Spring 2016 Issue 1

TUFTS OBSERVER

FEBRUARY 8, 2016

VOLUME CXXXIX, ISSUE 1

POLITICIANS, SCANDALS, AND VOTING (PAGE 3)

THE CRIMINALIZATION OF HOMELESSNESS (PAGE 8)

VISITING A SMUT SLAM (PAGE 20)

#LOVE

Staff editor-in-chief Moira Lavelle managing editor Carly Olson creative director Chelsea Newman news Xander Landen Lily Hartzell

February 8, 2016 Tufts Observer, since 1895

Volume CXXXIX, Issue 1 Tufts’ Student Magazine

TABLE OF CONTENTS

opinion Greta Jochem Jamie Moore arts & culture Susan Kaufman Ben Kesslen campus Eve Feldberg Nina Hofkosh-Hulbert tech & innovation Gabby Bonfiglio Misha Linnehan poetry & prose Tess Ross-Callahan publicity team Yumi Casagrande Ashley Miller

LETTER FROM THE EDITOR Moira Lavelle

2

by Susan Kaufman

3

photography director Alison Graham

NEWS Chokehold

photography editor Lily Herzan

by Liam Knox

6

art director Eva Strauss lead artists Adriana Guardans-Godo Jake Rochford lead copy editor Will Hodge copy editors Matt Beckshaw Carissa Fleury Jordan Lauf Sivi Satchithanandan

FEATURE Love at the Polls

NEWS Homeless & Outlawed

by Greta Jochem ADRIANA GUARDANS-GODO

8

CAMPUS No Longer in the Third Grade

by Benya Kraus with Parker Breza

10

OPINION Queering Mom and Dad

by Ben Kesslen

18

ARTS & CULTURE The Satisfaction of SMUT

by Cooper McKim

20 EVA STRAUSS

POETRY I’ve Never Been to Colorado in The Winter

by Nick Dorian

12

OPINION Love, Drugs, and Rehabilitation

22

24

PHOTO INSET Talking About Love

EVA STRAUSS

13

ARTS & CULTURE Why is Love Such a Big Deal?

by Melissa Dong

26

POLICE BLOTTER Moira Lavelle

27

Adriana Guardans-Godo Jake Rochford Annie Roome

Theme Love is a word that is easy to use but hard to define. It unites us, enlightens us, and inspires us. In this issue we look at love as it plays into romance, sex, and family. We ask how it influences us, how it changes our worldviews, and where we can find it.

ADRIANA GUARDANS-GODO

17

designers Alexandra Benjamin Chase Conley Kayden Mimmack Astrid Weng Conrad Young

Contributors

by Misha Linnehan and Gabby Bonfiglio

by Jaanvi Sant

multimedia directors Kayden Mimmack Emma Pinsky Tom Wang

by Tess Hinchman

TECH & INNOVATION Farmers, Sea Captains, and White People

POETRY Haiku Series

web editors Will Norris Maya Pace

The Tufts Observer has been Tufts’ student publication of record since 1895. Our dedication to in-depth reporting, journalistic innovation, and honest dialogue has remained intact for over a century. Today, we offer insightful news analysis, cogent and diverse opinion pieces, creative writing, and lively reviews of current arts, entertainment, and culture. Through poignant writing and artistic elegance, we aim to entertain, inform, and above all challenge the Tufts community to effect positive change.

@tuftsobserver

www.tuftsobserver.org COVER PHOTO BY MINYI TAN

LETTER FROM THE EDITOR

LETTER FROM THE EDITOR Earlier this year we had a conversation on the Observer about journalistic integrity. We were concerned about fact checking, making sure our articles had enough interviews, and differentiating between opinion and fact. The first iteration of this conversation lasted for many hours late into a Monday night when every member of our staff had something else they could and should have been doing. The members of our staff spend a lot of late Monday nights working on the Observer, and I know they always have other things they could be doing.

I think when you really fall in love with something, it changes you. Your center of gravity shifts and your eyes hold light differently and your thoughts have a new fulcrum that you can’t really stop talking about.

This has been my experience with the Observer. I fell for the Observer my first week at Tufts because it seemed smart, and pretty, and so much cooler than I was. Everyone on staff was doing dope research and making beautiful art and had figured out how to wear all the latest trends.

But after two nights of laying out fonts and fighting with commas, my crush turned quickly from infatuation to a deep—and maybe irrevocable—love.

I love the Observer because it changed me. In writing and editing, it has taught me to ask questions about truth, responsibility, and integrity. About what stories need to be told, and how.

But mostly I love the Observer because it inspires me. The people I work with are talented and dedicated in ways that repeatedly astound me. They are people who willingly participate in lengthy conversations about journalistic integrity or design theory when, at the end of the day, we are a college publication. I love the Observer because we are a college publication trying to be something more.

The theme of this issue is love. I hope you can find something in our pages to help you think about love a little differently. And I hope you have found something in your life that can change you the way the Observer has changed me.

2

Tufts Observer

February 8, 2016

FEATURE

LOVE AT AT LOVE THE POLLS POLLS THE Political Candidates, Romance, and Public Opinion

By Susan Kaufman

O

n January 25, in the aftermath of winter storm Jonas, The Washington Post ran a web article titled “Michelle Obama doesn’t let snow keep her from SoulCycle.” The Weather Channel also ran a web article about the storm, although their headline read, “Winter Storm Jonas: At Least 48 Dead; Roof Collapse Reported; D.C. Remains Shut Down.” Why would The Washington Post, a credible news source, run a quotidian and superficial story on Michelle Obama’s exercise habits? The logical conclusion is that Americans must care, perhaps more than we wish to admit, about the lives of these pseudo-celebrities—the first ladies, wives, husbands, and children who are closer to our nation’s leaders than we can ever hope to be.

Michelle and Barack Obama’s relationship is practically its own news beat, serving as frequent fodder for newspapers and social media alike. A quick Google search of the Obamas’ marriage reveals that public scrutiny of their relationship is widespread and generally focused on petty divorce rumors, Michelle’s secrets to a happy marriage, and romantic hand-holding photos. The American public seems to love the Obamas, perhaps because they represent the ideal American family: happily married with two children, scandalfree, hard working, and attractive. It is a common principle in psychology that people tend to trust people who look like them or who embody values and ideals

February 8, 2016

Tufts Observer

3

FEATURE

that they support. Are politicians the unlucky few who are judged not only by the quality of their job performance, but also on quality of their love lives? If so, how do the romantic relationships, or perceived relationships, of prominent politicians influence public opinion and voting?

For much of America, particularly parts of the nation where education and wealth are lacking, the political sphere seems distant. Since 1916, no more than 63.8 percent of eligible voters have exercised their voting rights, which shows that almost half of all Americans abstain from voting on a consistent basis. For non-voters and those who don’t follow politics, it may be easiest to judge a politician on their personal life and relationship rather than their politics. This idea finds support in an anonymous survey conducted by the Tufts Observer about relationships and politics, in which one responder wrote, “I think people really love Michelle Obama, and that helps when we’re unsure about the Obama administration’s policies.”

Tufts political science professor Deborah J. Schildkraut added, “In general primary elections, where all candidates are from the same party, things like marital status and family life may be more interesting [to voters].” When divergent party politics cannot set candidates apart, candidates’ perceived likeability and electability might be influenced by the quality of their personal romantic relationship or family life. The 2008 Democratic primaries resulted in a win for Obama, which

may have been aided by his scandal-free personal life.

