TUFTS OBSERVER
FEBRUARY 18, 2013
VOLUME CXXVI, issue 2
O
Hook-up apps: INGENIOUS OR LAZY? ( pag e 3 )
controversy // the over gay scouts ( pag e 6 )
The Music behind the // harlem shake ( pag e 1 0 )
3
Robert collins
Will Vaughan
CREATIVE COMMONS
Natasha jessen-petersen
CREATIVE COMMONS
LEAH MUSKIN PIERRET
Love in the Time of Tinder by Claire McCartney
BRIGHT YOUNG THINGS by Moira Lavelle
On the water by Samuel Berzok
Lasting lessons from roe v. wade by John Lapin
12
20
A City Unmasked by Katrina Dzyak
The 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.
26
8
Editors editor-in-chief Anna Burgess managing editor Kyle Carnes
February 18th, 2013 Volume CXXVI, Issue 2 Tufts Observer, since 1895 Tufts’ Student Magazine
production director Ben Kurland
Table oF contents
section editors Eric Archibald Aaron Langerman Ellen Mayer Claire McCartney Gracie McKenzie Molly Mirhashem Kumar Ramanathan Angelina Rotman David Schwartz Evan Tarantino Megan Wasson
Love in the Time of Tinder by Claire McCartney 3 feature Questioning the Scouts’ Honor by Ellen Mayer 6 news Bright Young Things by Moira Lavelle 8 news & culture Caught in the Trap by Aaron Langerman 10 arts & prose On The Water by Samuel Berzok 12 poetry inset Live 13 photo & prose A Dreamcatcher for the Insomniac by Angie Lou 17 poetry & culture A Curious Genre by Anna Burgess 18 arts Lasting Lessons From Roe v. Wade by John Lapin 20 opinion For Me, It’s Personal by Jordan Dashow 22 opinion The Best Things in Life Are Free by Nader Salass 24 campus campus A City Unmasked by Katrina Dzyak & Leah Muskin-Pierret 26 off blotter Police Blotter by Flo Wen & David Schwartz 28 police
publicity director Lenea Sims photography director Bernita Ling photography editor Misako Ono art director Flo Wen lead artists Izzie Gall Robert Collins design assistants Moira Lavelle Angie Lou copy editors Liana Abbott Anastasia Mok Sarah Perlman Isobel Redelmeier Josh Sennett staff writers Justin Kim Alison Pinkerton Nader Salass editor emeritus David Schwartz
Contributors Knar Bedian Robert Collins Alison Graham
Natasha Jessen-Petersen Brenda Lee Vishakha Ramakrishnan
ERIC WILKENFELD
2
TUFTS OBSERVER
February 18, 2013
FE E UR AT
FEBRUARY 18, 2013
TUFTS OBSERVER
3
RE FE AT U ey, I just met you, and this is crazy, you can have my number, don’t catfish me baby.” And so begins a typical conversation on Tinder, the Smartphone app launched last September that allows users to connect with strangers instantly based on little more than a picture, first name, and age. Harkening back to the days of AOL crush calculators, and (maybe) hyperbolically hailed by Barstool as “the latest and greatest app to get you laid,” the widely popular service accomplishes what meddling mutual friends used to be for: letting you know if someone likes you (but only if you admit to liking them, too). Like all great iPhone apps, the process is simple, clever, and instantaneous. Tinder pulls users’ most basic information from Facebook and shows it to all other users within about a 50 mile radius. It’s essentially the “straight” version of Grindr, the famously popular hook up site for LGBTQ people, though Tinder also includes an option to select a gender preference. There are few real life equivalents to the flippant process of tapping yes or no on each smiling face in a never-ending slideshow of people in your area. According to Tinder, it’s “all anonymous until someone you like, likes you back.” The addictive experience peaks each time you get a match (!). For some, this brief high of connection and compliment is enough and the game ends there. For others,
4
TUFTS OBSERVER
February 18, 2013
a private chat opens up and you can choose to pursue or ignore your new flame. It promises all reward and no risk, without the stigma of being a college student on a more serious dating site like eHarmony or Match.com. “It’s a pretty solid idea for our generation,” sophomore Nikki Blank said. Creator of the popular #JumboSwag blog, a ‘whatshouldwecallme’ made especially for Tufts, Blank started another Tumblr, “Tinderactions,” when she and her friends thought the conversations they were having through the app were too funny not to share. The entire site contains screenshots of the silly, funny, and sometimes downright uncomfortable world that is Tinder. Blank attributes the app’s popularity to its “fastpaced, noncommittal, and often just hilarious” nature. Unlike other instant gratification apps like the ever-popular Snapchat, the inherent appeal of an app like Tinder is its ability to connect users with people they might otherwise never meet. In an ever-shrinking world where networking is everything and expanding one’s social circle is a constant process, using simple technology to break down normal social barriers seems like a win-win. For a generation that grew up with a barrage of Internet safety lessons about not meeting up with that dreamy boy or girl you’ve been talking to online in a remote location, apps like Tinder have a strange offering of both the forbidden and the safe. It’s getting hit on at a bar without the other person ever seeing your visible reaction; it’s also letting as many strangers in your area as you like have immediate access to you—or at least to your iPhone. Spin-off apps have popped up on the market, like the bluntly named Bang Your Friends, which promises to help you “anonymously find friends who are down for the night.” This app uses a rating system similar to Tinder and also utilizes Facebook—with the potentially uncomfortable caveat that instead of allowing you to hook up with strangers,
The Holy Grail... is how to solve that natural human loneliness problem.”
