Tufts Observer
VOLUME CXXXI, ISSUE 3
October 24, 2016
The Implications of Trump's Candidacy
The Fight to Legalize Marijuana in MA
Inadequacy in the Club Sports Budget
Page 5
Page 8
Page 10
The Politics Issue
Tufts Observer The Tufts Observer has been Tufts’ student publication of record since 1895. Our dedication to indepth 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
October 24, 2016 Volume CXXXI, Issue 3 Tufts Observer, SInce 1895 Tufts’ Student Magazine
Theme Weeks before a presidential election, it can seem as though politics are all about candidates, campaign rhetoric and polls, but politics are also deeply personal. How do politics interact with our identities and our communities? In this issue we look at politics at the national level, the individual level, and everywhere in between.
Staff Editor-In-Chief // Carly Olson Managing Editor // Eve Feldberg Creative Director // Chase Conley
Section Editors
Web Columns // Jordan Lauf Features // Sahar Roodehchi News // Will Norris & Claire Selvin Opinion // Julia Doyle & Ben Kesslen Campus // Greta Jochem & Emma Pinsky Web // Susan Kaufman & Misha Linnehan Poetry & Prose // MT Snyder & Liza Leonard Arts & Culture // Carissa Fleury & Jamie Moore Tech & Innovation // Lily Hartzell & Lauren Samuel
Art, Photo, & Design
Art Directors // Nina Hofkosh-Hulbert & Rachel Cunningham Lead Artists // Jake Rochford & Annie Roome Photo Director // Lily Herzan - Photo Editor // Kyle Scott Designers // Abigail Barton, Alexandra Benjamin, Josh Goodman, Caroline Smith, Hannah Vigran & Conrad Young
Multimedia
Publicity // Yumi Casagrande & Ashley Miller Video // Anastasia Antonova, Evie Bellew, Aaron Watts & Luke Zhao Interactive // Gabby Bonfiglio, Jade Chan, Danielle Kong & Kayden Mimmack
Writing & Copy
Staff Writer // Katie Saviano Lead Copy Editor // Dana Guth Copy Editors // Matt Beckshaw, Henry Jani, Julia Press, Sivi Satchithanandan
Contributors Riley Aronson, Ben Averill, Bailey Connor, Jordan Delawder, Luca Eisen, Audrey Falk, Tyler Hagedorn, Hannah Kahn, Blair Nodelman, Annie Roome, Daria Thames
Contents
2
Feature
The Presidential Mystique
13
Photo Inset
20
Arts & Culture
What Does America Trump, Televised Look Like? Kevin Lombard
Julia Press OPINION
NEWS
5
Populism & the Future of American Democracy
22 Reflecting on Free Speech
and Sexual Harassment
Allyson Blackburn
Will Norris NEWS
8
Can Marijuana Make it in Massachusetts?
TECH & INNOVATION
24 The Ins & Outs of Polling
Bobby Familiar CAMPUS
10 Budget Blues Lena Novins-Montague
Chase Conley & Aaron Watts OPINION
26 Chartered Exploitation Natasha Karunaratne
Q&A
17 Thumb on the Scale CAMPUS
18 Faith & Action
PROSE
28 Dispatch from Nashua,
New Hampshire
Eve Feldberg & Emma Pinsky
Chris Wikler COVER BY HANNAH KAHN
Feature
The Presidential Mystique Implicit Gender Biases of the American Presdency By Julia Press “Madame President.” For nearly 240 years, this phrase has been inapplicable in the US, but the election just weeks away could change this forever. With Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, gender has been on the forefront of the minds of many Americans. While worldwide over 70 countries have had female heads of state, Hillary Clinton has made waves this election cycle as the first woman to receive the nomination of one of the two major political parties. Her supporters are excited by not only her experience, but also by the landmark her presidency would be as the first held by a woman. Her critics attempt to diminish her right to the candidacy by arguing that her votes come from a blind sense of “feminism,” or that people are only voting for her based on her gender. Regardless of one’s political beliefs, it’s clear that this is an election cycle dominated by questions about the role of gender. Indeed, one of her campaign slogans, “I’m with Her,” highlights the sheer fact that there is one clear “Her” that Americans are talking about right now in the presidential 2
Tufts Observer
October 24, 2016
race. The history of gender pronouns in American politics dates back to our country’s founding document: the Constitution. As Tufts Political Science Professor Deborah Schildkraut pointed out, “The only place we see male pronouns is in Article 2 where they talk about the presidency, and everywhere else it just talks about “persons” and citizens.” This rhetorical choice reflected the unquestioned expectation at the time that a woman would never run for office and laid the groundwork for the masculine undertones that still dictate the current image of an American president. The language used in the Constitution, as well as that used today, reflects the traditional nature of American politics—one that has, so far, often remained contained to the gender binary. For the purposes of this article, we will analyze how language regarding “men” and “women” affects politics and the presidency. The fact that binary-gendered language is virtually the only kind of language used in mainstream discourse about political candidates is also demonstrative of
how political language excludes gender nonconforming, non-binary, and trans people. As Jackson Katz, author of Man Enough?: Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and the Politics of Presidential Masculinity, asserted, gender has always played a role in presidential politics—it has only now emerged on the forefront of discussion because candidates who do not adhere to traditional norms are entering the race. Katz pointed out the subtle use of certain words, such as being “weak” or “soft” on an issue, which can reveal the gendered nuances that have existed long before Hillary Clinton decided to run. Schildkraut agreed that using this type of language undermines a candidate’s legitimacy. “Going back to the 1988 election with Bush and Dukakis, Bush pretty much won on portraying Dukakis as ‘soft on crime,’” she said. This rhetorical choice served to undermine the opponent’s masculinity, in a way Katz identified as a way of shaming men for not being tough enough or being a “sissy.” ART BY BEN AVERILL
Feature
At the first debate on September 26, Trump’s rhetoric sought to present Clinton in a weak, ineffective light, using explicitly gendered language even more than that which was used against Dukakis nearly 30 years ago. He criticized Clinton’s “stamina,” “temperament,” “judgment,” and “not nice” behavior, claimed she “doesn’t have the look,” accused her of being ineffectual during her years as a politician, and repeatedly interrupted her—51 times, in fact. These actions seem to attempt to paint Clinton as weak and unfit to be president. Trump even used this to his advantage in the debate, disparaging Clinton and presenting the notion that she was a quitter. “You’ve seen me, I’ve been all over the place,” Trump said. “You decided to stay home, and that’s okay.” Meanwhile, Trump made an effort to present himself as a stereotypically tough, masculine character—one that has often appealed to voters in the past. Trump emphasized the need to “fight” for American businesses, repeatedly stated two words that he criticized Clinton of avoiding, “law and
order,” and interrupted her with the word “wrong” six times. He put on a performance informed by traditional masculinity. Even some popular pundits revealed their inherently gendered view of the political arena. Bill O’Reilly voiced that women should be polite and subservient to men when he criticized Clinton for pointing out Trump’s past sexist remarks during the first presidential debate. He implied that while it is justified for a man to criticize others, a woman should keep silent. “Those kinds of attacks, personal attacks diminish the Secretary,” he said. Clinton is not the only woman to have struggled in attempting to fight her way into the male-dominated political arena. Republican candidate Carly Fiorina may have had to face even harsher standards to prove herself to her party by putting forward a pointedly masculine appearance. Conservative editor of the National Review Rich Lowry praised Fiorina as “a no-nonsense former business executive who is showing she can play—and throw
elbows—with the big boys in the Republican presidential nomination battle.” Fiorina could only establish herself as a serious candidate by acting tough and challenging “the big boys” of the Republican Party. The history of women in politics extends far beyond Clinton and Fiorina. As Erika Falk wrote in her book Women for President, over 100 women in American history have sought, but failed to receive, their party’s nomination for president. About 15 more have succeeded in this feat, though none on behalf of the Democratic or Republican parties. Shirley Chisholm, Pat Schroeder, and Carol Moseley Braun are recognizable examples of women who made it further than others in securing a nomination. What makes Clinton’s campaign different is that none of these past female candidates were considered to have a serious chance at winning. For Chisholm, a Black woman from New York who ran for president in 1972, Schildkraut commented, “It was a real statement candidacy—perhaps trying to October 24, 2016
Tufts Observer
3
Feature
The language used in the Constitution, as well as that used today, reflects the traditional nature of American politics— one that has, so far, often remained contained to the gender binary. influence the direction of the Democratic Party. I don’t think even she thought she would probably win.” Chisholm’s bid perhaps had intentions other than winning the presidency. In the documentary Chisholm ‘72, Chisholm herself stated, “When I die...I don’t want to be remembered as the first Black woman who went to Congress, and I don’t even want to be remembered as the first woman who happened to be Black to make a bid for the presidency. I want to be remembered as a woman who fought for change in the twentieth century.” Her bid for candidacy, regardless of success, marked a shift in the idea of who could seek the American presidency, and asserted her intent to reshape the rigid and traditional political field. Whether or not Chisholm and other female candidates themselves believed they could win, the media effectively painted their candidacies as purely symbolic and thus made them so. When Carol Moseley Braun received the endorsement of the National Organization for Women, the New York Times wrote, “There is now a place in the American political system for symbolic candidacies.” Though this seems dismissive, even a “symbolic” candidacy has power in attempting to break out of the rigid gender structure of American presidential politics. The effects of gendered stereotypes have also hurt candidates who are men. As Katz pointed out, Marco Rubio suffered harsh criticism when a photo of him dressed in high-heeled black boots surfaced. Rubio’s Republican opponents jumped on the opportunity to feminize Rubio and thus undercut his legitimacy as a serious contender for the presidency. Candidates have also made more overt comments attempting to feminize their 4
Tufts Observer
October 24, 2016
