 "Photo: Anjali Nirmalan")
The Committee on Student Life (CSL) released a decision on May 10 finding The Primary Source, Tufts' conservative magazine, guilty of harassment and creating a hostile environment.
As a consequence of the verdict, the CSL declared that all pieces in the Source must now be attributed to their authors. Previously, many sections in the magazine were unsigned.
The CSL, which is comprised of students and faculty members, also recommended that "student governance consider the behavior of student groups in future decisions concerning funding and recognition," according to a copy of the decision that was sent to the Daily.
The verdict stems from an April 30 hearing during which two separate cases against the Source were heard. In one, David Dennis, an African-American senior, said that the Source's Dec. 6 carol "O Come All Ye Black Folk" constituted harassment and the creation of a hostile environment. In the other, the Muslim Students Association (MSA) brought the same two charges against the Source for its April 11 piece "Islam - Arabic Translation: Submission." Both of these Source pieces were unsigned.
Junior Alison Hoover, who was Editor-in-Chief of the Source when the carol was published, and junior and current Editor-in-Chief Matthew Gardner-Schuster, under whose tenure the piece on Islam was published, are both on the CSL and recused themselves from their positions for the hearing, during which Gardner-Schuster testified. Both also directed all questions to senior and Source Editor-in-Chief Emeritus Douglas Kingman, who represented the Source at the hearing along with senior Jordan Greene.
Kingman called the decision that the CSL released the unfair result of a "show trial."
The hearing, which lasted five and a half hours, became "an airing of grievances against all ills on campus, both real and perceived, which were then attributed to the existence of The Primary Source," he said.
Kingman said that during the proceedings, the evidence presented was "off-topic to the allegations at hand" and that he was disappointed by the behavior of the audience, which he described as "very rowdy at times," and of CSL Faculty Chair Barbara Grossman, who he said had several "inappropriate outbursts."
"We ... did not think the hearing was particularly balanced when [Grossman] related political statements made in The Primary Source to spray painting swastikas on the side of synagogues," Kingman said.
Grossman, who chairs the Department of Dance and Drama, has repeatedly declined to do a phone interview with the Daily, but has issued three separate statements via e-mail since the verdict was released. In one, she said that while finding appropriate and balanced consequences for The Primary Source was difficult, the CSL's decision to rule against it was "unequivocal."
The seven voting members on the CSL panel who heard the case voted unanimously against the Source on three of the four charges. On the charge of harassment in Dennis' case, the vote was 6-1 against the Source.
Dennis and junior Shirwac Mohamed, who represented the MSA during the proceedings along with sophomore Nayema Khan, said that they were happy with the verdict.
"I think it's a step in the right direction," Mohamed said. He called it a "very smart decision" and said he is happy that it "did not go to any extremes" by derecognizing the Source.
Dennis also said it was "a very intelligent decision," but that he would have preferred one that went further. "I hoped that the CSL would take care of the issue and just derecognize them," he said.
The verdict that the CSL released relied heavily on passages in The Pachyderm, Tufts' student handbook, which defines harassment as involving "attitudes or opinions that are expressed verbally or in writing, or through behavior that constitutes a threat, intimidation, psychological attack or physical assault." Harassment is "unacceptable at Tufts [and] will be addressed with prompt and decisive action whenever it occurs."
The handbook also says that, "Members of the Tufts community should be able live, study, and participate in university life as equals. Any behavior that undermines this spirit of community interferes with an individual's growth and well-being while at Tufts."
These passages were quoted in the decision, which noted that "although students should feel free to engage in speech that others might find offensive and even hurtful, Tufts University's non-discrimination policy embodies important community standards of behavior that Tufts, as a private institution, has an obligation to uphold."
Mohamed and Dennis said they like the CSL's requirement that all pieces in the Source be signed because it will require authors to take responsibility for their contributions.
Kingman called the requirement "redundant" because all unsigned content has the implicit approval of the editorial board and can be attributed to it. The decision, however, requires that all published material be "attributed to named author(s) or contributor(s)."
