Masks of Halloween

I write in response to the Tufts University Culture, Ethnicity, and Community Affairs Committee (CECA), which has published Halloween costume guidelines. Their piece begins by trying to be relatable, but then, to me, it feels as though they begin to proscribe and mock privilege, coming off as superior themselves. Instead of promoting dialogue and discussion, the authors simply tell us what to do.

They definitely mean well. Many on campus, for valid reasons, sadly feel as though they are not welcome here, and the authors rightly want to correct this wrong. And of course, wearing black face is extremely offensive. It’s unfortunate that we need to be reminded of these ‘tips’ every year -- at Tufts and on campuses across the country, from Yale to the University of Oklahoma.

But I think that the authors should leave it to individuals, who can decide for themselves whether or not they accept the consequences of their actions. School should be about learning how to think, not what to think. But I am not writing simply to advocate for freedom of speech. In fact, I think that through these freedoms, CECA can better instill the changes that they seek -- on campus and beyond.

Let me try to explain my perspective. I think that individuals have choices, while committees have rules and regulations. People can choose whether to take offense or not. My Puerto Rican stepmother, for instance, would be fine if I wore a Puerto Rican costume. And as a Jew, I am faced with swastikas being painted all over campus every year, and at home, in my neighborhood in Brooklyn, where my family has been told to leave. I do not get offended. I would also not be offended if someone dressed as Hitler or as a Jew with a big nose. Why? Because I am confident enough that I do not rely on others for my comfort. I am also confident enough to not get offended that the committee included sexy nurses, but not Jewish costumes, on their extensive list of banned costumes.

We do not have the right to not be offended. In fact, I think that we should be getting uncomfortable. Our world is dying, and our country is facing serious social, economic, political and physical problems. We should be learning how to communicate complex, controversial opinions, because this is how individuals and countries grow. We need to be empowering people to stand up and express themselves. But, the question becomes this: How do we discuss sensitive and complex problems in an "appropriate" fashion?

Having been at Tufts for more than five years (I am in a combined degree program), I've seen classes of student leaders come and go, pushing for change by shunning discourse, demonizing opposition and alienating entire groups of people. Vegan activists would approach me in the dining halls, telling me that I'm contributing to the "animal holocaust," pointing at my food while I'm eating and studying. Other students have successfully petitioned for the removal of Senator Scott Brown’s election posters from a Greek house, which was privately owned (and was Scott Brown's house while he was a Jumbo here), because Republicans were "offensive" to the values of the student. Moreover, students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) members would make fake guns, pretending to be Israeli soldiers shooting Arabs. Many of these students would also advocate for "trigger warnings" concerning sexual assault, yet clearly, their double standards did not apply when it comes to being mindful of students suffering from PTSD when they pretended to be lifeless on the ground. SJP also frequently interrupts events, akin to the fossil fuel divestment group, and the labor coalition group -- which has also blocked traffic -- angering more than raising support. Personally, I end up wanting to not listen to these groups, largely because, in my view, they are not being productive and pragmatic.

Would a working class parent trying to pick up their children or head to work want to listen to these students blocking the road? Would a patient in an ambulance be excited to learn that they’re delayed due to protesters? Would the organizers of an event want to listen to opposing perspectives if the people with those perspectives are literally trying to shout over them in interrupting their event, which the organizers spent weeks preparing? Why not organize an event together and be civil and respectful?

Strangely, these activists are some of the same people that become offended by views that are not "politically correct," when their activism is also "politically incorrect" to other students. They can do what they want, within the law, and we do not have the right to not be offended. But are their aggressive actions creating the change that they seek?

Part of the problem is that student leaders graduate and move on, and the lessons that they've learned are not passed down to new student leaders -- lessons such as learning how to promote discourse and encourage dialogue and listen to other people. We need to choose how to frame our arguments and words wisely. We need to truly care about those who disagree with us, and we need to truly try and understand them, rather than bully them. I know that these are tough and emotional issues, but I think that we can have mature, respectful discussions to help us collaboratively solve interdisciplinary problems.

Unfortunately, it appears as though universities are trying to limit liability by limiting speech and expression, and by coddling liberal students in so-called safe spaces. Indeed, our university supposedly values diversity, but not diversity of opinion or expression, as it has become an echo chamber for liberal faculty and students. Safe spaces imply that the rest of the campus is not safe.

I think that political correctness does not "solve" racism and sexism. Instead, it masks these problems, because people become too afraid to converse about extremely sensitive and complex topics. The people that activists are trying to change will not listen to them if they’re telling them what to do, instead of building their own capacity to change. To this vain, I hope that this piece itself does not come across as aggressive to the CECA authors; I do not intend, at all, to personally attack you. You do not have the right to be coddled, but I still don’t want to be mean, because that does not make someone want to listen to me.

For instance, an email sent by the Office of the Dean of Student Affairs on Friday, Oct. 30 to the Tufts community notified everyone that the Inter-Greek Council, Multi-Cultural Greek Council, Panhellenic Council and Inter Fraternity Council had decided that if student’s outfits, “intentional[ly] or not,” made other students uncomfortable, they would be “investigated,” and could potentially receive “disciplinary sanctions.” Is this policy going to create change? Is this social justice or politburo justice?

There are many other contradictions inherent to the social justice movement (on campus) today, partly because the movement -- which rightly seeks to celebrate diversity -- shuts down any diversity of opinion, and seeks to make black-or-white statements in an increasingly gray world. These students are rightly critical of countless social problems, but oftentimes, I feel as though, ironically, they are not critical of themselves and of their own approaches. It is, in fact, possible to be supportive of a movement while also questioning how to achieve change and questioning key assumptions. For instance, what is the line between cultural appropriation and cultural exchange, which has propelled humanity forward for thousands of years? And how long does one need to inhabit a place in order to be labeled indigenous?

We live in a complex world, and I think that we all need to be asking a lot more questions, especially before taking such extreme, binary positions on such complicated, emotional topics. Instead of shouting at each other and holding self-righteous positions, which ultimately dehumanize anyone who dares to disagree with our unspoken hierarchies of oppression and legitimacy, we need to be allowed to make mistakes. We have a lot to learn, and we can better ourselves by thinking beyond boundaries. And if we truly listen to each other, and question our assumptions, our world will be a better place, too.

So, instead of telling us what to do, I challenge the CECA authors to try sparking a dialogue, and posing questions and suggestions, rather than dictating to peers. Let people do what they want, and then let the sun uncover the truth. You’re not going to create real change by banning costumes, speakers and books. By doing that, you’re just putting on a Band-Aid. Indeed, you’d be the ones who are truly putting on the masks during Halloween. And your masks won’t be coming off the next day.

Rayn Riel is a graduate student at the Department of Urban and Environmental Policy and Planning. He can be reached at rayn.riel@tufts.edu