FE E UR AT
Tinder “is a narcissist’s dream. You just sit there waiting for someone else to think you’re hot.”
it limits your pool to your Facebook friends, with few filters. The implications of this are exactly what you’d think they are—though you may have 900 Facebook friends, you may still have the unpleasant experience of being able to rate your dad or your middle school math teacher that awkwardly added you that one time. Do these services really connect people in meaningful, or at least casually sexual ways, or are they just amusing diversions for the bored and the voyeuristic? The creators of Bang Your Friends claim to have hooked up over 10,000 couples, and Tinder CEO Sean Rad says that Tinder leads to a “meaningful conversation” 70% of the time. He also noted that aside from San Francisco, Boston is one of the top Tinderusing cities, especially and specifically among college students. Senior Ben Barad has never actually met anyone through the app, but when asked whether others do, he said, “Probably more than you’d think. I’ve had multiple conversations where the girl just randomly gave me her number.” He added, “Tinder is already weird though. A Tinder date would be awkward.” Many college students seem to share this sentiment, yet it hasn’t stopped them from rating over 10 million images every day. Part of Tinder’s appeal may be its use of Facebook profile pictures—offering a comforting sense of trust in a digital age where not having a Facebook can make someone seem less legitimate. Tinder will also show you if you have mutual Facebook friends with another user, making it easier to deduce if he or she goes to a nearby school, or even your own. This ideally helps users meet people that are close enough in their circle to have things in common with, but far enough away that they haven’t had a chance to connect yet. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Rad said, “helping people meet new people is in my opinion the biggest,
most untapped opportunity that exists today when it comes to social . Facebook has done a phenomenal job to help you manage relationships with people you know. The Holy Grail, though, is how to solve that natural human loneliness problem.” In an effort to better understand the phenomenon, I downloaded the app and began flipping through profiles in my area. As Alyssa, a Georgetown student, so aptly told a DC paper, Tinder “is a narcissist’s dream. You just sit there waiting for someone else to think you’re hot.” In the same vein, not getting any matches could make a user feel pretty discouraged, which is exactly what happened to me, until I realized a glitch in the app had caused my profile to claim that I was a 12-yearold boy (users are technically supposed to be 17 and up). After fixing the false advertising problem—and getting a slew of matches resulting in conversations that were mostly reflections on varying stages of creepy—I realized the app was, in fact, not at all like meeting someone in a bar or at a party. Gauging the varying levels of attractiveness of the other people in your area does not put you in a room with said people, and tapping a heart next to someone’s carefully selected picture is not equivalent to the electricity of locking eyes with someone across a room. Social technology in its nascent stage may attempt to recreate the universally thrilling experience of attraction and connection, and perhaps for the bold who are willing to put the phones down and go find one another, it does. But the end result still involves two people meeting face to face. Our generation is no stranger to craving instant gratification, but we often fail to recognize how to achieve it. Tinder and apps like it may light the spark, but it’s still up to us, and frankly, still worth it, to create fire. O
FEBRUARY 18, 2013
TUFTS OBSERVER
5
s ew N
Anna Kelly
ender politics are rarely a focal point of Super Bowl coverage, but this year President Barack Obama made headlines when he criticized the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) for their refusal to admit gay members. In a pre-game interview on Super Bowl Sunday, he told CBS’ Scott Kelley that, “Gays and lesbians should have access and opportunity the same way everybody else does, in every institution and walk of life.” Tufts Senior Ned Coltman had the same principle in mind when he sent his hard-earned Eagle Scout badge back to the BSA after the organization reaffirmed its policy of banning homosexual members in August. He decided to return his badge even though his BSA chapter, The Boston Minuteman Council, unofficially accepts members of all sexual orientations. “It’s a national issue and a small world,” said Coltman. “I decided that having that kind of attachment to an institution that shuts out people for stupid reasons was no good.” For the rest of the country, the Boy Scouts’ policy remains divisive. In 2000, the Supreme Court in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale ruled that the BSA’s exclusion of gay members constitutes free speech by a private organization. In response to protests like Coltman’s, however, the organization signaled this month that it might lift the national ban and instead allow local chapters to make their own policies. Then, facing pressure from church sponsors and conservative groups like the Family Research Council, the BSA announced on Wednesday, February 6 that it would defer a vote on the new policy until its national meeting in May. This whole conflict might seem like déjà vu for anyone who followed last year’s controversy, set off when an Indiana lawmak6
TUFTS OBSERVER
February 18, 2013
er called the Girl Scouts of America (GSUSA) a “tactical arm” of Planned Parenthood. Republican state representative Bob Morris also accused the organization of promoting “homosexual lifestyles.” Morris’ comments, and the Internet hubbub which followed, were much ado about nothing. They hardly spawned the national debate we are witnessing today. On the other hand, the U.S Catholic Bishops did launch a formal investigation into the GSUSA later that year, looking at the organization’s ties to groups like Planned Parenthood, which might be at odds with Catholic teachings. Thus the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts of America, organizations ostensibly devoted to youth education and leadership, have become lightning rods in today’s debate over gender politics and gay rights. Lost in the clamor of these debates is the fact that the Girl Scouts officially began accepting openly gay girls in 1992. Last year a troupe in Colorado even accepted a seven-year-old transgender girl, a fact that horrified a small group of right-wing parents but did not make national headlines. So why didn’t the Girl Scouts inspire the same national furor with their policy on gay admission? Both organizations were founded over 100 years ago, and both include the promise to serve God and country in their scout oaths. Nonetheless, the GSUSA has actually always been a progressive institution and has managed to maintain a culture of secularism at the national level. The GSUSA was founded in 1912 as an extension of the Boy Scouts. Though couched in gendered rhetoric about well-rounded mothers and homemakers, the GSUSA put an emphasis on outdoor physical activity and even taught some vocational skills traditionally unavailable to young girls. In subtle ways, the GSUSA has been pushing gender boundaries since its inception.