opponents—Trump called Cruz a “pussy,” which additionally falsely equates anatomy with femininity. Rubio insulted Trump by making a lewd implication that Trump lacked manliness, saying, “You know what they say about guys with small hands.” The fear of being perceived as not “manly” enough is especially prominent when discussing the military, as war and defense are often associated with traditional male characteristics of toughness and strength. As Katz explained, any hints suggesting a reduction of military spending are mocked, causing candidates who have taken firmer stances on this side to lose, and presidents in office, like Eisenhower, to wait until the end of their terms to say anything against military spending. This adherence to traditional standards of masculinity thus impedes the president’s ability to do what may be best for the country in the interest of maintaining its powerful image. When a nation’s leader and Commander-in-Chief bases military and other decisions on the desire to “be a man,” the harm in having a gendered establishment becomes apparent. According to George W. Bush’s media consultant Mark McKinnon, voters often rely on the image that a candidate presents rather than their policies. In an interview on NPR, McKinnon stated, “In presidential campaigns, people don’t really vote on issues. They vote on a constellation of attributes…and the most important of those attributes is the procession of the candidate as a strong leader.” This only becomes gendered because strong leadership is associated with the traditional view of a man’s proper role in society. When psychologist Sandra Bem conducted a study on the character traits most desirable in men and women, traits cited by her subjects as most desirable in
men—such as aggressive, ambitious, and dominant—aligned with those ascribed to a good leader, whereas those for women— including compassionate, yielding, softspoken, and shy—were associated with the private sphere. Thus the desire for a strong leader to represent the United States becomes connected to the desire for a man to serve as the country’s representative. However, according to a 2004 Gallup poll ranking the importance of various qualities in predicting how people will vote for president, being a strong and decisive leader was ranked with only 9 percent importance, near the bottom of the list. A more recent 2016 Gallup poll found that the aspects that would most affect likelihood of voting for a candidate were the “softer” qualities, such as “inspiring,” “cares about individuals,” and “visionary,” and not the harder, more campaign-related qualities such as “intense,” “competitive,” or “focused.” These studies could reveal the flaws in self-reporting; while people claim on surveys that they prioritize being “caring” over intensity, actions speak louder than words—according to polling data, it seems the public values masculine conceptions of strength more than it wants to believe. As Clinton continues to assert herself as a viable candidate and challenge traditional norms, it will be interesting to see how the American public adapts to this new image of an American president. As Schildkraut said, the campaign has already raised new questions, such as “speculation about, ‘What will we call Bill Clinton if Hillary wins?’ And ‘Will he fulfill the traditional roles of the First Lady?’” That’s pretty explicit—acknowledging this is new, and we have these very specific gender roles that are probably soon to be really upended.”
News
Populism & the Future of American Democracy By Will Norris
October 24, 2016
Tufts Observer
5
News
F
or his final question at the first presidential debate on September 26, the moderator, Lester Holt, asked Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump if they would respect the outcome of the election if their opponent won. That such a question was necessary is remarkable—never in recent memory has a US presidential candidate appeared liable to deny the validity of the election’s outcome. A host of factors—not the least of which is widespread antipathy for the political “establishment”—have collectively made the United States more susceptible to authoritarian rhetoric than perhaps it has ever been. Trump has seized upon this unique vulnerability. Many experts say the Trump phenomenon is disturbingly reminiscent of times in other countries when a populist figure rode a wave of anti-government sentiment to power and subverted democratic institutions. “Our democracy rests on people who lose the election accepting the outcome,” said Deborah Schildkraut, Chair of the Political Science Department and Professor at Tufts. “And that has, for much of our history, been fairly predictable.” Throughout his campaign, Trump has often claimed this election is “rigged” against him. Though he told Holt he would “absolutely” recognize Clinton’s legitimacy as president if she won, he has since hinted otherwise. At a speech in Florida on October 13, Trump told the audience, “This election will determine whether we are a free nation or whether we have only the illusion of democracy, but are in fact controlled by a small handful of global special inter-
6
Tufts Observer
October 24, 2016
ests rigging the system, and our system is rigged.” Trump, of course, has no evidence that the election will be “rigged.” By claiming the outcome will be illegitimate if he loses, Trump is invalidating the entire political apparatus, argued Consuelo Cruz, a professor of comparative and Latin American politics at Tufts. In the United States we have a political representative democracy, not a direct democracy, she explained, which means the processes and institutions of that representation have to be seen
is that [Trump is] laying the precedent for not conceding,” said Simon Rosenberg, a Political Science professor at Tufts and the founder of the New Democrat Network. Trump has deliberately eroded the public’s trust in basic tenets of the American political system. “He’s now attacking every single institution that exists,” said Rosenberg. “Voting, media, the debate commission; go down the list and he’s attacking everything.” In September, Trump questioned the autonomy of the Federal Reserve, telling CNBC that
Trump has deliberately eroded the public’s trust in basic tenets of the American political system. as legitimate for democracy to function. When populist leaders gain initial support by vilifying establishment politicians and portraying themselves as anti-politicians, as Trump has done, “what happens is you are now de-legitimating the personnel and you can take the next step to claim that the system is rigged, that the processes of political representative democracy are corrupt,” she said. “Once you’ve done that, you’ve laid the groundwork for even violent politics, violent anti-system politics. And you’ve laid the groundwork to then repudiate—if you lose the election—to repudiate the winner.” Democracy has never been a partisan issue. Presidential candidates may disagree on issues but rarely question the actual scaffolding of the political system. “My fear
Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen is “obviously political and she’s doing what Obama wants her to do.” There is no evidence the White House has intervened in the Federal Reserve. Trump entered politics by advocating the birtherism movement that wrongly questioned President Obama’s citizenship and knowingly spread misinformation throughout his time in office. In this campaign, Trump has capitalized on an increasingly fact-averse, conspiratorial conservative faction—nearly half of his supporters distrust the economic data released by the federal government, compared to just five percent of Clinton supporters. “It’s not like you’re going to start with, ‘We’re going to destroy the whole of democracy, and the democratic institutions are either going to be strong
ART BY ANNIE ROOME
News
enough to withstand it [or they won’t],’” said Cruz. “You do it battle by battle.” Anti-system populists have employed this tactic in Latin America and elsewhere, she said. “You begin calling into question the truthfulness, the legitimacy of particular institutions. You weaken them one by one.” The particular social and political forces that have allowed Trump to reach the doorstep of the White House parallel the conditions of other countries soon before their democracies succumbed to populist dictators, said Cruz. Extraordinary political polarization, waning faith in the existing political system, and growing contempt among conservatives for progressivism and minorities or elites are all social symptoms that may contribute to the rise of populist leaders. “Chile and Uruguay, in the 1970s, early 70s, had for decades and decades become completely established as very strong democracies, constitutionalist democracies,” Cruz said, “whose institutions were so well established, and so consolidated, that the idea of an authoritarian regime was utterly unimaginable. And yet in the 1970s they both fell to authoritarian regimes because they were so polarized and because there was so much fear of the ‘other,’ and so much fear of insurgents.” Trump has fanned similar racial and cultural anxieties and exploited the public’s resentment of the political class. “People’s evaluation of their own party has been fairly stable over several decades,” said Schildkraut, who specializes in public opinion, but “evaluation of the other party has gotten worse. And so to the extent that that continues, then you run the risk of seeing the other side as illegitimate, of
being corrupt, not believing anything they say. And that’s a real concern because once you lose the idea that your opposition is legitimate opposition then these existential threats become more of a possibility.” Trump has also shown a flagrant disregard for constitutional law and democratic norms, said Rosenberg. For instance, he has suggested he would imprison political adversaries and place limits on the freedom of the press as president. A page on his website allows supporters to “Volunteer to be a Trump Election Observer” with instructions explaining that volunteers will do “everything that we are legally allowed to do to stop crooked Hillary from rigging this election.” For a candidate to promote such anti-government civilian mobilization is unprecedented. “People laugh at the possibility of Brown Shirts in this country,” said Cruz. In all likelihood, Trump will lose on November 8. But that a man with such patently authoritarian tendencies has been so popular is a bad sign for American democracy, said Cruz. “He seems to have a floor of 35 percent [of the electorate] that can sometimes grow to 40 percent, 42 percent—that’s an enormous amount in an advanced democracy like the United States,” she said. “There’s a saying among political scientists that democracies can, and often do, commit suicide. But if they do, it’s not as if they do it with a gunshot to the head. It’s more like a slow poison. You do it gradually. I’m afraid, because even if Hillary wins, that this 35 percent is going to be very unhappy.” No one knows what Trump and the forces that contributed to his rise mean for
the future of American democracy, and the optimism of experts varies significantly. Schildkraut believes the diffusion of power in our system and the significant political autonomy of the states makes a dictatorship unlikely. “That’s not to say presidents have never overreached or used their power to do things that were undemocratic—they certainly have,” she said. “But it’s a constant back and forth between the different levels of government and the different lines of authority, and that will always be there.” Paul Joseph, a professor of political sociology at Tufts, agreed. “I’m pretty optimistic about the United States, even though I’m a critic of the policies of the United States,” he said. “I’m optimistic about American opinion.” David Ekbladh, a Tufts professor of American history, said, “Personally, I sometimes think a strength of the US is that nagging feeling we’re always on the cusp of decline—something baked into the 18th century concept of republicanism that the US is based upon.” But Cruz argued that political scientists who didn’t live through an authoritarian takeover firsthand like she did are failing to appreciate the gravity of Trump’s success. From the moment she saw him dramatically descend the escalator in Trump Tower for his presidential announcement in June of last year, she said, something about this candidate felt all too familiar. He has stirred something in this country that will not soon disappear. “Once the election is over, let’s for a moment assume Clinton is victorious. This is not over,” she said. “This is just not over. This is just the beginning.”
