The fact that this decision was made behind closed doors and by secret ballot is reason for concern. But more importantly, the decision itself marks a lapse in judgment and warrants attention and scrutiny from the student body. Regardless of one's political persuasion, there are a number of strong reasons why a "conservative coalition"-namely the College Republicans-should not receive such a senate seat.
First, conservatives have not been a historically silenced group on campus. Amherst College is the college of Calvin Coolidge. It has been dominated by social and political conservatism until relatively recent efforts to expand admission across gender, ethnic and socio-economic lines. To say that Amherst has a long tradition of progressive and far-left values is simply untrue.
Second, conservatives are not silenced today. They have the most vocal student on campus enlisted as their spokesman; they have a number of conservative faculty members spread across a wide range of disciplines; they have their own publication and other avenues to spread their message; and they have received thousands of dollars in alumni funding for their "Committee on the American Founding."
Third, the notion that conservatives are mistreated as a political group on campus is largely a myth. College Republican signs and posters do, in fact, often get torn down; but so do the signs and posters of College Democrats. The only difference is that the Democrats don't call the police to report such "crimes" because they haven't sought to boost membership by seeking self-victimization status.
Conservatives have also complained about physical intimidation, but let's keep in mind that the chairman of the College Republicans posted an e-mail to his membership earlier this month saying: "Let me be clear on one final point: if the Left decides to hijack September 11th ... don't be afraid to speak up. And if people start burning flags, kick some ass. I mean that." Conservatives have failed to make the case that they are specifically targeted physically.
Fourth, conservatives are not unfairly shunned in classes. Indeed, when conservative students declare outrageous, far-right sentiments to get a rise out of fellow students, they receive sharp rebukes. The same results occur when liberal students do the same. Just think post-Sept. 11. Conservative students may sometimes feel uncomfortable speaking their mind, but so do liberal ones. This is not ideologically targeted.
Fifth, any notion that the senate lacks a conservative voice is untrue. Although this notion may have appealed to e-branch members, the AAS has and will continue to include conservative members regardless of whether the College Republicans select their own diversity senator.
Sixth, the AAS cannot give conservatives a diversity seat without taking sides on America's ongoing culture war. It is one thing for Lynn Cheney, Bill Bennett and Rush Limbaugh to rail on "repressive liberal elites" in an effort to energize young Republicans and attract working-class Americans, but it is quite another thing for the AAS to deem them right. Most liberal academics simply don't agree that conservatives are silenced victims on college campuses.
Seventh, the AAS cannot give one political party more institutional influence than the other without making an obvious political statement. The AAS has long been cautious to stay nonpartisan and nonpolitical. In a seemingly flippant decision, the e-branch just threw that tradition out the window. If the AAS does not want future elections to hinge on the political ideologies of the candidates, then it must not make such political decisions; it must stay out of that arena.
The College Republicans have articulately and skillfully put forward their case. But it just doesn't hold water.
A large number of students are concerned about the e-branch's decision. Additionally, a large number of senators are concerned that the judiciary council will disregard constitutional intent and vote to bypass senate confirmation of diversity senators. These concerns do not guarantee, however, that the decision will be reconsidered.
Undeniably, this year's AAS inherited last year's mess and has done a great deal to restore credibility. But this mess is one they created themselves. Let's hope they can get out of it.