 64 Weather map 51 Grad student’s bowling “L” paper 7 Bedding 65 Org. with Lakers 54 Grade school accessory and Clippers basics 8 Fill to the brim Friday’s Solution 9 Soft penpoint ANSWER TO PREVIOUS PUZZLE: 10 Pasture S O F T E R B A R B E C U E 11 Responsibility O X O L L L I W 12 Italian tower town P I A N I S T E A R L I E R 13 Ooze T T D H C M H E 18 Singer Reese R E M A R K A B L E T H U D 19 Two of a kind N R R B B R E 24 Wander R E M O V E S S H A K E N 26 Actress Ward T T S R T A D A 27 Basic anatomy units B E L O V E D A R O U N D 28 Freeze over L M F D C V V 29 Insect trapped in D A T A E N C O U R A G E D a “motel” L T I W H T N S 30 Pillow down, say E L E G I A C S T A T I O N 31 Low point I O E R A O E E 32 San __ Padres S T A N D S L E M O N A D E 33 Take illegally 38 Jetty 11/20/17 xwordeditor@aol.com

11/20/17

Opinion

6 tuftsdaily.com

Monday, November 20, 2017

OP-ED

Re-envisioning community for the Asian American Center by Thao Ho It is a slow day at the Asian American Center. An intern works quietly at their desk until someone rings the doorbell. When someone (if anyone) comes by, they feel an urge to justify their presence to the silence within the walls of Start House. A half hour later, a resident’s steps echo as they run down the stairs, coming and going, then nothing. This narrative fits the image of the Center that circulates around campus and discourages others from visiting this seemingly exclusive and limited space. As a current intern and Peer Leader at the Center, I myself recognize the many flaws within the confines of Start House. The silence that pervades the Center creates discomfort for those who visit, and I know that if I did not have access to the Center’s door, I myself would not willingly enter. To say that community does not exist within the small confines of 17 Latin Way,

though, would be to dismiss the strength and solidarity I have found among Peer Leaders, fellow interns and the residents of the Asian American House. When these people come through the door, love and care come as well. We celebrate birthdays, share food and confess our grievances to one another. In these moments, the Center becomes a community of care, and I wonder why others do not visit the Center. But I know the answer to that question. The Center is not visited often because, to many people, its inaccessibility has become a symbol of the Center’s intentional exclusiveness. The locked door is a barrier to those without a direct connection to Center programming and simply adds to the lack of support that students feel they have within this space. Yet, as I think of the silence that creeps through the Center, I am reminded of how silence has played a role in discrediting the experiences of Asians/Asian-Americans by

socially stifling their voices. In my opinion, this mirrors the Center’s current capacity. Because of the legacy of the locked front door and limited space, the Asian American community has been further silenced even within its own Center. Instead of providing a space for students to build an empowered community around Asian-American identity, the community has been fragmented. I am constantly amazed at the ways in which Asian-Americans around the country resist and fight for their right to thrive. I wish I could say that the Asian American Center supported the same actions at Tufts, but in its current state, it fails to do more than just survive in the concrete-and-brick jungle that is Tufts University. It has been crippled by its inaccessibility and its lack of space, which prevent Asian/Asian-American students from collaborating in community organizing. There are times when I cannot help but think that it is better to just leave the Center

as is. Yet, I am constantly reminded of the laughter within these walls and the stories that have been shared. I know that there is the potential for transformative community at the Asian American Center, and I can only begin to imagine the possibilities for the Center if it were to be expanded and open. Although the Asian American Center in its current state cannot fully serve the students it is meant to support, we must begin to re-envision what community could look like if Asian American Housing were to be relocated elsewhere. Let us not be silenced by accepting the current state of Asian American community that exists at Tufts as a result of the Center. Instead, let us make the Center a truly accessible space, not just for Asian/Asian-American students, but for all of the Tufts student community. Thao Ho is a sophomore majoring in community health. Thao can be reached at Thao.Ho@tufts.edu.