N ew s
This is even more true today, as the Girl Scouts develop new programs like the ToGetHerThere initiative aimed at increasing the number of girls in professional leadership roles, especially in Science and Technology. Tufts junior Rose Barrett was a Girl Scout from lower school through high school and credits the institution for all her most empowering experiences. “At Girl Scout camp I learned skills I never would have [learned] otherwise,” Barrett said. “I can splint a broken leg, flip a capsized boat, and build a fire in the rain.” Barrett also emphasizes the significance of “girl-led” programming in the organization. “Starting in mid-elementary school, the activities I did as a Girl Scout were almost entirely self-directed,” she said. This is significant not only because it further empowers the scouts but also because each troop has a large measure of autonomy. Like the Boy Scouts, a tremendous number of Girl Scout troops are organized and sponsored by local churches. Perhaps it is the local autonomy afforded by the national organization of GSUSA that keeps conflict over sexuality and gender politics from escalating. Still, conservative families don’t exactly welcome the possible autonomy that might come with a change in national Boy Scout policy in May. Many fear that the organization may splinter as troops around the country make their own choices surrounding gay admission. Coltman points out, however, that there is already a large ideological divide between conservative and liberal troops. “I don’t draw any similarities between myself and those in Kansas,” he said. Coltman is particularly frustrated by the remarkable power religious groups like the Church of Latter Day Saints now wield in the BSA. “Other institutions might cut their funding because
of this, but it wouldn’t really make a difference compared to the funding from the Mormon Church,” he said. Indeed, in 2011, Mormon-sponsored troops made up one third of the country’s total scout units. It follows that the church also provides a third of the $51 million in dues the BSA collects each year.. Even with strong ties to the Mormon Church, Boy Scout enrollment is down 21% since 2000, a fact some attribute to the organization’s overly traditional values. This month the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute found that 55% of respondents believe the BSA should drop its ban on gay members, compared with only 33% who support the continued ban. High-profile sponsors like United Way and UPS have cut their funding for the organization in protest of its discriminatory policy. Coltman’s protest has certainly resonated in his hometown of Reading, MA. “There were two young families who came up to me and thanked me for doing it,” he said. These parents were trying to convince their kids not to join the Boy Scouts. This wasn’t necessarily Coltman’s intention. “I probably learned much more from the Boy Scouts than I did from high school,” he said. “I don’t think I can say that one thing has taught me to want to learn more than the Scouts.” He doesn’t want families in his town to pull their kids from the group. He just believes that every boy should have the same opportunity he had. Coltman believes this debate within the BSA mirrors the national debate over gay marriage. “It would be great if we had a national law that allows gays to marry,” he said. “The fact that we’re allowing different states to do so, it’s a step in the right direction. The Boy Scouts should at least catch up with the rest of the country.” O FEBRUARY 18, 2013
TUFTS OBSERVER
7
s ew N
Q
uiyk is a sports apparel company that designs and distributes Quidditch uniforms. Little Luxuries provides cosmetics to women in hospitals to give them confidence during their healing process. Jebbit is an online venture that pays individuals to interact with product websites and online advertisements. Covenu sells Android tablets to restaurants to improve communication between waiters and kitchen staff. While all these companies have vastly different products and goals, their common link is that their founders and CEOs are all under 24 years old. We live in the age of the young entrepreneur—an age post-“Social Network,” where Mark Zuckerberg is not that much of a wunderkind. Instagram, Tumblr, Spotify, Dropbox, and Pinterest were all founded by individuals under 30. Today’s young adults know that a good idea and a lot of initiative are enough to render success within reach. Some would attribute the rising numbers of young entrepreneurs to the Internet— it is easier to market, communicate, and brand than ever before—but that would take too much credit away from the young innovators themselves. 8
TUFTS OBSERVER
February 18, 2013
Quiyk was created to offer Quidditch teams official apparel that they couldn’t get anywhere else. The company, founded by Emerson students Eric Wahl and Matt Lowe, was launched in 2012 at the Quidditch World Cup and is now the official apparel provider for the International Quidditch Association. Wahl was recently listed as one of Bostinno.com’s “12 Student Entrepreneurs to Keep Your Eye On” along with the founders of Little Luxuries and Jebbit. Wahl stated, “I consider myself an entrepreneur because I am making an attempt to bring innovation and standardization to the world of Quidditch—a previously untapped market. To be honest, I have never really labeled myself an entrepreneur. Being an entrepreneur is more about doing something you care about and less about attempting to create labels for yourself.” Wahl explained that the biggest difficulty he has faced thus far is time management, despite the fact that he’s working on something he cares about deeply. He is a full-time student at Emerson, a member of the varsity basketball team, and the production director of Quiyk. With all of that, “and attempting to have a social life,” he explains, “sometimes you wish there were a few more hours in the day.”
Ashley Macaulay has faced similar difficulties balancing her work as a Boston College student and her responsibilities as the CEO of her startup, Little Luxuries. Despite this challenge, she credits her success to her dedication and that of her team. Macaulay started Little Luxuries after spending a month in the hospital, recovering from a car accident. Her mother brought in nail polish and hand lotion one day to distract her from the recovery, and the resulting mood boost acted as inspiration. “It is a small concept that can make a significant difference in the lives of women in the hospital,” explains Macaulay. “While we recognize that beauty is not a proxy for healing, we certainly feel it can catalyze the process.” When asked about being a member of Bostinno’s list of “young entrepreneurs,” Macaulay remarked, “Many people have this misconception that only people with truly novel ideas can be called entrepreneurs, but I think the term extends to everyone with an intellectual curiosity and the dedication to develop ideas...the boundaries and conventional notions of what it means to have a startup are changing and making entrepreneurship so much more accessible.”
