In response to the piece "Primarily persecuted; defending the 'Source'," I am hereby recognizing the Source's "continued track record of . . . lawfulness and honesty." I leave out the word civility, because civility only partially applies.
Civility has multiple meanings. Here's one that correctly describes conduct of The Primary Source: formal or perfunctory politeness. The staff of the Source does not break laws, they are not violent. They speak freely and honestly. Without getting angry, they almost always engage in heated debate with cool heads. One might say they have "good manners."
But I cannot say that The Primary Source is civil, because there is another meaning of civility: courtesy. Key components of courtesy are respect and tact.
Firstly, there's the issue of respect. I understand that the Source staff only wants to give respect to people who they feel deserve it. But it seems that respectable individuals who oppose Source views get smeared in the Source for missteps, and these same people receive no credit for their successes. I understand that kind and thoughtful praise would dilute the satirical bite of the magazine. With that, I can say that the Source staff's satirical ideals undermine their sense of respect (and, in turn, their civility) for people with opposing views. Indeed, freedom of speech allows them to be satirical.
Secondly, there's tact. My Merriam-Webster dictionary defines 'tact' as a 'keen sense of what to do or say to keep good relations with others.' It is clear to me that tact is of no importance to the Source staff. They are more concerned about shooting people down than about promoting dialogue. They engage us with their motto, "Veritas Sine Dolo" ("Truth Without Sorrow"), which applies only to the Source's truth and the Source's lack of sorrow. They don't present the full truth, and they couldn't care less about anyone else's sorrow. I wouldn't call their conduct "civil." Still, I affirm that freedom of speech allows them to be as brutally honest as they want.
The Primary Source staff uses clear and eloquent language to voice their opinions. They think deeply about the legal and political arguments they are making, because they strive to be a model of respectable journalism. Their articles contain arguments that are well-posed and usually based on indisputable facts. I applaud most of the articles they publish. Their writers are intelligent and articulate, and I appreciate what they have to say. Their analyses are usually well-formed and insightful.
As for "From the Elephant's Mouth," "Fortnight in Review" and other sensationalist inserts, I think these "dirty" pieces diminish the quality of their magazine. They have every right to include these satirical pieces in The Primary Source, I just think that they weaken the otherwise intelligent views shown in Source articles. They often hit individuals below the belt even when there is no point to be made. That's fine with them, because your right to free speech is unquestionable.
On the Source's subscription offer page, they write that the Source is "everything you always wanted to know about Tufts . . . But everyone else was afraid to tell you." This is not accurate. The content Source staff prints in their magazine falls into two main categories: (1) satire and (2) analysis. The satire is not what everyone else is afraid to say, it's what everyone else wouldn't say because it is tactless. And the analyses do not scare anyone, they are simply thoughtful arguments, as one would expect from "The Journal of Conservative Thought at Tufts University."
Let me be clear. The Primary Source must exist at Tufts. I agree that the Conservative viewpoint is vital to debate on the Tufts campus. I have no problem with the Source's existence or your analytical views. I simply question the Source's sense of emotions, tact, and respect for others.
The staff of The Primary Source seems to disengage from all their emotions (not just "sorrow") when they write caustic remarks about campus individuals. They don't care how they tear people down, and they don't ever regret anything they say because they are legally allowed to say whatever they want. They need not ever sincerely apologize, because ". . . it will never be the intent of [their] magazine to hurt any individual" ("From the Editor," The Primary Source, 11/22/00). This disclaimer absolves them from any regret or guilt because their version of the word "hurt" apparently does not include emotional or psychological pain.
That said, I'll tell you what really bothers me. The Primary Source staff doesn't listen to anyone. People tell the Source that they feel hurt and the Source staff shrugs it off. Free speech, they say. They don't retract statements that hurt others because they can't give anyone the satisfaction of admitting that they've undeniably crossed lines of decency. Again, free speech. They're constitutionally protected, so they can promote hostility on the Tufts campus without any legal repercussions. Again, a clear effect of their "satire" is propagation of emotional and psychological pain - about which they could care less.
No matter how much they hurt anyone with their words, no one has the right to steal Source issues. That's wrong and illegal. But I can understand that people are angry at the Source. Its staff doesn't listen and doesn't care. They stand by their freedom of speech and they close their ears to people who are only asking them to stop hurting others. Maybe if the Source staff didn't hurt others so much, people would stop lashing out at them.
I am speaking from my heart and I just want the Source staff to think about how they choose to say what they say. I hope that when they defend the content of their magazine in the future, they can put their hearts into it, not just the First Amendment.
Kenny William is a senior majoring in mechanical engineering.
