According to the Democratic polling firm Blueprint, the third most cited reason voters chose Trump over Harris was that the latter “focused more on cultural issues like transgender issues rather than helping the middle class.” In a New York Times election post-mortem, U.S. Rep. Seth Moulton said, “I have two little girls. I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat, I’m supposed to be afraid to say that.” In response, Tufts Political Science Chair David Art told a staffer from Moulton’s office that his department would no longer facilitate internships with the congressman.
Art’s message to students is clear: He does not want you working with people he disagrees with and is willing to sabotage you to advance his ideology.
While Art made this decision unilaterally — Tufts’ administration later clarified that it would not limit students from pursuing opportunities with the representative — his actions existentially threaten freedom of expression at Tufts.
The university is a place for students to discern their values and clarify their vision for their future selves, communities, and the nation. Such exploration cannot flourish in an environment where university policies unreasonably stifle students’ pursuit of potentially enriching career opportunities. Defenders of free expression must rally against all systemic barriers to legitimate academic exploration.
When a rogue administrator takes steps to curtail freedom of expression, one must consider the worst possible way someone could abuse the precedent. How long will it take for Tufts to undermine an opportunity with a politician you support or a company you want to work for?
Tufts is supposed to help students find employment, not prevent them from doing so based on a nebulous, arbitrary, and undefined ideological litmus test. We applaud the administration for clarifying its institutional position regarding internships in Moulton’s office. We maintain that student expression must be broadly protected. Safeguarding the freedom of students to pursue educational and career opportunities that align with their interests, irrespective of biases among faculty and administrators, should be core to a university’s mission.
Those who disdain Moulton for his comments can take comfort in the fact that no one is forcing them to work for him. They have the unquestionable right to forgo employment in his office, just as other students have the right to do the opposite.
The Tufts Tribune Editorial Board firmly supports the ability of each student to make this decision for themselves. We concur with the university’s official statement, which prudently rejects the intolerant and discriminatory act.