Tuesday, March 11, 2014
The Tufts Daily
9
Op-Ed
Op-Ed
Adam Kaminski | The Cool Column
Excluding non-Christians from leadership is unnecessary, sets dangerous precedent by
Megan Clark
Last month, the Committee on Student Life revised its policy on student religious and philosophical groups, no longer allowing religious groups to apply for a “justified departure” from the University’s non-discrimination policy. This has sparked discussion and debate on campus, including a Feb. 24 Daily op-ed written by Edward Lowe and David Foresy entitled “Compatibility between non-discrimination and religious inclusion.” The authors of the op-ed agree with the premise that no group, religious or otherwise, should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexuality, or any other facet of identity. They argue, however, that student religious groups should be able to exclude non-believers from their leadership. In their particular case, they argue that their ability to prevent non-Christians from running for leadership positions is vital to their integrity as a Christian group. It is completely reasonable for a Christian group to want Christian leaders; however, the authors’ insistence that they need to restrict the right to run for election to Christians raises some questions. First, why do they deem this necessary? Since ICF is now a studentled group, why can they not trust their fellow students and group members to elect a leader, most likely a Christian, who is in line with the group’s beliefs? As Alva Couch, the faculty co-chair of the CSL, asked in a March 3 Daily article entitled, “New CSL policy allows election of student leaders to rely on democratic process,” “Do they really feel so insecure about the democratic process that they feel they have to impose controls on it?” It seems self-evident that a Christian group would elect Christian leaders. Thus, a policy of excluding non-Christians from leadership seems unnecessary. This raises another question: Do certain members of the group wish to restrict the definition of what a “Christian” is? The authors themselves acknowledge that there are “several thousand different denominations of ‘Christians’ out there” and that “the church as a whole has a wide variety of opinions on how to run Christian organizations.” They explain that Christian organizations have a variety of opinions for LGBTQ people’s involvement in leadership, and that, therefore, it would be unethical and dishonest for a “non-denomina-
tionally Christian” group to exclude queer people from leadership positions. Nonetheless, to me, the preoccupation with requiring all those running for election to be Christian demonstrates a desire for certain members of the group to narrowly define “Christianity.” This is a slippery slope. While the authors of the op-ed disavow discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, I worry that ICF — and any other Religious and Philosophical Student Organization (RPSO) — could potentially use this policy of only allowing “Christians” to run for office to exclude LGBTQ students and any other students not in line with their beliefs, claiming that these students are not truly “Christian.” I also wonder what effect this will have on converts — those who are in the process of converting to Christianity or those otherwise exploring their faith. While these students could join other Christian groups on campus, it would be a shame if they were excluded from the religious community in which they fit best, which could be ICF. I understand that the authors are advocating for nonChristians to be excluded from leadership, not membership. Nonetheless, this strict distinction between “Christians” and “non-Christians” might be alienating for students whose spiritual journey has not yet — and maybe never will — led them to identify as “Christians.” I worry that this policy could create a hierarchal system in which certain people are deemed more “Christian” than others. The authors write, “our university (a notoriously irreligious university at that) is now determining what it deems legitimate and illegitimate ways to practice faith.” I would argue that this determination of “legitimate” and “illegitimate” is precisely what the authors are advocating for, the only difference being that ICF would do the determining, not the university. How would ICF define “Christianity” and who would be in charge of these decisions? The arbitrator would have to label some practices as “legitimate” and others as “illegitimate.” There are many different ways to practice religion and one person’s spiritual practice might not translate as religious — or specifically “Christian” — to another person. Thus, students who identify as Christian could be denied leadership positions — and even the opportunity to run for such positions — because someone else deems their practice of Christianity “illegitimate.”