October 24, 2016
Tufts Observer
7
News
Can Marijuana Make I By Bobby Familiar
“I
was a student activist in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s,” said Will Luzier, the campaign manager for the Committee to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol. “In the early 1970s, I was arrested for possession of marijuana. I was arrested with less than a quarter of an ounce which, at the time, was a Class A misdemeanor, which means I could’ve served up to a year in jail.” Fortunately for Luzier, who is White, his case was dismissed, and he later became an advocate for marijuana legalization. Luzier’s early run-in with the law kindled his passion for marijuana law reform. The Committee to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol has led the charge on the ballot initiative to legalize marijuana in Massachusetts. If Question 4 on the ballot in Massachusetts’ state election passes this November, then Massachusetts would join Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, and the District of Columbia in ending marijuana prohibition. Over the past few years, an ideological divide has appeared to be widening between marijuana legalization advocates and state legislators in Massachusetts as the impending November ballot approaches. The state legislature and marijuana advocates have outlined specific challenges of marijuana reform regarding issues including funding, youth use, black market involvement, and retail implementation. Many members of the Senate are wary of legalization, including Senate President Stan Rosenberg. He explained that the field in Colorado and Washing-
8
Tufts Observer
October 24, 2016
ton is “undeveloped,” referring to the absence of good data on the effect of legalization on the black market and on youth use. “It’s a challenge to get 200 legislators to coalesce around one idea,” said Zach Crowley, the Chief of Staff in the office of Senator Jason Lewis, the state senator who headed the Special Senate Committee on Marijuana. Both Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker and Boston Mayor Marty Walsh have come out in opposition to the legalization of marijuana. “I’ve made it very clear that I am going to vote against the legalization of recreational marijuana questions,” Baker said last November. Walsh has also officially stated that he will campaign against the ballot question. Although Senator Elizabeth Warren has expressed support for legalization—saying that we can learn from the states that have already done it— the sentiment in the state government is largely that it is premature to legalize marijuana now because the consequences are not fully realized. However, the skepticism of the state government comes in contrast to the stance of the general Massachusetts populace: according to a 2016 Western New England University poll, 57 percent of Massachusetts voters support legalizing marijuana. The initiative proposed by the Committee to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol focuses on five core aspects of legalization: adult possession, limited home growing, regulation and oversight, local control, and taxation. The law would allow adults 21 and older to possess up to an ounce on one’s
person and a maximum of 10 ounces in an “enclosed, locked space within their residences,” according to the Committee’s website. Possession of any amount over two ounces is subject to existing penalties under the 2008 decriminalization provisions. Meanwhile, adults 21 and older would be able to grow a limited number of marijuana plants within their residence, and the initiative would give property owners and landlords the jurisdiction to prohibit marijuana cultivation on their property. Regulation would be enforced by the Cannabis Control Commission, implemented by the state treasurer’s office, which would be responsible for regulating “the sale, manufacture, cultivation, and testing of marijuana and marijuana products,” said Luzier. The Cannabis Control Commission would also control licensing of marijuana retail stores, which would be analogous to alcohol licensing with the exception that a conviction of a marijuana offense would not stop someone from getting a retail license. Cities and towns in Massachusetts would “have the authority to impose limits on where and when marijuana businesses are allowed to operate,” according to the Committee to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol’s website. The total tax on retail marijuana would be 12 percent, divided between a state excise tax to fund the implementation of cannabis regulation, a tax to fund local municipalities, and a state sales tax. The Special Senate Committee on Marijuana conducted a five-day research trip to Colorado in January 2016, with
ART BY JAKE ROCHFORD
News
e It In Massachusetts? the goal of identifying the policy implications of legalizing marijuana. Zach Crowley aided Senator Lewis and eight other senators in observing the functioning of retail cannabis in Colorado: “It’s a little bit more complicated than the legalization of the marijuana [the senators] had in their heads,” said Crowley. “These are largely middle-aged legislators remembering their high school days.” In particular, the senators were surprised at the high potency of retail marijuana, according to Crowley. After talking with experts, meeting governmental administrators, and touring dispensaries, some members from the Special Committee left the trip feeling more uncertain about the future of the legislation in Massachusetts, according to Crowley. Their apprehensions are clearly expressed in their “objective review of marijuana policy,” listed in the front of the report. Their concerns include: the perception that marijuana is a safe substance, the black market and the inability of police officers to determine marijuana intoxication, and economic concerns that tax revenues would not fully cover regulation and enforcement, as well as anxieties over how legalization would affect youth. According to Dr. Jordan Tishler, who operates InhaleMD, a medical marijuana practice in Cambridge, MA, marijuana “is remarkably safe,” regardless of potency. In his two years of prescribing eligible patients medical marijuana, Tishler “never saw anyone that was sick from cannabis use.” However, most studies on the health effects of marijuana are not conclusive
as they have only observed use after 20 years, whereas similar tobacco studies show that most physical illnesses from smoking tobacco occur after 40 years of use. Smoking of any kind is known to be physically harmful to one’s respiratory system, stated Tishler. Limiting kids’ access to marijuana is a concern for both the Senate and the Committee to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol. According to Luzier, the Cannabis Control Commission would address packaging, labelling, portioning requirements, and the issue of child-proof packaging for retail products. “Public education seems to be the most effective way of working with youth to encourage them to make good decisions,” said Crowley. “Just say no” is not a persuasive message—instead, informing kids on substance use and teaching “just not now” would be a more effective way of targeting this issue, said Crowley. According to the Colorado Institute of Public Health, there is still a substantial black market in Colorado. This is a legitimate concern for law enforcement as they transition from “a posture of getting [marijuana] out of the streets to dealing with it as a legal product,” said Crowley. The Cannabis Control Commission would be responsible for making sure “products are sold in retail outlets that create jobs, pay taxes, and drive down youth access and the black market,” said Luzier. The roughly 900,000 people that use marijuana in Massachusetts are purchasing marijuana that is “untested and could be tainted with anything,” and the issue of getting marijuana out of the black
market and into retail stores is a public health issue, not a public safety issue, added Luzier. The Senate is also concerned about law enforcement not being able to determine marijuana intoxication in DUI cases. The problem with current THC blood-level tests is that they cannot determine whether a person is currently intoxicated or whether they have used cannabis in some form in the past 30 to 90 days, according to Dr. Tishler. When marijuana was decriminalized in the state, the legislature did not specify a THC blood-level limit like Colorado and Washington have. Even if there were available roadside tests, there is no standard metric on which to base illegal intoxication. There are drug experts in the state police force who are trained to be able to determine intoxication by marijuana through a roadside sobriety test, but their judgment remains subjective. The fate of marijuana lies in the will of Massachusetts voters on November 8. The Committee to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol will cease to exist after the election, regardless of the outcome of the voting. “My biggest fear is that people will become complacent about this and they won’t be ready to vote in November in favor of ending marijuana prohibition,” said Luzier. “We need to keep this on the front burner so that people understand how important it is to end marijuana prohibition, to get rid of the black market, and to make sure that people are consuming safe and regulated products.”
October 24, 2016
Tufts Observer
9
Campus
Budget Blues: How a tight budget is affecting Tufts’ club sports teams By Lena Novins-Montague
I
ncluded in Tufts’ tuition is a $342 student activities fee. This money comes together to create the budget that the Allocations Board of the Tufts Community Union (TCU) Senate doles out to 180 different student organizations every year. In 2015, the board worked with $1,729,456.30. In 2015, the board worked with $1,729,456.30. For the past two years, Tufts Club Sports has received $100,000 for their yearly budget. After this $100,000 leaves the hands of TCU, it is up to Club Sports to allocate it to each team. According to many Club teams, there is not enough to go around. Club Rugby has felt especially affected by this tight budget. Due to the dangers associated with the sport, the rugby teams have to take lots of expensive precautions.
