As a 1960 Amherst graduate I was heartened by The New York Times front page report on April 5 that stated that Amherst undergraduates are finally confronting "anti-war" professors and administrators.

Current undergraduates might be surprised to learn that before they were "anti-war," Amherst faculty and administrators were proudly anti-military-a hostility which has an ugly history that predates the Vietnam generation.

ROTC was kicked off the Amherst campus before I arrived as a freshman in the fall of 1956. In 1956-57 I found faculty who bragged about this, and discouraged undergraduates from signing up for ROTC at the UMass campus. Some of you may have heard (or heard of) the obnoxious chant aimed at certain opposition teams during Amherst athletic games: "that's all right, that's OK, you're going to work for us some day". That essentially was the attitude about anyone who took ROTC at UMass.

In the pre-Vietnam late 1950s, many Amherst graduates (including some of my classmates) picked up on that sentiment to such an extent that they openly bragged about the techniques they were using to avoid military service. The more brazen ones considered military service the obligation only of those who came from the wrong side of the tracks in their gerrymandered draft districts. I vividly remember one classmate who noted on his resume that prospective employers needn't worry about his being drafted because the local quotas were filled with high school graduates (from the poor side of his draft district) not heading to college.

As an Alumni Trustee in the early 1980's, when I asked the Alumni Office if the College had any record of Amherst graduates being killed or wounded in Vietnam, I was told they hadn't heard of a single one. Would the Vietnam War have been over sooner rather than later if those who fought it had come from the Amherst "leadership-in-training" community? It's fair to say that many families of the more than 55,000 who paid the ultimate sacrifice in Vietnam probably thought so.

So you can imagine how surprised I was when Amherst's President Tom Gerety (who never served in uniform) went on Public Television's The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer and called for Americans to shed blood and die if necessary to fight the butchers of the Balkans. To quote him: "And if we are to fight just war, we have to be brave about it. You don't kill if you're not willing to die in the cause of justice." During the College's 178th commencement speech he said "... then we must, as a nation, be much braver than we have been and risk our own lives along with those of the Serbs and the Kosovars." He was the first Amherst president to call for American military men and women to make the ultimate sacrifice since I was an undergraduate (and oh, has he been silent on this point since Sept. 11 when it comes to butchers in Baghdad and al Qaeda). I noticed that the Times article said he described himself as "anti-war," to which I can only say, not quite.

At some point in the future, Amherst may on an ongoing basis invite senior military officers in uniform to speak at its campus, and maybe once again host a resident ROTC unit so its volunteer undergraduates can train on campus. Perhaps the long time disconnect at Amherst between those who serve and protect in uniform and those who are protected will be bridged in the near future.

If that ever happens, it will clearly be at the instigation of the undergraduates at Amherst. I wish you well.

Dick Hubert '60

Editor's Note: The writer volunteered and served with the U.S. Army in France.

The left's needs stance rationality

In addressing the debate over U.S. military action in Iraq, the liberal consciousness on this campus has continued to snowball unchecked, due to a lack of opposing views. Unfortunately, both for liberals and for those who seek an atmosphere of intellectual stimulation and rationality, this has not been without serious consequence. Articulate dissent, as is historically the aim of protesting masses and participants in displays of civil disobedience, depends on both a sensible formulation of the dissenters' grievances and a willingness to condemn radicals who misunderstand and bastardize the aims of the dissenting faction. Our failure to do to the latter is quite distressing.

Just as the Republican Party and conservatives are obliged to reprimand Trent Lott and combat the ignorance of racist blunders, so must intelligent liberals-notably our Fairest College-remain vigilant in combating blanket condemnation of United States government and senseless anti-Americanism. Failure to do so implies that all people who are politically sympathetic share the values of these radicals. When a liberal on this campus or anywhere across the nation proclaims, "Bush is a fascist" or "America is evil" and is not put down by his informed liberal peers, the left's dissent is discredited as lunacy-and rightfully so. To be critical of the government and American foreign policy is every citizen's right, even his or her responsibility, but failure to exercise this same criticism in evaluating one's like-minded peers is a dangerous error. A left that is willing to accept any condemnation of the U.S. as representative of an intelligent, thoughtful individual will quickly alienate sensible Democrats and lose the respect of those who may have otherwise thought themselves liberal.

