Dear Editor:
In another one of Mr. Gardner-Schuster's (editor-in-chief of The Primary Source) crusades against common sense, he contends that his true aim is to "debate the issues." I would hope he begin all future debates by citing his sources with some degree of academic honesty.
He quotes two sentences from the "radical" Boston Phoenix magazine, both of which can be found in a May 16 Phoenix column co-written by a lawyer named Harvey Silvergate, who happens to have co-founded FIRE, the organization that repeatedly defends the Source and many other conservative college franchises around the country no matter what arguments for racial superiority they advocate. These are hardly the unbiased opinions Mr. Schuster would like us to believe support his point of view.
For even when a person who writes in his editorial, "Primary Source: please just stop it," that he is conservative enough to discount evolution (please see your local biologist, Mr. Henchy) the current leader of The Primary Source cannot help but deride this man's obvious point that no one is fooled (especially ex-Source members) by the Source's pathetic charade claiming "O Come All Ye Black Folk" was intended to debate the complicated and important issue of affirmative action.
I want to applaud Mr. Henchy for shedding light on such an ironic dispute. Source members rail against affirmative action (curiously, with an obsession for African-Americans), apologizing for their repressed bigotry, only to find out this bigotry is exactly what gave Sourcers the chance to contribute to the public forum at Tufts. Admissions officers, plotting seedily in the cellars of Bendetson Hall, had effectively planned last year's culture war during their normal college essay perusals four years earlier and congratulated themselves on keeping students from both sides of the aisle informed and engaged in the realities that still exist outside the bubble of Tufts University.
If you put your ear up close to the editorial page, you can hear the fear in Mr. Schuster's voice as he hints at what might be true: That his entry to Tufts could be the result of deliberate planning by Dean Coffin to enhance the diversity of a university.
David Dennis (EN '07)
Dear Editor:
As a recent Tufts alum, I receive the e-mail edition of the Daily every morning. This morning (Tuesday, Oct. 2), I was intrigued to read "Just The Tip" after all of the controversy surrounding last week's column. I am at least equally disappointed by this week's column.
First, this is not a personal attack on Ms. Levi or her writing skills. Second, I think that there is absolutely a place for a sex column in the Daily, just not the way it is currently being authored.
Enough has been said regarding last week's column. However, this week's column comes off as pandering and as a poor apology for last week. I have nothing against romance or creative writing, but like last week's column, this one belongs in a creative writing magazine, not in a daily newspaper.
I also feel that Ms. Levi, having written the column, should stand by it as her right to express herself, something which no one is in a position to deny her. However, she has chosen to abandon her work, which does not excuse her for the tastelessness of last week's column or the seemingly apologetic nature of this week's.
The Tufts Daily is a widely respected college publication, and while it receives a wide variety of criticism, it is nonetheless a high-quality publication. Along with this come large responsibilities, not only to report accurately, but to respect the readers as well.
Ms. Levi's column this week does not live up to these responsibilities. Instead, this particular column is a foray into creative writing and, like last week's column, does not offer the kind of advice that student readers seek from a sex columnist. Instead, it beleaguers the Daily with writing lacking newspaper-worthy content.
I encourage the Daily to keep trying different formats for the sex column until a suitable one is found, but until then, do not be surprised by continued scrutiny from your readers, especially for weak apologies. While freedom of the press is guaranteed, so is a student's right to criticize what they see in print.
Alan Manos (LA '07)
