When I pick up a copy of The Hullabaloo, I’m curious. I’m looking for answers and insights about the Tulane community. I trust that the writers have done their due diligence and are presenting me, as the reader, with all the facts. Reading an issue cover to cover, I expect to leave informed and engaged. What I do not expect is a bickering match.

The Views section plays a unique role in the paper. Unlike the News section or the Sports section, which aim to provide unbiased reports, the Views section provides a platform to a selected set of voices. Because this selectivity creates a certain bias, some have argued that the Views section has an obligation to introduce a variety of perspectives. In their pursuit of intellectual diversity, however, they risk inadvertently promoting damaging or malicious opinions. The mission of the Views section should be to provide thorough research and helpful analysis; it should not be to encourage writers to disagree for the sake of creating conflict.

We all have limited resources. By focusing on diversity of opinion, the Views section is forced to make sacrifices. By pitting writers against one another, they turn editorial writing into a competition rather than an analytical experience. By devoting two articles to debate one topic, they lose the opportunity to explore other topics which may be pressing on campus. Simply put, they lose the chance to positively impact campus.

This mentality can give way to legitimate and serious consequences. If the Views section is set on presenting both sides of the same coin, what happens when topics of race, religion and gender come up? How extreme can a perspective be before The Hullabaloo chooses to censor it? Diversity of opinion should never be prioritized over moving the campus in a healthy direction. The Views section has an moral responsibility to prevent potentially harmful opinions from being amplified.

Advocates for diversity of ideas argue that they disrupt the echo chamber by pushing people to rethink their beliefs. If that were true, maybe this endeavour would be worth the costs mentioned above. In reality, this change just gives people two different voices they can choose between to confirm their initial biases. Intellectual inclusiveness sounds great in theory, but in application the negative ramifications outweigh the potential positive side effects. As an institution, the Views section should prioritize moral advocacy over intellectual diversity, and should focus its energy on moving our campus in a positive direction.