In these days, as we seem to head irrevocably towards a war in Iraq, I find myself with conflicting feelings. War is a terrible thing, and it is certain that some people would die in the conflict. And yet, on the other hand, could this possibly be a just, right war?

The arguments from the student protesters seem compelling at first. "We're attacking Iraq just to get their oil!" or "We're going to cause more terror by doing this!" or "We're just going to hurt the defenseless people of Iraq." The problem is, however, that these arguments have been rehashed repeatedly, and in many ways show just how little most Amherst students know and understand about the Middle East today.

Each year, Amherst offers only one real Middle Eastern history survey course-History 20 (taught by a UMass professor), which is usually taken by only about 10 to 15 Amherst students. Arabic is offered at UMass, but at the moment there are only three of us from Amherst in the class. Courses on Islam are also offered. To Amherst's credit, the College is in the process of hiring a Middle Eastern history professor who should join the faculty next year.

Why is it important to take these courses? It is because everyone must understand the context in which this war will be played out. A combination of the effects of Westernization and Islamic fundamentalism has turned the entire Middle East into a mess. The other nations, although they hate and fear Saddam Hussein, fear turning against him. The people of Iraq, and those of most Arab nations to a lesser extent, feel pressured by their governments not to advocate the removal of Saddam from power. In fact, interviews with Iraqi exiles in the U.S. have shown that although most Iraqis distrust and even hate the U.S. government, they overwhelmingly support a military campaign. They do because they and their families know the extent to which Saddam has tortured his people, using chemical weapons, political assassinations and even raping the daughters of his enemies.

I offer these examples not because I wholeheartedly support the war and not as a complete list of reasons why we should attack, but because they are facts that I simply did not know until I had read a lot about the current regime and taken History 20 last year. I am not saying that every student must take a Middle Eastern history course in order to be able to state his opinion about the war, just that it might be a good idea. Peace marches and rallies can serve a purpose, but only when they are used in concert with an informed and intelligent dialogue on the pros and cons of this war. We need more opportunities for a balanced debate on the war, rather than the one-sided events we have seen recently.

Andrew Moin '05

AAS-too high and mighty?

From all the recent hostile posts on NOTE and the Daily Jolt, you'd think that the Association of Amherst Students (AAS) met once a semester and allocated funds by drawing straws. But get it right; let's quit bashing the AAS about being meaningless and point out its real problems. After all, an organization that allocates over half a million dollars a year surely can't be meaningless. Its decisions can, however, be arbitrary, and that is why it has aroused the wrath of so many on campus.

Money doesn't grow on trees, and demand for AAS funds significantly exceeds supply. So I'll tell you now: there will be winners, and there will be losers. Some clubs and organizations will receive more than others. No matter what the AAS does, there will be accusations of bias and arbitrariness. That's the nature of the game, and it can't be fixed. But gigantic expenditure on a single event is a completely different story. That's the sort of bias and arbitrariness that can be fixed.

Let's take a look at the heart of the controversy. The budget for this year's Spring Formal is now $28,000, $11,000 higher than last year's dance. Supporters of the Formal argue that those funds were taken from club leftovers, which is true, but irrelevant. Cash is cash, and there's no reason why that money couldn't have been transferred to the AAS discretionary funds and into the hands of campus organizations. Money shouldn't be spent just to be spent. All expenditures should be justified. But the fundamental question isn't whether or not the Spring Formal is a worthwhile event, or even if $28,000 is an appropriate amount to spend on one glorious evening. Rather, the AAS should ask itself if the student body has had sufficient input in the budgetary allocation process. And the answer, I am afraid to say, is a clear and resounding "no."

It was this dearth of communication between the AAS and the student body that compelled my run for sophomore class senator. I promised to restore contact between the student government and the campus, and that is what I attempted to do at the March 10 AAS meeting. I introduced a resolution for a campus wide referendum on the 2003 Spring Formal, which was overwhelmingly rejected by the senate. If my resolution had passed, student voters would have been able to decide for themselves whether $28,000 is an appropriate amount to expend on this event. Furthermore, my resolution provided for a mandatory referendum on any expenditures of more than one-fifth of the AAS programming budget. Now, with the senate weighed in against my resolution, the entire campus must wonder about the legitimacy of the AAS.

Senators are elected, not appointed, and are therefore accountable to the student body. My resolution was non-binding: that is, the senate would not have been required to take into account the results of the survey. The fact that they nonetheless resoundingly rejected the resolution-not even allowing the campus a chance to voice its opinion-is not only undemocratic, but betrays a deep-seeded fear of the possible results of such a referendum. It seems as if the AAS views itself as some sort of elite institution-too high and mighty to take into account the opinions of those who elected them.

Fortunately, the senate is imprisoned by the very constitution that it drafted last year: a resolution that garners 160 signatures must be included on the ballot. The campus may yet get the opportunity, despite senate obstruction, to make its opinion known.

Ethan Davis '05