A Band-Aid on a Broken Bone
September 14, 2007
The Observer commends Dean Glaser and the Tufts Administration on their decision to annul the Committee on Student Life’s ruling that all future articles in the Primary Source must include bylines. It was a decision that the administration did not have to make: as a private institution, Tufts is not bound to the guarantees of the First Amendment. Indeed, overruling the CSL’s byline requirement was a first step in ensuring that speech would remain free on our campus. Dean Glaser’s recent annulment notwithstanding, however, the honest dialogue resultant from a free press at Tufts remains vulnerable.
What was most distressing about the Source controversy was that freedom of the press came under such scrutiny from members of our community. Opinion pieces argued for the Source’s banishment. The halls of the TCU Senate echoed with calls for censorship. Events culminated in the May decision of the CSL to impose a by-line requirement on the Source, an infringement on a time-honored journalistic tradition that Dean Glaser rightly overturned.
Even in the aftermath of the recent decision, important issues regarding journalistic freedoms still loom. In the same decision that mandated bylines for all future articles of the Source, the CSL also found the publication guilty of harassment, a ruling that Dean Glaser upheld. This tacit approval of the CSL verdict by the administration endangers free speech for Tufts’ publications. It is dangerous precedent to accuse a publication of harassment. Harassment implies repeated attacks or continuous pestering, actions that require mechanisms that publications lack. More worrisome is that future staffs of the Daily, Source, and Observer, who may decide to print unpopular or controversial material could now be formally charged and found guilty of harassment, an unwelcome distinction that is a deterrent to those wishing to express themselves freely at Tufts.
The temptation for self-censorship would only grow stronger if the TCU Senate voted to take away the funding of a publication charged with harassment. Unlike public universities, the law does not require private universities to provide funding to student-run organizations. It is entirely within the powers of the TCU Senate to withhold funds from any student organization if the body finds it convenient. Voiding funding for the Source or any other publication would be tantamount to censoring speech. Just as poll taxes disenfranchised thousands of African-Americans from acting on their right of suffrage, forcing students to fund their own publication (with production costs reaching well into the thousands of dollars) could limit freedom of expression on campus for those who hold opinions outside the mainstream. Such a move would signal the end of freedom of speech on the Hill.
A campus environment thrives when all avenues of thought find expression. Issues like affirmative action and religious co-existence deserve thorough reviews from all sides of the political and cultural spectrums. At times, opinions may turn malicious. Having the freedom of speech means that, at any given moment, we could confront a message or idea that we find morally reprehensible. But imposing bylines, charging publications with harassment, and withholding funds are not appropriate responses to controversial speech. An articulate, well-reasoned rebuttal works much better because more speech is needed, not less. With their recent decision, Dean Glaser and the administration gave approval to this notion, albeit limitedly. The Observer hopes that in the future the administration will mature into a stronger ally and defender of free speech in all its forms. As university students, we should expect nothing less.