By all accounts, last week in Dewick was a disaster. Unfortunately I could not attend due to the flu, but I understand that members of the political left made quite a spectacle of themselves. From my reading of the Daily, it seems that when the floor was turned over to students for questions, it was hijacked by some rather rowdy individuals who demanded that the Trustees meet their demands.
Of course, liberals have no monopoly on silliness or stupidity, but seem to have partaken in more than their fair share in recent months. The demand that the trustees focus on individual, short-term objectives was simply the latest display of either ignorance (if they did not know the purpose of the board of trustees) or stupidity (if they did). It was also a tactical blunder to insinuate that the trustees don't care about the students or diversity, especially considering that the men sitting at those tables have probably done more for diversity than any student at the school.
The real problem with last week's protest at the dining hall, however, was the pettiness of the issues raised. Around the table sat the people who outline the strategic vision of Tufts, and all that the crowd at Dewick could ask about were relatively inconsequential concerns. It would seem that as the issues on this campus become smaller the partisanship becomes more bitter.
Issue number one on the protesters' minds, of course, was the content of The Primary Source. Members of the Coalition, PAA, and others felt it necessary to escalate the conflict with the Source - a publication of which I am a member - by going to the trustees to complain about what they feel is "racist" material. Unfortunately for those at the dining hall, the trustees did not give them an answer they wanted to hear because, quite simply, it is not the job of the trustees to resolve such small disputes.
The left on this campus, however, does not believe that it should resolve its disputes on the merits of its arguments, but would rather simply use brute force. This has manifested itself a number of times this semester, and over the years. Recently, stickers were placed on Source issues, and other print runs were simply stolen altogether. Earlier in the year, Iris Halpern tried to undercut the Source by charging sexual harassment (with, I might add, the help of Peggy Barrett and the Women's center). Such tactics, designed to silence the opposition rather than make a better argument, ultimately run counter to academic values and intelligent discourse. The Source, too, has resorted to such methods by using procedural tactics to try to harm the PAA. However, at least the Source has the legitimate argument that a crime is being committed, whereas the left simply doesn't like what is being printed.
The problem with getting the administration to resolve this problem, however, is that it demonstrates that we cannot solve it ourselves. It is a sad statement about the quality of the dialogue on this campus that whenever somebody says or prints something another doesn't like that the only way to resolve the dispute is to call the equivalent of our parents and have them say "this is how it is." It is ironic that both the left and the right are calling for the administration to settle the dispute when each side has accused the administration of being in favor of the other side.
But perhaps the most significant aspect of the current debate is the ridiculous notion that the two small groups of liberals and conservatives arguing over this issue represent anything larger then themselves. While there are certainly others out there who hypothesize with one side or the other, the evidence is that no one really cares one way or the other, except for a very few people. A hundred people turned up for last Saturday's event, about two percent of campus. I've seen more people in one fraternity house on a Saturday night than could manage to get up the energy to go to Dewick. While some of this may be due to poor advertisement, I think it is safe to say that people who felt strongly about this issue communicated about it to others who felt strongly. Last week's lackluster turnout ought to underscore the pettiness of the issues that have plagued this campus for the last semester.
There is still real debate on this campus, even if it is harder to find these days. The viewpoints on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, while not always informed, at least have the merit of trying to speak intelligently to a subject that is worthy of attention. Those who feel strongly about the content of The Primary Source need to try and do the same thing.
Jonathan Perle serves as an Editor-at-large for The Primary Source.