N S
EW
Another startup working to change conventions is Jebbit, founded by three Boston College students in 2011. The company’s current COO, Jonathan Lacoste, is also on Bostinno.com’s student entrepreneur list. Lacoste is a sophomore at Boston College who started his first company in high school—an online app that synced students’ calendars with local events they were interested in. Today, as COO of Jebbit, Lacoste contends that his online advertising platform is one of those positive innovations that could make a real difference in the world. He and the Jebbit team hope that someday the online user experience with advertising can be a positive one, as opposed to the pop-up bombardment that is common practice today. Lacoste plans on taking a leave of absence from BC in May to focus more on his work with Jebbit. Lacoste believes that any student with a passion can be an entrepreneur, but cautions that time commitment is not the only difficulty: “With young age, some members of the business community have a harder time taking some of the innovations you’re proposing seriously. I’ve seen it where the exact same business plan is proposed by a 19-year-old and a 40-year-old, and simply because of age, the 40-year-old was able to convince others of his business more [easily]. You have to make sure that this doesn’t deter you and that you let your creativity, enthusiasm, and passion substitute for your lack of experience.”
That being said, lack of experience seems to be less and less of a real issue as more young people are starting successful businesses. There are many students across the country building businesses, including here at Tufts: Spencer Schoeben and Eric Peckham are two Tufts students with burgeoning businesses. Some start even younger, like Billy Ma and Naren Inukoti, two seniors at Acton-Boxborough Regional High School whose company Covenu— intended to increase efficiency in restaurants by improving communication—has already started turning heads. Ma and Inukoti recently participated in Boston Start Up Weekend and NECINA, a non-profit organization working to foster entrepreneurship. Ma explained that the importance of networking has been one of the most significant things he’s discovered in his work, “I think [networking] is one of the most valuable skills in life because you never know what kind of connections you will make. Look around local areas for business plan competitions or accelerator programs, and be passionate. One of the most important things as a new entrepreneur is having guidance and help as you enter the new world.” All these student enterprisers expressed similar sentiments about the importance of networking, particularly among the growing population of young entrepreneurs. Eric Wahl explained, “I absolutely see more people our age jump-
ing into business and becoming entrepreneurs. You see success stories of college students making it big (Zuckerberg is the obvious one, but there are hundreds more) and it motivates others to attempt to do the same.” Jonathan Lacoste concurred, “It’s fantastic to see so many young entrepreneurs getting experience early and trying to start a business of their own.” These youthful innovators offered resounding encouragement to other hopeful young entrepreneurs. They enthusiastically advised students with good ideas to follow in their footsteps, and recommended hard work, passion, and perseverance in dealing with older adults who may eschew young ideas. They emphasized realizing the value of having a team, and being careful of where you spend your time. But all recommended the entrepreneurial route strongly. “I’m only in high school,” said Ma, of Covenu. “If I can do it, you can do it.” These young entrepreneurs don’t yet know exactly what they will do with their futures. Ma plans to go to college and work his way from there. Macaulay and Wahl agree they will foster their companies and see what else the future holds. “Growing up, I always had a plan for exactly what I wanted to do, but over the past few years running companies, I’ve realized that taking one day at a time is the best strategy,” Lacoste reflected. “I have ultimately decided that it is still way too early for me to know what the next step is.” O
Art by Robert Collins
FEBRUARY 18, 2013
TUFTS OBSERVER
9
10
TUFTS OBSERVER
February 18, 2013
FEBRUARY 18, 2013
TUFTS OBSERVER
11
RY ET PO the breeze sweeps the surface, and ripples a buoyant man’s neck. His hairs begin to bristle, every current chills him gently. The cyan clarity reflects only the sun. Leaves of amber and fulvous meld cohesive piles sprinkled with slits from autumn rains. Tree’s fallen branches man’s stroking arms limbs float over the foam the gust abrades the surface, and stings a surprised man’s shoulders. A clawing winter challenges, A short tranquil autumn The water churns
12
TUFTS OBSERVER
February 18, 2013
PHOTOS FROM TOP TO BOTTOM: ALISON GRAHAM, leah muskin-pierret
FEBRUARY 18, 2013
TUFTS OBSERVER
15
PHOTOS FROM LEFT TOP CORNER CLOCKWISE: KNAR BEDIAN, BRENDA LEE, Vishakha Ramakrishnan, BRENDA LEE, ALISON GRAHAM, VISHAKHA RAMAKRISHNAN
16
TUFTS OBSERVER
February 18, 2013
FEBRUARY 18, 2013
TUFTS OBSERVER
17
MISAKO ONO
18
TUFTS OBSERVER
February 18, 2013
ii.
iii.
y
poetr
i.
across a museum of mythical history and a wal-mart there is a trapdoor in the sky but the carelessness of sprites and sirens left it locked from the inside in the alley between a cathedral and highway overpass there is an industry that manufactures dreams but their pretty words wrapped in perfumed plastic dissolve back into steam do you remember back in junior high you would instant message me late into the night we used to hotbox my pillow fortress and it was in there you gave me my first kiss
now i see the world is made of reinforced concrete my mind is stained, as are my sheets i have seen the nuns doing lines before prayer i guess we’ve all constructed our castles in the air with the sweaty crosses and dollar bills clutched in the palms of their hands i watched my castles disintegrate to sand costco refused to develop half the photos in my roll they were all negatives of the graffiti of prophets scrawled on bathroom stalls and dark shadows of your sneakers strung upon telephone lines you are the freudian slip on the tip of my tongue and the back of my mind
iv.
v.
