Last night, the pro-life group Jumbos for Life invited MIT professor James Sherley to speak to students about the ethics of abortion. Sherley, a staunchly pro-life academic, clearly and articulately delivered an argument that many Americans believe deeply - and with which most Tufts students likely would disagree.
It is an all-too-rare occurrence on Tufts' campus and one we hope more student groups will seek to recreate.
Whatever our thoughts on the pro-life arguments espoused by Sherley, the Daily was glad to see such a thought-provoking speaker brought to campus - someone who offers ideas to challenge rather than a simple re-hash of the opinions held by the majority of the student body.
As we saw after the Primary Source Christmas carol controversy, students often favor free speech only so long as it is not offensive to them. At Tufts, the word "conservative" often brings with it a stigma it does not deserve, and conservative viewpoints are largely marginalized as a result.
But on a predominantly liberal campus where student conservative voices are already limited, it is all the more important to bring in outsiders to represent ideas that students would not hear otherwise.
Last semester, Daniel Pipes, the director of the neo-conservative think tank the Middle East Forum, delivered a lecture on "Islamo-Fascism." A number of students found Pipes' views objectionable and even offensive; this, however, was all the more reason to hear what he has to say. His presence fostered an important debate in which students who agreed with Pipes - as well as those who found his views to be wrong or even offensive - could voice their opinions.
Unfortunately, the Pipes lecture and last night's abortion discussion are exceptions to the norm on campus; more often, campus speakers offer relatively one-sided stances that simply reinforce, rather than challenge, the predominant beliefs on campus. On Feb. 6, for instance, Tufts hosted a panel to discuss the issues surrounding the Supreme Court's recent ruling in the case Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 - a controversial and much-debated decision about the role of affirmative action in public-school admissions processes.
The speakers, including Ian Haney Lopez, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, were all intelligent and well informed - and, unfortunately, unanimous in their opposition to the Court's decision.
Sherley, like Pipes, offered a well thought-out argument that was sure to contradict many students' existing beliefs.
Tufts and its student organizations should strive to bring more speakers to campus who express opinions that are unpopular on campus; when there are panels, both sides of the argument should be represented.
As students, we should welcome such a plurality of views. Who knows? We might even learn something.