OP-ED

When the end justifies the means by Alex Henrie Hi Fletcher, Before this op-ed makes you think I read Infowars at breakfast and fall asleep to the dulcet tones of Sean Hannity, let me introduce myself. I am a left-leaning Democrat. I voted for Obama and Hillary. I protested at Mar-a-Lago. I am Fox News’ archetypal coastal elite. However, I am dismayed by the rise of emotive, exclusionary identity politics at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy in the form of the campaign to remove Anthony Scaramucci from the Board of Advisors. I found it interesting that the Nov. 6 Daily op-ed invoked Ronald Reagan’s depiction of America as a “city on a hill” to position The Fletcher School in a similarly authoritative moral role. Reagan’s intent was pure, but American exceptionalism has a murkier history than we often admit. John Winthrop’s 1630 sermon in which he first used the phrase bred a conception of exceptionalism that would imbibe later generations of Americans with the belief that their society was not just exceptional but superior, and it was their duty to spread their superior ideals to the savages of the forest and plains who remained ‘uncivilized.’ Or so they believed. I thought of that as the campaign to remove Scaramucci progressed. I followed the story with a growing sense that in our zeal to occupy the high ground in the culture wars of the Trump era we were ignoring values we might otherwise hold dear and embracing values we might otherwise abhor. That even Fletcher students would do so is unsurprising; emotional and moral arguments are powerful, and the allure of being the good guy fighting the good fight is seductive. However, doing so sometimes means deploying arguments that are short on reason and long on hyperbole. Unfortunately, that seems to be the case here. The argument in favor of removing Scaramucci has been that his actions demonstrate judgment so poor that continued association would harm The Fletcher School and its students. His interview with The New Yorker is presented as Exhibit A. Inappropriate as his conduct was, asserting that a vulgar interview tells us all we need to

know about Scaramucci’s ability to advise The Fletcher School is both laughable and troubling. It is laughable because it asks us to say with a straight face that a 30-minute conversation provides a complete assessment of one’s personal judgment. It is troubling because it advocates terminating a business relationship based on such limited information. Additionally, if public vulgarity is a nonpartisan standard by which we measure Fletcher community members, should we petition the administration to remove, say, a faculty member who directs vulgar language at government officials on social media? I certainly hope not; yet this is the standard we appear to be setting. The idea that we ought to consider an isolated incident not a slip of judgment, but proof of fundamental character flaws should give us pause. As diplomats, business leaders, politicians or whatever we may become, making sweeping judgments based on limited information would be dangerous and counterproductive. It is precisely what we are learning to avoid in many of our classes at The Fletcher School. Furthermore, such judgments undermine our ability to responsibly address grievances. We should be able to agree that Scaramucci’s conduct in the interview was unacceptable while acknowledging his acceptance of wrongdoing and pursuing a more productive course of action. The petitioners have also repeatedly referred to a poll posted on the Scaramucci Post’s Twitter page. To be clear, the poll was inappropriate and poorly conceived, and should not have been posted. However, Scaramucci was both unaware of it and livid at the associate (Lance Laifer) who published it. Additionally, both men posted apologies and were seemingly open about Laifer’s thought process. Scaramucci’s subsequent tweets (“we make mistakes. We carry on … I don’t fire people for making mistakes”) showed restraint under pressure and a willingness to learn from errors. Furthermore, do we really believe that Laifer (who is Jewish) and Scaramucci (who is traveling with the Orthodox Jewish Chamber of Commerce to Israel this month, has publicly criticized the United States for rejecting Jewish refugees during World War II and has repeatedly decried