At our College, this responsibility to question radical ideology and demand adequate justification for all viewpoints is not being upheld. Both professors and students are quick to demand justification for a pro-war stance while condoning anti-war sentiment with silence. This double standard demands an articulate, well-supported argument from conservatives and war supporters, while allowing liberals to slip into ideological and intellectual mediocrity. Thus, what now seems like support and acceptance of liberal views will eventually prove to be a crippling lack of accountability for this country's young left.

Peter Harper '05

Broadsheet news is justified

I was shocked to see last week's letter criticizing the distribution of The New York Times and for the first time felt strong censorship-inclined stirrings within me. A student was complaining about someone showing us kindness and trying to enrich our lives. I stared at the innocent-looking copy of The Times lying next to me on the table. Was its presence a Thing Of Evil? Did outrageous amounts of money and trees really go into the production of this informative stack of paper? Or was Dan Altschuler's article flawed?

The author of this criticism doesn't need Valentine's Times because "Before going to breakfast, I sit for 15 minutes and read [online] all the … articles that interest me." In rebuttal: first, not everyone has the iron-like willpower and West Point-like rigidity of schedule possessed by Altschuler-I scramble in the mornings to shower (ok, even to get dressed) or let alone go online; second, I enjoy reading a paper over a meal. Altschuler should realize his argument neglects to take into account those unfortunates who must occasionally eat alone; a newspaper is a comforting companion in those trying times. How long can it take to read those little folded paper advertisements?

As for paper-wasting, which Altschuler sums up as "By funding this program, we are directly sponsoring considerable paper waste." Remember, these trees were already cut. Boycotting The Times wouldn't save a rainforest, and Times editors don't roll up their shirtsleeves, grab saws and go hack down endangered trees to feed to their printing press as part of their job requisite. I will read The Times and my conscious will go untormented by guilt. I'm not a monster-when Valentine requested students take fewer napkins per meal last year I readily complied, but there's a line.

Altschuler also resents the expense factor: "… [the subscription is] a large and unnecessary financial drain of the College's resources;" again I offer a two-pronged counter-attack. I won't take the time to quote budgetary statistics, but take the Spring Formal, a lavish affair costing $28,000. Let's be honest: the AAS can treat us decently, and if a Times subscription for an individual costs $5.75/week for eight weeks (AAS subscribed for five weeks), buying 200 copies would make it substantially cheaper. Yet Mr. Altschuler proposes to buy several different newspapers in addition, such as The Economist or The Wall Street Journal. If money is a concern, it's not going to be cheaper to buy "50 copies of four different publications. "

The letter reminds us that The Times and other newspapers are available at the library-true, but surely everyone spends enough time in the library without dashing over to read the headlines. Altschuler also asks "do students ever turn down free things (e.g. mugs, pens …)?" I can't see what newspapers have to do with free pens; besides, the world's expensive enough. I for one will continue to take free food samples from supermarkets, free glasses of water from restaurants, free lollipops and coffee from banks, free pens from wherever, etc.

One of Altschuler's main points is that The Times can be emailed to anyone at no cost. Hey, he's right-I get it myself-and I even read it on days when I miss Valentine's copies. I don't read books online because it doesn't compare to flipping pages (an urge which he describes as "[in light of the situation] our aesthetic preferences appear rather petty.") Perhaps Altschuler is simply not adept at properly folding large pages and creasing them correctly-okay, it's not easy, but practice, don't try to abolish newspapers because of it! Students spend enough time staring at a monitor between Kazaa, Daily Jolt, email, PlanWorld, IM, etc. Let's abandon the flickering glow every now and then when offered the chance.

I object to Altschuler saying that "[the AAS] should not simply reward students who are too lazy to read a newspaper via the Internet." Does laziness have anything to do with one's preference for paper over electronic? And it seems to me the lazy people would sit in their room clicking on icons, not getting outside to read the paper. I will conclude by saying there are enough issues that actually deserve debate on campus so that when the administration decides to throw us a well-appreciated bone we don't have to spit it back. The New York Times addresses the most serious and important news in the world; letters in The Amherst Student are reduced to complaints about whether this newspaper's newfound circulation is worthwhile-who is really wasting paper? Come to think of it, shouldn't the original letter have been emailed?

Saul Lelchuk '05