i know there are some boys out there that like sleeping with virgins the thought rushes blood to their groins and releases their endorphins but what if she is dressed as jabba the hut on halloween instead of some sexy sweaty ivory queen vi. there is something so beautiful about half-smoked cigarettes maybe the same beauty that’s inside mushroom clouds, suicide and regrets vii. the white men constructing maps drew straight lines to divide this world now they ask for pledges of allegiance over intercoms from all the boys and girls the executioners are on strike for working overtime the prisoner’s death sentence has now been extended an indefinite amount of time well, now he is no different from you or i
viii. only when i kneel before the firing squad do i remember i never reposted that facebook status about loving god gabriel and the archangels will turn me away and my soul will fade to rust like radioactive decay and for some reason, that’s okay it’s all okay
FEBRUARY 18, 2013
TUFTS OBSERVER
17
ic m us
cappella, especially college a cappella, has become unexpectedly popular in the past few years. If you haven’t seen this year’s comedy Pitch Perfect, maybe you’ve heard of Pentatonix or Straight No Chaser. If those names don’t ring a bell, perhaps you’ve watched a couple episodes of reality TV show The Sing Off. And if you’ve never watched The Sing Off, you must have at least heard of Season 2 runner-ups the Tufts Beelzebubs—because they go here, along with seven other a cappella groups. So Tufts is pretty into the whole a cappella scene. As a member of Shir Appeal, Tufts’ Jewish a cappella group, our school’s enthusiasm for the genre is exciting, especially as this enthusiasm seems to have spread across much of the nation. But in stopping to think about what a cappella is today, the mainstream acceptance of what was once just a nerdy pastime is somewhat strange. Because aren’t we a cappella singers, at the most basic level, really just cover artists? Why are we being held up as an image of youthful creativity when, in some ways, a cappella discourages originality? Huffington Post blogger Marielle Wakim explains the problem some people have with a cappella, using her brother as an example. “To him, a cappella was an imposter genre,” she
18
TUFTS OBSERVER
February 18, 2013
writes. Tufts senior and sQ! a cappella singer Emily Weinrebe says, “I totally see where [people like this] are coming from in that contemporary a cappella generally covers the work of other artists and emulates instruments instead of incorporating real ones.” This is true in the popular new movie Pitch Perfect, it’s true on the a cappella competition The Sing Off, and it’s true for my own group and other groups at Tufts, with a few songs as exceptions. Very rarely do contemporary a cappella groups, even professional ones like Pentatonix, compose and perform their own music. In Entertainment Weekly, one University of Virginia singer explained their school’s process of ‘claiming’ songs: “groups definitely love performing current hits. At UVA, where there are several a cappella groups...they have an online system where you must claim songs you want. Once a song has been claimed, no one else can sing it.” The irony of this is that no group can truly claim a song as their own, no matter how exciting or different their arrangement, because someone else wrote those chords and penned those lyrics. This is not an inherently bad thing, by any means. As Tufts Beelzebubs member Michael Grant says, “If you take a step back, it’s easy to see a cappella groups as glorified cover bands, and I mean that in both the best and worst way possible.” But looking at a cappella from this perspective makes it easy to see why some people—especially those who write their own music—might resent the popularity of a genre based on appropriating the songs of others. While Grant goes on to say that, “there’s a lot of room for creativity” in a cappella, there are also clear constraints. Even articles about the rise of a cappella sometimes refer to it as a less-than-legitimate musical genre— the New York Times wrote an article mentioning that, “some performers who make peace with their pasts in a cappella go on to become respected artists in their own right.” The article refers to a cappella as a “curious” genre, “one that makes sense under an ivy-strewn archway only to become inexplicable upon graduation.” “Inexplicable” seems like a strong word, though, and in fact there now are successful a cappella groups who aren’t university students. Groups like Nota, the winners of The Sing Off’s
m ic
us
first season, and Pentatonix, who won the third season, have used the money and exposure from the show to build a cappella careers. Pentatonix in particular have been lauded as taking the genre to another level, with incredibly innovative arrangements that bring in musical styles not usually done a cappella, like electronic and dubstep. Other groups, like the one in Pitch Perfect or Tufts’ own sQ!, create mash-ups of songs to make their arrangements more unique. Sophomore Shir Appeal member Ben Forster says, “I think there is potential for a cappella to become a much more original genre,” but explains that “audiences still treat it like a way to re-imagine songs that are already well-known.” But even with these potential restrictions on innovation, more standard arrangements can be made exciting, according to Weinrebe. She said that “when college groups execute their renditions well, the product can be just as impressive as an original piece. It takes creativity and high degrees of musicianship to translate original pieces to just voices.” Much of what makes a cappella impressive to audiences comes from the fact that it is characterized by singers imitating the sounds that instruments make. My group, Shir Appeal, often explains to audiences that when we sing background parts like “jen jen jen” or “doh doh,” we are attempting to sound like instruments from the original song; for instance, a guitar or a piano. This technique is what most college groups do, and what some become incredibly skilled at. Blogger Marielle Wakim wrote about Pentatonix, “what’s really amazing is that they can imitate those [instrument] sounds in a way that a cappella barely did before. [The] rich, unrelenting beatbox and steady bassline ground the listener in a seemingly false reality: they are
no longer human, they are the instruments they’re trying to emulate.” This is what people often love about a cappella—it’s cool and very different from other genres of music. But at the same time, this once again raises the question of originality versus imitation. Trying to sound like an instrument, or doing what many groups do and getting a soloist to sound like the original artist, may not be the most expressive form of music. It can be hard to feel emotionally connected with the syllables “din” or “doh,” and singing these background parts are a far cry from performing an original, personal creation. Contemporary a cappella, it seems, is in many ways in a league of its own. A cappella groups can be likened to cover bands, and they can be criticized as silly or unoriginal. But they also give people, like myself, who can’t play instruments or can’t read music, an outlet for a love of singing. Because they often focus on the imitation of instruments, each part in a group’s arrangement is important to their overall sound. And some people are extremely talented at playing with their voices—a capella is a unique way to showcase this. So how to stay original and fresh? Grant advises that “a cappella only gets stale if a group’s cover does not add anything interesting to a musical or creative dialogue in the same way original tunes do.” He says that, “adding original flair and taste is what can set a cappella groups apart from traditional cover bands.” This is certainly true, to an extent. But whether you resent a cappella for a lack of originality, love it for it’s different sound, or don’t understand the hype at all, maybe it ultimately doesn’t matter whether instrument-less bands are artists or not. As Weinrebe pointed out, “Debates about whether a cappella is a legitimate art form all become moot when you realize that most people are just doing it because it’s a fun, creative, and often really weird musical outlet.” O
