There has been a lot of recent conversation surrounding the TCU Senate resolution ratifying the Tufts Academic Freedom Project (TAFP) resolution. This discussion seems to presume that there is a controversial issue to be discussed, but rest assured, fellow students, there is not.
The TAFP, according to a March 3 article in the Daily, is a "sub-group of the Tufts Republicans." Led by Senior Brandon Balkind, TAFP has lobbied strongly and successfully to convince the TCU Senate to draft and ratify an amended and simplified "student Bill of Rights."
The TCU Senate debated and passed a resolution that in itself is not controversial. The resolution that passed on Feb. 13 is a relative non-factor because it has no teeth; it carries no practical weight. However, the way in which proponents and opponents have framed their arguments in favor of and against said resolution has much to say about the way in which parts of the Tufts student body operate.
It has become painfully obvious that the Tufts Republicans are driven not by their conservative adherence to free speech, but because they are unwilling to, and perhaps incapable of competing in the free marketplace of ideas. If the Tufts Republicans believe that there is a disproportionate number of liberal-minded professors in academia, perhaps they should consider the thesis that higher levels of education tend to enlighten the mind and therefore breed liberal/progressive ideologies.
Be that as it may, it seems more than slightly paradoxical that a group so consistently concerned with its own freedom of speech would so ardently pursue a policy that seeks to restrict the free speech of Tufts professors.
But even if it could be demonstrated that the ideas presented by Tufts professors should be monitored, we would soon face the same problem encountered by the Romans so many years ago: Qui custodiet ipsos custodies? Who watches the watchmen?
An institution of higher education, such as Tufts University, is centered around a free exchange of information and ideas. We don't deny that the TAFP, at some level, acknowledges and even supports this very concept. In its wording, the resolution even aims to rectify what it sees as a transgression against the principle of free speech. However, it appears that the TAFP is hoping to establish a standard of intellectual discussion through litigation rather than the more organic means of academic and productive discourse.
Students who receive lower grades for voicing unpopular but informed opinions should certainly have an avenue for remedy. We would encourage such students to seek reconciliation through the class deans, the Tufts Community Union Judiciary, the University policy on academic integrity, and various other means. However, students who feel discomfort because they find themselves in an unpopular intellectual minority should continue to voice their opinions while realizing that such discomfort is the price one pays for dissent.
In truth, the authors of this piece find nothing objectionable in the message of the TAFP resolution and are ultimately indifferent to its adoption by the administration. The principles it espouses should already be codified and ingrained in the fabric of the University. However, we hope the motivation that prompted Balkind and the TAFP to lobby for this resolution is an honest desire for free intellectual discussion, and not the urge to stifle and silence opinions that happen to oppose their own.
Besides, the TAFP and Republicans might find that if they spend more time listening to and understanding what their professors are saying and less time trying to silence them, they may actually find themselves challenged to think beyond the proverbial box.
Jake Pearson and Pedro Arroyo are both freshmen who have yet to declare their majors.