While President Obama’s marriage may bolster his public image—although not necessarily his voter approval ratings—many other prominent politicians have suffered professionally due to their romantic relationships. Most notably, the turbulent marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton has reclaimed its place under the microscope of public scrutiny after a roughly decade-long hiatus, returning as a strong undercurrent in the 2016 presidential election. The Lewinsky scandal, which refers to the 1998 sex scandal surrounding an affair that President Bill Clinton had with a 22 year-old White House intern, Monica Lewinsky, has helped shaped American public opinion of the Clinton marriage. The scandal led to Clinton’s impeachment and subsequent acquittal later in ’98. This is one of the most talked-about sex scandals in recent political history. Despite media buzz surrounding the scandal, especially following Clinton’s impeachment, Hillary stayed quiet and composed in the face of relentless media scrutiny. In the context of today’s society, with topics like sexual assault and gender inequality continuing to grow as hot button social issues, it makes sense that matters of infidelity and sexual misconduct in the lives of our politicians would be of concern to constituents.

While Hillary Clinton has long been receiving criticism for staying with her husband after his numerous affairs, recent

political mudslinging coming from the GOP is now pinning the candidate with new blame. In a January 10 appearance on Fox News Sunday, Donald Trump said, “No no, [Hillary’s] not a victim. She was an enabler…She worked—yes, she worked with [Bill] … There’s no feeling sorry for Hillary in this situation.” These comments came in response to an Instagram video posted by @RealDonaldTrump, the official Instagram account for Trump’s campaign. The video is a montage of photos that show Hillary Clinton standing next to famous perpetrators of sexual assault (actor Bill Cosby, politician Anthony Weiner, and her husband) paired with a voiceover of Hillary Clinton speaking about the important fight for gender equality. The video ends with a sarcastic statement about Clinton being a “true defender of women’s rights.”

Why would Trump post a video of this nature? Is he trying to sway voters away from Hillary Clinton, or is he merely trying to unite his pre-existing constituent base around a common enemy? Responders to the Observer poll most frequently answered the question “Can you name a politician whose career has been harmed by his/her romantic relationship?” with “Bill Clinton,” but the next most popular answer was “Hillary Clinton.” Apparently, members of the Tufts community believe that relationships have the power to harm a politician’s career. Therefore, Trump drawing attention to this aspect of Clinton’s relationships with Cosby and Weiner

Are politicians the unlucky few who are judged not only by the quality of their job performance, but also on quality of their love lives?

4

Tufts Observer

February 8, 2016

FEATURE

should effectively harm Clinton’s chances in the general election.

But contrary to this conventional wisdom, the notion that politicians’ personal lives influence voting tendencies lacks the scientific evidence needed to support it.

Professor Schildkraut said Trump’s Instagram video may have been posted as an act of irreverence. Perhaps Trump posted it with the hopes that it would arouse negative press about Hillary Clinton, but certainly with the intent of making headlines himself. Schildkraut explained, “Politicians think mudslinging is effective because it gets [them] in the news, but it doesn’t really affect the person who is being slandered.”

Politicians are frequently evaluated based on their electability, a term Schildkraut explained is determined by a number of factors. One of these factors is media presence. A candidate who frequently makes news headlines and receives a lot of attention is considered more electable than a candidate who flies under the radar.

Thus, in this instance, Trump used Senator Clinton’s personal relationships as a weapon, one that would increase his own electability even if not necessarily doing anything to affect Clinton’s.

In a media-saturated, gossip-fueled society, Americans want to believe that the juicy, scandalous details leaked by political spokespeople and inside sources can affect the careers of prominent public servants; they want to believe that there are more factors at play than just boring

IMAGE COURTESY OF U.S. GOVERNMENT

party lines. “We think that it’s like reading tea leaves. We think that these things matter.” explained Schildkraut. But the truth is that these things, things like marriage and sex scandals, do not matter. Politicians’ relationships, sex scandals, and cases of sexual harassment have absolutely no influence on voting trends, or at least have no scientific evidence to support any correlation. “Elections are like the ocean,” said Schildkraut. She explained that elections are swayed and directed by a strong undercurrent composed of factors invisible to American voters. What voters see are the whitecaps, the tops of the waves that may determine where a particular wave will crash or how big of a splash the wave will make. But the whitecaps are not the driving force behind the wave. They are petty things like mudslinging, political gossip, and politicians’ romantic lives; they may affect public opinion, but they have no effect on actual voting trends.

While responders to the Tufts Observer’s survey were able to name politicians whose careers they believed were harmed and/or helped by their romantic

relationships, they also responded overwhelmingly negatively to the proposition that politicians’ romantic lives influence their own personal voting tendencies.

The majority of responders admitted that politicians’ romantic lives influence their own personal opinions of candidates, but rarely their votes.

If responders overwhelmingly agreed that romantic life would not influence the way they vote, how could politicians’ careers be either helped or harmed by their personal relationships?

If Tufts students would still vote for a candidate regardless of the quality of their romantic relationships, then their careers cannot be affected by said relationships. There is a degree of cognitive dissonance happening in the minds of educated American voters—the conflict between wanting to vote for someone for their political views and wanting to vote for someone for their personal moral standards. Ultimately, party affiliation seems to win, no matter how despicable the scandal or act of infidelity. In politics, love does not conquer all. O

February 8, 2016

Tufts Observer

5

NEWS

CHOKEHOLD

Environmental justice and the fight for clean air in low-income communities

By Liam Knox

O

range-brown water flows from sinks and explodes out of fire hydrants. Protestors gather in the street with signs reading “We’re Not Lab Rats” and “Don’t Poison Our Kids.” These are some of the images from Flint, Michigan that have occupied TV screens and newsfeeds across the country in the last few weeks. Widespread concern over the lead-poisoned water in Flint has brought to light—at least for however long the public’s attention holds—the issue of environmental justice in the national consciousness.

Outcry over the scandal was not merely driven by environmental concerns. Over half the population of Flint is Black, over 40 percent live below the poverty line, and allegations abound that racist and classist institutional priorities motivated Michigan to ignore unprecedented levels of lead and other toxins in the city’s water supply.

6

Tufts Observer

February 8, 2016

Meanwhile, in the low-income communities of Somerville, Boston’s Chinatown, and Chelsea, residents wake up each morning to the sound of car engines sputtering in traffic along the highway that splits their neighborhoods in half. They breathe in air that is contaminated with the kinds of particle emissions known to cause cardiovascular and respiratory diseases.

Unlike the contaminated water in Flint, the poisoned air in Somerville and Chinatown is anything but graphic: it’s largely invisible and there isn’t a clear target to blame.

This does not mean it is any less dangerous of an issue—the exact opposite it true. Particulate air pollution is listed by most sources as one of the top 10 causes of death worldwide, with over three million deaths per year attributed to it.

In the Community Assessment of Freeway Exposure and Health (CAFEH) study, Tufts professors and students have been working with community partners in

Somerville and the Boston area since 2008 to collect data on air pollution, specifically the ultra fine particles that can cause cardiovascular issues.

The CAFEH study confirmed the association of ultra fine particle emissions with inflammation and cardiovascular disease. But by taking into account demographics that were collected with the data, the study also found a strong correlation between health issues caused by exposure to emissions and socioeconomic status.

Doug Brugge, the project’s co-chair and a professor at Tufts Medical School, said the project began over concern about emissions from the highways that run through certain Somerville neighborhoods.

“If you take all of the popular concerns like mercury in fish or lead in paint and measure them against particulate air pollution, it pales in impact,” Brugge said.

According to a 2010 study conducted by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), about 4 percent of all US citizens live within 150 meters of a major highway. The study also found that the

NEWS

majority of the population that lives within this proximity to highways belongs to racial and ethnic minorities.

While Brugge said that subsequent connection to race was less transparent in the data collected in the Somerville and Boston areas, Lydia Lowe, co-director of the Chinese Progressive Association

The crisis is quietly harming the health of thousands in the Boston area as people drive to work every day (CPA) and a community partner for the CAFEH study, argued that the two factors are intertwined.

“Even in Boston, a lot of people tend to see it as ‘oh, that’s class, that’s not race,” Lowe said. “It’s important to understand that race is fundamentally related to economic class issues in the US.” When factories, power plants, and highways were being built in the 1960s and 70s, they were often constructed on the cheapest land, where the eyesore of a fumespitting smokestack or a heavily-trafficked freeway would go unnoticed by the white voting populace that lived elsewhere. The lower-class residents whose property had to be seized through eminent domain in the name of urban renewal would be less likely to make a fuss. In other words, these projects that would largely benefit affluent white Americans would come at a great cost to low-income minority communities.

