The Primary Source is returning to Tufts, and Tufts should be thankful for that.
Students can certainly pride themselves on promoting a culture accepting of diversity. Dozens of campus groups exist primarily to serve as vehicles for students to celebrate and explore their personal identities, whether with regards to race, gender, class, sexual orientation, religion, political affiliation or other characteristics.
We use committees, capital and resources to ensure that campus is a diverse space flowing with ideas and discussion, hoping to ensure that students leave campus better educated on walks of life that are not their own and are willing to continue to spread those messages beyond the Hill.
When it comes to political and academic opinions, however, Tufts is oftentimes homogenous. Whether it be for very progressive ideas or conservative positions, there are often not enough spaces on campus for opinions on political matters that do not match the Tufts norm.
But those opinions, whether students enjoy hearing them or not, are part of the national conversation. As senior and new Primary Source Editor-in-Chief Austin Berg said, if students do not have the opportunity to speak about or listen to serious arguments about issues such as divestment, then how can true discourse be achieved on campus?
Take, for example, the Oct. 2 Richard E. Snyder Lecture by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. A large majority of students would say that they generally disagree with his interpretation of the Constitution. However, as Scalia has the status of Supreme Court Justice, he drew quite the crowd. After the event, students all over campus debated and discussed the lecture, attempting to reconcile Scalias views with their own. In that respect, the lecture was a success, as it exposed students to an opinion not widely shared among their peers.
This is exactly what the new Primary Source hopes to do. With an entirely new staff (save Berg, who was studying abroad at the time of last years incident) and a newfound commitment to publishing less satire and more intellectual arguments, the Source could act as a much needed podium for those with alternate opinions to argue their case without the instant dismissal they are often subject to in regular conversation.
The Primary Source made some pretty bad mistakes. No one is arguing that they did not. The Source certainly has a long way to go before it can hope to distance itself from the issues that arose last year. But this year, the journal plans to start entirely from scratch. The staff is aware of past problems and is making an effort to ensure that they dont happen again. It is important that the Source, in some form, returns to the Hill if not as a mouthpiece for alternative and valid viewpoints, then as a vessel that leads to lively discourse, ensuring that students continue to debate and discuss all sides of an issue.