10
Tufts Observer
October 24, 2016
Campus
Senior Nick Nasser, President of Men’s Club Rugby, explains, “Right now, we’re going into the red to have trainers and ambulances at our games, to have TEMS at our games and practices, but we don’t have the money for it.” The team fundraises money from parents and alumni, but they’re still coming up short. Men’s Rugby has suffered other missed opportunities from the tight budget, such as never being able to hold a spring season. Nasser said, “Every other NESCAC school is allowed to have a spring season for rugby. Spring season is usually geared towards education, so it’s a time for people to learn how to play.” The budget also limits which students can participate in Club Sports. The Ski Team receives a relatively large slice of the budget because of the numerous expenses associated with skiing. Even so, Ski Team members have to pay sizable dues as well as pay for a portion of their race and travel fees. Danielle Skufca, treasurer of the Ski Team, explained that a larger budget would help cut the high team dues, making the team more accessible. “That would be really nice because often we have students that want to join the team but can’t justify it because of the cost they would have to pay,” she said. Although many teams feel dissatisfied, TCU Treasurer Chris Leaverton emphasized that TCU is committed to giving adequate funding to Club Sports. “We want to make sure that Club Sports can get the funding they need,” he said. “$100,000 is a lot of money and the issue is that there’s always give and take. More money in one place means there’s less money somewhere else.” Other student groups are part of the greater give and take. Nasser cited Quidditch (which is not a Club Sport) and the
ART BY RACHEL CUNNINGHAM
Amalgamates as part of this—they’re student groups allotted relatively large funds by TCU. In 2015, Quidditch received $19,092 from TCU and the Amalgamates received $7,284. In comparison, Men’s Rugby receives $6,000 from the $100,000 Club Sports is allotted. “All these organizations are recognized as doing a lot of traveling to represent the university and compete in all these competitions and give a good name to the school,” Nasser said. He questioned whether or not TCU values Club Sports. “It really comes down
“It makes me upset because with such a low budget we aren’t necessarily given the tools that we need to succeed.” to what the university’s priorities are,” Nasser said. Branwen Smith-King, Assistant Athletic Director, said that TCU is trying their best. “I believe that if they were able to, the TCU would increase funding for Club Sports. However, TCU has many competing priorities.” Leaverton expressed concern for the Club Sports teams that feel trivialized and devalued. “I can understand why they’re frustrated,” he said. “But I would hope that as we continue to discuss
things with different people we can flesh this out. I’m sad that that is the reality because I don’t want anyone feeling like they’re not valued.” Skufca views Club Sports as indispensable to Tufts. “Club Sports are extremely important on campus because they provide a community for people who want to be part of a team and enjoy a sport that they love,” she said. Senior Gabrielle Fenaroli considers Club Rugby vital to her identity. “Rugby has shaped a lot of my college experience and I know I wouldn’t be the person I am today without it,” she said. Despite her positive experience, Fenaroli take issues with the budget. “It makes me upset because with such a low budget we aren’t necessarily given the tools that we need to succeed,” she said. Derek Fieldhouse, a senior and President of the unofficial Boxing Club, has experienced similar frustrations with the Club Sports budget. Due to a lack of resources, there is currently a moratorium on adding new Club Sports. This temporary prohibition has been in place for four years. Smith-King explained, “[The moratorium] was put in place to ensure that existing clubs would continue to have positive experiences and receive appropriate levels of support and assistance consistent with resources and overall needs.” When Fieldhouse came to Tufts his freshman year, he searched for a boxing team but couldn’t find one. A junior at the time, Merek Johnson, reached out to Fieldhouse and explained that boxing had been cut from Club Sports, but that an unofficial Boxing Club was in the works. Fieldhouse and Johnson petitioned Club Sports to make Boxing Club official, but they were turned away
October 24, 2016
Tufts Observer
11
Campus
because of the moratorium and the risky nature of boxing. That didn’t stop them. Boxing Club now has a Facebook group with over 200 members and holds practices four times a week that are well-attended by 25-plus people. But boxing isn’t recognized as a club by TCU, and because of this, the group is not allowed to represent itself at the annual club fair or hold a GIM. Despite lacking formal recognition, Fieldhouse thinks that the club is legitimate enough to receive recognition. “This is ridiculous,” Fieldhouse said. “The interest is here. No one has gotten hurt—no one will get hurt because we’re not sparring. People are interested in learning how to box or they want to work out, and this is more fun to them than running on a treadmill.” Fieldhouse believes that the current moratorium has a fundamental flaw. “I feel like that’s going against the whole idea of college,” he said. “This is a time for you to do what you love and try new things. They’re like, sorry, you can’t do what you love and you can’t try those new things because we don’t offer those new things.” In the history of the Club Sports budget, there has been one major anomaly. Four years ago, the budget spiked to $115,000. Nasser saw this as a much needed improvement. “When it was at $115,000 they had a lot of wiggle room to do a lot of different things, but that was only for one year,” he said. “It would be really nice to get back up to $115,000.” The bigger budget was short-lived due to limited resources. Smith-King said, “I believe TCU had a shortfall in funding. Despite the reduction, we appreciated that the Club Sport budget did not get cut even more drastically.” Following the cut, roster caps were
12
Tufts Observer
October 24, 2016
implemented in addition to other rules designed to decrease spending. These roster caps meant fewer students were able to participate in Club Sports. Smith-King is grateful for the current budget. “The TCU Senate has been very supportive of Club Sports and its support enables the club teams to compete.” Nasser, however, would like to see the total Club Sports budget expanded. “If we were given the opportunity to grow our programs to do the things we want to do, then we would be able to represent the university in a better way.”
Fenaroli believes Club Sports is deserving. “For the amount of hours that students put into Club Sports there should certainly be more funding,” she said. “I don’t think it would be fair for me to judge how TCU divides up the budget, but I feel like more money towards club sports is certainly merited.” Despite the complaints, Leaverton assures that the small Club Sports budget is a problem he recognizes. “Club Sports is on our radar, absolutely,” he said. “And it’s one of the issues we’re going to be talking about.”
WHAT
DOES
AMERICA LOOK LIKE?
14
Tufts Observer
October 24, 2016
October 24, 2016
Tufts Observer
15
16
Tufts Observer
October 24, 2016
PHOTO CONTRIBUTORS: RILEY ARONSON, BAILEY CONNOR, JORDAN DELAWDER, LUCA EISEN, AUDREY FALK, TYLER HAGEDORN, BLAIR NODELMAN, MT SNYDER, DARIA THAMES
Q&A
Thumb on the Scale How are media influencing and adapting to the election-cycle climate?
On Monday, October 17, Tisch College hosted a roundtable event for Tufts media organizations before the college’s Distinguished Speaker Series. Group members were allotted time to interact with the panelists, New York Times political reporter Patrick Healy (A 93), NPR political reporter Asma Khalid, and Mic! co-founder Jake Horowitz, as well as Tisch College Professor of the Practice David Gregory. Aaron Watts and Carly Olson presented questions for the panelists on behalf of the Observer. WATTS: My question is specifically for Patrick Healy. To what extent do your organization and editors mandate that you cover Donald Trump? In a sense his antics have become a kind of clickbait. Does this influence how much he’s covered? HEALY: So at this point we have three reporters dedicated to covering Donald Trump and three dedicated to covering Hillary Clinton. Usually we try to have one reporter out with Mike Pence and one out with Tim Kaine. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump get roughly comparable traffic. What we’ve found is that Donald Trump is usually saying one to two things a day that really break out news-wise while Hillary Clinton is laying a little low right now; her campaign view is that if Donald Trump is
causing himself problems—political problems—then why should she get in the way of that? The Times measures traffic, certainly, like most media organizations, but I’m pretty wary of the whole clickbait phenomenon. Like, this morning, a story broke about Trump, and we could have put a story up at 7 a.m. and gotten into the bloodstream traffic right away, but we didn’t have it confirmed ourselves and we wanted to do some reporting and it didn’t go up online until about noon. So we sacrificed some web traffic, but we were sourcing it. OLSON: My question is about the “new millennials” who are just participating in their first election now. How does this group consume media differently and how are your organizations adapting to their presence? HOROWITZ: Great question. So what we’ve found is that 18 to 35-year olds, the millennial generation, is consuming news very differently. I’m sure everybody in this room feels it. I’d be curious actually for the publications in this room—are people still doing print or are folks moving to video, or sort of thinking about short-form video on Instagram or Facebook...? Because what we’re seeing is that our generation is actually consuming news on these platforms. In-
creasingly, Instagram video is a huge thing. Facebook, obviously, is a huge thing. So if you’re trying to reach an audience you have to tailor your strategy for doing so. So for us that means thinking about platforms where we publish our stories. KHALID: And I work for NPR, which is traditionally thought to be very terrestrial radio. And the joke we have sometimes is ‘it’s not your grandpa’s NPR anymore.’ We have a lot of staff who are millennials. And this year for the first time ever, we have the NPR politics podcast. I think it’s amazing, I enjoy working on it and overwhelmingly when we get our metrics back, the audience is under 35 by far. It’s upwards of 75 percent are under the age of 35. It’s all the same reporters…we’ll all have these weekly roundups that are part of the NPR Politics Podcast but the audience that listens to us on the podcast is very different than the audience that listens to us on terrestrial radio.
