We were offended by the recent disturbing chalkings found around the freshman quad. Depictions of wounded and dead bodies to try and bring attention to important points regarding suicide and assault of LBGTQ individuals is distasteful and inhibits the delivery of this most important message. We strongly support the pride alliance and its message and we vehemently defend the artists' right to create such images; however, we feel that in this case the statistics should speak for themselves. We don't need to see dead bodies to be outraged by discrimination against LBGTQ individuals.
Furthermore, coming out week should be a demonstration of our acceptance for LBGTQ individuals. For a student questioning his or her sexuality, evidence of the support systems in place for them would certainly be more inviting than empirical evidence that cites the rising numbers of assaults and murders against LBGTQ individuals. We want students struggling with so tough an issue to feel that they don't have to become another statistic and that there is a place for them here at the College.
Christian McClellan '06 and Emily Silberstein '06
Mourning loss of a great hero
We have lost a member of our community in the passing of Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone. A former professor at Carleton College, Senator Wellstone represented all that is good in American politics. He brought his passion and integrity to bear on issues like the environment, corporate reform and fighting for democracy. We should remember him not for the seat he has left vacant in the U.S. Senate but for the caring and courage he displayed as a liberal arts professor and a national leader.
Luke Swarthout '04
AAS decision justified
As outlined in last week's article "Senate denies conservative group diversity seat," at the Oct. 21 meeting of the Association of Amherst Students (AAS), the senate chose to reject the Amherst College Republicans' (ACR) appeal, made chiefly by ACR Chairman Ted Hertzberg '04, for a diversity senator to represent politically conservative students here at Amherst.
I am a registered member of the Republican Party and I opposed the measure for a conservative diversity senator. My membership, in fact, is one of the defining factors of my decision. I am a conservative because of my fiscally conservative views; my views on social issues, conversely, range from moderately conservative to liberal. Another freshman senator clarified that voters identify themselves as conservative, like me, for various reasons. People, however, do not have a choice of their identities as international students, as Latinos and Latinas and as gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgendered or questioning students.
The conservative diversity senator cannot possibly represent the spectrum of views of every conservative on campus. Likewise, while the recognized diversity senators can draw distinct lines between their minority community and the majority community here, the conservative diversity senator would, by attempting to draw those same lines to define and represent his or her community, exclude those that do not agree with the totality of the defined "conservative" platform but yet still label themselves as conservatives. He would, then, fail his duty as a conservative diversity senator.
The most compelling reason for rejecting even the concept of a conservative diversity senator, however, lies in the very duty and obligation of an AAS senator. In the first year of this new AAS constitution, I believe that the senate has had enough time to make a judgment regarding the necessity of diversity senators. There are eight senators elected for each class, a number large enough to accommodate a variety of political and social attitudes to ably represent the diversity of opinion in the Amherst student body. Moreover, Amherst students elect senators to represent people, not ideology or politics or philosophies of life. In each of the other cases, the groups requesting a diversity senator seat were titled for corporeal student groups: the International Students Association for international students, etc.
There can be no misunderstanding that the name of the Amherst College Republicans stands for, and only for, conservative political belief. It is the duty of each senator to be objective in weighing the benefits and costs of any proposal brought before the senate with regards to the interests of his or her class. If a conservative approach is determined to be the best approach to a problem or if conservative students are most vocal in voicing their wishes to the senator, then so be it.
For a few minutes on Monday night, the AAS senate caught a glimpse of the desolate valley floor to which the slippery slope of partisanship leads. The AAS senate would not only become a useless and bitter institution, but the students would also lose all respect and faith in the senate's ability to conduct business on their behalf. I voice my firm support of the senate's resolution to reject a conservative diversity senator, and I assure the campus that the move was far from partisan or prejudiced. The senate's decision was a decision in favor of democracy and self-government; it was the right answer to the question.
I encourage all students, especially those who feel silenced or ignored, to visit or write your senators personally. All groups should feel welcome on the floor of the AAS senate to address the body. The AAS is our association and the AAS senate our senate. Let us stop bickering and start working!
Ian Shin '06 and
Matthew Vanneman '06
Diversity seats unnecessary
The policy of diversity seats is a true testament to the failings of our student government. This policy violates the democratic premise of one vote per one person. This violation of the democratic process is perhaps as equally disturbing as the Association of Amherst Student's failure to apply this policy equitably to all "historically" silenced groups on campus. I am not approaching this issue from the perspective of a conservative student who has been wronged, but rather as a student who believes that the AAS is failing to support my interests and, indeed, the interests of the campus as a whole. Politics are of no importance in realizing that the decision of the AAS was imprudent.
The problem with this policy starts with the vague use of the term "historically silenced." The ambiguity of this term means that the decision of who does and who does not get a diversity seat is left to the arbitrary will of the AAS, thus creating a slippery slope. Does "historical" mean within the past few years or since the founding of the College? If we are using length of time as a yardstick, one would have to say that the conservative voice on this campus has been silenced for as long as the majority of faculty has been liberal. The judgment of when history begins and what being "silenced" allows for too many variables in the decision to grant diversity seats. In the context of the policy, club sports should be granted seats because their concerns are often belittled since they aren't seen as "real" sports at our school.
It is also problematic for the AAS to decide who does and who doesn't feel silenced and marginalized on our campus. If a person feels that they are silenced and that they would feel uncomfortable approaching a senator to voice his or her concerns, then that feeling shouldn't be denied. If the AAS were to deny the Pride Alliance a diversity seat on the senate, the campus would be up in arms. However, very few students seemed to be upset when conservative students, an out-of-favor group on campus, were denied a seat. The non-response of the campus is in itself evidence that they are being silenced on campus. The groups that did receive diversity seats are minorities and do face many challenges in the world, but on our campus they are often favored and much thought goes into implementing policies and programs that serve to protect their needs. Our campus isn't a perfect place for many students, and I do not mean to say that marginalized groups have it easy here, but people do make the effort to try and make life easier on this campus for them. Very few students, if any, would make the effort to make a policy that is accommodating to a conservative student.
The policy of offering diversity seats is simply an excuse for the AAS to not perform its job as a representative body, which is to ensure that the interests of all students are being heard. The premise of these diversity seats is to provide a venue for students who don't feel comfortable coming to their senators. The fact that people even seek these ridiculous positions is a symptom of the AAS's unapproachability and failure to represent student interests. Perhaps when the policy of diversity seats is reviewed, the AAS will decide that rather than implementing diversity seats, they will work harder to reach out to the student body and create forums. Another possibility is that the AAS could allow all clubs on campus, many which represent marginalized groups, to have seats on the senate. Therefore, they could reach out to many members on this campus with minimal effort. Senators should be mindful of representing all members of their classes and consult with those students whose views they don't necessarily feel so comfortable expressing.
Unfortunately the diversity seat debacle has delegitimized the AAS further in my eyes. By not allowing all silenced voices on this campus to be heard the AAS fails to be the voice for all students on this campus. It seems as though the decision about diversity seats came down to petty politics and individuals, rather than applying the rules of the AAS constitution in a fair and equitable manner that carries out the spirit of the rule. If you are going to implement such a problematic rule, you must be prepared to implement it fairly or face the challenges of a disgruntled student body.
Courtney Dowd '04