First, let's get one thing straight. I never once, in all four years, filed a university complaint with the CSL simply because I disagreed with just about every one of the racist, homophobic, sexist, jingoistic, xenophobic, badly written and outright dishonest opinions expressed in The Primary Source magazine.
As I said many times at the CSL hearing where the subject was mulled over by Tufts' own faculty, Tufts University students should be allowed to say whatever they want whenever they want. That's the country we live in, and I am in no way unfamiliar with supporting and fighting for the ability to be heard despite strong opposition.
And another thing: It is not a crime to insult, defame and/or criticize the Islamic religion. All of the factual statements made in "Arabic Translation: Submission" were cited, and no magazine is under any circumstances required to treat an opinion about Middle Eastern history or how the universe works with undeserved and unjustified "respect."
To clarify, my only problem with the piece was the admission that another group of people was dubbed "inhuman" by our superior friends at The Primary Source.
Oh, and another thing - I resent that my claim of hostile environment harassment has been compared to a McCarthy-era attack on civil liberties by President Bacow. In any other environment, market forces would have rendered this magazine extinct years ago due to boycotts and public relations gaffes.
Bizarrely, however, Tufts continues to fund an organization that last year President Bacow, the elected CSL and Brian Kelley, co-founder of the magazine, all condemned. To quote Brian Kelley's letter to the Tufts Observer, "I fear that the journal Dan Marcus (LA '85) and I gave birth to in 1982 has become a monster.
Do not claim to me that Tufts University is not responsible for this publication when a $20,000 check is handed over to this magazine every year. Be honest and open about your support, or at least rationalize it.
If it were in fact the case that any attempt to financially arbitrate over a publication from Tufts University was an attack on civil liberties, Tufts, or indeed any other body with large amounts of money, could never choose to de-fund its own media, because it would be a violation of First Amendment rights. It would never be unreasonable for me to write a letter to Rupert Murdoch asking him to close down Fox News. For some reason, doing the same using the facilities available to me as a student with Tufts is outright treason.
To clarify, free speech is and has always been exactly that: "free" speech.
Browsing through Primary Source-branded T-shirts and mugs at the Primary Source online store last year, a black student could not help but wonder where this racist organization receives such large sums of money.
So, I asked the TCU treasurer. His response? "As long as the TCU Judiciary recognizes an organization, we have to fund them." So I then inquired of the Judiciary chair, Daniel Halper, why the Primary Source is re-recognized every year and thus given so much money despite such strong opposition. When one finds out that Halper is a former member of the Primary Source, the pattern becomes clear.
Upon further researching some of the organizations responsible forfunding The Primary Source (Media Advisory Board, TCU-J, CSL), onefinds just about all of them are well-influenced or led by members ofThe Primary Source.
At the same time I found this out, it occurred to me that the ability to publish is different from the ability to speak. Matthew Gardner-Schuster, editor-in-chief of this "monster," is free to say whatever he chooses on any street corner he wishes.
But the ability to write down your opinions on large stacks of paper and send them throughout a campus along with graphics, staples and space to promote your ideas takes money - enough money that even well-financed conservative front groups like the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education would cower in fear when confronted with that dirty laundry bill.
Through diversity, the student body of Tufts University reflects the divided world we live in, where unfortunately, truth, accountability and honesty are increasingly traded in for money, power and air time.
Before I went head-to-head against the Primary Source, I used to believe that the differences between social conservatives and secular liberals were trivial and could be accepted as simply two different, yet entirely legitimate ways of looking at the same world.
But as a young American who is watching reason slowly die in our country,I cannot help but suck my teeth and attempt to resist the misinformation machine tacitly condoned by closet liberals. Let them speak, but just so the rest of us in the rational world are still clear: Global warming is not a hoax, evolution is not a lie and circulation is not guaranteed with enrollment.
As for my hearing, I've grown quite fond of Dean Glaser's decision to replace an ill-informed and unenforceable publishing policy with nothing at all. Perhaps removing author anonymity at a private U.S. university would truly have been a philosophical, though not illegal, infringement of free speech.
But while these people have successfully misled you to believe fiscal stewardship is equivalent to censorship, Mr. Bacow, do not forget that this $20,000 status quo mirrors the national trend of increasingly monetarily and ideologically supporting "equal time" for deliberately deceptive answers at an institution that alleges to seek truth.
David Dennis (EN '07) majored in computer science at Tufts. He is currently employed at Goldman Sachs.