Watch a full video of the exclusive panel and highlights from the Distinguished Speaker Series online at tuftsobserver.org
October 24, 2016
Tufts Observer
17
Campus
Faith & Action: The role of religious groups in campus politics By Eve Feldberg & Emma Pinsky
O
n June 25, 2015, Tufts Student Services sent an email to the student body in response to the murder of nine Black people by a White supremacist at a church in Charleston, South Carolina. The email went on to list various resources for students, including the University Chaplaincy. Based in Goddard Chapel, the Chaplaincy is a collective of religious organizations designed to provide religious and spiritual support to members of the Tufts community. The email concluded, “Through sustained support of one another and a commitment to social justice we stand strong against racism and violence in our own community and in our broader society today and every day.” The Chaplaincy was also listed as a resource in July 2016 in an email about the shooting at Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, as well as in an email about “the deaths of two African-American men at the hands of law enforcement officers in Minnesota and Louisiana, and the subsequent deaths of five law enforcement officers at the hands of a lone gunman in Texas.” In each email, the Chaplaincy offers space for dialogue as well as emotional and spiritual support. In the wake of many traumatic events, the Chaplaincy offers grief counseling or an open discussion space. University Chaplain Reverend Gregory McGonigle explained in an email to the Tufts Observer that the Chaplaincy also “work[s] with student, faculty, or staff activists who are wanting to recharge from work they are engaged in and are looking for a confidential space to process.” The Chaplaincy has not, however, issued official statements or stances during these politically charged moments, nor has it organized or advertised political actions such as protests or rallies. Instead, the Chaplaincy sees itself as a resource to support students emotionally and spiritually.
18
Tufts Observer
October 24, 2016
The University Chaplaincy website reads, “We are here for all members of the Tufts community.” The Chaplaincy cites “worship, prayer, meditation and ritual leadership, pastoral care and counseling, teaching and educational programming, holiday and cultural programming, community service and social justice work, interfaith work and institutional relations, and making recommendations to the President” as its many goals on campus. Reverend McGonigle stated that he sees the Chaplaincy’s main role as creating space for dialogue, regardless of political leaning. But in certain circumstances, it seems clear what the Chaplaincy thinks the campus community should be talking about. In a September 27 newsletter, the Chaplaincy advertised talks such as “Analyzing the Racialization of Muslim Masculinities,” the Consortium of Studies in Race, Colonialism, and Diaspora’s symposium titled “Native American and Indigenous Studies, Colonialism, and the University,” a roundtable on immigration policy and practice, and “After Orlando,” among others. These events take on political issues such as racism, homophobia, and settler colonialism—all issues embedded in larger movements for social justice. Reverend McGonigle mentioned that many of the individual students involved in interfaith communities at Tufts are part of those movements. However, the University Chaplaincy does not seem to have taken specific stances during moments of visible political activity, like the Title IX protests in the spring of 2014 and the #TheThreePercent protests and demands in the Fall of 2015. Reverend McGonigle explained that though individual students involved in religious groups on campus may have been involved in those movements, the Chaplaincy as a whole “seeks to serve the full range of religious and philosophical communi-
ART BY ANNIE ROOME
Campus
ties on the Tufts campus, and these traditions, communities, and their members represent a diversity of viewpoints on various issues.” Nathan Foster, a student involved in the Humanist Community at Tufts (HCAT), echoed the emphasis Reverend McGonigle put on serving a wide range of people. He explained, “Religious groups can be very powerful places to organize action around political issues, but they also have to be open to all members of their community, no matter their political views.” Religious spaces that take explicit political stances, said Foster, can feel alienating to some students. Miranda Siler, a senior studying religion and social movements, expressed a similar sentiment. “I think [religious spaces] don’t want conflict, especially if they’re trying to create a welcoming religious space, sometimes it’s hard if people have different political views,” she said. Refraining from collective political stances or action, McGonigle, Foster, and Siler say, is a way for religious spaces to remain welcoming and comfortable for all. Jesse Mahler is a senior and a member of Alt-J, a Jewish space on campus that was created, according to Mahler, as an alternative for Jews who don’t feel comfortable in more institutional Jewish spaces like Hillel. Mahler sees Alt-J as inherently political. He said, “For me personally I can’t separate politicality from my Judaism... I can’t understand my Jewish identity as separate from what it means to struggle with racial justice and gender justice, and I...bring that with me into Alt-J.” For Mahler, an explicitly political space like Alt-J needs to exist because “a lot of other [religious] spaces on campus are actually not comfortable and are exclusive in that they do not recognize how race, gender, sexuality, impact one’s ability to practice safely, to practice comfortably, and how identity and oppression determine one’s safeness in religious spaces.” Sophomore Sara Arman, Interfaith Student Council (ISC) representative from the Muslim Students Association, noted that some religious groups are more inclined to do social justice work than others. “From my perspective, groups that aren’t being targeted aren’t doing as much social active work within their own communities. Muslim and Jewish and Sikh students who are being targeted would tend to do more work about racial justice and social justice.”
Miriam Israel, junior and ISC Hillel representative, echoed Rev. McGonigle’s sentiment that religious spaces on campus remain neutral to create space for dialogue along the political spectrum. “I understand that often being apolitical can be viewed as inherently political, and I understand that distinction, but I think that there is value in not having a standard that we’re all going to be held to,” said Israel. The ISC provides a space that aspires to political neutrality, similar to those described by Siler and Foster. On the ISC, student representatives from various religious and spiritual faiths on campus can come together to share events, news, and learn about each other’s organizations on campus. Israel described the ISC as a conglomeration of students with many political leanings. “In the interfaith community,” said Israel, “people come together and they might have different religious backgrounds or journeys, and we can use that religious foundation to deal with things that we encounter on campus.” To Israel, creating interfaith community is about “looking internally to then better understand the external.” Arman describes the ISC as a space focused on building interpersonal relationships and support systems between faiths. She described the atmosphere of the Council as “more cooperative, working to understand one another—internal work like that.” Arman described compassionate interfaith solidarity such as this as inherently political, given that it challenges the narrative of inter-religious animosity. Like Arman, Israel sees religious and spiritual spaces as conducive to progressive political dialogue, although she recognized that others might disagree. “I think a lot of times religion can be seen as sort of a barrier to liberal social justice values, which I think is very contradictory,” she said. “They’re really connected, but I think being religious on campus can often be viewed as antithetical to that.” “If religion is politicized,” said Arman, “it’s definitely done in a way to pit different religious groups against one another, and if we’re actively working against that bias and getting rid of the notions that we shouldn’t love one another or be cooperating and coexisting peacefully, then we are an activist group. [O]ur activism is building community, erasing stereotypes, educating, and loving one another.”
October 24, 2016
Tufts Observer
19
Arts & Culture
Trump, Televised Late Night Comedy And The 2016 Election By Kevin Lombard
A
fter his second presidential debate appearance, Donald Trump was engulfed in a maelstrom of controversy. A video of him talking about sexually assaulting women with NBC Today host Billy Bush had just leaked, and Trump was the subject of ridicule throughout the media both for his comments and his mannerisms. Much of the mockery came from the realm of late night comedy. Seth Meyers remarked that Trump walking around during the debate looked like he was “waiting for his microwave burrito to be done.” Stephen Colbert, in his athome, post-debate coverage, composed an entire video of Trump sniffling, suggesting that Trump may have a cocaine problem. Jimmy Fallon ran a sketch in early October called “Donald Trump calls Madea,” where he dressed up in his favorite blonde 20
Tufts Observer
October 24, 2016
wig and pretended to campaign call an elderly Black woman who despised him. In an election cycle filled with outlandish remarks, the likes of Fallon, Colbert, and Meyers have been turning more and more to political material to provide cold opens and heavy hitting jokes for their programs. This is only a tiny sample of the content produced by mainstream late night comedians, not accounting for the more politically oriented hosts like Trevor Noah, Samantha Bee, and John Oliver. These shows frequently have fewer limits than mainstream late night, and so attacks are more vicious, and often make a more serious attempt to tear apart Trump’s racist and sexist rhetoric for their audiences. In reference to the video released of Trump talking about how his fame allowed to him sexually assault women, ART BY RACHEL CUNNINGHAM
Arts & Culture
Last Week Tonight host John Oliver compared him to “a spray-tanned Furby eating KFC.” Full Frontal host Samantha Bee—in reference to the same video—said, “In less than a minute, these two leering dildos turned their rape culture banter into a rape culture power move that demeaned and violated Zucker in ways she is only now finding out about.” While these two types of commentary may seem similar, they are vastly different in their potential effects. The first type tends to leave candidates relatively unharmed; jokes about the size of Trump’s hands are similar to jokes made about other political candidates in other elections. Trump takes no more of a hit for the size of his hands that Hillary does for jokes about her intensity, or a candi-
on his racist and sexist comments, his behavior is normalized—it becomes something audience members come to expect, allowing them to gloss over the offensive nature of his language. Instead, more pointedly political commentary may have more of an effect on audiences. The criticism Samantha Bee has lobbed at Trump frequently indicts him for his misogyny and racism, something that most other late night hosts have failed to do. “Perhaps because she is a woman and has more to lose than most of the men who host late-night talk shows, Samantha Bee has emerged as the smartest satirist on TV and the one with the foresight to take Trump seriously,” said Jaramillo. Bee has been averaging about 2.2 million viewers per night since
“Laughing at Trump for being defensive or for having small hands tends to render him safe—a harmless, vain rich guy.”