FEBRUARY 18, 2013
TUFTS OBSERVER
19
n io pi n o
Lasting Lessons from Roe v. Wade z
by John Lapin anuary 22nd marked the 40th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade. I want to discuss how Roe was decided and what guidance might the decision give us four decades later. It’s important to consider that the sort of debate among and between the justices that took place during Roe deliberations could show how we might solve other contemporary culture war issues. But we ought not rest easy, because the rights affirmed under Roe have been subject to numerous vicious attacks in the past few years. The decision and the debate among justices before the 7-2 majority decision was written are together a paragon of deliberative democracy, which is the key to fixing our partisan problems in government. While deliberating, Supreme Court justices (and their clerks) attempt to form coalitions with each other to reach a majority. But they do not endorse decisions as a compromise or a modus vivendi. Rather, Supreme Court justices are tasked with a narrow charge of applying existing law to the facts of a case. They do not reach agreement because they value compromise itself, but rather they accept or reject a juridical argument on its own merit. This is not primarily for personal reasons, but for publicly acceptable ones. The Court is tasked with resolving “the issue by constitutional measurement, free of emotion and of predilection” (Roe 117). In Roe, Justice Blackmun, who wrote the Court’s decision, cites Justice Holmes’s dissent in Lochner v. New York (1905), in
J
20
TUFTS OBSERVER
February 18, 2013
which Holmes writes, “‘[The Constitution] is made for people of fundamentally differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions novel and even shocking ought not to conclude our judgment upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States’” (Roe 118). Justice Holmes’s dissent makes the case for setting aside our personal beliefs—religions, morals, philosophies— and making decisions on publicly justifiable reasons we reasonably think others might accept. Ideally, this is how the Supreme Court works and it is how discussions between citizens on important issues ought to work. Indeed, Blackmun begins by acknowledging the “sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy, of the vigorous opposing views, even among physicians, and of the deep and seemingly absolute convictions that the subject inspires” (Roe 117). But it is because of the sensitive nature and the vigorous opposing views that we must offer one another publicly acceptable reasons for endorsing a view. Unless our goal is a shouting match, we cannot hope to convince one another solely on our personal opinions. In Roe, the Supreme Court ruled that a Texas anti-abortion law unconstitutionally violated the right of privacy, which has long been held as a right protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Blackmun wrote that it is state laws like this “that except from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on the mother’s behalf without regard to the
pi
o n
was justified on public constitutional grounds. This is the only way to create sound judicial decisions, which become law of the land and under which we all must live. This kind of deliberation among citizens about public policy, free from messy private opinions, could inspire renewed trust and a greater connection between citizens and their government. Productive dialogue could lead to consensus about issues in the same way justices deliberate: not for the sake of compromise, but for the reasons on their own merits. These popular decisions would be much more endorsable and policy and government would be more legitimate. Though Roe is a great example of the stability and legitimacy public reason can lead to, the right to comprehensive reproductive healthcare that Roe affirmed has been under threat since 1973. In 1965, illegal abortions constituted 20% of all pregnancy and childbirthrelated deaths, while today that number has shrunk to 0.3%. Roe has saved lives. However, celebration of Roe’s 40th must be measured. We live in an age in which elected members of national government and nearly every GOP presidential primary candidate often discuss passing legislation that would curtail the freedoms
n
io
stage of her pregnancy ... [are] violative of the Due Process Clause ... which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman’s qualified right to terminate her pregnancy” (Roe 165). Nevertheless, the state must weigh two competing interests: the woman’s health and the potentiality of life. After lengthy deliberation, the Court resolved these two competing interests by involving “medical knowledge and techniques.” It also made determinations by factoring in historical and scientific scholarship, which other citizens could reasonably be expected to endorse. The resolution took the form of the now wellknown “balancing test,” which tied abortion’s permissibility with the “viability” of the fetus to survive ex utero, i.e. abortions performed after ex utero viability (around 24-28 weeks of gestation) would be illegal. The specifics of the balancing test are not important to us here, but the decision is an example of how true democratic debate might play out. In deliberation, private opinions must be set aside and cases must be decided upon based on the constitutionality of a particular issue. Justices may have discussed the religious concerns and controversies and the social climate, but ultimately the decision
guaranteed to women under Roe. Access to reproductive health care is crucial to women’s equality. How can women be equal if they are not able to make their own medical decisions with advice from their doctors? These politicians seek to limit the access to birth control and other forms of contraception that are essential to women’s health. In fact, last year brought the greatest assault on women’s reproductive health since 1973. Thirty states passed a total of 135 abortion restrictions, according to Bloomberg. These include the imposition of mandatory waiting periods that shame women away from potentially life-saving procedures, the forced closure of abortion clinics that do not comply with arbitrary regulations, and the allowance of employers to deny coverage of abortion in health care plans. Anti-choice activists have chipped away at countless crucial reproductive freedoms over the years. Women’s reproductive health care is at risk. We cannot take the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade for granted. We must remember that it was decided on public grounds, acceptable to citizens regardless of their personal moralities, philosophies, and religions. Go to www.roeishereforgood.org to learn more about how to preserve Roe. O
40 years ago, the court ruled 7 - 2 on Roe v. Wade
abortions responsible for 20% of all pregancy related deaths
2012
135
ben kurland
1965
30
Today, they only account for .3%
abortion restrictions were passed in 2012. Number of states that passed restrictions: FEBRUARY 18, 2013
TUFTS OBSERVER
21
n io pi n o
“
For me, it’s personal. by Jordan Dashow
22
TUFTS OBSERVER
February 18, 2013
pi
o n
”
—CSL Official Statement
I