anti-Semites and white supremacists) are Holocaust deniers? Are we actually tying Scaramucci to “extreme nationalism, bigotry and exclusion”? While it is possible that people believe those things, I suspect it is simply a convenient way to manufacture outrage in service of a preordained goal. It fits the narrative but not the reality. Ultimately, flirting with Godwin’s Law over a Twitter poll is disappointingly thin logic that should be beneath us. I also wonder what “Fletcher values” are truly being honored. One email mentioned a belief “in institutions and collective answers rather than individual actions,” honorable words that we have failed to uphold. From the beginning, the campaign was not aimed at working toward a collective solution, but rather issuing a demand and pressuring the administration into capitulating. Furthermore, petitioners have made a clear effort to avoid open discussion and debate. When Scaramucci tweeted publicly to engage, he was dismissed as disingenuous and accused of intentionally subjecting students to harassment. When he emailed privately to arrange a phone conversation, he was accused of baiting students. When he suggested that students invite him to campus, he was again accused of baiting students (The Nov. 13 op-ed doubles down on this). Is this how tomorrow’s leaders operate? By rejecting attempts to engage and only giving a platform to assenting voices? By identifying ends, then creating inconsistent, embellished claims of wrongdoing that fit those ends after the fact? I hope this is the exception, and not the rule at The Fletcher School. It also bears mentioning that an oft-repeated message — morals over money — shows a reductive zero-sum view of the two and an ignorance of the board’s composition. If, as was asserted in the Nov. 6 op-ed, Scaramucci’s career is incompatible with The Fletcher School’s values, should we petition to remove the numerous board members who work in the financial sector? Surely their pursuit of profit also runs counter to our values and must be addressed. Additionally, it seems folly to argue that someone who worked his way up in finance, started his own firm and expanded into print, movies and television has no advice

worth hearing. One imagines that the road to a successful career with a diverse set of business interests is not one paved with poor decisions. You may have opinions about his chosen field; I certainly do. However, that does not diminish his business acumen or ability to advise The Fletcher School. So why bother writing this? I probably shouldn’t; the social costs of publicly questioning classmates while defending an unpopular man who worked for a deeply unpopular president surely outweigh the benefits, and individual board members are irrelevant to my Fletcher experience. However, this is not about Scaramucci but about rejecting the strategy of advancing partisan goals with moralistic, logically inconsistent arguments. I acknowledge the claim of nonpartisanship, but repeated references to the moral depravity of working with the administration, clear exaggeration of transgressions and cynical invocation of otherwise nonexistent standards undercut the idea that this is anything other than a campaign to punish someone who worked for President Trump. Yes, the interview was vulgar. The poll was inappropriate. Scaramucci might be a jerk. It is entirely valid to be offended by those things. However, arguing that an interview and associate’s tweet prove Scaramucci violated board standards (that again, do not officially exist) and thus is a bad man who threatens Fletcher values reveals the partisan nature of this campaign. Administrators may remove Scaramucci to rid the school of this self-inflicted headache; they may retain him anyway. Either way, that we have gotten to this point through little more than partisan escalation and moral grandstanding is an indictment of our ability to work through problems with those we disagree with and a mark against our openness as a student body. Sincerely, Alex Henrie Alex Henrie is a student at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy pursuing his masters degree in law and diplomacy. He can be reached at alexander.henrie@ tufts.edu.

Opinion

Monday, November 20, 2017 | Opinion | THE TUFTS DAILY

Letter to the editor Dear Editor: I am writing to you and your readers in the hope that I might be able to be a little helpful and supportive. When I was a 25-year-old college student back in the 1970s, I was very badly sexually harassed for a long time by a female college professor who had a lot of power over me. Like most of my “fellow victims and

survivors,” I have been too ashamed and embarrassed to tell anyone about it for the past 40 years aside from my wife — until now. I have found that a lot of people do not take the sexual harassment of a male by a female seriously. I have sometimes been mocked, teased, and insulted about it. And, as many others find out, I have sometimes

Nesi Altaras Looking out

been called “a liar” and that “you made the whole thing up just to get attention, pity and sympathy from others.” I want to URGE all victims of sexual harassment to immediately report it to someone in a position of authority. One of the biggest regrets of my life is that I did not. Please do not repeat my mistake. These perpetrators need to be stopped.