date like Mitt Romney did for his wealth. “There’s a difference between poking fun at Trump’s hair and using humor to draw attention to the racism and misogyny that has defined Trump’s campaign,” said Boston University Associate Professor of Television Studies Deborah L. Jaramillo. “One method just mimics the typical mockery that accompanies a reality show star, and the other winds up being a critical commentary. Laughing at Trump for being defensive or for having small hands tends to render him safe—a harmless, vain rich guy.” This means that the mockery many mainstream comedians have leveled at Trump may actually have had a harmful effect on political discourse. By making fun of Trump but refusing to call him out
July, which is well above the 1.3 million viewers drawn by the more established Daily Show with Trevor Noah. Combined with the audience of John Oliver, who draws about 4.1 million viewers weekly between broadcast and online streams, the three have a combined reach of roughly 7.6 million viewers per show. While it doesn’t match the combined power of Fallon, Kimmel, and Colbert at 9.1 million viewers per show, per night, it shows the reach and power of political satire outside of mainstream late night. Supporters of Hillary Clinton haven’t seemed to mind late night’s critiques of Donald Trump and his rhetoric. “I think John Oliver uses comedy to point out just how ridiculous Trump is as a candidate,” said Tufts student and avid Clinton sup-
porter Abby Schmidt. “If we can’t laugh about him, we’ll cry about him.” Clinton said in the second presidential debate, quoting from Michelle Obama’s speech at the Democratic National Convention this summer that “when they go low, we go high,” expressing her unwillingness to level aggressive, personal attacks against Trump. Late night comedy has certainly been a help to her in this aspect. Because political satirists like Oliver and Bee have been hitting Trump hard for many of his comments, she hasn’t had to, allowing her to focus more on issues and defending herself against his personal attacks on her in media and debate. Many have wondered what impact all this attention on late night and other media platforms has had on Trump’s success in the polls, and whether it has helped him rise to his position as the Republican presidential nominee. The answer, for Politico reporter Jack Shaffer, was no. “The media didn’t create the Trump political phenomenon. The real origin is far more interesting: Trump artfully created the media that in turn created Trump the presidential candidate,” Shaffer wrote in an article for Politico last June. Trump has been able to turn decades of media exposure into a powerful presidential campaign. Indeed, Trump was a household name even before the beginning of the 2016 election cycle, and he has bet on the fact that any media exposure is good media exposure. His Q score (a measure of how positively or negatively he is perceived by the American public) sits at negative 45, just north of serial rapist Bill Cosby at negative 52. While Trump has been the target of mockery, he still has a chance of winning the White House. According to the USA Today poll tracker and aggregator, he trails Clinton by a margin of around 5 percentage points, but still could pull together an upset in November. Trump is still under fire from many late night comedians, but the exact effect it will have on the outcome of the election still remains to be seen. As November 8 draws closer, America will learn if satire still has true political potency.
October 24, 2016
Tufts Observer
21
Opinion
Reflecting on Free Speech and Sexual Harassment
By Allyson Blackburn
O
n Monday, September 19, 2016, I used EthicsPoint to file a report of Sexual Harassment that occurred at Tufts. On the preceding Saturday, my Sophia Gordon suite hosted a private event to celebrate three of our birthdays. Sometime between 12:00 and 1:00 am, I heard a knock—three to four masculine-presenting strangers wanted to come into my suite. I asked them who they were, and they didn’t give me a response. I thought that they were looking for the open party across the hall. They said no, that party was boring, there was no alcohol; they wanted to enter our suite. I again said that I lived there, and I didn’t know them, and that they wouldn’t have fun anyway. They insisted they wanted to come in. I shook my head and lifted my arm to close the door. “Oh shit, look at her fucking pits! If you let us in, me and my friends can turn you and 22
Tufts Observer
October 24, 2016
all of your lesbian friends straight. We can show you a good time, I promise.” ■■■ Our understanding of sexual harassment is more complex now than when Catharine MacKinnon, feminist philosopher and law professor at the University of Michigan, distinguished between “quid pro quo” harassment and “sexual harassment as a persistent condition of a work environment.” The current Tufts Sexual Misconduct policy outlines a breadth of inappropriate behaviors that constitute sexual harassment, such as: sexual jokes, unwanted comments about an individual’s body, and repeated failure to use someone’s “preferred” gender pronouns. Recently, a student group, Students Advocating for Students (SAS), proposed the elimination of several parts from the sexual misconduct policy and the bias incident policy. The resolution that this group proposed
would eliminate the policy that, in theory, allows me to hold the young men accountable for their actions. SAS states that the current sexual harassment policy at Tufts violates an individual’s freedom of speech. The proposed policy suggests that the young men on September 17 were exercising a right, and not violating my safety. When these men attempted to insult their way into my home, was I violating their free speech by refusing them entrance? No, of course not. Freedom of speech and freedom from consequence are often conflated, though they are certainly not the same. I cannot prevent someone from harassing me, but as a community, we can attempt to hold our members to higher standards through disciplinary policy. The notion of “turning someone straight” is deeply rooted in misogyny and homophobia. There is no individual or set of genitals ART BY JAKE ROCHFORD
Opinion
that would prevent me from being queer: a cisgender man’s penis is not god’s cure to my homosexual tendencies. Perpetuating the myth that a queer or trans person can be turned straight or cis reinforces the use of sexual violence as a corrective tool to “reorient” queer and trans people, in addition to entirely erasing the existence of bisexual people. When I was informed that I could be “turned straight,” I was threatened with unwanted sex as I opened my own door. This could be alarming to any person, but as a survivor of sexual assault, it shook me to my core. My intersection of identities has made me susceptible to specific forms of sexual harassment. My first year, when a professor joked about child molestation during a lecture, I dreaded his class and still feel uncomfortable approaching him, which is limiting, as he is my undergraduate program’s director. When someone I lived with told me that I wasn’t “that queer” because I didn’t “actually like women” and gossiped about my history of trauma, I no longer felt safe in my living space. When with my girlfriend in public, I actively choose between our safety and her affection. A man from one of my classes licked his lips and winked at her and I while entering Tisch. Title IX ensures that people of all sexes have equal opportunity to education. According to Title IX, it is not enough to admit me to school; I have to be able to actually access college. When I cannot attend class or feel safe as I walk across campus, I cannot access my education. Members of campus who are opposed to the sexual harassment policy can access their education without telling me I have great tits. Somewhere in the dialogue about free speech, we’re losing that perspective. I am expected, as many other members of marginalized communities have been expected, to sit silently as cis White men access their freedom of speech. I’d say I am sorry that some students are frustrated, but the reality is I am not. I am not sorry for feeling entitled to my education and for prioritizing my safety. While some students were picking apart the sexual misconduct policy so they could have the right to enact harm, I have spent two years trying to stitch it together to protect those who, like me, are hurt. I joined the Tufts Sexual Misconduct Prevention and Education Task Force in the fall of 2014, after showing up to a large meet-
ing in the Coolidge room and announcing my presence at the table. The previous spring, my first year at Tufts, I had been one of the organizers of the Standing with Survivors protest in May. Filled with energy and optimism, I was prepared to advocate for change through the task force. At the time, I was one of many students participating. As the next two years progressed, meetings became fewer and farther between. More and more students graduated or dropped out because of the toxic environment that the space facilitated. Many student participants often found themselves having to advocate for the validity of their own experiences, and
speech of students who wish to enact harm, but that in its creation, student input was carefully curated to filter for the mildest and most acceptable voices. Anger was shunned, sadness was stifled. The products of our trauma were ultimately not what drove change, but instead, lawyers carefully calculated how they could minimally support survivors to prevent potential lawsuits from those found responsible for sexual misconduct. Eventually the task force stopped recruiting students altogether. By the time the task force transitioned to the Sexual Misconduct Steering Committee, I was one of three undergraduate students who sat at the table. The other two were graduating seniors, one of whom
While some students were picking apart the sexual misconduct policy so they could have the right to enact harm, I have spent two years trying to stitch it together to protect those who, like me, are hurt. consequentially students began to burn out without being offered any resources or compensation for their work. Several of my closest friends dropped out of school altogether. When a student files a sexual misconduct report, the Office of Equal Opportunity begins by requiring that both the “complainant” and the “respondent” sign a confidentiality agreement, stating that they will not discuss their case with anyone else besides a designated “support person” (who also has to sign a confidentiality agreement). While I believe this is crucial for preventing retaliation, it does—by definition—limit freedom of speech. Students, who would like to have their allegations of sexual violence investigated and their assailants expelled, have to sacrifice a fundamental right. As survivors, we are asked to be silent in exchange for the opportunity to feel safe. We are asked to protect our rapist’s right to due process in exchange for an uncertain outcome—even if found responsible for sexual misconduct, there is no guarantee that we could complete our college degrees without ever running into our rapists or their friends a semester or a year later. The problem with the Tufts Sexual Misconduct policy is not that it limits the free