Today, environmental justice advocates are realizing that these communities weren’t only paying with their homes and quality of life—they were paying with their health as well.

“The fact that the highway is here in the first place is because of institutional racism,” Lowe said. “Because this community was seen as the place that didn’t vote, that nobody cared about, not only did we lose all

ART BY JAKE ROCHFORD

these homes and have the community get broken up, but it also has been loaded for decades now with highway pollution.”

But it’s difficult to hold accountable those responsible for environmentally damaging projects like highways and factories, especially if the communities they affect are low-income. According to Natasha Soto, an organizer in Buffalo, NY, for the Clean Air Coalition of Western New York (CACWNY), this is because environmental concerns are not necessarily priorities for these communities. “They’re currently more worried about…making sure their kids have food and are going to school,” she said. “There are a lot of things that prevent folks from engaging, unfortunately.”

Organizations like CACWNY and CPA are crucial to bringing attention to environmental justice issues because they can engage, organize, and galvanize communities to become educated about how they’re being impacted by these projects and how they can hold officials accountable.

The CAFEH project has been relatively successful in this regard, according to both Lowe and Brugge, and members of the study are optimistic about achieving more in the future.

“We’ve been successful, actually, in getting some developers to change their design in a way that makes things a bit healthier,” Lowe said. “In Somerville, we actually got the city to work on an ordinance.”

Brugge is proud of the progress the study has made for the community, but said the battle is tough, and fraught with bureaucratic, systemic obstacles. “It’s like walking uphill against a mudslide,” he said.

Interestingly, one of the reasons that any progress has been made in areas like Chinatown, where Lowe works, is because these locations are becoming increasingly gentrified.

“Because they created these highways to bring people into the center of the cities, the whole trend of the role cities play is turned around and now all of a sudden everybody wants to live in the center of the city,” Lowe said. “The poor people

left here are not the ones everybody cares about.”

However, Lowe also noted that this would likely lead to political pressure from the newcomers who would want to limit the presence of harmful emissions.

She said this kind of pressure is inherently more challenging for lower class and minority communities to exert. “Everyone is concerned about their health, and they care about the environment, but often if people are really struggling just to pay their rent or get a job, those issues are primary,” she explained.

It is likely that low air quality in disenfranchised communities may never be the hot, sensational topic of national discussion that the Flint crisis has become.

Unlike Flint, the crisis of low air quality is a largely invisible issue. The crisis is quietly harming the health of thousands in the Boston area as people drive to work every day through the communities they unknowingly affect. And for now, the residents of these communities are still struggling to breathe.

February 8, 2016

Tufts Observer

7

NEWS

&

HOMELESS OUTLAWED

How US Cities Are Criminalizing the Impoverished

By Greta Jochem

I

n Salt Lake City, Utah, Jacob, a 21-yearold homeless man, received five tickets for sleeping outside—five tickets in just one night.

“The cops give us no rest,” he told Invisible People. “I mean, we can’t even sleep at the park anymore because it’s against the [law] to camp…I can sleep on the sidewalk and get a ticket. I can sleep [across the street] and get a ticket. No matter where I go I get a ticket.”

Unfortunately, Jacob is not alone in his struggle. The homeless in Colorado Springs, Colorado, face a proposed ban on sitting, lying, or kneeling on the sidewalk in the downtown area. In New Port Richey, 8

Tufts Observer

February 8, 2016

Florida, the city council voted to restrict feeding homeless people in the city’s parks.

In Santa Cruz, California, it is illegal to sleep in vehicles.

Across the country, the number of cities with laws that criminalize actions associated with homelessness is growing. In their 2014 study, “No Safe Place,” The National Law Center for Homelessness and Poverty (NLCHP) surveyed the laws of 187 cities. “Cities are moving toward prohibiting unavoidable, life sustaining activities throughout entire communities,” the report details in its key findings.

The study indicates that cities try to hide the problem of homelessness with

bans on camping in public, sleeping in public, begging, loitering, living in vehicles, lying down in public, and even sharing food. Recently, citywide bans on camping in public increased by 60 percent while bans on sleeping in vehicles have increased by a staggering 119 percent.

Boston has less aggressive measures, but there are some laws targeting the city’s homeless population. NLCHP identified parts of the city code that target or are likely to target the homeless population. For example, there are some bans on sleeping, loitering, and begging in particular public places. The City of Boston’s municipal code bans sleeping in the Boston Common or ART BY ANNIE ROOME

NEWS

the Public Garden. There are bans on solicitation at various locations including bus shelters, bus stops, parking lots, parking garages, and within ten feet from an ATM. Recently in Massachusetts there has been some pushback against laws that criminalize homelessness. Kevin Martin, a partner at the law firm Goodwin Procter and co-chair of appellate litigation practice, worked on a case last year with the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts to strike down a law in Worcester that targeted “aggressive” panhandlers.

Martin says that “aggressive” was really a misnomer. The law made actions like panhandling a half hour before nightfall—which in winter is rush hour—illegal.

“There were lots of things that no one would think are aggressive that were deemed aggressive and therefore criminalized.” In November they succeeded and a federal judge ruled the law unconstitutional.

After Worcester passed its law, he said that there was a lot of “copy cat behavior” and some other Massachusetts cities, like Lowell, moved to adopt similar laws.

When the Worcester law was struck down as unconstitutional, most cities dropped proposed legislation that would criminalize homelessness.

But Massachusetts seems to be the exception. According to the 2014 NLCHP report, 43 percent of American cities surveyed prohibit sleeping in vehicles, 53 percent prohibit sitting or lying down in certain public places, and 34 percent have banned public camping. In 9 percent of the cities surveyed, it is even against the law to give food to the homeless What’s driving this trend? First, Martin points to a huge increase in homelessness across the country in the wake of the financial crisis. According to National Alliance to End Homelessness, in January 2015 there were 564,708 people homeless in the US on any particular night.

Many of the laws that restrict the behavior of homeless people are introduced in the interest of business owners. Often, they complain that the presence of loiterers, beggars, and those sleeping on the street deters customers. In a 2013 New York Times article, Alexander Polinsky explained what happened to his neighborhood after a charity began to feed homeless people: “They are living in my bushes and

they are living in my next door neighbor’s crawl spaces. We have a neighborhood which now seems like a mental ward.”

Eric Tars, a senior attorney at the NLCHP, said that as homelessness becomes more visible, “there are more and more people [saying] ‘we don’t want to see this physical manifestation of poverty.’”

Tars said that politicians aren’t working on productive efforts to eliminate homelessness, but instead they’re trying to hide it. “Rather than look and say what is the best thing to do—what is the most cost effective thing to do, what’s going to be the best for the community and the individuals themselves, which is to simply provide housing—instead they look for the most politically expedient thing to do which says that homelessness can’t exist in our community, that we have to take homeless people off the street.”

Tars points out that to house a person in a shelter costs about $25, while it can cost $75 to over $100 to stay in jail. Other studies have come to similar conclusions: The Utah Housing and Community Development Division found that the costs of emergency room visits and jail stays for a homeless person are about $16,670 for a year, but housing and social work costs about $11,000.72. Studies in Albuquerque and Central Florida agree.

Tars believes the issue is how that cost is presented. When a piece of legislation targeting homeless people is proposed, there is no funding allocated for jails.

When creating an ordinance to criminalize

sleeping outside, it’s seemingly free—lawmakers and citizens don’t have to explicitly fund money for prisons. But, he points out that when you create legislation for lowincome housing or shelter beds, you have to explicitly state the up-front cost and allocate money for it. This makes passing ordinances criminalizing homelessness a fast and seemingly cheaper way for local government leaders to “address” the issue.

