As the new Editor-in-Chief of The Primary Source, I must express strong disappointment and criticism of President Bacow's April 24 viewpoint in the Daily. In his ongoing campaign to vilify The Primary Source, Bacow has condemned our publication for being intolerant and unfair in our depiction of the problems in modern Islam.
Bacow recently stated that, "The strength of a community can be measured by how it deals with difficult issues." The troubled state of Islam is certainly a difficult issue, and one worthy of debate. Unfortunately, in a sop to the storm troopers of political correctness, Bacow has attempted to brand as intolerant even the recognition that a problem exists. As Islamic scholar Irshad Manji rightfully asserted, we cannot separate a religion from the actions of its adherents. It is with this in mind that our magazine created the page in question.
It is true that the Old Testament described violent events that occurred thousands of years ago. It is also true that hundreds of years ago, some Christians committed atrocities in the name of their religion. The Primary Source, however, is most concerned with our responsibility to fight bigotry and intolerance in our own time. There are no prominent Jewish or Christian movements that are currently advocating violence in the name of their faiths.
It seems clear to me that it is an undeniable fact that the vast majority of religiously-inspired violence in today's world is being committed by Muslims. The atrocities that they commit are directly linked to their interpretation of the Quran. These Muslims use the Quran as justification for their violent actions, including killing infidels, mutilating female genitalia, stoning homosexuals and beating their wives.
Of course, many non-Muslim men also beat their wives, but they do not hide behind the sanctity of religious scripture. President Bacow indicates that the Bible condones selling children into slavery and killing children who disobey their parents. The crucial point that Bacow conveniently leaves out is that there is no country with a majority Christian population that would allow religious scripture to be used as a legitimate defense in a court of law. Homosexuality and adultery, however, are punishable by death in many Muslim countries. As indicated in our special section, the seven countries in the world that punish homosexuality by death are all Islamic. Surely our enlightened president is aware of this horrible injustice.
In short, it is not the Quran itself that disturbs us, but literalist interpretations of it. The problem is that many Muslims, from Afghanistan to Somalia to Londonistan, accept the Quran lock, stock and barrel, and apply it without using their religious obligation to think for themselves - what righteous Muslims call 'Ijtihad.' Of course, our pusillanimous President shied away from tackling this issue.
If Bacow and others at Tufts disagree with us, that is their prerogative. However, this does not make the debate any less necessary or legitimate. Bacow asserts that "yet again a discrete minority within our community has been singled out for ridicule." The Primary Source, however, is not attacking people; it is attacking an extremist ideology. In so doing, we tried to solicit the help of moderate Muslims who would not only understand the nature of this Islamist threat but also fight this scourge in their own religion. We at The Primary Source have the highest respect for Muslims practicing Ijtihad and are saddened to see that fanatical, intolerant, supremacist Muslims are giving their religion a bad name. Far from attacking the Muslim community at Tufts, we wanted to give its members an opportunity to express their support for our values of tolerance and multiculturalism.
Despite a perfunctory nod to the First Amendment, Bacow's viewpoint was in no uncertain terms a thinly-veiled threat aimed at those of us who have the courage to address controversial issues. At the end of his viewpoint, in which he tells the story of a scholar who was denied an assistant professor position due to a past controversial comment, Bacow warns campus authors and editors to "take note," implicitly supporting discriminatory hiring policies based on political differences. It is nothing less than appalling that the president of our university has wished ill upon students who continue to risk scorn and intimidation by expressing their views. The Primary Source, however, is dedicated to fighting bigotry and intolerance wherever it appears.
President Bacow, I urge you to heed your own late mother's words, "Paper hath patience." Earlier this year you chose to conflate another political controversy with the tragic suicide of a student. Now you have attempted to stifle the voice of certain students. Your legacy will not solely be determined by the size of Tufts' endowment when you step down. Your role in supporting an atmosphere for campus dialogue concerning "difficult issues" will also be paramount to your legacy. In this, President Bacow, you are failing. You are contributing, in the words of Allan Bloom, to "the closing of the American mind."
Your viewpoint suggests that there is little room for dissenting views in academia. Tufts students can see through your empty words defending freedom of expression. The Primary Source, however, will not be deterred or intimidated as we persist in our fight for freedom of political expression.
Trustees of Tufts College, students and parents, take note.