was the TCU president. It is now October 18, and I’ve received no response to the sexual harassment report I filed. I was informed through an automated message that it would take 48 hours for an investigator to get back to me, or to offer me resources. I’ve worked with the people who should have read my report and I cannot begin to fathom why it was that no one responded to me. I am terrified that other students have been ignored like me. As survivors we face an undue burden to pursue our safety, and it is the university’s responsibility to take our allegations seriously. For two years, I utilized my limited opportunity to voice my opinions, my thoughts, and my experiences. I worked for the administration, for my peers, without compensation. It is such a great irony that a policy and a body of resources that I helped cultivate is now failing me. It frustrates me to know that members of our community value their speech over my safety. It saddens me to know that SAS doesn’t even need to demand that these policies be revoked, because apparently they are not even being enforced. October 24, 2016
Tufts Observer
23
Tech & Innovation
The Ins & Outs of Polling By Chase Conley & Aaron Watts
B
ernie Sanders was not supposed to win the Democratic Primary in Michigan. For weeks, poll after poll showed Hillary Clinton in the lead by double-digit margins. On the eve of the primary, FiveThirtyEight estimated that Clinton had a greater than 99 percent chance of winning the majority of the state’s delegates. But on March 8, 2016, the primary results shocked pollsters. Sanders, against
24
Tufts Observer
October 24, 2016
all odds, eked out a victory of a little over 1 percent. Deborah Schildkraut, a professor of political science at Tufts, stresses that these kinds of issues with polls are anomalies. “Part of the reason why those errors stick out to us so much is because they aren’t that common,” she said. While such upsets may only happen once per election cycle, they can be explained by
understanding how polling is conducted, analyzed, and presented. Cell phones and the Internet are two common ways of reaching poll respondents. Before these technologies were developed, polling was primarily conducted through random digit dialing of landline telephones. This method worked well because most households had one landline, and it was easy to pinpoint the respon-
ART BY RACHEL CUNNINGHAM & NINA HOFKOSH-HULBERT
Tech & Innovation
dent’s location based on their area code. This created a random sample of respondents whose answers were easily generalized to the whole population. However, the widespread use of cell phones has presented a challenge to pollsters. Since people typically retain their local number even when they move out of state, it is hard to determine where a respondent will vote. Additionally, instead of a single landline, many households now have multiple cell phones in addition to, or instead of, a landline. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 41 percent of households have both a cellphone and a landline and another 47 percent are cell-phone only. Because they are missing a significant part of the population, Schildkraut cautions against landline-only polling. “If a [telephone] poll does not include cell phones...then it’s really not going to be a good poll,” she said. Unfortunately, polling through cell phones is expensive. While “robo-dialing” is legal for landlines, laws prevent this randomized calling to cell phones. Because an actual person must be employed to dial a series of numbers, attaining a large random sample becomes more costly and more time consuming. This reduces the accuracy of polling done on cellphones because the smaller sample sizes they create are less representative of the population as a whole. Whether on cell phones or on landlines, it is becoming harder to get respondents altogether. As more and more business, politicians, and non-profits started to telemarket, people became wary of answering their phones. “Then came declining response rates because people were getting called for everything under the sun,” said Schildkraut. As telephone polling is becoming more difficult and errorprone, pollsters are looking for new ways to reach respondents. The next frontier of political polling is collecting responses on the Internet, which allows more organizations to cheaply collect a large number of responses. The majority of internet polls are posted on social media and other relevant websites. Partici-
pants voluntarily respond to the questions, and the polls synthesize the information across these sites. This method, according to Schildkraut, is not without its issues. “Firms that do this argue that they are able to approximate a representative population,” she explained. “The methodology is very complex and controversial.” Still, online firms are often able to closely predict election outcomes. According to the New York Times, online polls done by YouGov and Ipsos performed comparably to their telephone counterparts in predicting the actual results of the 2012 presidential election. Beyond the issue of random sampling that makes it difficult to generalize to the entire population, all methods of polling are prone to errors that can impact the results. Two main types of error are at play.
The next frontier of political polling is collecting responses on the Internet. The first is statistical, which is incurred by the mathematical nature of sampling. This is seen as the margin of error of a poll, often reported as “plus-or-minus.” Generalizing a small group of responses to the entire populace results in a small loss of accuracy. This error is well understood and easily measured; it is present in every poll. The second main type is measurement error, where the pollsters’ questions may mislead respondents—this is often caused by wording and tone. For example, when asking voters about their opinions on healthcare policy, calling the current system Obamacare versus the Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act is likely to affect the way many individuals respond. Schildkraut explained, “Even if you are not trying to bias the results, the results will differ based on the wording
that you use.” But for some polls, this bias isn’t seen as entirely problematic. Polls aim to assess public perception and opinion, which is often influenced by the presentation of an issue rather than its substance. In order to correct for these issues, the poll is heavily processed before it is published. One of the most important adjustments made to results is known as weighting. This method uses known demographics to correct the results for discrepancies in the demographic makeup of respondents. Gender, race, age, education, socioeconomic status, and location all contribute to weighting. According the 2010 Census, 50.8 percent of the US population identifies as female. An individual poll, however, may only have 40 percent of respondents identify as female. In this case, the responses of these people would be weighted more to accurately represent the demographics of the national population. Weighting helps to correct for some of the error introduced in a sample that is not entirely random. With so many challenges inherent in polling, it can be difficult to decide which polls are the most accurate and the most representative. While the methodology and the margin of error on a poll are important, polls do not exist in a vacuum. In order to get a better sense of a single poll’s accuracy, it is helpful to view it in the context of a multitude of other polls. “If you see that all of the polls that are out there being done this week show one result, and there’s one survey firm that tends to be different from all of the rest, that’s a red flag,” Schildkraut said. Since individual polls can suffer from errors, Schildkraut advocates for poll consumers to turn to averages and aggregates such as those found at RealClearPolitics and Huffington Post’s “Pollster” to understand the current state of the race. “I think that’s helpful in this era of such a proliferation of polling with so many different methods being used…[Focusing] on trends is the best way to be a consumer of the polls rather than putting too much stock in any single poll.”
October 24, 2016
Tufts Observer
25
Opinion
Chartered Exploitation Vote NO on 2 This November By Natasha Karunaratne
I
n the midst of the presidential election it’s easy to get swept up in national policy, but we must not forget how the crucial decisions we make this November will affect our local communities. To much of Tufts’ student body, the words “our local communities” prompt memories of walks from campus to Davis Square, through Somerville and Medford, and riding on the Red Line to Boston. However, for a small number of us, Somerville, Medford, and Boston are home. For us, local politics are much more than mere ballot questions, laptop stickers, and yard signs; they are the wellbeing of our families, our friends, and our communities. Voting on ballot Question 2 is a pivotal moment in Massachusetts’ history that gives us a concrete way to fight back against institutional racism and systematic oppression happening in and around our campus. If passed, ballot Question 2 would “authorize the approval of up to 12 new charter schools or enrollment expansions in existing charter schools by the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education per year.” According to the US Department of Education, a charter school is “a publicly 26
Tufts Observer
October 24, 2016
funded school that is typically governed by a group or organization under a legislative contract (or charter) with the state or jurisdiction […] reviewed periodically (typically every three to five years) by the group or jurisdiction that granted it.” This means that charter schools are publicly funded and privately operated. They are paid for by tax dollars, but they escape the accountability and inclusivity that comes with public schools. Currently, Massachusetts is at its cap of 78 charter schools. This ballot question seeks to raise the cap by adding 12 new charter schools every year, anywhere in Massachusetts, forever. However, this policy will create a system in which charter schools take funding from public schools, compromising the quality of public education. To those of us who call this state and these cities home, this is not just political—it’s also personal. In the voting booths this November, this ballot question may often be read as “Do you want 12 new schools built in the state of Massachusetts every year?” But in reality, this policy does the exact opposite. This ballot question will not simply build more schools, but will rather
defund existing schools to build new ones, as the funding for charter schools comes directly out of the funds for the public schools of the same district. In theory, this would not hurt public schools, as they’ll be serving fewer students when those students attend charter schools. However, these new publicly funded charter schools will inevitably draw in families who were previously sending their children to private schools. Funding intentionally allocated for public school students is then repurposed in charter schools to serve predominately private school students. This leaves public schools with the same number of students and even less funding. If the cap is lifted, public schools will be defunded ART BY RACHEL CUNNINGHAM
Opinion
just as expansively and rapidly as new charter schools are established. This includes the Boston Public Schools, which are already substantially underfunded, as seen through last year’s student protests against large-scale budget cuts. Charter schools attract a key demographic that traditional public schools do not—families who would otherwise be opposed to sending their children to local public schools due to the schools’ reputation and ranking, two things that are often connected to a school’s budget. Since charter schools admit students through a lottery system, members of the student body often have parents and guardians who have the resources and privileges to know how to apply to these schools.