States like Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Illinois have implemented a Homelessness Bill of Rights that, in part, helps to combat this issue. In Rhode Island, this means that the legislation guarantees homeless people the right to move freely in public spaces and receive equal treatment from government agencies. Currently in Massachusetts, House Bill 129, an Act Providing a Homeless Bill of Rights, would similarly protect the rights of the homeless. The bill reads, “No person’s rights, privileges, or access to public services may be denied or abridged solely because he or she is experiencing homelessness.”

Kelly Turley, Director of Legislative Advocacy at Massachusetts Coalition for the Homeless, a group that is advocating for the House Bill 129, explains that, “We hope that by passing a bill of rights for people experiencing homelessness (House Bill 129), we can help to change the way municipalities, the state, police departments, social service providers, and others treat people who are without homes...In doing so, we also seek to decrease the actual and perceived criminalization of homelessness.”

February 8, 2016

Tufts Observer

9

CAMPUS

NO LONGER IN THE THIRD GRADE

of gold received “copper tokens to hang around their necks.” Those who did not “had their hands cut off and bled to death.” None of our textbooks ever told us that Columbus’ conquest in Haiti killed 250,000 Arawaks in just two years.

The oppression of Indigenous People in the Americas, specifically in the United States, is not a thing of the past. Genocidal acts committed by Columbus have been followed by a long history of racial discrimination— the removal of American Indians to reservations in destitute areas, the establishment of boarding schools built with the intention to “kill the Indian, save the man,” the dumping of high atomic nuclear waste in reservations such as the Skull Valley Goshute Indian Reservation in Utah, and the killing of Native Americans, such as the Wounded Knee Massacre of 1890 where over 200 men, women, and children of the Lakota tribe were killed by the seventh US cavalry.

These memories are still alive and painful amongst Indigenous communities throughout the Americas. As Mahtowin Munro, co-leader of the United American Indians of New England (UAINE) stated, “I cannot bear to see yet another generation of our children have to endure the celebration of our genocide. As a mother, I have found it so painful over the years to have my children look at me and ask why people are celebrating Columbus even when they know he was a bad guy.”

Munro’s frustration shows how the misinformation and whitewashing of the true history and legacy of Columbus has tangible and devastating consequences. “This hatred and exclusion can lead to our children giving up, feeling self-hatred, feeling completely alienated and unvalued, and leads not only to

The Movement for Indigenous People’s Day at Tufts

By Benya Kraus with Parker Breza

I

n the third grade, I placed second in the district-wide Christopher Columbus essay contest. Having moved to northern New Jersey from Thailand only two years earlier and keen on proving my “American-ness,” I absorbed everything my elementary school US History lessons taught me: Christopher Columbus was the discoverer of the Americas! He was brave, intelligent, and the harbinger of culture and civilization!

I moved from a region of the world where the legacies of colonialism are alive and inescapable. Southeast Asian lands have been pillaged, people have been enslaved and massacred for French profit, and all this was done in the name of civilisatrice, or the “civilizing mission.” While living in Thailand, I saw the atrocities of colonization from my own backyard. Today, I continue to live on colonized lands known as the United States. The only difference is that when it comes to US history, I’ve been taught to view colonization as “discovery” instead.

This year, I, along with fellow TCU senators Parker Breza, Anna Del Castillo, and Gauri Seth, are the authors of a TCU Senate resolution calling for Tufts University to recognize Indigenous People’s Day in place of “Columbus Day” on all university calendars.

10

Tufts Observer

February 8, 2016

As Tufts students, many of whom grew up in the United States chanting, “In 1492, Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue,” we are able to condemn the horrors of colonization in lands abroad, but are reluctant to feel a similar devastation about the colonized lands Tufts is built upon today. We are able to see the racist fallacies behind “The White Man’s Burden,” but fail to question Columbus’ “spirit of discovery.”

The truth, though, is that this “spirit of discovery” has been constructed on the backs of millions of Native Americans who were murdered, raped, and had their lands and resources pillaged—a fact that our elementary school history classes failed to address.

I realized that my third-grade teacher had left so much out. In his A People’s History of the United States, counternarrative historian Howard Zinn details the atrocities committed by Columbus. I did not learn that in 1495 alone, Columbus “rounded up fifteen hundred Arawak” people, “put them in pens guarded by Spaniards and dogs,” and shipped 500 of the strongest to be sold as slaves in Spain—200 of whom “died en route.” I was never taught that Columbus forced all Arawak people ages “14 and older” to find gold for him to bring back to Spain; those who collected enough quantities

ART BY ADRIANA GUARDANS-GORDO

CAMPUS

substance abuse and other problems but also I believe is one of the factors that leads directly to the nation’s highest high school dropout rates and youth suicide rates. Some of our children who are killing themselves are as young as 10,” Munro explained to us.

We may not be able to change the painful histories that have developed from Christopher Columbus’ conquest of the Americas, but we can choose to ensure that the histories and voices of Indigenous People are not silenced. We can choose to unlearn what our third-grade teachers have taught us, refuse to quietly accept Columbus’ conquest and murders in the name of discovery, and refocus the narrative on the resistance and dignity of Indigenous People. Our TCU resolution marks the first step to do just that. It passed unanimously through the TCU Senate this past December, and will be presented before the full faculty committee for the schools of Arts and Sciences and Engineering for a vote in the upcoming months.

This resolution is not new, however. Last year, Genesis Garcia (A’15) and former TCU Senator Andrew Núñez (A’15) wrote a similar resolution. The resolution passed through the TCU Senate, but failed before the full faculty committee. According to Núñez, after presenting the resolution before the committee, the vote on the resolution was delayed more than four months. Reflecting on the process, Núñez explained, “My biggest barrier towards any semblance of progress was always what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. described as the ‘white moderate’—those who are the ‘great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom’ and who are more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefer a negative peace, which is the absence

of tension, to a positive peace, which is the presence of justice.” Núñez described his “stumbling blocks” manifesting themselves as his professors, administrators, and his university president, Anthony Monaco.

This year, we hope to transcend these “stumbling blocks” by building together a coalition of students, faculty, and administrators who are passionate about seeing Indigenous People’s Day recognized in place of “Columbus Day” at Tufts. Currently, 31 student organizations on campus, as well as the United American Indians of New England, have publicly signed on to support this resolution. Groups include the Tufts Observer, Students for Justice in Palestine, Tufts Hillel, Friends of Israel, Crafts House, New Initiative for Middle East Peace, Tufts Amnesty International, Pulse, the Ladies of Envy, Out in Science Technology Engineering and Math, and many more. According to Fatima Ajose, a sophomore and an organizer of #TheThreePercent, “We support

We can choose to ensure that the histories and voices of Indigenous People are not silenced. [the Indigenous People’s Day at Tufts] movement because we see our oppression as connected, especially when looking at the tied history of our two groups in the US.” Indeed, this campaign is a movement. In just 2015 alone, nine

cities, such as St. Paul, Olympia, and Albuquerque, have adopted Indigenous People’s Day, and other universities, such as Cornell University and the University of California, Berkeley, have also officially recognized Indigenous People’s Day in place of “Columbus Day.” As Dr. Matt Hooley, Tufts Visiting Assistant Professor of Native American Studies described, “Renaming is a starting point toward disentangling the work we do together at Tufts from legacies of US colonialism and slavery. It is a way of saying that we’re against genocide and slavery, and that we certainly have no interest in taking genocide and slavery as the occasion for a holiday. Secondly, renaming can be a process of reorganizing ourselves around the work of decolonization.

Coming together to change the name, and organizing around that work, is itself a decolonial act.”

Like many of us, I grew up with Columbus as one my heroes.

But we are no longer in the third grade. It is time for us to decolonize our childhood understanding of the world, question for whose benefit these teachings serve, and counter colonialism in our lives, communities, and the institutions we are a part of. O *If you are interested in getting involved with the Indigenous People’s Day at Tufts movement or have any questions, please email Benya.Kraus@tufts.edu. If you wish to show your support for this change, sign the petition posted on the Indigenous People’s Day at Tufts Facebook page.

