My name is [x] and I am the Communications Director for the Tufts Democrats. I was recently directed to your blog posting entitled "Life in the Terrarium: Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week at Tufts with Daniel Pipes" by an alumnus of our organization.

Reading your post, I'd like to, if I could, share some concerns about the accuracy of certain aspects of it.

First of all, with regard to the image of the flier you have posted online reading "Why Should Tufts Invite this Man to Speak?", I would like to report that the name of our organization appears on that flier in error. If you could explain this somewhere on your blog entry, that would be greatly appreciated. The Tufts Democrats Executive Board was disappointed to learn that our name was included on this flier, specifically because we were asked to sign on to it and explicitly declined. We deeply regret that our ostensive endorsement of this flier may have lent credence to the idea - further promulgated by your entry here - that the Tufts campus predominately attended this lecture with strongly-held preconceived opposition to what Dr. Pipes would say.

As a Tufts student, I can say I strongly doubt this was the case. My peers and myself show a strong penchant for political awareness, activism and independent thought. I would be extremely surprised to learn if very many of them attended this lecture with plans to disregard everything the speaker would say. In fact, such a planned approach would have completely undermined the purpose of attending. (If not to listen, the only other possible purpose for attending this event would have been to disrupt it, and as you reported, disruptions did not occur.) Also, students are in the middle of midterms, and I'd be very surprised if many of them stopped what they were doing to attend something they weren't going to get anything out of.

I can also unconditionally assure you that Dr. Pipes is not, as you say, "a favorite whipping-boy of the campus left". I would submit that additional research into this claim would reveal to you that our campus rarely, if ever has "whipping-boys" of any sort. The use of ad hominem attacks to promote a point of view is largely both irresponsible and unconvincing, and a review of The Tufts Daily's Archives would reveal that political discourse on campus is almost exclusively comprised of debates over issues and ideology - not scarcely-known (at a liberal institution, at least) political thinkers and scholars. Debate about individuals only occurs with regard to public figures, and is justifiably (and appropriately) engaged in by both sides of the political spectrum at Tufts. In particular to Dr. Pipes, as an elected leader of - and active member in - the so-called campus left, I can honestly say I have never heard his name in my life before this week.

Furthermore, even after his name consumed the consciousness of the politicos on our campus due to his impending arrival, there was in no way sufficient criticism of him - there wasn't much criticism of him at all - to justify his being called "a favorite whipping-boy". In fact, the Tufts Democrats, as the largest organization comprising what you call the "campus left", instead opted to replace its meeting this week with an entertaining mock presidential primary debate (very successful by the way). We didn't discuss - nevermind bash - Pipes at all, either at our event, or in any other campus-wide communication. Even if we had held a meeting, his name likely still would not have come up as we were not planning any programming surrounding his speech.

The one flyer we did sign on to (though this sadly also isn't reflected in what is actually printed on the flier) is the one that says "This is a hate-free campus". We endorsed this flyer because we disagree with a major premise of the Primay Source's (and Dr. Pipes') position on the issue of Islamic fundamentalism. In particular, we as Democrats, oppose ascribing those severely misguided actions and philosophies associated with Islamic fundamentalism to people by virtue of their Muslim religion or Middle-Eastern nationality. We further oppose holding the vastly moral Muslim community somehow responsible for the indefensible actions of an entirely separate group of people that engages in wanton acts of violence against innocent people. In a controversy surrounding the Primary Source last year, in one issue it printed a piece which cited several flawed examples to express the conclusion that the Koran intrinsically endorsed the types of unjustified acts of violence perpetrated in Islamic fundamentalism. The piece - among other things - attempted to place the onus on "peaceful Muslim[s]" to "explain or justify this astonishingly intolerant and inhuman behavior". (To make matters worse, this was made to come across in such a way as to convey skepticism that such peaceful Muslims can, in fact, exist.) Statements like these that spread intolerance for certain religions are irresponsible political debate and do nothing to contribute to the political environment at an inclusive university campus. An impetus therefore exists for other politically active students to speak out against them.

It is additionally relevant to note that this sign did not constitute a protest of the event. If the groups signing onto this flier actually opposed Dr. Pipes' lecture, they would have also signed onto the other poster that said as much. They didn't. The "hate-free campus" flyer was distributed outside Cohen Auditorium prior to the event (very few people knew it was to be distributed, and no one came to the event for the purpose of holding up this flyer), and students were explicitly asked to hold up their flyers only at the beginning of the event, so as not to interrupt the lecture. The Tufts Democrats signed on to this knowing this was the plan, and also that it was explicitly to be billed as "a peaceful, silent demonstration". If you factor these flyers out of the equation (considering they didn't actually oppose the lecture and the entirety of their message is something everyone should be able to agree with) I don't think there was a significant enough degree of anti- (or pro-) Pipes demonstration at the event to justify claims about the close-mindedness of the student body. (And even for people who did have signs, if they had done research on Pipes as many of them did, it wouldn't be fair to call them close-minded since they already knew what he was going to say.)

The Tufts Democrats, the other groups signing onto this flier - and the near entirety of campus, it would seem from their lack of disruption - all recognize the right of Dr. Pipes to be heard, and the right of all on-campus organizations to bring speakers to our campus. Furthermore, these students didn't merely peacefully boycott the lecture, as is their right. Instead, they attended it, and not for nefarious purposes. For all your derision of their liberalism, I'd say they deserve a little more credit, not just for behaving like human beings (your surprise at which is frankly somewhat condescending), but for their clear willingness to entertain Pipes' arguments.

Thank you very much for your time in reading this letter.

Thank you for your thoughtful note. I regret not having the time to reply in the depth that it probably deserves, but here are a few comments.

First, may I share the note with my readers? I will append it to the posting. I think you have clarified things in your own words better than anyone else could for you, and you may have provided fodder for discussion if anyone wants to take it on. I will place a disclaimer below the photo of the anti-Pipes poster in any case. [Have done so.]

To clarify: I am not a Tufts community member, so the term "campus left" should be read generically, not as "Tufts campus left." This usage (and it's a familiar one to readers of blogs like mine) also more often refers to the "far"-left, not campus Democrats (though I'm sure it does apply even to them on some campuses). I'm glad to hear that the Tufts campus doesn't have problems with radicalization like so many other campuses do -- at least not in sufficient numbers to seriously disrupt events. On most campuses, the far left exists in far greater numbers than in regular life (outside the "terrarium").

Pipes is, in fact, a favorite "whipping-boy" of many on the (generic) campus (far) left. His talks are routinely interrupted and protested. I'm sure if you google him up or browse around his own web site for reports of his prior appearances you'll see many examples.

We'll agree to disagree that what happened there was or was not a protest, and that the students maintained completely open minds. To apply the "Hate" label to something in society (and particularly on the campus) is extremely powerful. I used the term "inoculate" in my post for a reason, and I believe that the people handing out those fliers and making sure that everyone had one knew exactly what they were doing and why -- they wanted to cast a shadow over what Pipes would be presenting. They wanted to make sure it was tainted and branded as dangerous and "incorrect" right from the start. They had no place in the hall. You believe it was an appropriate, "silent, peaceful demonstration," I believe it was wrong-headed.