A source of contention

During a recent Senate meeting, several members of The Primary Source presented a referendum that proposes the addition of a conservative representative to the undergraduate governing body. As a freshman senator on the Culture, Ethnicity, and Community Affairs (CECA) committee, I watched the presentation with great interest. Never before had I contemplated the concept that a political minority may be suffering from the lack of a voice on the Senate, or that conservatives may be the targets of hate crimes.

I like to think that I am committed to increasing the quality of life for all of my constituents, so such complaints deeply concern me. I am also concerned, however, by what appear to be the true motives behind this referendum. The Source has historically opposed the idea of special interest representatives, and according to the organization's presentation to the Senate, it continues to do so despite its request to add one of its own.

Over the past several days, it has become clear to me that the true goal of this referendum is to disrupt the system of special interest representatives. Members of the Source who presented this referendum to the Senate were unable to think of a specific agenda when asked for examples of what a conservative representative might work for while in office. One thing they were sure of, however, was that the representative would work to eliminate his own position and those of his colleagues. A representative with such a goal would serve only to hinder productivity and to stifle the development of Senate initiatives, preventing other members of the Senate from serving the people who elected them.

This deadlock appears to be precisely the point; the Senate would essentially be held hostage until special interest representatives are eliminated. Last April, the student body had the opportunity to eliminate these representatives through a proposed third amendment to the TCU Constitution _ and chose not to do so. Unsatisfied with this result, the Source is now attempting to subvert the democratic process in order to get its way.

Members of the Source maintain that they need to have a special interest representative in order to eliminate the system of representatives, but this excuse lacks any foundation in truth. Student government officials are not inherently in a better position to alter or eliminate the role of special interest representatives than anyone else who understands the procedures outlined in the Constitution.

In fact, the process for amending the Constitution is identical to the process that the Source is currently carrying out in its efforts regarding this referendum, which is itself a constitutional amendment. There is no doubt in my mind that the Source is capable of working with other student groups to draft a system-altering amendment that could be acceptable to the majority of Tufts students. But, by choosing instead to employ subversive tactics, the organization is implicitly conceding that it does not have popular support for its goals.

Perhaps, the most disturbing problem is that different members of the Source seem to have different ideas about this referendum's goal. During a later CECA meeting, Source staff member and former editor-in-chief Sam Dangremond managed to enumerate some vague examples of what a conservative representative might work for. He suggested that a conservative representative would be dedicated to finding a popular solution to the conflict over special interest representatives.

Not only is a representative unnecessary for the Source to work with other groups, cooperation simply does not appear to be on the agenda of other members of the publication. Current editor-in-chief Megan Liotta takes a hostile attitude in the latest issue, stating plainly that a conservative representative "would then undermine the entire unjust culture rep system."

With some Source members not even appearing to know that their leader intends to use this referendum for nefarious purposes, it is ridiculous to suggest that the group has made the case for its own representative.

It is unfortunate that the Source has chosen to disguise its crusade against special interest representatives as an attempt to address the needs of conservative students at Tufts. All students have the right to live without fear, regardless of their political ideologies. I am certain that there are issues affecting conservatives that the Senate needs to address, and I would hate to see these issues ignored in the midst of a controversy ignited by the Source's plans.

I therefore strongly encourage the student body to vote against this referendum. I hope that the Source will carefully consider the benefits of working with people, rather than against them, in the future.



Rafi Goldberg is a freshman whose views do not reflect the views of the TCU Senate.