Anybody who knows anything about The Primary Source and the recent controversies surrounding its contents should really pick up a copy of the most recent issue that came out last Wednesday and read it cover-to-cover.
People only seem to speak up about this controversial magazine in various campus media outlets when its unique combination of mindless recitation of neoconservative rhetoric, disregard for the feelings of minority groups of various persuasions and attention-starved shock tactics amount to something truly offensive to us liberals. But I have something very different to say about them today.
Any reader who knows me personally will vouch for me as an ACLU card-carrying, global warming-warning, Dennis Kucinich-supporting, gladly-taxpaying-to-support-social-programming liberal. Yet I do have one or two friends who have written for the Source, and each time one of the magazine's articles or jokes crosses the line, I have sought them out and posed that most poignant of inquiries that is on the mind of every levelheaded individual: What the hell were you thinking?
The answer does not vary from person to person. I have heard multiple conservatives supporting or writing for the Source say the same thing every time. The argument is something like, "If we don't do things that are radical and shocking, nobody on this campus will pay any attention to us." I have always responded to them in the same way: The reason why nobody pays any attention is because every time they hear about you, it's as a direct result of some very offensive insensitivity. If this continues, your point of view will be worse than unnoticed; rather, it will be categorically rejected and reviled.
But this most recent issue is different. On page five, they print a dissenting response to an article from the last issue, with no accompanying attempt to lampoon the reader or get in the last word. Page six holds a criticism of Ann Coulter and other conservative pundits for the way they are currently conducting their careers.
On page 16, a long article that very respectfully treats the issue of affirmative action appears - to me indicating that the opinions of the staff about this policy have not changed, but their attitude towards discussing the matter has. Page 18 has a thoughtful analysis of the dilemma facing Democrats over which candidate to field for the presidency of the United States. Page 19 finds a discussion of the way abortion rights have recently been featured in popular media - without the characteristic call for a total ban.
This issue doesn't contain purposeful attempts at offending Muslims, gays or African Americans. It doesn't call for blind support of Bush administration policies or for unconditional and unjustified regression to medieval interrogation methods. There are also a couple of really bad jokes, but they're mixed in with liberal amounts of self-deprecating humor as well.
I'm not saying it's perfect; I'd be lying if I said I thought they were all of a sudden journalistically immaculate. The closing article covers the recent multitude of media sources claiming the country is in a recession, but its main argument relies on data whose source remains a mystery.
Yet for a publication with such a mottled track record as the Source, I think this represents a great leap in the right direction, and the editorial staff is to be highly commended for their efforts.
The ball is now in the court of campus liberals. Honestly, they've got us now. For the last few years, we've been able to take the only conservative publication on campus and say, "I don't have to listen to what they think because they're a bunch of mean bigots and they're being rude." Unfortunately for us, one simply can't do that with the new Source.
So this is my call to anyone who has been offended by the Source in the past. However difficult it may be, try to put the pain and the bitter division behind you and pick up a copy, giving the authors a blank slate on any previous offenses, perceived or actual. Assume that the authors are honestly just trying to put forth an alternative viewpoint, and respond with the attitude of someone who wants to work with them to come to an agreement.
Let's argue, not fight. If you know somebody who has conservative views with whom you usually avoid engaging in political discussion, take the first step and gently bring up one of the articles. Each of you can see what the other side really thinks. If you don't have any conservative friends, get a liberal buddy and read the Source together.
I think we have an opportunity to make a significant change to the atmosphere of political discourse at this university. I never thought I'd say this, but thank you, The Primary Source, for taking the first step and trying to work with a different tone. You are closer now than you have ever been to deserving your motto, Veritas Sine Dolo, rather than its reverse. My fervent hope is that we liberals will be deserving of our name too, and accept your viewpoint as honestly offered and worthy of respectful discussion.
Lucas Walker is a senior majoring in philosophy.
