The week before break, Amherst hosted a lecture by writer and political commentator David Horowitz. The event sparked a good deal of discussion among students, spilling out of Johnson Chapel into dorm rooms, dinner conversations and the Daily Jolt message boards. It brought to the forefront a lot of the tensions that exist on our campus between political groups. Mr. Horowitz presented a very bold and distinct opinion that very clearly rubbed some people the wrong way. But at the end of the night, the thing weighing most heavily on my mind was not any one statement Horowitz had made, but rather a frustration with the feeling that the lecture had only served to further polarize the campus, provoking argument rather than political discussion. It exemplified something I'd been frustrated with for a while: too often we here at Amherst are closed-minded to one another's opinions, more interested in showing off our own knowledge or defeating our "opponents" than in actually listening and challenging our own beliefs.

I'm not interested in arguing for or against what Horowitz had to say. Anyone who attended or heard about the lecture can formulate his or her own opinion of it. Rather, it's my goal to say that in formulating these opinions, not only on what Mr. Horowitz said but on any issue at all, we should make an effort to listen to and actually think about what other people may have to say.

Horowitz began his talk with what I felt was a very good point, that at Amherst we are often not exposed to a very broad range of opinion. Our student body and faculty are both quite liberal, by and large, and thus we probably often don't hear both sides of an issue. I certainly agree that we would benefit from being exposed to a range of opinion. To that end, I applaud the effort of the Amherst College Republicans to bring to campus a speaker who would provide us with a conservative viewpoint we're not used to hearing.

However, it was my sense, based on things I heard people saying before and after the talk, that the aim of the event was rather antagonistic in nature. Prior to that evening I heard comments by some people about how they couldn't wait to see all the liberals in the crowd get angry or, to the contrary, how they simply couldn't wait to boo Mr. Horowitz. The reactions of the crowd during the speech and the questions afterward followed the same lines. The crowd seemed sharply divided throughout. The event did more to polarize the campus in opinion than anything else.

Mr. Horowitz did himself few favors in his speech. While he made what I felt were some good points, he made it very difficult for anyone to agree with him unless they already did coming into the lecture. He made broad sweeping statements about the Democratic Party and leftist opinion in general, as well as comments about racial and religious groups he must have known would anger many in the crowd. These comments only served to alienate him from the group he was speaking to. I understand that it was his aim to point out to us that maybe we should question the opinions we hold. But to do it in such an antagonizing way is, unfortunately, very counterproductive. It only serves to make people hold more strongly to their opinions.

Horowitz's lecture aside, the constant black and white political arguments that seem to take the place of rational and open-minded discussion are a problem on our campus in general. One of the worst things about this campus is not that it is too one-sided in opinion, but that we often get so caught up in our liberalism or our conservatism that we close our ears to the opposing opinion. The conservatives here (at least the visible ones) tend to come off as very defensive. For example, a lot of what is written in The Spectator seems not to be taken as seriously due to the fact that it comes off as isolationist and hostile. I understand that the conservative opinion is in the minority on this campus, but it makes it very difficult to consider a view as valid if it's presented in such a belligerent manner. If I'm a liberal student sitting in the audience, who's been brought up and educated in a leftist-jaded environment, as Mr. Horowitz perhaps correctly asserts, then such an antagonistic example of the right is likely to serve more to turn me off to the conservative view as a whole rather than to make me rethink my opinions. In discussing issues it should be less a matter of left versus right, something that makes it seem like you have to align yourself with one team or another. This makes us less able to thoughtfully and intelligently examine the issue on our own.

A lot could be accomplished if groups, speakers and individual students made an effort to be more open to and respectful of different viewpoints. On the other hand, those expressing their opinions should keep in mind the audience they're addressing and make their cases in a levelheaded and non-aggressive manner. It would be a very valuable tool if Amherst students were to be exposed to a range of opinion more often, rather than remaining content in our liberal majority. If it's our aim to become more aware of different viewpoints and beliefs, our goal should be to foster a productive discussion, not to rile up, fluster or defeat those who don't already share the same opinion. In that vein, regardless of what Horowitz had to say, what I disagree with is his failure at the kind of constructive debate to which we should aspire.