After reading the article in The Student concerning the two Amherst students who were accused of vandalizing "The Indian Hunter" and "Pronghorn Antelope" statues in front of the Mead Art Museum, "Court assigns community service to accused vandals" (Oct. 30), I feel compelled to make my own comments.
I applaud the College for pursuing the investigation of the incident and for dismissing the two students involved. The court ordered that the students refrain from using alcohol, attend an alcohol education program and complete 100 hours of community service. The sentencing of community service seems adequate for two students not realizing the effects of alcohol, but it appears that Ms. Rodriguez missed the point completely. Perhaps as part of her community service, which she says she will have "no problem completing," she will be able to address respect for community property. And one can hope that she can include the concept of respect for such property as she uses her community service hours to "help the working class minority families to achieve upward mobility through education." While Ms. Rodriguez says that she will use this time to "grow as a person," based on her comments in the article, she has a long way to go.
John Goodhind
Painter/Paperhanger/Glazier
Paint Shop
Democrats limit campus dialogue
In an act of extreme cowardice, the Amherst College Democrats have withdrawn from a public debate with the College Republicans that was scheduled to take place tonight. The Democrats' sudden decision to pull out from the debate is just their latest attempt to limit political discussion on this campus.
One should recall that the Democrats were chiefly responsible for politicizing the allocation of AAS diversity seats. That disgusting display of partisanship caught the attention of the national media and, as Stanley Kurtz of the National Review observed, the Democrats' action licensed the senate-"a leftist majority tyranny"-to "stack the political deck by packing the senate with like-minded votes."
It's rather charming, then, that the Democrats defended their decision to withdraw from tonight's cooperative project with the claim that the "actions of the College Republicans leadership this year have demolished the goodwill that existed between the two clubs." It was the Republican leadership that reached out to the Democrats in order to improve the quality of dialogue between the two groups. It was the Republicans who asked to join with the Democrats to run a voter registration drive.
Whereas we have been eager to make Amherst the vibrant marketplace of ideas that it deserves to be, the Democrats have countered our efforts at every step. Those actions neither bolster goodwill nor improve the quality of campus discourse.
The Democrats also claim that they only agreed to participate in the debate because they "believed it had a legitimate civic purpose leading up to the election." However, both clubs agreed ahead of time to hold the debate tonight, Nov. 13, with the full knowledge that it would be a week and a day after the midterm elections. The Democrats' decision to cancel the debate only a few days before it was supposed to take place is so baseless that they themselves have trouble defending it.
For whatever reason, the Democrats are apparently fearful of disseminating their message and having their positions publicly challenged. As we have all seen over the past two months, the Democrats have gone to obscene lengths to limit the opportunity for more confident political groups to present their views. That sort of attitude is destructive and ought to be repudiated. We hope that the Democrats will reconsider the negative path that they have chosen and work with us to make Amherst a better place.
Pamela Burkardt '04
Dan Morash '04
Grant Mandsager '04
on behalf of the Amherst College Republicans
Debate apathetic and apolitical
At its best, the Amherst student body can be a great place for political debate. It is a place that, like many of the liberal arts colleges across the country, is liberal; but unlike the others, the conservatives here are extremely outspoken and make themselves heard. I think this makes for a situation that benefits everyone, liberals and conservatives alike. We all should be able to learn something in the process of open dialogue or at least learn that there are other views out there besides our own. By engaging in controversial discussion, one might even pick up or change a few of his or her ideas in the process.
The problem here at Amherst is-we don't. Last week's edition of The Spectator contained a prime example with an article entitled "Pacifists are Irrelevant: Moving on to the More Serious Debate" by Misha Tseytlin '03. It was a well-crafted article that spoke on the dangers of complete pacifism, but, at the same time, needlessly insulted anyone who is against the war on Iraq and pacifists in general. In direct response to this, I would like to say that pacifism is an ideal and, like all ideals, cannot always be reached. Its value lies in the fact that it creates alternatives to waging all-out war. To him I say, what is wrong with working towards an ideal where problems could be solved without violence? And yes, I am an idealist and a pacifist. Does this mean I think military conflict is never necessary? No, unfortunately there are times when they are necessary, but I don't think that is an open door for military conflict each time a country has a problem with the other.
Unfortunately, the article, while well-constructed, is a prime example of the kind of debate in which college students here engage. Many students argue endlessly, trying to prove each other wrong and completely missing the fact that the world and, subsequently, politics is incredibly complex and they can never come up with a "right" answer. Liberals here are content to preach to the choir and insult conservatives on their views on gun safety laws, Bush's enthusiastic approach to the war on Iraq and other conservative ideas. Conservatives aren't much better; the above article is one example of that. What gets solved, or even debated this way? What we have here are two parties that insult each other and somehow have the idea that the other is completely wrong. One must remember that we are in Amherst, one of the top colleges in the country. Do you think the average person here who argues politics would hold an idea or an ideal without just reasons? No. Let's start treating each other like it.
After four years here we hope to be able to lead our world into the heart of this century and, instead of engaging in serious debates to learn about our world, we are content to hold an insult contest. Frankly this kind of petty politics makes me sick and makes me fear for the future if this is the kind of debate that will continue to lead our country.
Peter Bulmer '04