Daniel Halper | A Southerner opines

On the eve of the annual school-sanctioned Nighttime Quad Reception (NQR) last December, controversy brewed at Tufts University. No, not because of this Tufts tradition and the absurdity that is a bunch of students crowded into dorms, getting liquored up, and then ripping off their clothes as they aimlessly streak around the academic quad, but because of the outrage that ensued from a tongue-in-cheek Christmas carol published in Tufts University's Journal of Conservative Thought, The Primary Source. The publication had published a Christmas jingle intending to poke fun at affirmative action. "O Come All Ye Black Folk," as the poem was absurdly named, was written in poor taste, and The Primary Source's Editor-in-Chief exercised no judgment in allowing the piece to hit the press. More recently, the Source came under fire for publishing a poorly crafted piece that attacked radical Islamists and moderate Muslims who stand idle as extremists hijack their religion. However, the issue in my mind is not whether the author's views hold an element of truth; it is simply whether or not he has the right to say what he believes. In an open Tufts Community Union senate meeting, immediately following the publication of the carol, students pledged to fight until the Source lost its recognition as student group, or at the very least, for the publication to lose its university funding. One individual even took the liberty of physically ripping the Source to pieces - sourly reminiscent of book burning - before the overcrowded room. One popular source of discontent concerns the fact that the journal draws its funding from the student activity fee - a mandatory fee that goes to support student groups and events (including NQR) which all undergraduates pay. Currently, it is $248 per year per student. Students claim that their money should not go to support a journal that publishes opposing and sometimes "offensive" views. The students followed through with their initial pledge; fueled with more ammunition with the piece on radical Islam, they filed a complaint with the Committee on Student Life (CSL) almost a half year later. The CSL's incentives to find the Source guilty of "harassment" and "creating a hostile environment" were extreme. The committee's chair, Barbara Grossman (the wife of former Democratic National Committee chairman, Steve Grossman), has donated over $70,000 to democratic candidates in the last four years and was unable to contain her frequent, biased comments throughout the hearing. As expected, a week and a half after the five-and-a-half-hour hearing, the committee found the publication guilty of both charges. The consequence for these heinous crimes from the Source, you might ask? All authors are required to sign their work. From this decision comes a sense of impropriety from both the complaining and defending parties. The complaining party believes that if it is truly harassment, then I believe that the fight to censor such free speech is a weakness of my fellow students. Frankly, it is appalling that students at such a "liberal" university would even call for these measures to be taken. As has become apparent, America's top university students now consider the expression of unpopular beliefs to be a crime. It is precisely liberalism that has truly promoted free speech and open dialogue. If The Primary Source were to be censored, in any way, freedom of speech would be violated. As it is, a chilling effect has fallen on writers across this campus. Let's assume that a dean, or even the Tufts Community Union senate or judiciary, would scan every issue before publication. This would only ensure that the views of the reviewer are endorsed and not the views of the author. This would silence the students and only let a single, unified voice to be heard - not a sign of a diverse institution. As it is, writers are afraid to speak on controversial topics as they might be accused of a serious crime. The university handbook, which warns that students might encounter controversial topics in the course of their liberal arts education, may no longer have to worry about that. I cannot not think of a more devastating place to censor free speech than a college campus. It is my personal belief that The Primary Source's decision to publish the carol in question was a lapse in judgment and antithetical to the mission of the group. I believe that they have unfortunately learned this the hard way. Nonetheless, the publication as a whole, and any individual, should be encouraged to express opinions - especially ones that will undoubtedly not be heard elsewhere on campus. As it is, I have yet to take advantage of the hot coffee, warm donuts and cold December air offered at the NQR, instead choosing to abstain from this sort of event. Moreover, I have not sat in a discontented silence. I have utilized my freedom of speech to voice my dissatisfaction with the University for sanctioning the NQR and other similarly ridiculous activities. I came to this school not to run around naked with my peers, but to talk about vital issues which are plaguing the world around us - political theory, foreign policy, domestic affairs and, yes, even race relations. In the coming years, I hope we will be able to have honest dialogue on this campus, without reverting to the threat of censorship.Daniel Halper is a sophomore majoring in political science and philosophy and is the outgoing chair of the TCU Judiciary. He can be reached at Daniel.Halper@tufts.edu.