It's strange to consider that this is both my second column, and my second to last column. It's a quick little brush with Tufts Daily fame and glory (hence, "Just Passing Through") but it's been an interesting experience balancing writing a column and running the Op-Ed section.
Aside from showing me that I am horrifically disorganized, those Op-Ed pieces that have graced our pages throughout the semester have run with a certain theme. By that I don't mean the theme has consistently been topical, about divest or Israeli Apartheid Week. Nor do I mean to say that Daily Op-Eds are all petulant, nitpicky works of fake outrage.
Instead what has been repeatedly present in reading the many pieces in the Daily has been the sense that in each debate there must be a right, or "moral" answer. It's not something that I used to feel. As an editorialist last year I often took the opinion that passion about change was ultimately self-serving. There was no "right" answer, and even if there were, efforts to make change for the betterment of fellow Jumbos would probably achieve little without the kind of power and resources of the hulkingly massive Tufts bureaucracy.
But this year the question has become one really worthy of answering: is there a morally correct answer to campus issues? When we approach a debate or a subject, is there just one righteous course of action?
It's not an easy question, certainly for someone who hasn't taken a single Philosophy class (but plenty of Catholic schooling!). But it's also certainly worth a look. I can't imagine that everyone on campus is perfectly comfortable with leaving every debate in a gray area. I can't stomach the idea that it's easy to truly accept the cynical opinion, the equivocation as our final answer.
Is there a moral choice in the divest debate? That one seems pretty easy -- divesting would be the right thing to do. It might not be easy, and it might not have the same bang for divested bucks that Tufts Divest suggests, but why not go for it?
Is there a right choice in the Israel-Palestine debate? That one's a lot harder. Much, much harder. But still, a cursory glance at the situation suggests a direction. The poor people who had their land taken from them, who are surrounded by snaking walls and checkpoints, seem just a little more deserving of acts of mercy.
Was there a right choice for a candidate in yesterday's election?
I don't know who won at the time of writing this, so it will probably sound a bit disjointed. The candidates do share a lot of similar policies, this is true. Both Andrew Nunez and Robert Johnson are on the left side of the political spectrum.
But it's just as clear that there is a tilt in the universe. I feel as though all too often we default to the obvious choice, or the safe choice, because we're too afraid to take the jump to the policies we all say we want. Are you as liberal, as progressive as you say, Tufts?
A lot has been said about Nunez over the past week and change, and though he has said things that have proven divisive, he's right when he argues for supporting marginalized voices, for expelling rapists, for safe spaces. The moral right is where and when we decide to speak from the depths of ourselves for the rights and lives of those who struggle and suffer.
This probably reads as pretty self-centered. "Hey look, I'm so wise about things in a column!" But I promise this is earnest. Finding the correct answer is the narrative of our schooling. Learning the right one, I pray, is the experience of our living.
Nicholas Golden is a sophomore majoring in international relations. He is the executive of the Op-Ed section of the Tufts Daily. He can be reached at Nicholas.Golden@tufts.edu.
