In writing "Stop funding the Primary Source" (an op-ed that appeared in the Daily Sept. 17), David Dennis has once again chosen to shoulder the yoke of victimhood and has done so in an admirable fashion. His incessant attacks, attempts to repudiate anything ever published in the Source and visible anger have inspired everyone in the Tufts community. If only he could form a coherent argument, free of contradictions and glaring factual omissions, we could take him seriously.
Dennis' impressive r?©sum?© of slander and out-of-context qualms is well-documented, as he has repeatedly utilized the Daily and its Web site as his own personal soap box. At the beginning of the 2006 school year, he misrepresented quotes from Primary Source articles and special sections in an attempt to ... discredit the Tufts Republicans?
Aside from his inability to differentiate between two distinct student groups, the Tufts Republicans and The Primary Source, the argument presented in "Why the Tufts Republicans probably hate you" (Dennis' Viewpoint that appeared in the Daily Sept. 18, 2006) was built upon misconstrued quotes.
The article represented the antitheses of constructive dialogue, something which many of the Source's critics repeatedly claim to desire. In fact, it was far more reminiscent of a Jesse Jackson race-baiting session than anything resembling intellectual content. From Dennis' latest sanctimonious work, I believe he should just be honest and open about his insatiable hatred for conservatives, or at least rationalize it.
Now, let's examine his leftist rant, "Stop funding the Primary Source." The author goes from validating criticism of Islam to whining about Bacow's e-mail to uncovering the vast conservative conspiracy currently undermining Tufts' student government.
After dragging the Source through a kangaroo court, Dennis has the audacity to claim that his "only problem" with the now infamous "Arabic Translation: Submission" (from the Source's April 11 edition) is the assertion that a "group of people was dubbed 'inhuman.'" A brief reading of the piece in question reveals that the adjective "inhuman" was used to refer to a type of behavior as opposed to a group of people - behavior being something that Dennis himself, in his own op-ed, suggested is open to critique and criticism.
The anecdotal analysis contained within Dennis' op-ed is abundant. Dennis' assertion that the market does not bear the product of the Primary Source is a dubious claim, impossible to prove or disprove. Surely there are numerous examples of ultra-successful radio and TV personalities (perhaps Howard Stern, Bill O'Reilly or Ann Coulter) that exhibit views and promulgate behavior that many individuals detest and rally against.
All I know is that many of the ideas circulated and disseminated in each 24-page issue of The Primary Source can be found printed in various newspapers, books and journals throughout the country. Pick up the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times or U.S. News and World Report and one will realize that, at some time or another, each publication has criticized affirmative action and written about the urgency required to combat the threat of totalitarian Islamic countries. To suggest otherwise would be fraught with ignorance.
Towards the end of "Stop funding the Primary Source," Dennis joins the ranks of the countless individuals who extol the virtues of free speech while simultaneously looking to curtail it. Earlier in his piece he wrote that he is "... in no way unfamiliar with supporting and fighting for the ability to be heard despite strong opposition." This qualifying statement does absolutely nothing to soften the glaring contradiction offered a few paragraphs later, when he writes about asking the TCU Judiciary chair why the Source is continually recognized as a student organization and "given so much money despite such strong opposition."
So which is it? Is fighting for the "ability to be heard" valiant or a waste of Tufts' money? It is completely impossible to synthesize such opposing viewpoints, and what little rationale that is employed does not come close.
Allow me to refresh how the First Amendment functions in our country. First of all, the analogy drawn between petitioning Fox News and Tufts University is completely invalid. The primary function of Fox News is to make money, while Tufts, as Dennis puts it, "alleges to seek truth." Therefore, each institution has a very different relationship with free speech. This might explain the negative backlash that accompanies incessant demands for the revoking of the Source's funding.
Now that President Bacow has declared that Tufts will operate as if it is a public university, the Source, along with every other student group, will be protected by the policy of viewpoint neutrality under which all public universities must operate.
This means that the allocation of funding, should the TCU Senate operate in accordance with President Bacow's message, cannot be filtered through the student body's collective social bias. Therefore, every student group is entitled to funding as long as the administrative requirements, which must be met by every other student organization, are adhered to.
This in no way makes a university "responsible" for the content of any group. If this were true then Tufts would be responsible for the opinions, which are often contradictory, of controversial speakers such as Yaron Brook, Bob Barr and Al Franken, all of which Tufts provided funding for.
The rest of Monday's discombobulated essay consists of a misguided notion that the existence of the Source's online store is somehow indicative of the Source having excess funds, and therefore proof that the university is wasting money on a "racist organization." Dennis also makes sure to malign TCU-J Chair, Daniel Halper, implying that he is a biased student officer because of his prior connection with the Source. Somehow this conspiracy theory is expanded to explain 25 years of Source funding.
Ultimately, the campus has moved on, but Dennis insists on impeding progress through continued rehashing of this tired argument. Even after his departure from Tufts, Dennis deplorably attempts to control the direction of campus discussion.
Despite what individuals away from campus, or even those on campus, may assume, progress has been made. The Muslim Students Association and the Source have since opened up dialogue and I, as a member of the Source, look forward to being a part of these discussions. Perhaps Dennis will accept this opportunity to gracefully excuse himself from Tufts political affairs.
