The notion of "historically silenced" is ambiguous. In applying this criterion to individual cases of groups seeking diversity seats to represent communities, senators have been forced to interpret three factors limiting the scope of historical silencing.

First, what constitutes history? Is there a fixed point in a group's past at which we are to draw the line in evaluating it? The establishment of diversity seats is a preventative measure-not a distinctly reparative one. Further, a diversity seat is not meant to be a permanent position, but rather a temporary one to remain in place only as long as issues of importance to the community will potentially be misunderstood and treated with hostility from the majority. Instances of silencing in the past, then, cannot alone be used to gauge the potential for future problems; rather it makes more sense for senators to adopt the following two-pronged test for determining temporal relevance: One, has the group been silenced in recent memory? Two, might the group be silenced within the upcoming year? "Recent" appears to be another unclear term, and should be taken as immediate past to within a generation. In a sense, the first prong supports the second; evidence of past silencing predicts, to some extent, potential future silencing.

Secondly, what constitutes silencing? Disagreement among groups or individuals cannot be a sufficient criterion for silencing, or every individual would rightly have a seat. A silenced group is one which, sometimes despite making much noise, is not heard, or one whose members are prevented from speaking. The LBGT community is one in which some members experience the second type of silencing. Students concerned with issues related to their sexual orientations but not comfortable coming out to a class senator have a potentially easier-to-address representative in the diversity senator.

Finally, within what broader context does the historically silenced criterion apply? This question is a tricky one, ambiguous because it is not directly addressed in the constitution. Those groups which have been historically silenced on campus overlap with, but are not identical to, those communities which have been historically silenced in the country at large. One might think of groups that have been silenced on campus, communities that have been silenced in the United States, or communities that have been silenced within some yet broader context (e.g. the world). In recognition both of the broader context within which we at Amherst operate and the reality this policy applies on campus, recognized groups should fall within the intersection of local and national communities.

Diversity seats help to create a more representative student government, improving upon a limited voting system inherently biased towards overall maximization and not equity. We should keep them as long as groups need them, but it seems clear to me that the language of the AAS constitution needs clarification.

Stacey Kennard '03

Diversity seats undemocratic

Over the last month, the infamous diversity seat scandal at Amherst has caught the attention of local and national media. Thanks to one of our fair College's favorite pariahs, people around the country have had the amusement of hearing why the brilliant minds at Amherst feel democracy should be warped to accommodate special interests. While they laugh, our student body is stuck with a serious constitutional flaw that is destructive to the fundamental idea of democracy that each voice has equal say.

The constitution suggests that diversity seats should correct for "historical injustices" by providing overrepresentation of special interest groups in the senate. However, overrepresentation now neither corrects for past wrongs nor rules out future wrongs. Diversity seats simply allow some students to have more votes than others, just in case their special interests are not "adequately" represented in the senate. In the real world, when elected representatives don't listen to their constituents, they are voted out of office. The same principle holds at Amherst: if senators don't listen to the student body, they are voted out of the senate. And we already provide a rather large safety net in case bad senators do remain in office. All students here are welcome at senate meetings, and are indeed encouraged to attend and speak their minds.

But for some, that's just not enough. At Amherst, we must have special groups who get more say than everyone else in the process, perhaps because some people's voices are more important than others'. Not only is this idea incredibly offensive, it's also impossible to administer. First of all, how does one decide which groups should have the right to a diversity seat? And what message is sent when the senate denies a group a diversity seat? It is perhaps telling of a significant flaw that the only group so far denied a diversity seat was a group of conservative students. Rather than forming a proposal based on the desires of a pre-existing club, these students came to the senate with a series of real complaints about the treatment of students with conservative ideologies at Amherst. By denying these students a seat, the senate silenced them. Few people seemed to care much when the conservative students were denied a seat; if it had been one of the other "disadvantaged" groups who brought far less serious concerns to the senate, there would no doubt be outrage.

Diversity seats upset the fundamentals of democracy, they fail to correct for historical wrongs and prevent future wrongs, and they're currently keeping the already disfavored voices on campus silenced. On Tuesday, Dec. 10, the student body will have the opportunity to eliminate these offensive positions from the Constitution. I hope you'll join me in voting YES to eliminate diversity seats and create truly equal representation for all students at Amherst.

Michael Flood '03

One vote per person, please

I'm a liberal Democrat. I'm opposed to the death penalty, I believe in strict gun control and I support affirmative action. But I'm also adamantly opposed to AAS diversity seats. At their core, they deny the whole point of democracy: one vote for each person. By allowing some people to vote twice, we defy the very premise of representative democracy.

Who gets these extra votes? You would think that only Asian students could vote for the Asian diversity seat, but it would be outrageous to have a race requirement for voting. In a half-hearted attempt to fix this problem, any student can vote for candidates for any diversity seat. So, for instance, a majority of white supremacists could show up at the election for the Latino diversity seat and we would have a white supremacist representing the views of Latino students.

More realistically, the extra votes belong to small cliques of Amherst students representing their "historically-silenced" clubs, electing each other into office during under-publicized elections. While other clubs on campus come to budgetary committee meetings and advocate for their events, these constitutionally-privileged clubs have their own senators. Not only do diversity seats fail in principle, they fail disastrously in practice.

There are countless ways to affect change at Amherst. Students can run for AAS office, hold rallies, become leaders of clubs, talk with members of the administration or come to any meeting of the AAS. All meetings are open, and all students are welcome to bring issues. Not one "historically- silenced" group has come to an AAS meeting to discuss problems on campus.

Diversity senators are not the solution; students need to be more active on the issues about which they care. I urge you to vote YES on the ballot next week and remove diversity seats from the AAS Constitution. They are undemocratic, impractical and serve to excuse students from taking an active role on campus.

Ben Baum '03

Today different from the '60s

I did not appreciate the condescending tone of "To anti-war protestors everywhere: This ain't Vietnam." Although the columnist asserts that "this ain't Vietnam," in the article, he insistently compares today's peace promoters to the hippies of the '60s and '70s. "Your cold, distant reception to our returning soldiers in the '70s was a wrong that still affects veterans today and an injustice that will not soon be forgotten." Excuse me? By saying "your cold, distant reception," it implies that today's pacifists are the same ones of the Vietnam era, when in reality, most of today's peace-promoting college students were not even born yet. While present-day pacifists may be reminiscent of the Vietnam era, it is not fair to speak of them in such an accusatory way.

The columnist also says that the pacifists "stand steadfastly against public opinion." While this may be true, I don't think this is the whole point. Although I realize that in order to be heard by the public, the pacifist movement must be convincing, people take action because they believe in their cause not just to hold the public opinion. I want peace, not because I'm unpatriotic, but because I am afraid of the destruction of war. I don't want to see people dying all around me. In addition, a war today will be more destructive than wars of the past because of possible biological and nuclear weapons, which can wipe out a whole populations of people very quickly. I think promoting peace should be spurred by a desire to preserve the thousands (and perhaps millions) of innocent lives that could be lost, not about being "politically acceptable." I realize that war is sometimes a necessary action, but that does not make it a desirable one.

Christine Ondreicka '04