Grossman declined to comment as to whether or not the Source would be in compliance with the decision if it modifies its behavior only by attributing certain pieces to its editorial board rather than to specific authors, but Dean of Student Affairs Bruce Reitman, who serves as a non-voting member on the CSL, said that in his opinion this would be sufficient.
Beyond that, it is still unclear how the requirement that all pieces be signed will be enforced, as the decision does not stipulate any specific penalties for noncompliance.
Also absent in the decision is any requirement that the Source refrain from harassment or creating a hostile environment in the future.
Reitman acknowledged that there is a certain degree of ambiguity in punishing harassment by requiring that pieces be signed rather than putting specific penalties in place for future offenses, but he said that it was very difficult for the committee to provide a punishment that serves what it considers to be a good end without involving itself in censorship.
"You can't ask that the punishment match the offense. You can only ask that it's a meaningful outcome," he said. "And I think this is a meaningful outcome."
Supporters of the decision agreed that it is meaningful and said they are confident that it can mitigate or prevent future harassment.
According to Dennis, the verdict creates incentives for the Source to change its behaviors or else face consequences.
Specifically, the decision recommends that members of student government take the actions of student organizations into consideration during the funding and re-recognition processes.
If the Source publishes something else that constitutes harassment, Dennis said that having a verdict in hand that can show the student government that the magazine has already been deemed to have violated university policy will be helpful. "Having a case to back you up is very important when you're arguing something," he said.
Mohamed agreed. "Now that the university has established a precedent, I think it will be more clear-cut what people can do and what they can't," he said.
Kingman said this precendent comes at the expense of free speech. "I think it's detrimental, because people are going to feel less able to speak their minds and say what they believe in [if they think] their political speech is scrutinized," he said. He also said that he does not expect the Source to modify the type of content it publishes as a result of the verdict.
While the decision calls on members of the student government to consider the actions of student groups, it does not require them to, and it is still too early to determine how exactly they will respond to it.
The Tufts Community Union Judiciary (TCUJ) is in charge of recognition for student groups, and sophomore and outgoing TCUJ Chair Daniel Halper, who used to write for the Source, said that while he will not be a part of the Judiciary next year, he does not expect it to go back on its decision this year to re-recognize the Source. "I don't expect them to, [but] I can't speak for them," he said.
Sophomore and incoming Tufts Community Union (TCU) President Neil DiBiase said that he will work with the TCUJ to "interpret what [the decision] means and how to internalize it," but he does not expect the Source's budget for next year, which was approved this semester, to be affected.
Junior and TCU Treasurer Evan Dreifuss, who will return to his position next year, agreed. According to Dreifuss, the Senate does not "have any precedents" for altering budgets after they have been approved.
If the Judiciary and Senate do intervene in response to the verdict, they might find themselves in murky territory. "I think that if the student government were to intervene in a publication's ability to operate in response to a given incident, that would seem like censorship [to] me," Reitman said.
Still, he drew a distinction between cutting funding or stripping recognition in response to a specific incident and reducing funding to reflect a reprioritization of a student organization. While he admitted that this is a "narrow distinction," he said that the latter choice might be justifiable, while the former is not.
Preferably, he said, the student government will never have to grapple with these problems. "I'm hoping I guess that, given all of the voices that were heard at the hearing, that the leadership and editorial board of The Primary Source sincerely addresses the issues that were raised and we can avoid any need for considering next steps," he said.
In a statement to the Daily, Grossman said that she does not believe that the ruling will lead to any censorship. "The Primary Source can continue to print what it chooses, but it should not have the shelter of anonymity from which to launch hurtful attacks," she said.
University President Lawrence Bacow agreed. "I think it strikes a thoughtful balance between two important principles: freedom of expression and freedom from harassment and discrimination," he wrote in an e-mail.
But ever since the pieces that were referenced during the CSL proceedings were published, members of the Source have denied that they constitute harassment in the first place, saying that they instead fall into the category of political discussion. The CSL, Kingman said, did not make the appropriate distinction. "They don't see it as political discussion. They see it as harassment," he said.
Kingman said the Source will appeal the decision, but in the meantime will comply. The appeal will go to Dean of Undergraduate Education James Glaser, who declined to comment as to how he will go about evaluating it or how long he will take to reach a decision.
Be the first to comment on this article!