And please do not repeat my mistake of blaming myself for it. You did NOT do anything to bring on that predatory behavior or to encourage it. It was NOT your fault. Sincerely, Stewart Epstein 2266 Westside Drive Rochester, New York 14624 585-594-0610 phenom51@mail.com

CARTOON

BY SHANNON GEARY

The Tufts Daily is a nonprofit, independent newspaper, published Monday through Friday during the academic year, and distributed free to the Tufts community. The content of letters, advertisements, signed columns, cartoons and graphics does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Tufts Daily editorial board. EDITORIALS Editorials represent the position of The Tufts Daily. Individual editors are not necessarily responsible for, or in agreement with, the policies

and editorials of The Tufts Daily. OP-EDS The Op-Ed section of The Tufts Daily, an open forum for campus editorial commentary, is printed Monday through Thursday. The Daily welcomes submissions from all members of the Tufts community; the opinions expressed in the Op-Ed section do not necessarily represent the opinions of the Daily itself. Opinion articles on campus, national and international issues should be 600 to

1,200 words in length and submitted to opinion@ tuftsdaily.com. The editors reserve the right to edit letters for clarity, space and length. All material is subject to editorial discretion and is not guaranteed to appear in the Daily. Authors must submit their telephone numbers and day-of availability for editing questions. ADVERTISING All advertising copy is subject to the approval of the Editor-in-Chief, Executive Board and Executive Business Director.

Investigation

here has been a movement in Robert Mueller’s investigation recently that is moving the focus away from Russia and toward Turkey. In March 2016, Reza Zarrab, a Turkish-Iranian businessman, was arrested in the United States. The charges mainly concerned evading the U.S. sanctions on Iran by using the gold trade. However, the more important aspect of Zarrab’s arrest for the Erdogan regime in Turkey was his involvement in and knowledge of government corruption. His personal ties to Erdogan and his confidantes have made Zarrab a liability to Turkey. Many anti-corruption advocates were overjoyed by his arrest. So much so that the prosecuting attorney, Preet Bharara of the Southern District of New York, has become a famous and admired figure in Turkey. He gained hundreds of thousands of Turkish Twitter followers in a short amount of time, many thanking him for his work, which they hope will shed light on deep corruption in Turkey. The corruption case Zarrab is involved in extends to many current and former Turkish ministers, making this a top priority for the country. Until this point, the case was a thorn in Turkish-American relations and the Turkish government desperately wanted this to go away. Enter Michael Flynn. Flynn was a Donald Trump campaign adviser and his first (though short-lived) National Security Advisor. Though he was in such a high position of power in the administration, he had until recently been a lobbyist for the Turkish government, earning himself more than half a million dollars. His close contact with Turkey, his lucrative lobbying, and the fact that he did not register as a foreign agent when he acted as one for Turkey all raised red flags. In addition, eyebrows were raised over the fact that while he was advising Trump, Trump decided to fire prosecutor Preet Bharara, who has been charged with conspiracy in Turkish court this past week. Then, piling onto all this has been the explosive news that Flynn was in the midst of arranging a deal to hand over Fetullah Gulen, a green card holder based in the Poconos in Pennsylvania, to Turkey for $15 million. Turkey has been pushing for the extradition of Gulen, the leader of an Islamic order and likely culprit of the July 15 coup attempt in Turkey. The other shoe finally dropped this week. Zarrab, in jail and on trial for the past year, was released. He was released because he is not a criminal under investigation, but rather an informant for the prosecution on a much larger case: that concerning Michael Flynn. The Flynn case is part of the larger investigation by Robert Mueller concerning the foreign dealings of members of the Trump administration. Now, this case has come to include Turkey in a major way, enough that this news has rocked Turkish media. The government is extremely concerned about Reza Zarrab being an informant for a U.S. investigation for fear that it might bring to light details of corruption scandals that shook Turkey in 2013. Turkey will be taking more steps to calm the situation, but for now, the Russia investigation is also the Turkey investigation.

Nesi Altaras is a junior majoring in international relations and economics. Nesi can be reached at nesi.altaras@tufts.edu.