February 8, 2016

Tufts Observer

11

I’VE NEVER BEEN TO COLORADO IN THE WINTER

POETRY

12

Tufts Observer

February 8. 2016

So I can only imagine how the light turns throughout the day makes your eyes flow like ice, bright with streams of sunblush, throw glances off the calligraphy of aspens the snow, the clouds floating on reflection alone, then rise again with the moon the same one I see from the small lit square of my window at sea level and only something higher, more experienced, than mountains knows how it is we are dimensions apart, yet also together, watching it all unfold.

By Nick Dorian

ART BY ADRIANA GUARDANS-GORDO

How do we look when we talk about love?

It’s actually funny because I just got to get coffee with someone I love who I hadn’t seen in a while. Thinking about love, especially on this sunny day, is nice.

I love my mom… I always worry about trying to meet her expectations, but she’s always saying, “Just do whatever you want and have fun in college.”

But I can’t because I feel like I need to make her proud.

They show up in my dreams sometimes, and I’m like, “I love you so much but you’ll never know cause you can’t cause you’re lost in a sea of people and you’re lost in a sea of yourself.”

I love her because I think she’s turning into a really good person, and I’m proud to be her older brother.

I love my mom. I’m sure that’s a common answer... She’s very resilient...but you’d never know it just talking to her. She has had so many issues throughout her life that I’ve had the fortune to hear about because she has trusted me with them.

I love my dog. He’s my best friend in the world. I’m getting giddy just talking about him. He’ll lick my face and he’ll scratch me… and I can tell him anything.

POETRY

WAITING i am a pair of tangled shoelaces, knotted up in your absence

BEDROOM DRAWER if you reached inside me you would find love letters & broken seashells

MOVING ON

last sunday morning i dusted you from the sheets yet your breaths remain

By Jaanvi Sant

ART BY EVA STRAUSS

February 8, 2016

Tufts Observer

17

OPINION

LOVE, DRUGS, AND

REHABILITATION

By Tess Hinchman

A

s the second-youngest of five children, I grew up idolizing my eldest brother, Evan. Nineteen years my senior, Evan straddled the line between brother and cool uncle. I waited all year for him to come home at Christmas break, for weeks filled with adventures to musty bookstores, listening to bands I’d never heard of, and binging on candy my mom wouldn’t let me eat. Evan is the most brilliant person I’ve ever met. He’s also a recovering heroin addict.

When Evan first entered rehab nearly two years ago, my family and I attended a clinic for the loved ones of addicts. “Unlike other life-threatening illnesses, addiction will lie to you,” I remember the counselor saying. “It will steal from you, cheat you, 18

Tufts Observer

February 8, 2016

and hurt you. Addiction is a disease that feels personal.” This is the best description I’ve found so far to explain the complex and often painful relationship between addicts and their loved ones.

At first, I believed that Evan would stop using just because I wanted him to.

Growing up, he was always there when I needed him: picking me up when I fell, defending me in family arguments, and offering to beat up my bullies. I couldn’t understand then why he refused to do the one thing I actually needed: get clean. Like so many others, I saw Evan’s addiction as a choice, instead of as an illness. This could not be further than the truth.

According to The National Institute on Drug Abuse, addiction lives in the same

part of the brain that governs our most primal needs, such as eating, drinking, and breathing. Addicts physically feel that they have to continue using to be happy, or even normal. Prolonged abuse can also result in changes in judgment, decision-making, learning, memory, and behavior control.

For Evan, this meant continuing to use even as his life fell apart, even as he lost his prestigious job, house, and long-term girlfriend. He had to reach rock bottom before he finally agreed to get treatment.

Although it took me a while, I realized that if Evan had the ability and choice to get well on his own, he would have. Heroin had taken that choice from him.

Unfortunately, very few people see it this way. Instead, the stigma attached to

OPINION

drug abuse is so strong that many see addiction as more of a moral failing than a legitimate disease. This misconception is fueled by the trope of the “druggie” seen in TV and movies. When people think of addicts, they see CSI villains, complete with sallow skin, shifty eyes, and deviant behavior. This stereotype fuels the argument that addicts don’t deserve help, resulting in a lack of compassion for both them and their families.

One woman I met in a support group summed up the contradiction perfectly: “If my child had cancer,” she explained, “people would be showing up at my door with casseroles. No one is cooking for me.”

When I tell people about Evan, I get similar reactions, ranging from pity at best to judgment at worst. Worse yet, this stigmatization actually does little to deter addicts, instead encouraging them to be secretive about their usage and avoid help. But perhaps the most devastating effect is that it encourages punitive penalties for drug cases, instead of rehabilitation.

My home state, Maine, is a perfect example of this problem. Like many other rural states, heroin overdoses have increased significantly over recent years, jumping from seven in 2010 to fifty-seven in 2015. To deal with this problem, our governor, Paul LePage, has hired more drug enforcement agents and prosecutors, rejected Medicaid funds that would have extended coverage for substance abuse services across the state, and made national headlines for blaming the epidemic on out-of-state dealers who—according to

LePage—“impregnate a young, white girl before they leave.” On top of being overtly racist, LePage’s policies are ineffective, poorly informed, and dangerous.

Experts agree that taking a “hardline” on drugs does little to deter drug abuse. Instead, intensive care is needed to reverse the damage caused by narcotics.

Inpatient treatment centers, like the one Evan attended, are proven to be the most effective recovery method. Patients stay beyond the initial 10-day detox period for an additional month of intensive therapy to address the root behaviors of addiction.

Most professionals believe that even this is not enough; new estimates suggest that it takes the brain at least a year to heal. For a shot at recovery, addicts need regular, long-term care.

None of this comes cheap. My parents had to use their retirement funds to pay for Evan’s treatment, which I believe saved his life. However, many are not so lucky and simply do not have the necessary means.

By directing funds towards punishment instead of rehabilitation, LePage threatens the lives of thousands in need.

Unfortunately, LePage is not alone in his way of thinking. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton told the Brennan Center for Justice in 2015 that she would deal with the drug problem by “put[tting] more officers on our streets, with a great emphasis on community policing.” Similarly, as the governor of Florida in the early 2000s, Republican Jeb Bush cut the budgets of drug treatment and alternative drug court programs, even as

his own daughter was treated for usage of crack cocaine. Clearly, the pernicious assumptions of the “war on drugs” are still alive and well.

Luckily, the conversation surrounding addiction is slowly changing. The 2015 National Drug Strategy released by the Obama Administration lists education, treatment, and prevention as priorities.

Although these lofty ambitions have yet to turn into legislation, they do indicate a change in attitude. This is also reflected by a new drug bill in Maine that the state legislature passed unanimously—even the governor can’t overturn it. The bill provides funding to a new detoxification center in the eastern region of the state, which will provide at least 10 beds to those that can’t afford care on their own. But, this is only the beginning.

I seriously debated whether or not to use my brother’s story in this piece. Apart from it being a painful part of my history, I never want to turn his struggle into mere emotional currency. But ultimately I’ve decided to share, hoping to give a human face to addiction—both on the Tufts campus and in general. The only way to defeat the stigma around drug abuse is to open up the conversation. As long as society sees addicts as villains, there can be no hope for improvement.

So I’d like you to meet my brother Evan. He likes classical music, Korean food, and Star Wars, maybe a bit too much.

He is complex, often annoying, and always on my side. He’s almost two years clean.

He’s my big brother. O

“Unlike other life threatening illnesses, addiction will lie to you, it will steal from you, cheat you, and hurt you. Addiction is a disease that feels personal.”

ART BY JAKE ROCHFORD

February 8, 2016

Tufts Observer

19

ARTS & CULTURE

THE SATISFACTION OF SMUT

By Cooper McKim

T

he most hardcore public sex I’ve ever had was in a vestibule of a train in the UK.” Cameryn Moore is recounting a summer fling she had with a man who called himself the ‘UK muse.’ They were aboard a crowded train from Manchester to Bristol and she was impatient to start the tryst right away.

