Conservatives and liberals alike on this campus expect a baseline of journalistic integrity and fairness from our publications. In part, it is the job of the public editor to keep an eye on published material and to determine whether community norms and expectations have been violated, either due to shoddy reporting or discriminatory content. From time to time things fall through the cracks — frequent reports of botched quotes in the Daily, for instance — but for the most part Tufts media upholds its obligation to the readership with honest, good reporting. Yet when this obligation is not met, the public editor must respond to complaints from readers and investigate claims of inaccuracy, which is the reason for this column. In last week's issue, the Primary Source grossly violated Tufts community norms in its commentary "The ‘Social Justice' Requirement" by blatantly misrepresenting the truth with inaccurate conclusions, which it portrayed as fact. In doing so it damaged its credibility — even if you disagree with them, Source articles typically have substantial content and critical analysis. Worst of all, the Source undercut reasoned discussion in favor of hearsay and unfounded claims on an already-contentious subject.
The Primary Source is no stranger to controversy and prides itself on providing an alternative opinion to the majority liberal sentiment at Tufts. I respect the staff of the Source for contributing to healthy media by broadening the range of viewpoints, and few others are better at making fun of Tufts' idiosyncrasies or pay more attention to the goings on in the Tufts Community Union Senate. Yet the content on page six was off-base on so many levels that following the issue's publication several members of the Tufts community wrote to me, pointing out that Students for Educational Equality (SEE) had been dissolved at the end of last year. My investigation into the history of SEE showed a serious lack of fact checking by the Source. Students for Educational Equality did exist as a loose group of students working toward an Africana Studies department at Tufts, but the Source's claims about SEE's mission and interaction with pre-frosh and alumni were not rooted in any type of investigative journalism, interviews or substantial evidence. Their claim that SEE is the current driving force behind a "social justice" requirement is a flat-out wrong conclusion of misguided assumptions. The same is true for their claim that the term "social justice" was chosen after the phrase "race requirement" was deemed too blunt. The Source conflated the completely separate issues of Africana Studies and the so-called "social justice requirement" by lumping all students who want to modify Tufts' academic landscape together into a liberal bloc. Although there may be overlap among students on and off Senate who support both measures, they are far from the same.
In a conversation with Primary Source Editor Jon Danzig on Wednesday night, the Source agreed that its approach in parts of the article was flawed and will be publishing a follow-up to it in this week's Source — keep an eye out for it. Healthy campus media attacks ideas rather than groups or individuals. The concept of an additional "social justice" requirement merits reasoned campus discussion, and we should strive for it. The valid points brought up by the Primary Source were unfortunately obscured by Glenn Beck-esque sensationalism. Indeed, the problems with the piece go beyond bad journalism; we must acknowledge that the framing of the article depicted a radical liberal/racial conspiracy at Tufts, and contributes to a campus climate where students in favor of initiatives such as an Africana Studies department or a social justice requirement are viewed negatively. This is a call to publications to accurately cover all sides of an issue and to approach the discussion with respect, reason and journalistic integrity. Together, we can make Tufts media better — we owe it to our readers.
