Campus organizations including the College Democrats, the Black Students Union, the Amherst Feminist Alliance, Charles Drew House, Pride Alliance, Progressive Students Alliance, Black Men's Group and Chicano/a Caucus united to express their opposition to Scalia's record on civil rights issues, particularly reproductive rights, civil liberties and minority and gay rights.
According to a statement distributed at a planning meeting last Thursday for the "Right to Know" campaign, the groups "are not [protesting] Scalia's presence on campus or his speech itself."
In another statement, the protest organizers explained the purpose of their dissent. "Beyond [our] disagreement with Justice Scalia's record, we strongly condemn his attempts to silence his critics through name calling and mislabeling," the statement read. "Rather than engaging in a debate about law or the Constitution, he has consistently called his critics extremists and outcast social movements. He has worked against the principles of intellectual debate."
Students also protested in order to educate other students about Scalia's views. "Many people don't even know if he's liberal or conservative," said Leora Maccabee '05.
Russell Kornblith '06, co-president of the College Democrats, also focused on the need to educate the campus. "This isn't about silencing Justice Scalia and other conservatives. We're trying to educate our College. That's our goal. Justice Scalia has been so persistent in silencing the left and those he disagrees with," said Kornblith in a press release issued Monday. "We're not stepping to his level. We're trying to spark informed intellectual debate on campus."
Jennifer Rada '04 agrees that Scalia should be willing to listen to other people's opinions. "I always believe in the right to express one's ideas in an educational and articulate manner, but in choosing to express one's own opinion one should be open to listening to your opposition's position by critiquing," she said.
Assistant Professor of Law, Jurisprudence and Social Thought Nassar Hussain also commented that protest is an effective way of starting debate. "Sometimes it's useful to take a ... tangential position because it prompts some debate," he said. "I'm surprised at how much debate it's generated."
The student groups dissented and educated in several ways. They tabled in Valentine Dining Hall on Monday and Tuesday during lunch and dinner, passing out leaflets with excerpts from Scalia's written opinions and holding conversations with interested students.
As attendees entered Johnson Chapel last night for the lecture, they were greeted by protesters holding signs and passing out pamphlets. Protesters encouraged those who sympathized with their views to wear black armbands throughout the day today and yesterday, including during the lecture.
Madeline Ng '07 believes that the purpose of the armbands was not understood. "I feel that the people who opposed the armbands were ill-informed about what the armbands meant," she said. "The intent of the armbands was to respectfully say we don't agree with what Scalia's going to say. ... It wasn't a matter of stifling Scalia's opinions."
Co-President of the College Republicans Ryan Raskopf said that students will not accomplish anything by wearing armbands. "Wearing armbands is a puerile gesture of empty symbolism. Like the informational pamphlets they've circulated, their armbands offer no reasons or arguments that address the legal merits of Justice Scalia's judicial philosophy," he said. "Characteristically, the left has chosen to indulge in self-congratulation while ignoring any matters of substance."
One student expressed mixed reactions to the protest. "I feel like their intentions are good, but [the actions are] ill-directed. ... I felt uncomfortable turning down [an armband]," said Mike Silverman '07.
Emily Silberstein '06, a member of the Amherst Feminist Alliance, emphasized the educational value of the protest. "We're not going to interfere with other people's ability to hear the speech," Silberstein said at a recent meeting held to organize the protest. "I've talked to the administration and they are in favor of this educational opportunity for us to express our beliefs in [an appropriate way]."
Marx, who moderated the Scalia lecture, said that he believes the situation can result in a better-educated community. "It is my impression that the students and the faculty have been moved by this event to have a bigger discussion and debate on this campus about the Justice Scalia's views … and I think that engaging in that kind of discussion is educational for the community and for society," he said.
Kornblith agreed that everyone is entitled to hear Scalia speak. "Even if we think we're right, we think the other side deserves to be heard ... which is something we don't think that Scalia believes in," he said.
Several professors have also expressed their opposition to Scalia's methods of discourse. In a letter to the editor published in last week's edition of The Amherst Student, 16 professors declared they would not attend last night's lecture.
"I applaud the student protests which seem appropriate and measured," said Professor of Anthropology Deborah Gewertz, one of the letter's co-signers. Gewertz does not deny Scalia's right to hold his own views; rather, Gewertz opposes the method in which Scalia shares those views. "We must consider what 'good faith' means when in relation to public pronouncements by a member of the Supreme Court. It seems to me that it must mean a position of careful neutrality-a conspicuous and genuine dedication to open-minded even-handedness," she said. "So, while I welcome political debate-while despising Justice Scalia's political views-I do think that it is his responsibility to keep his personal political views carefully in check."
President Anthony Marx responded to the professors' letter. "I wrote back to them that I am sorry that they have chosen not to engage directly in the debate, but I certainly respect their right to make that decision and to exercise their freedom of speech and to protest," he said.
The protesting student groups have planned a panel discussion for tonight at 9 p.m. in the Campus Center Frontroom as their final response to Scalia's lecture. "[We want to] start a conversation," explained Silberstein. "We're trying to put his speech in perspective and inform people about his judicial record." Marx has agreed to moderate the discussion.
The professors who wrote the letter to The Student, as well as others, have been invited to serve as panelists. "[We] want to channel [students'] anger [after the speech] into an intelligent response [through this debriefing session]," said Kornblith.