“I can feel him getting an erection, so I think maybe I should stop. No way am I gonna stop.” Moore tells her story on a small stage wearing turquoise leggings and cowboy boots. The crowded room erupts in applause as she concludes the first story of the night. Moore reaches into a basket to see who will go next.

Moore is the host of tonight’s Smut SLAM, an evening devoted to sharing real-life, first person sexual experiences hosted at the Center for Arts at The Armory in Somerville. With old pianos and green antique lanterns, the dimly-lit cafe feels more like a living room. Latecomers stand on the perimeter hoping for a seat to open. Before the first storyteller gets on stage, Moore explains the kind of

20

Tufts Observer

February 8, 2016

space she expects the audience to create, saying “we are talking sex positive, kinkpositive, fat-positive, body positive, queer positive, trans positive.” And she provides one last warning:”No necking in the front row!”

Moore is a 45-year old phone-sex operator, playwright, sex educator, and street erotica writer stationed in Montreal. Smut SLAMs are one of many ways that Moore promotes open discussions about sex. “Everything I do I want it to be directed towards one mission which is creating and facilitating spaces where people feel comfortable sharing their authentic sexual selves,” she explains.

At the end of the night, she knows her mission is being carried out when she sees people engaging, laughing, or crying about what they just saw. “I don’t ever want to write a piece of theater that doesn’t move people to think about their own shit.”

After college, Moore didn’t know what she wanted to do. She dabbled in freelance journalism, started a perfor-

mance troupe, and worked as a waitress.

In 2005, she ended up at a marketing job which she lost during the recession a few years later. With no money or jobs on the horizon, Moore found herself once again in search for work. Friends had been telling her for years she had a great voice for phone sex and, in need of money, she started interviewing at several companies. “At the time it felt like the only thing that was available”, so she took a job at the first company to give her an offer. “Suddenly what I knew became a 12 x 12 room and strangers on the phone.”

Moore started as a phone sex operator in 2008 and still works for the same company today. She said it took two or three months to get used to the job and that she didn’t feel ready when she took her first call. “I was shaking for 20 minutes, I [couldn’t] believe I just heard a strange man cum.”

She soon learned phone sex was about creating a scene. Men called in to have her play along with their fantasies.

One caller asked her to concoct a kind

ARTS & CULTURE

of soap opera where his wife cuckolds him with another woman and some guy named Jamal. Another urged her to pretend she was his “mommy” feeding her the exact lines he wanted to hear.

Moore’s experience as a phone sex operator gave her rare insight into the honest sexual desires of people around the country. The new material inspired her to start writing more broadly about sexuality, though she was already interested in the subject. “I’ve always been kinky and interested in sex. I’m a horny, horny fucker,” she said. After blogging for a few months about her calls, Moore finished a play called Phone Whore. She would hold Q & As after performances where people could share and ask questions, but that discussion quickly turned to the personal lives of audience members. She realized they needed a space to talk more openly about their own sexuality.

In 2011, Moore started an event called Smut SLAMs to do just that. The goal of Smut SLAMs is to create a safe space for people to recount stories related to sex that might be considered taboo in other social settings. Moore feels that hearing other people’s stories helps put one’s own insecurities to rest. “Everybody will find at least something there.

‘I felt weird, I felt awesome, I felt terrified.’ You want to be reassured that your feelings are valid and hearing other people, especially around sex, is incredibly validating.” One of Moore’s best friends, Cid, adds, “Sometimes you have sexual accomplishments that you’re proud of...

I think a lot of people are really looking

ICON BY CLOCKWISE

for a community where they can be open about those parts of themselves.”

Moore blames popular culture for defining what sexual interest and pleasure should look like, both in terms of gender and body type. “Our sexualities are handed to us on a media-saturated platter,” where movies, religion, and businesses tell us, “we’re supposed to want a certain thing, that we should behave in certain ways and not in others.” She says people

Moore says that sex “can communicate through skin and fluids and membranes, it just jumps right through, it’s like electricity.” are taught to feel ashamed of having interests that are outside the status quo.

That suppression causes sex to come across as a cheap thrill, Moore explains, but to her it’s an essential and indescribable part of life that warrants exploration.

Moore says that sex “can communicate through skin and fluids and membranes,

it just jumps right through, it’s like electricity. It cuts through things, it doesn’t have to travel the circuitous route that language will take us on.”

Moore steps back on stage as the applause dies down from the second storyteller—she has her next anecdote ready: “I had a lover in Philadelphia once who such a wonderful anarchist that he knew exactly where all the security cameras were in downtown and took me on a tour of the hidden places where you could fuck publicly.”

To fans, Moore’s transparency is part of her appeal. A friend of Moore’s and Boston-native, Greg, explains, “She was saying the kind of things I’d never heard from anyone before... just the upfront, real-deal, sex talk.” Greg also liked that her stories, however hilarious or profound, stemmed from personal experience.

For Moore, her stories are a means to an end. Her custom erotica, her blogging, the Smut SLAMs—they’re are all a way of pushing back against a culture of suppression towards open discussion about sexuality. She says that’s why Smut SLAMs are so valuable: “For us to stake that claim and own our own sexuality is a real act of bravery.”

Moore reaches into the basket to pick the last storyteller before intermission. While dozens of names are still left, only a few will be able to get up on stage and hash out the raunchiest, funniest, or most embarrassing moments of their sexual lives. It’s not everyday you can publicly recount losing your virginity in the back of a taxi. O

February 8, 2016

Tufts Observer

21

OPINION

By Ben Kesslen

T

hey met in college. She thought he was a jerk at first, but then fell deeply in love with him. They were together for their senior year of college and dated long-distance for the three years when he was in law school and she worked in New York City. It was hard, and they missed each other. He would fly from Cleveland to New York City as many weekends as he could, back when tickets only cost $29. Once he graduated, he took a job in New York, so they could be together again. They lived together in the City until they eventually married and had a daughter. He’d had enough of city life, and she agreed, so they moved to suburban New Jersey, and then had a son.

The son they had is me. This is the story of my parents.

It’s a story we hear all the time. It’s a common one—a story that starts happy, but ends in divorce 50 percent of the time.

To me, though, my parents’ love seems different. However ubiquitous their story may be, their love feels rare. My parents have been together for 31 years and still really seem to love each other. They make each other laugh in moments where I struggle to see even the slightest humor. They genuinely miss each other when they have been

22

Tufts Observer

February 8, 2016

apart for more than 24 hours. They never call each other by their real names, instead using nicknames whose stories are too long to explain. They still want to do practically everything together.

Growing up, I would listen to friends who would watch their parents’ marriages crumble and then vow that they would never be like their mom and dad. They would be better and different—actually in love. I would listen in silence, because when I was little, I wanted to be just like my parents. I wanted their love affair. I would imagine going through college and not meeting the perfect girl until my senior year, like my dad had, and staying with her even though I was in law school.

We could FaceTime! I told myself. It will be easier than it was for my parents.

But as I grew up, I realized my parents’ love affair would never be mine. Both because I’m queer and because I’m not sure if I’ll ever want a relationship like theirs— even if it were with a man I loved.

Their marriage once symbolized everything I hoped to achieve romantically, but after a series of realizations, too many thinkpieces, and conversations with friends, elders, and professors, it became less and less appealing. I realized that de-

spite the recent Supreme Court decision, marriage is not a system I want to buy into. In taking classes on queerness and reading works by queer people of color, I stopped looking at marriage as happiness and started looking at it as a system rooted in oppression and capitalism and misogyny, a distraction from greater issues facing the queer community, a way to convince straight people that “gays, they are just like us!” I struggled to think about my own, queer, future.

I grew up being told by society that everyone should desire one path: finding a long-term, opposite-sex partner they would eventually marry and have children with. This is what I had planned for myself. I imagined having a wife, a house in suburbia, two kids—just like my family—maybe even a dog if I could find one I wasn’t allergic to. But as I discovered, worked through, and came to terms with my queerness, this vision for my future quickly faded.

