Two weeks ago, just before break, the Daily ran an article which quoted founding members of the new campus publication, Radix, as disrespecting the publication Submerge and its achievements ("TCUJ recognizes campus media groups," 3/14). I'm writing this Viewpoint because there are issues tied up in this affair that never received voice. Louis Esparza did apologize privately for his comments, but still, I'd ask that this response be read, because there are things to learn from this incident which go perpetually unlearned and unknown at Tufts.
Esparza was quoted in the Daily as stating that Submerge "was not successful because of the hierarchical structure of [our] staff," and that Radix would be "more inclusive" than Submerge. I know not from whence these ideas came, but they are patently untrue, and it angers me that they should be paraded as truth.
Submerge was, first and foremost, a venue for self-expression that served a community of self-empowering, self-educating, dedicated, and critical thinkers. There was never a hierarchy, never a chain of command; we did not even have a staff to organize in such a fashion. Submerge was the product of individual members of a larger community who gave their time so that the works of friends and allies could be published. Rejections were uncommon at worst, non-existent at best. How could we have strived to be "more inclusive"? Each piece received last year was included and celebrated, and each author was encouraged to write more.
Hierarchy was antithetical to the beliefs of Submerge's community members, and it saddens me that Esparza should characterize our organization as such. There is no basis for his claim, and it is an insult to those who worked so hard combating hierarchy and domination in all its forms. It especially saddens me that he should state such bold-faced lies for no purpose other than to debase the publication upon which we worked so hard, only to glorify his own publication by comparison. (Note that the basis of hierarchy is the valuing of one object over another, and certainly his comments serve the purpose of creating such a relationship. Hmmm....Reflect a moment on this thought before pointing fingers again.)
What saddens me most of all is that Mr. Esparza should characterize Submerge as a failure. What is the definition of success? Submerge sought to encourage critical thought, to challenge students to question and explore the fundamentals of the society and world in which they live, and to fuel self-reflection. It looked to broaden the spectrum of political debate, and to introduce to campus an element which had been missing for many years - a radical voice in publications and campus events. Each and every one of these goals was achieved, thus fulfilling our own measures for success.
My freshman year saw an uproar of political activity the likes of which had not been seen on campus for some time. I feel foolish referring to events of two years ago as "back in the day," ancient history, but he seems to have forgotten them. Submerge, the publication and the community, played an instrumental role in this activity, with members consistently challenging administrators, students, and faculty to think critically about their world, and to expose fundamental lies and injustices. We achieved all that we could, and led the charge in shaking up the campus.
Failure, then? Why? The entire campus stands to benefit from our achievements. Activism on campus is weakened with every graduating class; orators, experience, writers, and minds are lost, never to be gained again. The lack of continuity hurts student voices on campus, for strength is not conserved from year to year. As a result, the student body never builds power, but rather is kept in a state of perpetual weakness in the structure of the University. Given this, why would Mr. Esparza actively weaken the student body by attacking one of Tufts' most significant student movements of the past decade, upon whose achievements he immediately stands? In doing so, Mr. Esparza weakens himself; he alienates individuals who are his potential allies, and he rejects wisdom, experience, and power gained in previous movements.
I understand he is eager to build the power of his magazine and community, but attacking your potential allies is a foolish way to do so. I hope he is successful in his endeavors, but I also hope Mr. Esparza will take my words to heart, for he is doing himself and the student body a great disservice by championing division among the student body, and specifically those called leftist, who need as much strength as they can muster in this struggle.
As a final note, by encouraging division, Esparza encourages his successors to revile him. By adopting these attitudes, he cannot help but show by example that future generations ought to act as such. Protect your own organization and legacy: be proud of those who came before you, so that future organizations will be proud of you.
Kris Paddock is a junior majoring in American studies.
