I was disappointed on Friday to pick up a copy of The Daily only to read that pressure is being put on the Tufts Administration regarding an incident at the cannon on Oct. 12. Letters have been sent by frequenters of Frontpage, a conservative website, who have read Joshua Martino's slanderous account of the events surrounding the incident entitled "Tufts University Declares Open Season on Patriots." The thought that such a biased, uninformed column could illicit any sort of response is mind-boggling.
Mr. Martino's column is full of factual inaccuracies and misrepresentations. Martino writes, "Common sense says that three students incognito are more guilty than one without a disguise." Common sense? It is tough to be incognito wearing a hooded sweatshirt when that's what you wear everyday.
If we do agree that common sense is an acceptable way to view the series of events, I've got some common sense for you. Common sense would indicate that three activists who have shown time and again a commitment to nonviolence would not engage in a fight at the cannon. Common sense would indicate that those with such beliefs who have been trained in nonviolent strategies would not just run up and instigate a physical dispute.
Martino goes on to write, "The evidence against the three radicals was overwhelming." It is improbable that evidence could be so overwhelming given that there were no eye witnesses. The entire complaint rested on each party's account of the incident. But wait, "Their [the three activists] accounts of the incident contradicted each other." This is simply inaccurate. The statements do not contradict each other. There are still the police reports. Martino writes, "The police report indicated they had admitted to physically restraining Sam." The three maintain that this was never said.
Now, I'm not a believer in conspiracy theory, but when the police admitted in the hearing that they did not follow protocol during the investigation and that they referred to the students as "asses," you've got to start to think. That, coupled with the fact that the police report conflicts with Sam's statement regarding which of the three were involved in physical contact with him, you've really got to start to think. I do not feel like the police were out to get Liz, Lou, and Adam. I don't believe that they had malicious intent. As far as I know they are all good people, but it is clear that mistakes were made in the investigation, one of which was this supposed admission.
I find it hard to believe that two activists were able to hold Mr. Dangremond down for one minute, let alone ten. Mr. Dangremond outweighs the two and is a member of the cycling team. I find it hard to believe that three activists committed to nonviolence would abandon their ideology for one foray at the cannon. Despite this, I don't criticize Mr. Martino for feeling the way that he does regarding the particulars of the incident. Like everyone, he is entitled to his view. I do, however, feel that he was wrong to assert various inaccuracies as fact.
It is even more upsetting to me that some people would feel so empowered by one biased and factually inaccurate column as to write letters to President Bacow threatening to withhold donations or refuse to send a child here. If you are that enraged by something you read, so much so that you would consider withholding donations or not let your kid go here, look into the situation a little bit more before sending out an email. Don't you owe it to yourself and to those involved?
I love America, I always have, and unlike Joshua Martino, I have not found it hazardous to my health here at Tufts. I love the fact that I can be critical of US policy and dedicate myself to improving it. One of the things that I love most about the US is that, for the most part, we have the freedom to disagree.
Unfortunately this is not always the case. Throughout history, steps have been taken to silence the voice of dissent. Whether it was Bull Connor, setting the dogs on Black protesters who wanted equal rights, or the National Guard firing on people protesting the Vietnam War at Kent State University, these factions have existed. The article, written by Mr. Martino, concerns me for similar reasons. He writes, "Since the incident at the cannon, I've secretly wished that Sam had fought back. I sure would have thrown a punch for Old Glory (and probably would have been suspended for a hate crime)."
It is also hard to imagine how one can reference the virtue of pacifism and then say that he'd like to "have thrown a punch." I'm not a big fan of throwing punches at all, but I'd rather see Mr. Martino throw a punch for what America stands for, rather than a piece of cloth that is supposed to stand for America. The freedom to stand up and criticize the policies of our country without the fear of violent retaliation is a desirable goal. Without that, the idea of freedom is worthless. I think that we are moving in this direction, but an article like Mr. Martino's shows that there is still a long way to go.
I respect Mr. Martino's right to disagree with the Tufts Community Union Judiciary (TCUJ)'s decision. For opposing reasons, I too disagree. What I question is his assertion regarding patriotism. It is hard to imagine being patriotic without extolling the virtue that the US is founded on: freedom. Mr. Martino fails to recognize the importance that dissent plays in this virtue.