8 tuftsdaily.com

Sports JOHN CASEY

From player to coach: 41 years of Tufts baseball by Sam Weidner Sports Editor

John Casey has been a figure in Tufts athletics for longer than many coaches, and almost all students, have been alive. He began his Tufts career when he arrived on campus in 1976 as a first-year recruited to play football and baseball for the Jumbos. Growing up in the Boston area, Casey was a year-round athlete for his entire life. Casey explained that despite being recruited by numerous schools across the country to play football, Tufts’ proximity to home was what led him to come to school here. “Back then, in terms of recruiting, people didn’t really look at schools until their senior year,” Casey said. “So I was recruited by Paul Pawlak, who was the football coach here. Like any guy you had this wide gamut of schools you are looking at, and Tufts was one of them. It was all over the place, from Wisconsin to Princeton to Dartmouth to Tufts to Middlebury. Being brought up in the city, I didn’t really relate to Dartmouth or Middlebury or Wisconsin … Somewhere in the back of your mind, the fact that my parents could get here or I could get home factored into it. So I wound up here in fall of ‘76.” Even with the challenge of playing multiple sports and being a student, Casey found great success during his time at Tufts. His pitching led the Jumbos to back-to-back ECAC Division II-III Tournament appearances, and he also started at tight end for the 8–0 1979 Tufts football team. Casey discussed what it was like playing multiple college sports when he attended Tufts. “It was much more commonplace than it is now,” Casey said. “I don’t think that changed until about 10 or 15 years ago. There were probably seven or eight guys on the baseball team that played football. You just went from one season to the next it was no different from high school. I’m not so sure that’s not a bad thing. I think often people specialize way before they’re ready to make a choice. The struggle you had was August when all your friends were going to the beach and summer baseball had ended and you had to start getting ready to be in shape for football. That was a tough month, but you did it, because you just wanted to compete.” Although he may not have anticipated it, Casey’s coaching career began even before his playing one ended. Because of an injury during his undergraduate football days he had been forced to miss all of one baseball season, and had an extra year of eligibility after graduation. Casey spent his first year out of college as a grad student at Tufts, assistant coaching football in the fall and playing baseball in the spring. Casey credited this year of his life for giving him perspective into all the hard work and preparation that goes into every different layer of a college sports team. “After being in the fall playing, and then coaching, it was just a really interesting dynamic to be in the middle,” Casey said. “But it made me think a lot about both sides. I think I was much less tolerant of my other teammates that spring in baseball, because I had

BEN KIM / THE TUFTS DAILY

Coach John Casey, associate athletic director at Tufts, poses for a portrait in his office at the Steve Tisch Sports and Fitness Center on Oct. 26. seen the coaches side of it. I remember just being more of a hardass, for lack of a better word, and telling guys ‘hey c’mon run your sprints harder’ because you had seen the other side so you appreciated how much work they had put in. Like anything in life if you see both sides you have a better appreciation for it … So I was fortunate enough to get the whole picture of coaching and playing in the same year.” Following a brief stint working at a high school, where Casey coached football, women’s basketball and baseball and also taught at the school, he returned to be an assistant coach for the Tufts football and baseball teams. Luckily for him, the head coaching job opened up for baseball just a year later, in 1984, and Casey took over the program. Casey quickly noticed a stark contrast in what it was like to be a head coach versus an assistant coach. “Night and day,” Casey said. “When the game’s over and it’s a tough loss, I’m hoping my guys can hold a loss from [the field] to the bridge. Then they’ll shake it off cause they’re college guys, they’re 19 years old. I think the assistants hold onto the loss as long as I’m buying dinner, and then after dinner it’s gone for them. The only person who stays awake at night is the head coach, because it all falls on you.” Casey has held the baseball head coaching job ever since and has won over 600 games in his career. As to why he has stayed at Tufts for so long, Casey credited the people he has met and culture he’s helped create. “I have had several opportunities to go, I’ve just felt at home here,” Casey said. “We’ve had awesome guys … In terms of staying here, some of the best people I’ve ever met came here. One of [the] former players who was then a graduate assistant is my youngest son’s godfather. I just thought that Tufts is a place that changed people’s lives. You have these older more established [schools] that are about the institution, but I’ve always thought Tufts was about the people.” His accomplishments have been noted by most of the baseball community as well, as Casey has served most recently as the president of the American Baseball Coaches Association in 2016. Casey described the experience of serving in this position as one of the best of his life. “I’m around guys who started this game … I’m sitting around guys in the

