Two weeks ago, University President Lawrence Bacow surprised Tufts students and alumni when he announced that Tufts University will no longer sanction the Naked Quad Run (NQR). His decision upset the student body and induced feelings of sadness, disappointment and even anger. But President Bacow's decision was not particularly surprising to those who were aware of the president's disapproval of NQR — a weariness that stemmed from his first encounter with the run in 2002, the subsequent years of anxiety that the run caused him and the adverse reactions of the Board of Trustees to reports of this year's NQR being riddled with overconsumption, police brutality and students' heckling of police.
Surprising to me, however, is the lack of opposition demonstrated by student leaders like Tufts Community Union (TCU) President Sam Wallis and Programming Board Co−Chair Sarah Habib, both seniors. In the March 14 Daily article "Bacow ends Naked Quad Run," which accompanied President Bacow's op−ed, Wallis and Habib continually emphasized the idea that the decision was final and that "At the end of the day, [they're] not going to debate the decision that the administration made." It is an embarrassment that these two student leaders — one of whom is a directly elected student representative — would demonstrate such complacency at a moment when many Tufts students feel frustrated, betrayed and upset about the decision announced by President Bacow.
Before elaborating on that point, however, I do want to say that I believe that Wallis' and Habib's hearts are in the right place; they want to see Tufts quickly find a new tradition in order to allow the community to heal in this post−NQR world. After all, replacing an event that is, as sophomore Ben Ross described to The Boston Globe, "a thrilling whirl of liberation, whether one drinks or not," is no small task.
Despite their intentions, though, I cannot look past these leaders' unwillingness to publicly air the student body's disapproval, and I see the lack of further engagement against the administration's decision as a failure on Wallis' and Habib's parts to represent the student body. I must also add that the lack of representation on the part of the TCU president is especially disappointing considering the fact that he was elected by the student body for the purpose of presenting its position to the administration.
Furthermore, the TCU Senate — which has yet to discuss the recent decision — should break away from Wallis' example and actively contest the administration on this issue, demonstrating student opposition to the termination of a treasured tradition. The Senate has no authority to make policy for Tufts University; its purpose is to serve as a megaphone, an amplifier, for the grievances expressed by Tufts students. Although petitions and resolutions will not directly revive NQR, the Senate will fail its primary duty if it neglects to argue properly, publicly and forcefully against the administration in order to represent its constituents.
Hence, in a situation like this, when a tradition that has been sustained since the 1970s, has served as a rallying point for a school community that often finds itself divided and has been a point of pride among current students and alumni — when such a tradition is squelched by the administration and a significant portion of the student body is so obviously troubled by the decision, the TCU Senate must voice the opinion of the student body.
As a member of the Senate, I must openly state that the body has at many moments throughout this school year — including during this most recent controversy — failed to fight for the interests of the student body, and instead prioritized the maintenance of amicable relations with administrators. The approach taken by senators has too often turned into advocacy for the administration's interests and for the programs or plans that would make matters simplest for them as opposed to what Tufts students wanted.
While I don't believe that any of the senators hold hostile feelings toward the administration, every senator should be mindful of the fact that his or her constituency is the student body and that the administration's interests and the students' interests tend to diverge. That tension is good and healthy.
I hope that the Senate will find its voice in the coming weeks on a topic that means so much to students and alumni here. There exists no better opportunity for members of the Senate to reaffirm their commitment to the student body and to atone for past shortcomings by standing up to the administration and declaring that the student body is unhappy with President Bacow's decision.
And if there is a silver lining, perhaps it is that Bacow's op−ed served as a reminder that ultimately the president of a university answers to many names — but none of those names are "homeboy."
--