’ve had several conversations over the past few months with friends who don’t believe the Committee on Student Life’s (CSL) recent decision exempting religious groups from Tufts non-discrimination policy is that horrible. For the most part, I understand their reasoning. After all, it’s an accepted fact that religions discriminate. All religions have done so and most, to some extent, continue to do so. To those of you who don’t think that the CSL’s decision to allow religious groups to discriminate is a big deal: I’m jealous. I’m jealous because for you, the issue isn’t personal. For me, it is. Ultimately, I’ve seen this argument and this apathy before. These things are the reason why I cannot get married in 41 states. Why I can legally be discriminated against in 29 states. They’re the reason why I have to lie every time I try to save lives by donating blood. The reason I was called gay before I even knew what the word meant and why I was called a fag long after I did. They’re the reason why I hesitated every time my ex went to hold my hand in public. Why I am nervous walking around the city alone at night with the gay pride button fastened to my backpack. It’s the reason why every time I hear of another queer teen who has committed suicide because of bullying I hurt inside—because in another life, that could have been me. Religions can discriminate. They have the right to. What they don’t have the right to do is receive institutional benefits, whether provided by the U.S. government or by Tufts University—those are privileges. And every time an institution grants these privileges to an organization that discriminates, that institution reinforces the argument that discrimination is okay. They reinforce the idea that certain people don’t deserve equal rights—basic human rights such as the right to marry, the right to fair employment, the right to live free of fear. Any religious (or non-religious) group can exist on campus without being recognized by the TCUJ. They can meet, host events, and discriminate all they want. However, groups that do discriminate do not deserve the benefits that University recognition grants them. As a Jewish gay man, I have struggled with both my sexuality and my religion. However, Tufts embraced both my identities, not as separate conflicting identities but as identities that complement each other. I’ve always felt that Tufts celebrated my identity. Or at least, I felt that way until last December, when the CSL decided
n
io
“I
t is reasonable to expect that leaders within individual SRGs be exemplars of that particular religion. Therefore, an “all comers” policy for group leadership may not be appropriate for all SRGs. Justified departures from the Tufts nondiscrimination policy in SRG criteria for leadership will no longer present grounds for de-recognition. This reflects a policy change.
that religious groups could discriminate against LGBTQ students in leadership positions. Because that’s supported by their “religious doctrine.” In their op-ed, the chairs of the CSL stated that they “view safeguarding a welcoming environment on campus to be our primary mission.” If that is their mission, the CSL has dramatically failed. Discrimination is not welcoming. I question whether I, as a prospective student struggling with his sexuality and his religion, would have chosen this school if Tufts had just decided that religious groups were allowed to discriminate in their leadership. President Monaco described this decision as keeping with “Tufts’ commitment to a diverse and welcoming campus community and to a vibrant spiritual life on campus.” Exclusion does not breed diversity. Barring others from leadership positions in student recognized religious groups does not create a welcoming atmosphere. Using religion as a means of justifying discrimination does not create a vibrant spiritual life on campus. As someone who has played a role in the religious life on campus, I can tell you that many of us who are active in religious groups are trying to make our respective organizations more inclusive, not less. This policy is antithetical to my religious values and the values that I—apparently falsely—thought the University held. Recently, I was speaking to a gay Jewish high school senior and was attempting to convince him to attend Tufts. I told him about the large LGBTQ presence and how accepting the community is here at Tufts. As I told him these things, all I could think was, ‘Am I lying? Can I really claim that Tufts is accepting of all identities with this policy in place?’ I never felt unaccepted at Tufts before this policy was created. But now it is clear that the University does not fully value my identity. It doesn’t believe that I’m worthy of being protected by non-discrimination policies. Or that I should be welcome in TCU-recognized religious spaces on this campus. So to those of you who don’t understand why I’ve posted so many statuses on this issue, why I’m involved with the Coalition Against Religious Exclusion (CARE), why this is such a big deal—I’m jealous. For you, this may not be a personal issue. Unfortunately, for me it is. O FEBRUARY 18, 2013
TUFTS OBSERVER
23
ca m pus
by nader salass
the best things in life are
free Robert Collins
but is Tufts Free Compliments really helping our campus? 24
TUFTS OBSERVER
February 18, 2013
am c
e
Tufts Free Compliments was established in 2007 with the hope of generating a “positive and accepting environment at Tufts.” Since its inception, the group has used methods based on the positive psychology movement— which, in broad terms, argues that compliments encourage confidence, increase engagement with peers, and offer a prerogative to contribute positively to one’s community. “Even if the compliments seem trivial and fleeting,” senior Charlotte Mostertz, who is not a part of the group, says, “these small acts of kindness have the potential to encourage others to pay it forward.” Sophomore Brendan Conron, who currently leads Tufts Free Compliments, calls this the “complimenting butterfly effect.” But Tufts students’ own opinions about the free compliments have been surprisingly brushed off in light of all this positive publicity. Going against the current, many Tufts students are critical of the group because they question whether the compliments are genuine or just unnecessary pestering. There are some that feel a slight lack of sincerity from the complimenters, or call the group “pointless.” One student mentions that the compliments “border on the superficial,” reminding him “of how social interactions can often be a mere show and lack truth behind them.” While these students and many others wouldn’t necessarily voice these sentiments to the Tufts Compliments group, their comments highlight the critical attitude of Tufts students. This school’s rigorous education certainly works to develop strong analytical skills. However, we often carry these investigative habits into our social re-
lationships. Senior Jason Wilson remarks that “Tufts students are uniquely skilled in criticizing, but at times we apply our critical thinking skills to situations in which they are unnecessary.” Sometimes, a compliment is just that, and as such should be accepted, not scrutinized. One interesting and potentially more successful supplement to the group’s mission is their Facebook page, where students can post compliments
tufts students are uniquely skilled in criticizing, but at times we apply our critical thinking skills to situations in which they are unnecessary. about their friends. To some, this platform for positive interaction seems ostentatious. Sophomore Nathaniel Williams compares it to “the difference between posting on someone’s Facebook wall and sending a private inbox message; why do compliments need to be public?” Tufts Free Compliments, however, claims that they “are only attempting to encourage and facilitate positive interactions but [they] don’t drive it.” The Facebook forum also gives its users the option of anonymity—
pus
In the past year, Tufts has made national news for bias incidents gone wrong and was included on the New York Times Magazine’s “meh” list, but now our student body is beginning to be known for something new: “just making people smile.” Tufts Free Compliments, a relatively new student group, is now gaining journalistic momentum. Last month, for example, The Boston Globe published an article congratulating the group as being “responsible for boosting morale on campus.”
