In the aftermath of the Primary Source carol, the TCU Senate continues to flirt with student publication regulation. Last Sunday the Senate considered a resolution that would create a panel of administrators, TCU senators, Tufts students and publication heads who would convene to foster a journalistic standard for all campus publications.
This move, the "Resolution to Improve the Accountability and Integrity of Tufts Student Journalism," was defeated, of course - though not because the proposition of media regulation was utterly ludicrous to those present.
This measure for a new committee was defeated because it was too vague to be immediately implemented and did not specifically enumerate its powers and reach.
The resolution was penned in response to last semester's infamous Primary Source Christmas carol. While the Source defended their work as a satire based on the University's affirmative action policy, the Tufts community has heavily criticized the piece for its racist overtones.
The administration rebuked the publication for the piece, and students hosted a rally to show solidarity against the Source's behavior. The Senate itself passed a resolution condemning the carol, the Source apologized, and the Tufts community has affirmed its commitment to diversity. Despite these positive steps, the Senate came up with the campus media resolution to safeguard the students from the possibility of other general abuses from the press.
While the Senate's reaction is understandable, the problem is that expurgation of the press is utterly unnecessary and is more likely to create new controversies than to prevent them.
Though a publication's abuse of its power is a paramount concern, so is freedom of speech. It is important to ask questions regarding the implications of the Senate's measure. How much power will this committee have? Will publications be under threat of closing? If committee approval is necessary, who determines and what are the standards for production? The whole endeavor smacks of censorship and senatorial overreach.
The TCU Senate, for its part, has taken great pains to emphasize that this resolution and any committee created would be effective without threatening freedom of speech. However, it can hardly be both. Is it a toothless measure that will not threaten our civil liberties, or is it a harsh solution that will crack down on offensive viewpoints?
The potential effects of the resolution run the gamut from pointless to repellent, with very little in between. If it is going to be effective, it will trample on free speech. If it protects free speech, it cannot be effective as conceived by the Senate.
Tufts students are intelligent. They understand that people sometimes say reprehensible things. They also understand that people sometimes write reprehensible things. If students at Tufts object to an article, they will protest, as they have done. If they feel especially strongly, they may boycott the publication.
The offensive piece was likely the most read article of the Source in its history, solely because so many students wanted to read it in order to better articulate their opposition. Let this be the method by which the public holds the press accountable, a method that encourages discourse rather than smothers it with arbitrary committees.
Though the Daily recognizes the Senate's good intentions, we must stand firmly against any possible infringement of free speech.
