Dear Editor,
It is ironic that a diversity of opinion caused the Daily to remain silent on an issue of diversity ("Letter from the Managing Board," April 26, 2011).
I have never believed that editorials should even attempt to reflect the collective opinion of the masthead. There are too many people, and many of them are in content roles that should prohibit them from trying to sway the tone of an editorial. A paper has a group of editorialists for a reason — to deliberate and to make the tough calls, even if it means a bitter, narrow vote. If the editorialists were as narrowly divided over Tomas Garcia vs. Ben Richards, would the Daily editorial page give up on writing a Tufts Community Union presidential endorsement, too?
I recommend the Daily overhaul its editorial page policy. Introduce editorial dissents or editorial columnists, like numerous other college newspapers allow. The Harvard Crimson and MIT's The Tech may be good models. Get the op-ed page more actively involved in sparking discussions, as I recommended in an op-ed earlier this semester ("Are op-eds for anger or understanding?", Feb. 7), so there is more counterbalance to any editorial position.
Most importantly, define exactly what an editorial represents. Editorials represent the views of the team who writes editorials. Define who that team is, and consult with some of our expert journalist alumni if need be. That way, when there's a contentious issue, the Daily's editorial page can take a stand — for the sake of publishing informative opinions about our Tufts community.
Now, please write an editorial about the organizing at April Open House. Or two or three. If you need more room, take some of the space the op-ed page uses to print other college newspapers' national op-eds. The number-one goal of the editorial and op-ed pages should be presenting reasoned, intriguing ideas and opinions about campus life, no matter what side becomes the Daily's "official opinion."
Sincerely,
Christopher Snyder
Class of 2011
