Four years ago, in my first few weeks of college here at Amherst, I felt that I was in a place that was quite close-minded on many issues-especially homosexuality. Although most students described themselves as "liberal" they were, in truth, simply apathetic. I truly felt that I had regressed in terms of an open environment, especially being "out," and have since worked on some level to better the environment for lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgendered (LBGT) students. There has been a marked change in the environment over these past four years, as can be seen in the opening of the Rainbow Room and the subsequent creation of a part-time staff position. However, the Amherst community is still one in which homosexuality is neither fully embraced nor nurtured and one in which homophobia and heterosexism still rear their ugly heads. At Amherst we see, at best, a supportive environment and, at worst, one in which homosexuality is merely tolerated, with some incidents where even this is called into question.

Some recent events have prompted me to write this, including the blatant homophobia experienced by some friends at a recent party. I feel uneasy comparing the issues of homosexuals to other groups. However, I believe that the following example will aid in displaying the way in which homosexuality is dealt with on campus by the community and administration. A few weeks ago, as is now well-known, some black students accused the Campus Police of racial profiling. The heads of administration quickly became involved, issuing a letter of concern, holding forums and, most importantly, actively rectifying the situation in a number of ways. I applaud the administration for its strong and much-needed response, though I am also disturbed that, although this response was indeed warranted, homosexual issues are not treated with the same vivacity.

In these past four years, I have witnessed the tearing down of the rainbow flags on the Campus Center, a virulent debate over campus chalking, a Spectator article entitled, "When a Man Loves A Woman: A True Appreciation of Sex Roles," a few Social Council events which were deemed discriminatory to homosexuals and a bevy of homophobic slurs. I have felt uncomfortable on numerous occasions in my dorm, at parties and even in class. Most importantly, the fact that there are only about 20 openly homosexual males on campus speaks for itself. In a school of 1,600, this accounts for 1.25 percent of the population, when it should be around five percent (using the widely accepted 10 percent statistic). This is not to say that I do not like Amherst, as I generally do, and I normally feel fine on campus. Yet, I believe that these incidents should not occur, homophobic slurs should not be tolerated and, most notably, there should be more than a mere 20 openly gay male students. Comparably, if there were only eight male Jewish students, it would be seen as an outrage (using the accepted statistic that 4% of the U.S. population is Jewish).

The reasons why there are not more open students, even if mainly due to closeted gay students not coming out, speaks volumes about the environment at Amherst; there is obviously an issue with homosexuality on campus. Back to the previous example: if the administration feels that racial profiling deserves such a strong response, why do they not feel the same about the aforementioned issues? Even though they are not as easy to deal with as placing scanners in the athletic facility or better training the police force, they still deserve to be approached with similar bravado.

Amherst has much work to do in changing its atmosphere to be a more nurturing and embracing environment for LBGT students. I believe that such an environment can only be fully realized when the administration becomes pro-active on these issues and the openly gay population at the school increases. The College spends a great deal of time, effort and funding towards making the school inclusive of minorities, yet LBGT students are suspiciously left out of these efforts. I feel that the current atmosphere will remain the same until LBGT students are treated as an integral, beneficial and necessary part of the community.

First, the actual incidents that occur need to be dealt with on the same level as any similar incident. For example, when the Social Council's (SoCo) events were found to be discriminatory, simply writing an apology letter and promising to make future events more inclusive was not an acceptable "punishment." If SoCo had sponsored an event that excluded any other minority, I do not feel that the punishment would have been so light. I am not in any way accusing SoCo of currently being discriminatory as I feel that they have done a fine job this past year.

This way of treating LBGT incidents more lightly is not just a product of the present and has, in fact, occurred at the College in the past. For example, in 1995, there was an incident, known for some time as "the Crossett Incident," where a group of male students chanted "faggot" outside of a known gay party. After an investigation and administrative "mediation," one of the perpetrators was forced to write an apology letter that actually did not apologize for anything, but simply asserting that he did not realize the severity of the word "faggot." However, around the same time, the water polo team had a food fight in Valentine and was placed on probation for the year, after the initial punishment of a ban on games for the year was rescinded, and each member of the team was required to work 20 unpaid hours in Valentine. This clearly shows differential treatment by the administration. Homophobic incidents need to be treated on the same level as other incidents. If not, then the words "sexual orientation," should be stricken from the Respect for Persons Statement in the handbook, as the school does not regard sexual orientation with the same respect as other minority concerns.

I believe the admissions office should work to maintain a gay community on campus as much as it works to maintain other minority populations. Adding an optional question to the supplemental admissions application so that prospective students who are not heterosexual can note the fact without having to write about it in an essay, can easily accomplish this. Additionally, admissions can work on making its publications more gay-inclusive, reach out to the gay community as it is reaching out to minorities with Students of Color interns and make sure that homosexual issues are included in tours and other admissions forums. Simply having a larger number of openly gay students on campus would do a great deal in changing the atmosphere.

Moving the Rainbow Room would also be a beneficial step toward bettering the environment. Currently, the LBGT Task Force is attempting to move the Rainbow Room out of Pratt Dormitory and into a more accessible and respectable location, such as the Campus Center. I also feel that the school should hire a full-time staff person that is not replaced each year. This person should be at the dean level and have the goal of bettering the environment for LBGT students. I do not think this needs to be an indefinite position, simply one that lasts until the environment becomes more welcoming.

Amherst also continues to be one of the few remaining "liberal" schools that does not offer a "gay-friendly" residence. All of the other four colleges offer gay-friendly housing. I believe a theme house could establish both a gay-friendly residence and outreach program. In addition, the house could serve to unite the gay and straight community at Amherst. However, this theme house would be unnecessary if the general housing at Amherst was indeed gay-friendly.

I will not simply cast out blame as I feel that the current homosexual community on campus-comprised of faculty, students and staff-needs to pull together to form a more tightly-knit community. Although there are many places outside of campus in which an LBGT person can find support or a social life, I believe that bonding together as a community is inherent to my vision of a better school. Alienation simply breeds further alienation. The faculty and staff can be instrumental in promoting this bonding, although the students need to help too, especially in supporting faculty and staff endeavors.

The issue of homophobia is now a grave concern at Smith College, receiving a dearth of media attention. Here at Amherst, we do not have enough support to muster such a protest, yet that does not mean such a problem does not exist. Amherst has the potential to be a welcoming and embracing place for LBGT students, though much work needs to be done. I believe that once this is accomplished, Amherst can truly be the number one liberal arts college.