As a side note, I strongly disagree with the assertion that Tufts is a “notoriously irreligious university” and think that this line of thinking stems from the authors’ arbitrary and limited view of what constitutes religion and spiritual practice. Secondly, as long as the Tufts administration is not suppressing religious expression and practice — which I argue it is not — the religiosity of our student body is irrelevant. Many people on campus live very rich, irreligious lives and I would never label their very existence “notorious.” I would like to close on a more personal and hopefully more positive note. The authors of the op-ed voice dismay that no one took note of ICF’s decision to dissociate from InterVarsity. I would like to do that now. I am actually a former member of the heavily InterVarsity-influenced Tufts Christian Fellowship (TCF), the group from which the independent, student-led ICF emerged. I had many positive, spiritually formative experiences in TCF. Throughout my freshman year, TCF’s friendly atmosphere made my transition to Tufts much easier, as it provided me with a religious community — something that I had never found outside of my hometown and my family. However, during my sophomore year, I decided I had to leave TCF. The restrictions which InterVarsity placed upon TCF, most notably the stipulation that all its leaders had to practice “chastity” and that same-sex relationships were inherently unchaste, ran counter to my values, many of them motivated by my own religious beliefs. InterVarsity stifled student voices and created an environment in which I did not feel comfortable. I am so pleased that ICF has dissociated from InterVarsity and become more student-centered. I am heartened by the contributions that ICF has already made toward strengthening Tufts’ interfaith community, including co-sponsoring the recent Interfaith Open Mic Night. I applaud ICF for taking this first step toward creating a more open, welcoming space for all Christians, and all those interested in Christianity, to explore their faith. I urge its current leaders to complete this process by instituting open elections, free of restrictions. Megan Clark is a senior majoring in history. She can be reached at Megan.Clark@ tufts.edu.
Off the Hill | University of Mississippi
A look at the War on Drugs by
Trenton Winford
The Daily Mississippian
As anyone who has taken even a high school level economics class can attest, the laws of supply and demand are the most recognizable terms related to the field. Yet few people really understand the applications of these terms. Most free markets are primarily demanddriven. That means that where there is demand, there will be supply. However, supply does not necessarily create demand. A prime example of this is the United States’ War on Drugs. Many of the policies that collectively make up this war are aimed at curbing the supply of drugs coupled with failing policies aimed at the demand. As a result, demand has stayed about the same — even increasing in some areas — while the supply has kept pace, though the suppliers have changed. As one supplier gets removed from the market, through whatever means, another supplier fills the gap. This leads to the suppliers adapting and getting better and better at what they do.
For example, when the Drug Enforcement Administration discovers a 500-foot-long tunnel across the border used for smuggling drugs into the country from Mexico, that tunnel exists because the demand exists. Policies aimed at the supply side of the drug problem are needed, but they should not be the priority. After all, if there were no demand for illicit drugs, there would not be a supply. So, what about the policies in place that are intended to decrease the demand? As it turns out, the effect is negligible, and in fact, many are having the opposite effect. For example, drug education campaigns, such as “Just Say No,” are failing to decrease the demand for drugs and may increase it in some demographics. This was pointed out before, in 1988. Even worse, policies such as mandatory sentencing and three-strike rules are leading to increased incarceration rates, and the increased expenditures that go along with that. According to a 2010 study by the Cato Institute, almost 20 percent of state and local judicial budgets are spent on drug cases. This report estimates that the current
War on Drug’s policies cost the government $41.3 billion each year to implement. If you include potential tax revenues that are forgone, that number increases to $88 billion. All of this shows that the current system is broken and in desperate need of reform. Disagreement over what said reform looks like is an issue, though. For some, an out-of-sight-out-of-mind approach seems to be taken. As long as the drug problem isn’t affecting their worlds, then they see no reason to change the policies. This approach is common, unfortunately, in most policy issues. To others, the best approach is a stepback approach, which would essentially legalize certain drugs, while treating other drugs in a similar manner as they are now, with lesser sentencing laws. Obviously, ignoring the problem is not the way to go, but the latter approach does not address the issues of demand. While there may not be a perfect solution out there now, at the very least, our elected officials need to take a long, hard look at the War on Drugs. The status quo is hurting America and its citizens.