which, the group argues, is useful for those who feel too shy to express their compliments verbally. Perhaps this just demonstrates another example of how social media platforms inhibit reallife personal engagement. Nevertheless, the concept’s growing popularity is undeniable. Brendan Conron, who also runs the Facebook page, cites that “Since October, about 50% of colleges in the United States and even some high schools have started similar online complimenting pages.” Whether or not online and faceto-face compliment groups succeed in creating a better social environment is unclear. It seems that the success of their goals relies entirely upon the individual receiving the compliment. Sophomore Philippe Maman mentions that he feels the group’s goal isn’t realized because “they just repeat similar compliments to each person that passes, making their method more obligational than genuine.” While this may hold true for some students, standing outside Tisch Library with signs, smiles, and potentially flattering remarks certainly doesn’t trigger many harmful social effects. So, before adopting skepticism about the sincerity or the usefulness of Tufts Free Compliments, we should keep in mind the importance of the group’s enthusiastic intentions to spread positive social interaction. By transferring our intellectual criticism into the social aspects of this community, we can inadvertently perpetuate unnecessary negativity. Tufts Free Compliments attempts to actively counteract this mindset. As Conron says, “If I can make at least one person happy per day, then it’s worth it.” And that’s definitely not “meh.” O
FEBRUARY 18, 2013
TUFTS OBSERVER
25
ca off m pus 26
TUFTS OBSERVER
February 18, 2013
p off am C
a façade of energy and covertly crave a quiet moment of inaction. Following the relieving snowfall, silence hushed the city; homes formed enclaves of warmth and rest, while hoods and boots shielded from over-exertion. Davis, Porter, and Harvard squares alluded to the style of late apocalyptic demise and abandoned hope. The towns halted, imparting a schism in the endless flow of work. But what slowly arose in its place was a touching vision, refreshing the worn personality that hard work often suppresses. The familiar chaos, arresting faces, and
us
warnings waxed, restlessness roused, and climate cooled, the bustle of Boston did not cease its theatrical trafficking or frisk flows. The familiar enthusiasm of this dynamic city was mirrored in the raucous winds and devoted persistence of our February storm. The snow fell quickly but nimbly, the way we animate our ideas. Winds raged with a revealing chill and frustrating endurance, the way a taxing question itches our reflections and bears our conclusions. Slowly, too, but reliably, the snow piled, the way our knowledge and experience collect and establish space for new falling layers. It is no wonder this storm was attracted to such a similar body of energy and flurry, that the storm’s power fueled an animated response from the doers in its path. The people of Boston had discovered a playmate in the storm, sharing in its power, its dance, and finally, its settlement. As any zealous event wanes, the motions of exhaustion cradle those who wear
showy attitude of Massachusetts Avenue now offered many the liberties to trounce about the four lanes on skis or snow shoes, zipping their children into the roads normally occupied by barreling shipping trucks, frenzied drivers, and straggling cyclists. The banks of windblown snow imprisoned no one; these hills were seen as mountains to climb and skid down, landing into the arms of friends, the warmth of heavy laughter, and the solace of relaxation. For a brief day, worry and struggle ceased, as the city’s expectations hid temporarily beneath frozen charm and numbed worries. It halted its
daily exercises, embracing a passionate, lively response to the life it often buries under expectations and uncertainties. There is no predicting the city’s next relief, for such repose creeps into the fabric of surely stitched life with spontaneity. Although the city fears untamed frivolity, it found itself relieved when freed from the drudgery of a mechanical day. Stiff and imprisoned by the need to aspire, a city can lose sight of its youthful wishes. Yet, within the identity of Boston, this inner child and this cured adult reign harmoniously. We need only recognize their coexistence. O FEBRUARY 18, 2013
TUFTS OBSERVER
27
as
Ex tr
Officers responded to a security alarm coming from 98 Packard Ave. While checking, they noticed a lot of guests at a keg of beer inside the basement of the fraternity at 100 Packard Ave. The officers asked members of the fraternity why they had a keg since they are against school policy, and the frat boys asked, “What keg?” Avoiding a scene with logic and rationality, the officers pointed and said, “That one there.” The brothers, needless to say, were foiled.
TUPD officers were dispatched to Packard Ave. when two males got in dispute with four Tufts kids, pushing one female student into a snow bank. When officers located the perpetrators, they explained that they were coming from a bar in Davis and got in an argument. One of the males was visibly intoxicated and was sent to Somerville hospital, while the fallen snow angel was nursed back to health with hot chocolate.
28
TUFTS OBSERVER
February 18, 2013
TUPD officers investigated a carbon monoxide alarm in the Davies House on Sawyer Ave. When they arrived, they found a wild party happening with 40 guests inside drinking out of red cups and smoking marijuana. The officers ordered everyone out. A male student in one of the bedrooms flipped an officer off; the officer entered the bedroom, repeating himself. The same student yelled, “Go fuck off!” and proceeded to push the officer a few times. Afterwards, the student stated that he didn’t realize he was dealing with a police officer; he thought it was just “some asshole trying to hit on his girl.”
MISAKO ONO
FEBRUARY 18, 2013
TUFTS OBSERVER
31
O
TUFTS OBSERVER SINCE 1895
www.tuftsobserver.org observer@tufts.edu @tuftsobserver
ple a se recycle