The recent controversy over a planned raising of the U.N. flag on the academic quad in commemoration of the founding of the United Nations raises a variety of questions which cry out to be answered. First, was the Tufts administration really unaware of the United States Flag Code prior to receiving Jordana Starr's informative e-mail last Friday night? What were the administration's motives in changing the location of the flag-raising? Was it honestly afraid of prosecution under federal law, or was it just trying to keep the campus quiet?
An issue of the utmost importance is what the controversy reveals about the competence of the administration. It appears that whatever administration official who was in charge of clearing the flag-raising ceremony was unaware that United States law forbids flying another flag in place of the American flag. Tufts could have saved a bit of face among its overwhelmingly liberal student body by simply being aware of this law. It would have avoided the hasty rescheduling of the event, it could have kept from irritating the graduate students, and it would have avoided the general embarrassment that goes along with ignorance. Most importantly, it would have avoided the appearance of having bent to the will of a disgruntled student group.
When the administration changed the location of the event, it also changed the entire meaning. Replacing the American flag with the U.N. flag carries immense symbolism, suggesting, at a time of unprecedented American unilateralism, a temporary rejection of nationalistic narcissism in favor of global citizenship and unity. Flying the two flags side by side changes the symbol from one of self-denial to one of mere recognition. It was not, as Provost Jamshed Barucha seemed to suggest in an e-mail sent to the student body on Tuesday, an equivalent ceremony.
Why did Tufts decide to change the event? According the Barucha, the decision was made after a consultation with legal counsel. Apparently Tufts was somewhat afraid of prosecution, or at least did not want to appear to be breaking the law. The Daily would like to suggest to the administration that it was never in any legal peril, as this is a law that is broken every day by millions of people. One simply has to read the entire United States Flag Code.
Anyone who has ever affixed an American flag to his vehicle without using a staff is in violation of section 7(b). Bumper stickers bearing the image of the flag are not mentioned in the provision, but unless they are used in conjunction with a staff, they appear to be illegal. Bumper stickers further fall into the category of printed items which are intended for eventual discard, and are therefore prohibited under section 8(i). Also falling into this category are patriotic napkins and those decorative paper flags that are ubiquitous at Fourth of July barbecues. Fox News Channel and any other organization which uses the image of the American flag for advertising purposes is in violation of the Flag Code under the very same section. Jordana Starr was in violation of the United States Flag Code, sections 8(d) and 8(j) when, on Monday, she wore an American flag handkerchief on her head at the U.N. flag raising ceremony.
The crucial point is that the United States Flag Code is a ridiculous, almost fascist, unconstitutional and obviously unenforceable antique of a law which has as its premise that the flag "is itself a living thing"(Section 8(j)). At an institution which presumably values rational thought, should this relic from the age of prohibition, this nod to the fantastic world of jingoism be given more attention than a glance and a dismissive smile?