As I started to look critically at what “progress” and “gay rights” really meant, who they benefit, and who they erase, I firmly decided I wouldn’t buy into a heteronormative vision for my future. What does a wedding certificate do to help the

OPINION

still very real and present HIV/AIDS crisis, the violence inflicted upon trans women of color everyday, or healthcare access for queer and trans folks? And while #LoveWon, and many queer folk who wanted to finally were able to get married, the legal battle also sucked up funds that ultimately aided those queer folks—mostly White and wealthy—who needed them less than others. I wouldn’t hashtag #samelove, because, to me, queer love is different. I wouldn’t get married in a church in San Francisco, because now marriage symbolized erasure and violence, and yes, even though it would be a gay marriage, it still would be predicated on straightness. I didn’t want the path that was laid out for me, even if now in our Post-#LoveWins Era I could have it.

Instead of asking myself questions like “How many kids do I want?” or “Would I live in a New Jersey suburb or Westchester?” I started asking myself questions like “Is monogamy for me?”— questions I feel I can safely assume my parents never asked themselves.

In asking myself these questions, I’ve started to learn about radical queerness and the dangerous ideas of nuclear family superiority. I started to feel like I was find-

ing chosen family, family that was queer and understood me in ways I felt like my nuclear family never would or could. And yet, I kept going back to my parents’ love.

This love still lasting—this love, that in many ways, I still hope to find.

Was this me being socialized to believe I should want love like my parents, or was it me actually wanting love like theirs?

Was this internalized homophobia telling me that straight love is better, or was this a genuine desire for monogamous love rooted in family and children and a whitepicket-fence life?

These two feelings felt so conflicting.

One part of me wanted to reject everything I was socialized to believe, to reject straightness and marriage and monogamy, to be a liberated polyamorous queer who didn’t care about what Macklemore or Hillary Clinton have said about the “gays,” who looked at Rainbow Doritos and was overcome with disgust at commercialized pride, who didn’t want to see The Danish Girl because it is time for trans folk to be played by trans folk, not cis men.

But I always return to the story of my parents’ wedding, in the backyard of my grandparents’ house when it was 110

degrees in September, where the dessert had nuts in it even though my mother is deathly allergic, and they lost their luggage on their honeymoon and had to buy clothes at the hotel store—when every little thing seemed to go wrong and my mom almost fainted because her dress was so warm and they had to wear overpriced Hawaiian shirts for a week and what a beautiful, wonderful, memorable mess it was.

These are memories I want, even if I pretend I don’t. This is a love I want, but cannot necessarily see myself in.

To resolve this tension, these seemingly contradictory desires, I had to queer my parents. I had to realize that while my love will not take its form in a wedding dress and tuxedo, it could take form in overpriced Hawaiian shirts and lost luggage. It could have the beauty I see in my parents’ marriage—the unconditional love, the humor, the passion, and the communication, but in my own, queer way. My love could be with a partner or partners. It could be radical and intentional and queer and still share many of the things I so admire in my parents’ relationship.

It could be the love of my parents, just queered. O

As I grew up, I realized my parents’ love affair would never be mine. Both because I’m queer and because I’m not sure if I’ll ever want a relationship like theirs.

ART BY EVA STRAUSS

February 8, 2016

Tufts Observer

23

TECH & INNOVATION

FARMERS, SEA CAPTAINS & WHITE PEOPLE

By Misha Linnehan and Gabby Bonfiglio

A look into niche online dating

O

nline dating for beautiful people only!”

“Meet divorcees, single moms, and sexy singles looking for a young stud.”

“Everybody loves a clown…let a clown love you.”

If any of these sound appealing, you are like millions of other Americans who have found niche dating sites like DarwinDatin.com, CougarLife.com, ClownDating.com, or FarmersOnly.com. You can be sure that each one of your matches will be much younger than you, or really into fitness, or also a clown like you.

In recent years, the use of niche dating sites has been growing. Whereas a traditional dating site may leave a user feeling overwhelmed with options, there has been a rise in online platforms that prioritize specific traits including religion, political beliefs, dietary restrictions, sexual preferences, or any other number of “niche” qualities someone might desire in a partner. Of the 1500 plus dating sites that exist today, many cater to a specific customer base.

What niche sites provide is a trimmed down, less diverse field of matches. It seems as if Tinder gave us the world, and then the market asked for less of it. Generally based around a single trait, these sites theoretically eliminate a user’s chance of running into a mate incompatible with their major interest. For example, those who feel that marijuana usage is a defining part of their life may use 420dating.com to connect with a partner who also has a love for weed.

Given the diversity of human interests, there are an incredible number of different niche dating sites. According to Joe Tracy, publisher of Online Dating Magazine, one reason for this variety is that these niche sites are not necessarily 24

Tufts Observer

February 8, 2016

competitors with the large market share sites. This makes the sites seem like a more reliable investment, since their user base is usually dissatisfied with the bigger websites.

“The typical profile on Match. com or eHarmony says, ‘I like long walks on the beach, and I want to find my soulmate,’” said Spencer Koppel, founder and owner of Geek2Geek.

“Geeks really want to know, ‘What kind of video games do you play?’ or ‘Do you go to Renaissance fairs?’” And so arose sites like DateCraft for World of Warcraft players, and Cupidtino for Apple enthusiasts.

There are sites for almost any demographic you can think of. What began with religion-based sites like JDate in 1997 and ChristianMingle in 2001 has expanded to include Veggie Date for vegetarians, Purrsonals.com for cat lovers, and the self-explanatory, if slightly confusing, SeaCaptainDate.com. If it’s your partners’ political ideology that matters most, go to DemocraticSingles. com, ConservativeDatingSite.com or

even Atlasphere, for Rand thumping libertarians. Or, if you want to prioritize your sex life even more in your dating, there are (or were) Ashley Madison and its likeness, Gleeden.com, or WaitingTillMar r iage. com, or KinkyDatingSites. com.

The appeal of these dating sites seems very, well, human. In a survey conducted by the Tufts Observer, students at first were very averse to the idea of a niche dating site. When respondents were asked if they would consider signing up for a niche site, 36.8 percent chose “HAHA no” and 47.4 percent chose “maybe when I’m like 30 and lonely.” However, when presented with specific names of niche dating sites, students were more open to considerART BY EVA STRAUSS

TECH & INNOVATION

ing them. It seems that idea of these unique sites is more intimidating than the reality.

Further survey responses indicate why this is the case. “People are attracted to similar people,” wrote one respondent.

“People are lonely and don’t get enough exposure to people like them,” wrote another. These rationales make sense, especially when one considers the potential isolation of some careers—farming, sea captaining, flight attending—and how these people might look for the advantages of a niche site.

While such expansion in dating variety certainly provides an unprecedented freedom of choice, it also raises

new questions of ethics. This summer, Ashley Madison became even more of a household name when the names of users were leaked. The existence of a niche dating site for those looking to have extramarital affairs shocked the American public. More shocking was that this preference is not so niche, as over 30 million user accounts were leaked this past summer.

As with other niche dating sites, signing up for Ashley Madison means consciously acknowledging that one

factor of a relationship is more important than the rest—in this case, the chance to have an affair. As opposed to a rather benign site like Geek2Geek, Ashley Madison didn’t seek to connect like-minded individuals—it streamlined, and perhaps encouraged, extramarital affairs. Such widespread acknowledgement forces us to question the reality of societal opinions on cheating—are we really against it, or do we all say we’re against it because this is the status quo?

However, the use of niche dating sites doesn’t counteract a common phenomenon on Internet dating sites—lying.

Since lying on the Internet is so thoughtlessly easy, some users of niche dating sites have chosen to misrepresent themselves. A 2014 article from The Atlantic reported several instances of what the aut h o r c a l l s “interloping”— creating an account on a niche dating site whose niche does not really apply to you. Many of the examples cited were of white men in heavily white areas joining BlackPeopleMeet. com in order to meet black women. The author also found examples of users without children joining sites for single parents, and Catholics signing up for JDate.