room that started the college world series,” Casey said. “So when I’m sitting in that room with them I pinch myself that I’m in the room with them … I can’t fathom a better situation to do. You really get to affect the game of baseball, and it’s pretty neat. We try to get younger coaches involved to make sure that they’re taking care of the game.” Current Tufts senior infielder Tommy O’Hara, one of the captains of the baseball team this year, spoke about how Casey has impacted his time at Tufts. “His knowledge of the game is incredible, the things that he knows, this is my fourth year with him and there is still new stuff I’m getting out of him,” O’Hara said. “He’s helped me a lot, all of us. There have been whole generations of Tufts baseball players, he has really invested in making us great players and even better men. I can’t thank him enough.” O’Hara also noted that the success Tufts baseball has enjoyed over the past few years, including winning the 2016 NESCAC championship, has been largely due to the culture of the team set by Casey. “We have a very gritty, tough culture, and that starts with him. We play very blue collar baseball, our goal is we’re going to out-hustle you and have a great attitude and compete hard,” O’Hara said. “That’s why we don’t get out of the way of pitches, we pride ourselves on being tougher than most teams … We pride ourselves on team first.” Casey and his family now live in Milford, Mass. With four children who followed him into the coaching world, Casey has made his coaching role at Tufts a large part of his family and life. Each of his sons is now assistant coaching baseball, with one at William & Mary, one at Northeastern, one at Roger Williams and one at Tufts. He noted that integrating his family life and coaching life together was the only way to make time for both. “They saw all the good stuff, guys competing, players at my house for a breakup dinner having fun and talking about the stories, they saw our alums come back and come over to the house … They saw all this stuff and they just thought it was cool,” Casey said. “Part of it is that you have to integrate your family and your team together because if you don’t there’s just not enough time.”

Monday, November 20, 2017

Phillip Goldberg Bird's Eye View

The hardest sport

f you flew over Cambridge, Mass. this past Sunday, you would have seen a few thousand people running. Their legs beat time through the pelting rain, as they snaked along the Charles River. Without knowledge of the concept of marathons, perhaps you might have ascribed the mass movement to some form of religious practice. After all, it couldn’t be a migration as the runners started and ended in the same location. Why else would thousands of people get up before the sun to run in a 13-mile long misshapen circle? I never had much respect for long distance runners. In high school, I participated in purely anaerobic sports — wrestling and sprinting. In both of those sports, there are other athletes either directly or indirectly competing with you. In long distance running, however, competitors often race against their own personal records more than any particular opponent. This makes long distance running less competitive, I thought naively. Barring an overtime period, a wrestling match lasts six minutes. The 200-meter sprint is well over after 30 seconds. The Cambridge Half Marathon was capped at three hours. Sure, doing anything for that long can be mentally taxing, as long hours in the Tisch Library can attest to, but how hard can something really be if people are capable of doing it for that long? Pretty hard it turns out. Last spring I entered the Barcelona Half Marathon five days in advance of the race, with no preparation whatsoever, and showed up the morning of the race having barely stretched. I had been training in jiu-jitsu fairly frequently and arrogantly imagined the race would be easy for me as a then 20-year-old man in decent shape. Predictably, I did not do well. I was shocked at how long the race took me and amazed at the sheer difficulty and pain involved in moving my legs afterwards. Runners much younger, older, bigger and smaller passed me with little difficulty. They had something I did not — respect for the sport. It turns out that, just like any other sport, long distance running takes immense preparation to perform at a high level. Diet, training mileage and wearing proper attire are all controllable factors that serious runners put immense thought and time into. Additionally, unlike wrestling, which takes place indoors, there is the added factor of weather. Freezing cold air burns any exposed skin. Pelting rain converts courses into muddy messes and weighs down layers of drenched clothing. The relentless sun dehydrates and discourages. Any wind exacerbates the existing conditions. My running hubris resulted in my learning a very valuable lesson: every sport is worthy of respect in its own way. Long-distance running is physically and mentally taxing, just as other sports are, but in its own way. Athletes such as marathoner Meb Keflezighi merit just as much respect for conquering their sports as the Tom Bradys and LeBron Jameses of the world do. I intend to train for all my future races, and to all the long-distance runners of the world, I’d like to say thank you and I’m sorry. Phillip Goldberg is a sports editor at the Daily. He is a senior majoring in political science and can be reached at phillip. goldberg@tufts.edu.