Now as for the Kors lecture, it was nothing out of the ordinary for an event put together by the Amherst College Republicans (it is noteworthy that AAS did in fact fund this event). Kors talked about the stifling speech codes at thousands of colleges and universities across the country. A dynamic and accomplished speaker, Kors attacked any suppression of free speech in higher education as a violation of our rights. He lambasted political correctness and made some very provocative, insightful remarks. At the end of the lecture, Kors declared that he intended to "create a hostile environment," hoping for students to engage his controversial remarks. Alas, the audience consisted largely of the same 15 or so conservatives on campus who actually attend such events. The resulting discussion was open, but perhaps a bit too cordial for down-and-dirty political debate to flourish.
"Terror, Freedom and America's Wars," the second lecture that I attended, was given by Professor Sayres Rudy who presented a critical account of the Bush administration's doctrine of preemption, the motivations for war in Iraq and the general principles behind America's war on terrorism. Depending on your political perspective, this lecture was no less controversial than Kors'. Though my own political bent is certainly not consistent with that of Professor Rudy, I thought that his presentation was professional and interesting. My problem resulted from the "open discussion" that ensued in which an audience rabidly against U.S. policy turned what should have been an open forum into a rally. For whatever reason, the Babbott Room of the Octagon was largely filled with people not only dismissive of opposing ideology-there was out-and-out hostility to the handful of folks who (to varying degrees) support the Bush administration and its foreign policy. What is more distressing is that some of the comments made by students in the room bordered on lunacy, and in my humble opinion, the event turned into a mindless Bush-bashing session.
After continuous barrages of laughter from the audience directed towards conservative ideology and numerous accusations that Bush and Hitler have more in common that the average (reasonable) person would think, I couldn't stomach much more. I finished a delicious cookie provided by the Foreign Policy Forum (good work on that, guys) and with several comrades in tow, made for the exit. On my way out, I was accosted by a non-Amherst student who accused those leaving of "not understanding anything" and in a more personal if not humorous attack, accused us of "playing with 'Desert Storm Cards' too much,"
I have been to many a forum on this campus because I do in fact believe that much of the best learning occurs outside the classroom. That said, I have never seen such animosity towards the other side, not even when the issue has been affirmative action, women's rights or the death penalty. What I have begun to see, not just in forums but in general political discourse on this campus inside and outside the classroom, is increasing animosity and decreasing dialogue.
As I see it, the reason for increasing tension on the issue of campus politics, particularly between the pro-war and pro-protest camps, is that Amherst is just saturated with liberal, leftist theories, and we don't pay attention to one another's political beliefs. It has reached a point where opposing the doctrine of the left is no longer a respectable, reasonable position. For many Amherst students (Hampshire deserves an entirely separate column devoted to its obtuse polarization of the war issue), there is not supposed to be any discussion. After all, our professors are well-educated, well-spoken and well-intentioned, and they are nearly unanimous in their opposition to war. Anti-Bush, anti-war, anti-conservative ideology is rampant in the Pioneer Valley-it is found in our streets, restaurants and stores.
The logic for many students seems to be that because we live in a region steeped in super-liberalism and leftist political biases, dissent from that is an absurdity, an inhumane adherence to oppressive capitalism. The same people who claim the right to march and block traffic choose to hiss when, in the most appropriate of forums (such as Monday night's), somebody questions their perception of U.S. intentions or their evaluation of Near-Eastern politics. If the anti-war left claims, as I believe it does, to hold the only patent on truth, it should be more willing than ever to engage conservatives like me who are willing to listen to them. Hissing, booing and giggling are truly the activities of someone who would also dabble in "Desert Storm Cards."
We must remember that as knowledgeable as our professors may be, they must not be immune to dissenting opinions. No matter how many protesters march, there has to be room for the other side to speak up as well. And I don't care how many screaming liberals go to this school, teach here or live in the Valley, ideological opposition should be respected. After all, it is dissent at Amherst that separates us politically but unifies us as a community of principle.
More importantly, at the end of the day we are all on the same team, and it is possible to check our political affiliations at the door. How else do you think I manage to be so fond of all you liberals?