And even beyond the issue of getting in, one’s socioeconomic status affects who actually graduates from these schools. As part of their quasi-privatization, charter schools are allowed to have a “no excuses” discipline policy, meaning that students can be suspended and expelled for any infraction, no matter the degree of seriousness, without any trial or judicial process as would be instituted by public schools. As Marlena Rose, coordinator of the Boston Education Justice Alliance, told the “Save Our Public Schools” campaign team, charter school students are “given demerits for non-education issues, like fidgeting in line, dropping a pen, poor posture in their seats, or incorrect colored socks or underclothing, when their parents may not be able to afford the required color or style.” A report on “The State of School Discipline in Massachusetts” showed that in 2015, charter schools in the city of Boston had an average discipline rate (collective suspensions and expulsions) of 17.3 percent, compared to the Boston Public Schools’ discipline rate of 6.6 percent, with some charter schools having a suspension rate as high as 70 percent of its students, according to the U.S. News. Since the success of charter schools is often measured by their performance on standardized tests, this “no excuses” policy is often used to justify the suspension and expulsion of students who are perceived to be harder to teach. As explained in the Mother Jones report, “The Disturbing Reason Why Charter Schools May Have Higher Test Scores,” charter schools often intentionally overestimate how many students they can realistically support, because they receive funds on a per-student basis. This means that when they suspend and expel students who they see as less likely to succeed, they still benefit from the funds they have already been allotted for each of those individual students, thereby exploiting their education for profit. This policy unequally affects Black students and students with disabilities as “[B]lack students are four times more likely to be suspended than [W]hite students, and students with disabilities are twice as likely to be suspended as their non-disabled peers,” according to the U.S. News. Supporters of charter schools often highlight the marginalized students the schools serve, but it
is exactly these students who are the first to be expelled. Charter schools move higher and higher up on the profit and success margins by exploiting Black, Brown, and disabled minds and bodies. While charter schools perpetuate the systematic oppression of students who are disabled and racially disadvantaged, public schools are left to teach students who need more resources with a defunded budget. If we pass ballot Question 2, we will be furthering the institutional and systematic oppression marginalized students in the Boston area historically and currently face. We will be giving the exact students who need more resources fewer—and therefore allocating more to students who already have enough. This is not to say that all charter schools exploit marginalized students, as there are undoubtedly success stories, which can and should exist outside the parameters of ballot Question 2. However, countless charter schools have been proven to profit off of public funding and close as soon as a few weeks after the start of school. While those who chartered these schools capitalize on the closing of a school within a year, the students who were displaced never get that year of education back. If we allow ballot Question 2 to pass, we will have a role in the continued exploitation of marginalized students. We will leave students of color, students of low socio-economic status, and students who lack cultural capital with fewer resources than they already have in their underfunded schools. We will be allowing those communities already thriving—mainly White communities—to continue to profit off discriminatory systems like charter schools. We will ensure that the Tufts community of tomorrow will only have fewer students from our surrounding communities than it does today.
October 24, 2016
Tufts Observer
27
Prose
Dispatch from Nashua,
Fear and Loathing on the C
By Chris Wikler Warning: violent language Author’s note: This is the last vestige of what the tyrannical literary editors at the Observer let me publish from a manuscript of nearly 10,000 words. After barricading myself in a room for five hours, I wrote and edited the whole thing in one go, chain-smoking Camel Lites and downing grapefruits and quarts of Wild Turkey Bourbon back-to-back. This is an account of a trip I took to stalk GOP candidates in Nashua, NH for the New Hampshire Democratic Party (NHDP), a wild and foolish errand that I will never forget.
I
was somewhere near the border of New Hampshire when The Fear began to take hold. I was soon to arrive at the first big GOP cattle-call of the 2016 primary campaign, also known as the First in the Nation Republican Leadership Summit. Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump were rumored to be making appearances. The Granite State skies weighed heavy, threatening rain as I careened on Interstate 95 in my rented 2009 Jeep Patriot—a real American machine. At this conference—a dirty parade of the bastards running for the Republican party’s nomination—I was asked to be an “Opposition Researcher.” (A politically convenient name for a stalker, tasked with wearing a concealed mic and catching candidates saying wild inaccuracies and gaffes on tape.) I met my NHDP contact smoking Parliaments in a damp parking structure next to Nashua’s Crowne Plaza Hotel. Handing me the conference badge he said with a wave of his cigarette, “Just don’t fucking get yourself shot or arrested in there...” I couldn’t tell if he was being serious until I walked into the lobby, complete with seventies-era decor, beige carpets, and husky, red-faced men toting AR-15s on their shoulders and pearl-handled .357
28
Tufts Observer
October 24, 2016
Magnums on their waists—ready to duel with any hippie sonovabitch that might find themselves in their crosshairs... That’s when The Fear gripped me right down to the balls, shook my soft, West-Coast-Progressive psyche like a wild earthquake. It occurred to me that these bastards could really win it all and
That’s when The Fear gripped me right down to the balls, shook my soft, West-CoastProgressive psyche like a wild earthquake. take us all back to the Stone Age, or a nuclear winter for that matter. As I ventured further inside, I spotted a grotesque, reptilian figure of a man, crowded by doting fans, each with countless buttons adorning their tastelessly wide, olive suit lapels. It occurred to me that the gleam of the pins looked like the shiny scales of a crocodile or some other ancient lizard. There, standing maybe ten feet away from me was Ted Cruz, Texas Senator
and constitutional-conservative swine, offering moist handshakes to anyone with a pulse. He was a prime target for surveillance, and I made my way over to the throng surrounding him. Pushing my way into the crowd, I asked, “What advice could you give a young conservative?” A woman beside me couldn’t quite contain herself and chimed in “...kill that Jihadi fucker Barack HUSSEIN Obama!” The words oozed out of his mouth like puss from a festering wound. “You, young man, I just want you to go out there be an arsonist for liberty,” he said. “Take back what’s yours, and don’t ever let the liberals steal your freedom, you hear me?” I fell back into the outer part of the group around The Senator, shaken as the crowd and candidate moved onward. I wasn’t sure whether he suggested I burn down the houses of abortion doctors, local gun control advocates, or just immolate the actual institutions of government, like he did to the Senate, desecrating the fine words of Dr. Seuss’ Green Eggs and Ham into the wee hours of the morning in a hopeless filibuster. But I wasn’t out of the woods yet. I hadn’t gotten anything truly damning on tape, besides wild ideological pronouncements. Wandering the
Prose
New Hampshire
e Campaign Trail ‘16 convention floor, I happened upon a small group of prepubescent boys all wearing Rick Perry 2016 hats, striped red ties, identical blue blazers (with the plastic gold buttons), and munching on
I chatted with them, hardly holding back the waves of bile that came burning up my esophagus with each juvenile obscenity. After a bit, we decided to go upstairs and see Chris Christie’s
soggy Chick-Fil-A sandwiches. They introduced themselves as Governor Perry’s “Intern Squad,” and were just tickled to be enjoying fine chicken from a franchise that espoused good, Christian values. “Those faggots can just shove it,” the scrawniest one said with a glint of unbridled malice in his eyes.
petulant babble of a speech in the Jackson ballroom. As the doors of the elevator were closing, a small porky hand reached inside. “Hold it!” a gruff voice dripping with a Queens accent barked. To my amazement and dread, Donald Trump sauntered inside with a couple of campaign aides.
Wide-eyed and childlike, the interns gasped in awe. Standing in the corner, I tried not to blow my cover by giggling at the conspiracy-peddling asshole. Not one to let the air grow stale, the Donald asked us, “You boys know what this kind of trashy hotel is for?” They shook their heads, speechless. “Well, I hate to say it, but when you boys get old enough, and have enough money to pick up any old bitch on the street, you can take her to a hotel like this and fuck her all you want without seeing anyone that matters.” Just as quickly as he arrived, the Donald strode out of the doors, down the hall, and into the ballroom to cheer on Chris Christie. I stumbled, speechless and nauseated, out of the elevator. My Chick-Fil-A friends had scurried away like little vermin, thirsting perhaps for some more disgusting pronouncements from that skeevy orange bastard. I ducked into the men’s room… maybe the Nashua trip was just a fever dream...an awful hallucination, a bad trip. In my heart, I knew it was none of those. It was the real fucking deal. Sitting in the stall, I checked if my tape had recorded that vile exchange. It’d been off the entire time.
ART BY ANNIE ROOME
Tufts Observer Since 1895 www.tuftsobserver.org observer@tufts.edu @tuftsobserver
please recycle