There was something wrong. The air was off. Every step I took, the rhythm on the concrete was just not right. The lectures I sat through several days a week just failed to penetrate that extra inch.
For over a month I had listened to people debate loudly about the Danish cartoon controversy. Lawmakers, critics, journalists, the religious, the non-religious, the informed and the ill-informed - their take on the issue was constantly displayed across the news. Yet there was something wrong. It was not until I attended the Mar. 13 discussion in Pearson 104 that I realized why my step was off, why the lectures just did not quite filter through - it was the lack of response from my peers.
On Mar. 1, the Primary Source joined numerous other publications and reprinted the infamous cartoons in something along the lines of what I have termed "journalistic fellowship." And the scary thing was Tufts' reaction. The supposed liberal international diverse school that we are met the publication with...silence. No loud protests, no rallying arms, no "lets stop the hate" speech. There was just silence. And it bothered me. It still does.
During the discussion, several panelists pointed out something that is very true: The debate has been skewed. It is not about whether the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten could print the cartoons or if they had the right to. After all, they already did, so I think it is a moot point. Both sides have shaped the issue in such a way that many of us find it hard to speak out. For the newspaper and its agents of hate, the issue is no longer hate, but free speech. And what good citizens of the modern West would take away free speech?
Meanwhile, the other side has shaped the debate in the form of religion. After all, what good Muslim would go against Islam or slander the name and image of the Prophet Mohammad? Simply put, they have taken the issue and changed it from what it is truly about. And they have done so in such a way that leaves many of us without a clear course of action.
This issue is not about free speech and the curtailing of freedoms. If you are worried about that, then you better focus on the Patriot Act. Or President Bush's illegal domestic surveillance program. Or perhaps the length of time that occurs before a prisoner of the "War on Terror" gets due process of the law. This issue is about hate, the act of hate and hate speech. Hate crimes legislation has been passed. We know it is immoral and illegal to discriminate, persecute, or attack someone on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity or creed.
Yet in early September 2005 that is just what Jyllands-Posten did when they published those cartoons. The newspaper held a contest asking for pictures of the Prophet, and which ones did they pick? The offensive ones. And when they did not provoke like the editors intended them to, they issued a half-apology (if you can call it that) and changed the issue from provocation to the right of free speech. So in this way, an act of hate, an act of intolerance, has been perpetuated in the name of Western democratic ideals. Sad isn't it? At least I think so, and it angers me.
I am angry about the fact that they are getting away with this, that they hide their hatred, prejudice and ignorance behind me and you, that they have taken ideals and principles with meaning and used them to hurt people. And not just a few people - billions of people. And many of us have met this outrage with silence.
Since when has it been okay to just let things go? How many people were bothered when the Source reprinted the cartoons, and how many said nothing? How many people hear others use harmful and derogatory words everyday and do not say anything?
How many people are like the student who wrote a Viewpoint earlier this year about the casualness with which many non-black Tufts students use the N word - a word that represents the hatred and oppression of an entire race of people? How many people are tired of the Iraq War, the "War on Terror," but feel like it is going to happen regardless of whatever they do? Or how many people read the Primary Source each time it comes out and just cannot believe it, but then shrug and say "not my problem" and just walk away?
From what I have witnessed in my time at Tufts, a lot. Too many. I am not a supporter of the Primary Source. I rant about it. I rave about it. But I have to give them credit because they have guts. You may not like what they say, but they say it, and they will keep saying it because so many of us do not stand up.
If we read something or hear something that hurts us, it is not okay. Someone else does not have the right to inflict pain with words that are written or spoken. Freedom of speech, after all, only goes so far. This liberty is curtailed when it is harmful to the rights or safety of other. You cannot yell fire in a movie theater and you cannot spread falsehoods and lies against someone. Silence is not the answer. I too have been a part of this silence. I will freely admit that I have not been as active as I should have been. And now I choose to break my own silence.
Many of you reading this article will disagree with me. Good. Some of you will say, "Thank goodness, finally someone said it." Good. Many of you will feel compelled to write back. Who knows, I might even become the Source's new object of hatred - at least it's something. The point is that there will be a reaction, and that is all I want.
Hopefully this unnerving silence will end. Because not all silence is golden - at least not this kind.
Ashley Seawright is a junior majoring in political science.
