The pages of this publication have lately been a forum for discussion of that other media outlet, The Primary Source. Not only have members of the Tufts community debated what free speech truly entails, but parents and alumni have also questioned the very monetary lifeblood of the Source. When students and their families pay $258 into a large student activities jackpot, this financial investment increases everyone's connection to the products and activities of Tufts' student groups.
We understand that parents and students feel ill at ease seeing their money go to a group which has evoked such bitter feelings and such rancorous debate. Two Daily op-eds in the past two weeks have already articulated these sentiments and the reasons for their prevalence.
Unfortunately, the solution to this problem is not as easy as pulling out the financial rug from underneath The Primary Source. To do so would be to set a dangerous precedent, allowing the TCU Senate to make funding calls based on the relative popularity of and ideological affinity for a campus organization. This is not the sort of power that we want to see in the hands of our student representatives.
It is a fact of life at a liberal arts institution that we must frequently give our money for the funding of activities driven by viewpoints with which we do not agree. Students and parents should certainly be able to give an opinion in the improbable event that ResLife decides to, for example, put kegs in Sophia Gordon, but when it comes to drawing the line down intellectual and ideological divides, no one should have that sort of veto power. Free speech is sacred and protected in the Constitution.
As we've said before in these pages, the best way to protest the Source's product is to publicly expose its faults.
Tufts community members have proven to be adept at such expositions. The past few months have been filled with Op-Eds and public commentaries systematically pointing out the baseless grounds of Primary Source pieces.
We hope that the campus' conservative publication will begin to respond to the voices crying out against its content. The liberal environment on the Hill is in need of a thoughtful conservative counterpart to spark discussion.
It is up to conservatives at Tufts to try and revive what could be their proud mantel. The Primary Source should begin to refine its focus on political and social issues instead of pouring such vigorous energy into self-promotion. Expounding on one's ideological minority status does not make sound journalism. We are coming up on an election year, and the magazine should certainly have much fodder for thoughtful pieces which could help to shape the political climate on campus.
Lively debate does nothing but help an intellectual community grow. The Source should be aware by now that their deliberately shocking tone attracts more attention than the more cerebral part of their content. Re-evaluating the publication's identity should surely be a priority for those currently at its helm.
Hopefully, this year will see a different sort of Primary Source, one which doesn't draw such vitriolic calls for the Senate to cut its budget.
