Looking past the defense
May 18Are you kidding me? One would think that after their infamous "Christmas carol," the editors of The Primary Source would have learned their lesson. I guess not. It is absolutely astonishing that The Primary Source could ever publish anything titled "Islam - Arabic Translation: Submission." Maybe the next issue should contain an article titled "Jewish: Fancy Talk for Cheap." Hell, there are a lot of other groups of people that The Primary Source can slander with broad generalizations. Maybe I misunderstood the purpose of the article. The Primary Source claims that they want to open the door for a discussion of an eminent problem in the modern world, so they ask for a peaceful Muslim to explain or justify the intolerant and inhuman behavior of extremist Muslims. What does that mean? Should we demand Catholics justify or explain sexual abuse done at the hands of priests? Or better yet, demand that they justify or explain the Spanish Inquisition? The problem with the Primary Source "article" was not the material inside those finely dashed lines, but rather the poetic language outside of them. If The Primary Source's intention was to spark a debate about extremist Muslims versus peaceful Muslims, their title would have reflected the ongoing conflict of different Muslim views. Yet nothing in that article disclaims that those were views of extremists and that there are alternate views, rather the article purposeful tries to paint the illusion that these are the only kind of Muslim views. It's not about being politically incorrect; it's about being intentionally slanderous and hateful. Here is a period of time - Islamic Awareness Week - when Muslim organizations were trying to make non-Muslims aware that their religion isn't just a bunch of extremist ideology. It's a time when Muslims were trying to show the peaceful, less sensational, less media-covered side of Islam. And yet, The Primary Source intentionally tried to belittle their goal by publishing what they call an "educational supplement." The Primary Source's aims are never to be constructive. The "Christmas carol" they published was supposed to be a critique of affirmative action's racial preferences over socio-economic evaluations. However, is declaring that Tufts' black students get in despite their "D's F's and G's" a constructive critique of affirmative action? If the writers and editors of The Primary Source don't believe that their black peers are unqualified, as they claimed, then why would they ever publish it, or even think to write it? Furthermore, if their arguments aren't reflected in their articles, then how can they expect their readers to understand them? It seems to me that The Primary Source has an antagonistic desire to insult and agitate the rest of the Tufts Community. Oh, don't you worry, Primary Source, I get it. You're trying to play the devil's advocate. Wow, you guys are so creative! Please, your social commentary, or should I say thinly veiled bigotry (whether intentional or not), is tiring. I wonder if Salman Rushdie (the author of "The Satanic Verses") would have appreciated seeing himself referenced under "Islam - Arabic Translation: Submission." No one cares about whether The Primary Source is censored or not, because the lack of journalistic integrity undermines the few good points the Source has to offer to the Tufts community. What really bothers students is that our tuition goes to supporting this self-indulging pastime. The removal of funding is not censorship; it's called standing by a principle. Asking Tufts student to pay for that publication is like asking human rights activist to donate to repressive regimes. I don't believe the Tufts community believes in the sadistic abuse of journalism for the means of offending any group of people. The fact that The Primary Source is still currently recognized by Tufts, after the "Christmas carol," is an insult to all of those in the Tufts community. Don't worry though, I have a solution! How about we cut the Source's funding, and those at the Source can pay to post their notorious Christmas carols and educational supplements all around the campus? That way, the conservative viewpoints of the Tufts community won't be censored! The sad thing is, what the Source prints isn't even conservatism for the most part - it's ignorance. Sorry, maybe that went a bit too far, but hey, Veritas Sine Dolo, right?Andre Loli is a sophomore majoring in chemical engineering.
