The word ‘activism’ as defined by the Merriam Webster dictionary — “a doctrine or practice that emphasizes direct vigorous action, especially in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue,” — has since evolved in the Amherst College community, or at least changed in practice. The practice of activism is obviously stated in its definition, as a ‘direct vigorous action’ towards any particular issue deemed important. The fuel of this argument derives from the way in which the College community faced controversial issues during the late ’60s and the early ’70s, and more importantly how they handled such issues.

Is it safe to argue that the last three or four years at Amherst have been relatively peaceful, both locally and on a world scale? When I say peaceful, I don’t necessarily mean non-violent, but peaceful in the sense that the controversial issues that this campus have had are not as disruptive to the academia as they were in previous decades. In some respects, there may not be an answer to this question, but in an attempt to parallel how the issues were handled in the ’70s to how they were handled in the more recent past, one might notice some trends of the change in activism.

I want to take you back to April 1971. This was a time when the military draft was still in effect, and the Vietnam War was in progress. Among the many articles about U.S. politics that I found in the Student, I want to highlight two that discussed the local actions in the Five-College community with some titles stating, “Morning Demonstration Obstructs Northampton Draft Bus” and “Sit-Down Possible Wednesday.” These two articles describe the strong will of the students to demonstrate their opinion during an extremely trying time in our country’s history. The students took direct and visible action towards change, and their dedication to the cause is apparent, especially considering that one of the demonstrations took place at 6:30 a.m. one rainy spring morning in Northampton.

The number of demonstrations and protests in both the Amherst community and in the USA was intriguingly greater in the past than it is today. Not that this is a bad thing, but it leaves me wondering why this is the case. Have the issues been less controversial than they were in the past? Again, there might not be an answer out there, but either way activism is still alive.

In the 2003 edition of the Student there were several articles describing the various actions regarding the War in Iraq, both of students and professors on campus. These assorted actions did not come close to any student rallies or demonstrations, but rather only a few forums held to alleviate concerns about the war. While this might not seem like the activism of the past, it still serves as activism because a particular group of people took action for a controversial issue concerning our country. Instead of starting a demonstration, however, the student activists of 2003 used a more subtle approach.

More recently, I attended the Lamont Fund-sponsored conference called, “Prosecuting Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld: What Does the Rule of Law Require?” organized by Professors Austin Sarat and Nasser Hussain. According to the Amherst College Web site, this conference “will yield a book that may guide Obama administration officials and members of Congress who may be contemplating doing just that.” These actions taken by Sarat and Hussain are considered activism, but again a much more subtle approach. The action by the professors is clear, and in light of the conference a book will be published that will have a lot to say about a recent controversial issue.

These two more recent actions towards both the Iraq War and the inhumane torture techniques used under the Bush administration seem mundane in relation to any controversial issue in the ’60s and ’70s, particularly because far less people seem openly interested in the acts today as they were in previous decades. In the past, any type of controversial issue would have been highly prioritized by both students and faculty. The type of activism that the College has been used to seeing over the years has significantly changed, mostly because our generation did not live through any serious activism similar to the type that existed in the past. Activism on campus has not died, but it has clearly taken on a much more subtle role.