This masquerading in order to access a distinct group of people for your dating life hints at one of the larger problems with the proliferation of niche sites: they create and maintain expectations and stereotypes about demographics and groups of people. The white man

who signs up for BlackPeopleMeet.com clearly has some expectation of what black women are like, and feels that somehow his needs will be met only by people who meet that expectation. This fosters a particularly unhealthy view of society, one where the box you check on a census assigns you not only a racial identity but also a set of personality and character traits.

These problematic assumptions of potential partners presents another ethical issue surrounding niche dating sites—racism. WhitePeopleMeet. com exists. To sign up for WhitePeopleMeet.com is to consciously decide that a partner’s racial location is the most important. This general exclusion of all people of color, because it is so sweeping, must rely on unfavorable stereotypes and a misguided belief in the purity and endangering of the white identity.

“These white people might feel the need to make things ‘fair,’” said one survey respondent, “What the users of this site and others don’t realize is that, in reality, they will continue to dominate most dating sites and spaces, unless people of color carve out sites for themselves and create their own power.”

This is why WhitePeopleMeet.com and blackpeoplemeet.com should not be treated as separate but equal—one continues a system of power, and the other subverts it. It is very possible that our subconscious racism plays into our every Tinder swipe or romantic decision because of how deeply ingrained they are.

So how do we, Tufts students, approach the world of niche dating? Most of us seem happy to stick to Tinder for a while. In the Observer survey, Tufts students seemed lukewarm to the idea, citing in their responses their age and apathy towards finding a lifelong partner at this point in time. Others thought the whole idea was pretty weird.

As one respondent wrote, “I would only consider a career site because perhaps that is something where I would have something already to talk about with a partner. Everything else just seems crazy.” O February 8, 2016

Tufts Observer

25

ARTS & CULTURE

WHY IS LOVE SUCH A BIG DEAL?

By Melissa Dong

26

Tufts Observer

February 8, 2016

ARTS & CULTURE

P

icture Rachel and Ross from Friends, who fell in and out of love for 10 years. Envision Jim and Pam from The Office, when Jim would flirt daily with the already-engaged Pam. Or Ted and Robin from How I Met Your Mother, when Ted steals a blue French horn for a first date.

TV shows in particular have a special effect on us as viewers. Compared to movies, TV lives and grows with us. We watch love blossom and decay over the course of a series as we develop our own relationships with the characters.

“We see a lot of romance and a lot of sex because it sells,” said Tufts professor of Film and Media Studies Julie Dobrow.

“Romance always has these narrative elements of tension and it’s a basic human interest, both of which make it an ideal topic for TV.” Romance and love are a captivating part of human life, and always provide intrigue and drama that unites audiences worldwide. However, the popular television plotlines are often clichéd and unrealistic, skewing our personal romantic beliefs and relationships. TV shows are beginning to broadcast more grounded romance, but we might have to look a little harder to find them.

The most common romantic conflict in TV sitcoms is the “will they/won’t they” situation, in which the two love interests vacillate between ‘just friends’ and ‘something more.’ Because these relationships are focal points of the show, writers risk losing viewers once the two fated characters finally kiss. TV shows drag these dynamics out for as long as possible because the human brain craves this constant tension and networks crave consistent ratings. In an interview with the Huffington Post, psychologist Dr. Jared DeFife of Emory University explains that fans get invested in the blossoming of the romance. “We’re wired to really connect to each other in that way,” he said.

This often results in the popular habit of “shipping,” where fans fervently root for two characters to be in a relationship. DeFife explains this as the Zeigarnik Effect, which refers to the notion that an unresolved issue will keep

ART BY EVA STRAUSS

us cognitively engaged. For the constant “will they/won’t they” shows, this unresolved issue goes on for seasons. A common form of “shipping” manifests in fan-fiction writing as a way for viewers to resolve the tension themselves. In fact, DeFife explains it as completely normal rather than pathological, merely revealing that you care deeply about relationships and human connections.

However, there is a drawback to becoming over-invested in these relationships. Romance in real life is rarely the glamorous display as seen on television.

“TV shows often don’t show how much work real relationships are, the many ways in which romance takes a back seat to everyday life, or how much compromise is involved in staying on even keel in most relationships,” said Dobrow. TV gives the impression that romance is the most im-

This exposure to unhealthy or unattainable types of love can seriously influence one’s romantic expectations later in life. portant thing in life, but there are a few happy characters who choose to put work first. For those who have not yet been exposed to relationships in real life, love is distorted from reality. “I do think that for children having a steady diet of things like Disney princesses who live for the prince on the white horse sets kids up for unrealistic and idealistic notions of what romance is,” said Dobrow.

This exposure to unhealthy or unattainable types of love can seriously influence one’s romantic expectations later in life. The University of Michigan decided to test exactly how much college students’ perceptions of love are affected

by the types of TV they regularly watch.

Students heavily exposed to marriagethemed reality TV, like The Bachelor, were more likely to believe in concepts of “Love at First Sight” and “Idealization.” They were more likely to not only idealize the moment of falling in love, but believe it could happen in an instant.

Interestingly, even though the “love” on reality TV is often fabricated and contrived, many still fall under its spell.

However, frequent viewers of sitcoms like Friends and How I Met Your Mother were less likely to idealize that there was “the one” out there waiting to be found.

These results suggest that perhaps exposure to these sitcoms makes us more cynical about love.

This cynicism can be interpreted as realism. There has been a recent rise in television shows that eschew the traditional formula and reveal the reality of relationships. Master of None, a Netflix original series, presents trials of dating in today’s age. People will not always find “the one” so easily—or perhaps ever. They suggest that finding “the one” does not need to be life’s ultimate goal. According to Indiewire, this is seen in shows such as You’re the Worst, The Mindy Project, and Catastrophe. However, these television shows, similar to Master of None, are not aired on the big broadcast networks that require high ratings, but instead by smaller nichemarket networks and streaming services like FX, Hulu, Amazon, and Netflix. The Mindy Project previously aired on FOX, a big TV network, but was dropped because of low ratings. Hulu then picked it up because of its strong—but not large— fan base. These more realistic shows will continue to exist with interested fans, but the prototypical romance tropes will persist on network television as long as they return high ratings.

Perhaps one day these shows about complex, real love will appeal to mainstream audiences, but as Dobrow concludes wisely, “we still like to sit back and watch those idealized relationships because they’re easier, less messy…and so much more beautiful than most of us could ever hope for.” O

February 8, 2016

Tufts Observer

27

POLICE BLOTTER

Police Blotter

By Moira Lavelle

Unidentified Flying Object

Thursday, January 7 8:30am

A staff member reported that the pane of glass on the front door of the psychology building was cracked. Upon further inspection, TUPD detectives determined the glass was “hit by an object traveling at a high rate of speed” and had not shattered spontaneously. It is thought the projectile could have come from the construction site across the street.

Pictures were taken and Facilities was called.

Put a Tampon In It

Monday, January 25 6:15pm

A student called TEMS complaining of a bloody nose. The student had not suffered any sort of collision or impact, but they reported they had been bleeding for some time. The student was given gauze pads to staunch the bleeding, and took a refusal for more medical care. After a few minutes TEMS reported bleeding had dramatically decreased. In fact, at some point the bleeding just stopped. As nosebleeds usually do.

If There’s Smoke...

Wednesday, January 27 11:45am

A student was cooking in Wren Hall and at some point became convinced their pan was “too hot.” The student removed their food from the pan and put water on top of it. This created steam, which activated the fire alarm. There was no fire. Or smoke. Merely steam. The pan eventually cooled down.

28

Tufts Observer

February 8, 2016

ALISON GRAHAM

TUFTS OBSERVER SINCE 1895 www.tuftsobserver.org observer@tufts.edu @tuftsobserver

please recycle