Now it's my turn to be offended.
The vast majority of you will not agree with me, because the vast majority of you are probably enjoying The Primary Source's misfortune right now. The Source is offensive. It's in-your-face. It is, at times, both shocking and appalling.
You hate the Source. Hell, I hate the Source. As one of the small number of conservatives on campus, I hated being lumped in with 'Sourcers' for my four years on the Hill. I hated that upon hearing of my political leanings, professors and peers alike often assumed that I shared the sometimes offensive opinions printed in its pages.
As a former member of the student press at Tufts, I stand firmly with the Source today. I was horrified to read the Committee for Student Life's decision in the joined cases of Dennis v. Primary Source and Muslim Students Association v. Primary Source.
Actually, the first time I read the decision, I thought maybe it wasn't so bad. Sure, the CSL used the Pachyderm's vague harassment policy to scold an unpopular student group - this is a liberal school, they are conservatives. I doubt anyone is shocked.
Sure, there may have been a slight bias on the part of some CSL members, including CSL Chair Professor Barbara Grossman, who revealed her prejudice during the hearing by relating the content of the Source to painting swastikas on a synagogue. Again, conservatives? At Tufts? Why should they get a fair hearing?
Where the decision becomes truly preposterous is in the CSL's claims that it heard this case with sensitivity to the value of freedom of expression. While the CSL did properly acknowledge that freedom of expression and "tolerance and respect for diversity" are both valuable principles worthy of our protection and honor, it made the mistake here of neglecting the former.
What I find more alarming is the section of the decision entitled "Consequence and Recommendation." You should be alarmed, too.
The "consequence" at issue - requiring each piece of content to be credited to its contributor(s) - is offensive in that a document that purports to recognize the "value" of our First Amendment freedoms also presumes to dictate to a member of the press how it ought to conduct its business.
I am not averse to accountability. On the contrary, I think it is the duty of the press to be accountable for its content, but I resent the implication that the CSL has the right to direct the daily operations and output of a student publication, no matter how minute.
What is so much worse, however, is the CSL's "recommendation" that "student governance consider the behavior of student groups in future decisions concerning recognition and funding."
Now, if I believed this "recommendation" was meant as general advice regarding the recognition and funding of student groups as a whole, I would probably support it. But looking at it in context, it is clear this "recommendation" is not meant as a general rule.
What this "recommendation" actually amounts to is a suggestion from the CSL to the Tufts Community Union Judiciary that the TCUJ might like to reconsider the Source's recognition the next chance it gets. The CSL indicates that it would not mind if the TCUJ chose to do just that. One can only assume that group conduct is already a factor in the student group recognition process, so the inclusion of this recommendation in this context seems tantamount to a threat to me.
The threat: shape up or ship out, Source. Free speech on this Hill is only free so long as no one's feelings get hurt. This worries me, my fellow Jumbos, it worries me. This "recommendation" is absurd; it is counterintuitive to the principles of liberal arts education and flat-out un-American.
The proper response to speech that offends is not to silence the source of that speech; rather it is more speech. It is dialogue. It is a flurry of letters to the editor and viewpoints that express opposing viewpoints. I believe President Bacow contributed such a viewpoint to that effect. I, for one, was proud to see the leader of this university lead by example. Perhaps the CSL missed that one?
I truly do not wish to dismiss the feelings of those people who were personally offended by the content at issue in these complaints. But I feel compelled to remind this community that speech you may personally find "offensive" has the right to its day in print.
It is not for nothing that free speech groups defend the rights of groups with "offensive," unpopular messages to assemble and disseminate information that so many of us find distasteful. It is so that other groups, thought at one time to be distasteful themselves, may have their free assembly and communication of beliefs. It is so that I may write this viewpoint and so that you may disagree with it if you wish.
In order to enjoy the freedom to support affirmative action or celebrate the peaceful nature of Islam, those with dissenting opinions, unpopular though they may be on the Tufts campus, must have the same rights to express them.
And they must be free to express them without the fear of losing their funding.
You may hate The Primary Source's content. I certainly do not love it. But I am appalled at how quickly the community at such a fine liberal arts school started calling for de-funding and proposing media oversight panels after this story broke.
In my four years at Tufts, I heard so much free speech go on all over the Hill. I saw anti-war protests on the Res Quad and the library steps. I saw the LGBT community and their allies celebrate "National Coming Out Day" on the library roof and the campus center patio. And I saw little white flags placed across the academic quad to represent aborted fetuses by students who oppose abortion. These were all messages that some on campus may have disagreed with, but I never saw anyone question these students' rights to express them. Let us not deny The Primary Source that same right to expression simply because it is fashionable on the Tufts campus to dislike what it produces.
Tufts may be a private institution, but it is nothing short of shameful for the CSL to propose or encourage such a violation of our First Amendment freedoms. The idea that a student publication could be derecognized or lose funding because its opinions are unpopular offends me personally as a Jumbo, a member of the press and an American ... and if you believe in the free exchange of ideas in the Tufts community, it should offend you, too. If the TCUJ follows the recommendation of the CSL in this case, I would be embarrassed for this university, which I so love.
Jillian Harrison (LA '06) is a former managing editor of The Tufts Daily.