Motivating motivation Whether I’m crafting a birthday card, maintaining an acceptable GPA or dueling a shark with legs, lungs and an attitude, I’d like to consider myself a mostly motivated person. I want to appreciate friends, impress parents and slay mutant cartilaginous beasts almost as much as I don’t want to fail — especially when failure implies death ... even academic death. There came a time a few days ago when my notion of self-described “motivation” faltered underneath a new perspective. Motivated, if I can use the word, by a new person two questions emerged: Am I as motivated as I think I am? How admirable is it to be motivated anyway? I still marvel at my ability to make introductions with interesting people self-centered. Meet Waffle. That’s right. Waffle. He has a human name, too, but why on earth (with a nickname like “waffle”) would that be relevant? Waffle was born in Cambridge, England, grew up in San Rafael, Calif., and now lives in Southern Germany where he studies at the University of Konstanz. This past weekend he visited my friend at Tufts, a high school buddy, marking the first time he’s been home to the United States in nine months. He’s living 5,811 miles from his hometown. I’m living 3.4. What’s inspiring about Waffle isn’t that he can eat eleven bananas in five minutes, wears fluorescent shorts in 18 degree weather and can curl (and can love it). But he’s probably the most unmotivated motivated guy I’ve met. Well, he’s at least the most unmotivated motivated guy I’ve met who sweeps for fun. He does motivation right. That is, he isn’t “motivated” at all. He’s motivating. If high school over-achievers are motivated by parents, grades and failure, and if shark wrestlers find motivation from their endorphins, probable deaths and stupidities, Waffle finds his from Waffle. I sat down with him recently to try to make sense of his ambiguous I-cannot-care-about-what-you-think-I-shouldcare-about philosophy. Waffle wasn’t motivated by his parents, classmates, friends or adherence to norms to all. In fact, he abandoned his friends and family upon moving to Germany. Where and how did this conclusion arise? “I wanted to stand out from classmates,” he told me. “When I go to parties I’m, like, the most interesting person there.” Deadlines and schools don’t bother my feisty, germane German friend. Of course, one could argue other exterior influences do — such as others’ perspectives and the placement within the group of which one’s a part — but that describes, in some minute sense, everyone Waffle renounces, like the legs of pants. I hardly live up to such a liberated potential, not in a macro sense, anyway — I may have chosen what to dedicate myself to over spring break (rereading the Harry Potter series, of course), but never have I considered forgoing the break, by means of forgoing its system. The man. The establishment. The anything else Jack Black would have raged against in School of Rock. Waffle is AC/DC. I’m The Pussy Cat Dolls. Where I find macro-motivation parallels, Waffle finds quantities of freedom that I wouldn’t know how to handle, life’s exterior — there’s nothing self-motivated about it. Motivation isn’t important, motivating is. How one reads for class isn’t as important as what one reads for fun. Do I still consider myself a motivated person? I decided to ask Waffle. I then decided that wouldn’t be very self-motivated at all. I’m not as internally motivated as I thought I was, but Waffle has shown me, intentionally or not, something I don’t want to ignore. Maybe I’ll start wearing shorts in January. Adam Kaminski is a freshman in the who has yet to declare a major. He can be reached at Adam.Kaminski@tufts.edu.
Op-ed Policy The Op-Ed section of The Tufts Daily, an open forum for campus editorial commentary, is printed Monday through Thursday. The Daily welcomes submissions from all members of the Tufts community; the opinions expressed in the Op-Ed section do not necessarily represent the opinions of the Daily itself. Opinion articles on campus, national and international issues should be 600 to 1,200 words in length. Op-Ed cartoons are also welcomed for the Campus Canvas feature. All material is subject to editorial discretion and is not guaranteed to appear in the Daily. All material should be submitted to oped@tuftsdaily.com no later than noon on the day prior to the desired day of publication; authors must submit their telephone numbers and day-of availability for editing questions. Submissions may not be published elsewhere prior to their appearance in the Daily, including but not limited to other on- and off-campus newspapers, magazines, blogs and online news websites, as well as Facebook. Republishing of the same piece in a different source is permissible as long as the Daily is credited with originally running the article.