I wish to applaud President Bacow for taking time out of his busy schedule last week to write a rebuttal to "Islam - Arabic Translation: Submission," The Primary Source's latest piece of controversy. The President used common sense logic to demonstrate the ways in which the article, with its one-sided lens and total disregard for historical context, so obviously mischaracterized an entire student population. I expected no less from the president of Tufts University.
I did, however, expect more from the student body. The Source article in question was printed on April 11 - almost three weeks ago. In that time, I was able to identify only one or two Daily Viewpoints denouncing the piece, other than the president's. There was no impromptu Senate hearing, nor a unity rally. Only this weekend did I finally get a memo that the Committee on Student Life will be holding a hearing regarding the piece later today. Until now, the only hint of protest has been the occasional murmurings of students sitting in Dewick, magazine in hand.
I am not asking that we call up CBS 4 and attract another media storm, but I am calling into question why it took nearly three weeks for the first major sign of disapproval to surface. When The Primary Source blatantly mischaracterized another minority group in the fall semester, the outrage - indeed, the sense of urgency to stand in solidarity - was immediately visible. The Senate convened a few days later and a spirited rally emerged shortly thereafter. Each student personally made clear, whether through Internet blogs or media outlets, his or her disapproval of the Source Christmas carol. As a student body we proudly declared, "This does not represent us."
But this time around, "urgency" is hardly a fitting characterization. We are more nonchalant, it seems, and content to let Ballou do much of our work for us. Must President Bacow always be our spokesperson? I would hate to think that students only feel compelled to act when there are two local news cameras present in the room, and the prospect of alumni funding withdrawal is acute and real.
Some of my classmates might take a different stance, asking "What do you hope to gain by writing this Viewpoint? Why attract more attention to the Source?" I disagree with these statements, as well as President Bacow's contradictory claim that it's OK to "ignore" the Source because it's the Source (and they just don't know any better, right?). With all due respect, Mr. President, that is political posturing. I do not remember the last time when avoiding dialogue was OK for either party involved.
Otherwise, the president has it right. The First Amendment stands, as it should, and it is our obligation as informed students and citizens to identify mischaracterizations wherever we see them and respond in kind. To let this portrayal of Islam go largely unchallenged is to send a message to its authors that it is acceptable to not only oversimplify but distort an entire religion, even if they cannot do the same with an entire race.
Or perhaps the message the student body would be sending, should we fail to give this matter the attention it deserves, is that it is acceptable to single out smaller student groups; those, in particular, who may lack the political clout to swiftly organize a unity rally or demand the immediate attention of the Senate. This is a dark and downward trend. Are we truly prepared to give a cold shoulder to those groups who need our support the most?
Fortunately, a handful of students are now taking action by calling upon the services of the CSL. But without the firm backing of the student body, this will prove to be a purely political move. The vast majority of undergraduates are culpable in staying silent, and in doing so, they validate the Source's actions. I do not know how the Source editorial staff plans to spin this situation, but regardless of their intentions behind the piece, rest assured that they will continue to push the envelope with each issue they publish. As we sit in Dewick and smugly shake our heads at the words on the page, they are discovering that our threshold for intolerance is higher than they expected. Expect them to capitalize on this newfound knowledge sooner rather than later.
We can speak out now or wait until the university seal is once again on some national reporter's desk. I've made my choice.
Michael Snyder is a sophomore majoring in American studies.
