The purpose of this viewpoint is to offer a fresh perspective on the Primary Source carol' debate. I am sure everyone has seen the 'carol' by now, so I will not repeat it. It is a disgusting poem; the Primary Source should have had more discretion.
I am against Affirmative Action, but the 'carol' was just hurtful. However, I would like to point out that the people who wrote and printed this carol' are a very small minority of the Tufts student body. Let us not forget that we are in Massachusetts and at one of the most diverse universities in the country. I am Indian and Hindu, and I know that there are few places in the country that are more accepting than Tufts. It is unfortunate, in my opinion, that this carol' is what makes national news, and not any of the overwhelmingly diverse aspects of Tufts.
However, as distasteful as the poem is, it brings up an important debate. Freedom of speech means that censorship is unacceptable. I firmly disagree with what the Primary Source wrote, but I defend their right to say it.
In the Monday, December 11 edition of The Daily, TCU President Mitch Robinson made a statement with which I completely disagree. He said, "We live in a nation and go to a school where free thinking is endorsed. However, when free thinking becomes derogatory or offensive, and ill-willed, this Senate will not stand silent, and neither will the Tufts student body."
That sounds good, but who decides what is offensive? The Senate? The people who make up the bias control team [Editor's Note: The organization's correct name is the Bias Response Team] What is offensive to some people is not to others. Over the last couple years that I have been at Tufts, I have found articles written in The Daily about sex offensive; should The Daily be reprimanded for these articles because I am morally offended?
No!
They are protected under freedom of speech, and should not be limited. Frankly, I find Robinson's statement dangerous. Oppressive governments across the world use the same logic as Robinson to limit speech, and expression that they don't like. Just as the Patriot Act is in complete violation of the Bill of Rights, the idea of people deciding what is acceptable to print violates the first amendment.
The response by some to my statements above might be that The Daily is not as offensive as the Primary Source. That may be true, but the Primary Source realized they went too far and removed the 'carol' from their website. They also apologized for printing the carol. The Primary Source was trying to criticize a policy of Tufts in a comical way. They say they were not trying to offend anyone.
That is much further than the Daily would go if I complained about the articles I found offensive. The Daily would not issue an apology and would not stop printing similar articles. I do not want an apology or removal of the articles from the Daily; the point is that the Primary Source is trying to cooperate. The fact is that the Primary Source is the only conservative voice on campus. We lose diversity in political thought without it. Furthermore, there are several articles in it that address real problems on campus that the Daily would never be willing to address.
Some people have suggested cutting funding to the Primary Source completely. This is a ridiculous idea. You can't just cut funding for a group because you doesn't like them. For example, I am a Libertarian. Why should I have to fund the Tufts Democrats and Republicans groups? Common sense tells us that this is ridiculous; however, people seem to not realize that cutting funding to the newspaper is just as ridiculous.
I am not looking for Tufts to cut funding from clubs to appease me. However, this also means that you are going to have to live with some clubs with which you disagree. The Primary Source serves an important role at our university and you cannot take away funding just because you do not like them.
Brandon Patel is a junior majoring in Engineering Physics.
