Editorial | April 8, 2004
According to Dean of Students Bruce Reitman at a recent speech by David Horowitz, THE PRIMARY SOURCE hurts a lot of feelings, but plays an important role in preparing students for a world where bigotry and intolerance are common. This “enlightened and tolerant” position taken by the liberal University administrator paints conservatives as both ignorant and close-minded, but conveniently falls short of a public condemnation.
Reitman, who assured guest lecturer David Horowitz that intellectual diversity was alive and well at Tufts, did not understand Horowitz’s very important message: The University should teach students how to think, not what to think. It is not permissible for figures of power, like Dean Reitman, Professor Neva Goodwin, Jodie Nealley, and Peggy Barrett to endorse or marginalize any intellectual movement at this freethinking institution of higher learning. Horowitz, in his April 1 speech in Barnum 008, strongly discouraged the advancement of political agendas in such a fashion.
Though the administration may often shroud their bias against conservatives by calling the SOURCE a vitriolic or “hate-mongering” magazine that offends students, Reitman was quick to reference the continued existence of this publication as evidence of intellectual diversity when speaking with Horowitz. If indeed this magazine were simply a source of hate and lies, why then would the Dean slip, and for a moment consider it a representation of the political right? In reality, Reitman, Barrett, and others think of the political right and evil interchangeably.
Sadly, while conservative students can easily name the faculty and administrators on the left side of the equation, the University can only offer balance with a biweekly student publication—hardly an effort on their part. So-called “liberals” are quite illiberal in their fanatical urge to remove all dissenting thought and achieve a monopoly on the truth.
As second-class citizens at Tufts, conservatives seldom expect the support of the faculty in their right-wing pursuits. Placing aside for a moment the divisive issues like gay marriage and abortion, only Veronica Carter, Bruce Reitman, Peggy Barrett, and a handful of campus figures attended Horowitz’s lecture, which meant a great deal to conservatives. The involvement of faculty and staff in extracurricular matters greatly affects the relationship between the University and its students, and it should be considered when evaluating the diversity of the campus.
In the classroom, professors in politically relevant courses are allowed by the University to present their own slant. This would not be a problem except for the near political homogeneity of the faculty in the Political Science, English, and History departments. Students read about the theoretical benefits of communism, a colossal failure in modern history, routinely. If the Left truly believes conservative ideas are illegitimate or intolerant, they should assign reading with a conservative perspective—obviously Tufts students can identify the “weak arguments” of Friedrich Hayek or Russel Kirk themselves. These ideas include capitalism, liberty, self-determination, and limited government—the humble foundation of American government.
The TCU Senate, persuaded by President Chike Aguh, refused to vote on a resolution to support Tufts’ own Academic Bill of Rights. By obstructing the democratic process, the TCU president has eliminated the trust relationship between the students and their elected representatives. The fight for academic freedom will not , however, end here. Intellectual diversity is essential for the enrichment of the Tufts experience and the SOURCE will continue to fight for it.
Comments