We're all well versed in the various strategies of avoiding class discussions, of affecting a deathly silence when the teacher asks a question. One has to avert one's eyes, of course, as a direct gaze would imply some knowledge of the expected answer. And you don't want to do that-after all, you barely looked at the reading. One also has to keep perfectly still. Those do happen to be the very moments when face and scalp itch madly, and even the slightest gesture may be interpreted as an offer to answer the question at hand. And you don't want that either. There're many other devices-flipping through the book (which probably does not have the answer, provided it's even the correct book), the well-timed sip of coffee or tea (can't talk with a full mouths, after all), the intent gaze (mind at work: do not disturb) and so on. The ultimate goal is usually attained-after a minute or so of beseeching looks, the professors answer their own questions, or provide more hints. Unless there's that one person in your class who always has the answer to everything, and does not hesitate to share their boundless knowledge, in which case you're probably safe from the awkward situation to begin with.

We have to say that weadmire professors' persistent attempts to elicit responses from their students, and facilitate lively class discussions. Response papers and student presentations on readings also ensure that one has to do some of the reading. When all else fails, the professor might actually read out an important passage or quote in class, in hopes that the students would then be inspired to respond. If, after all this, students still choose to keep mum, one cannot, in all fairness, blame the faculty.

Or can they? It seems as though Amherst is a school where apathy is expected. Why, after paying $35,000 a year for their education, do students dodge the eyes of their professors instead of seeking them? Is it the professors' faults, despite consistent attempts, that Amherst students do not speak out in class? One arguement is that classes here are taught with a definite bias, and it is difficult, if not impossible, to express views that differ from the professors'. For example, we can envisage a scene where a student might be expressing pro-war views, with most of his peers, and the professor, against the war. There might be murmurs of disapproval from fellow students, which would probably intimidate the brave dissenter. The professor would afterwards give a little speech, supported by the rest of the class or group of students, on how he or she understood the dissenter's viewpoint, but respectfully begged to differ on such and such grounds. Other anti-war students would chime in occasionally, and express unanimous assent. Browbeaten into silence, the pro-war minority would not offer any more arguments. Subtle intimidation might occur in ways, such as a professor's constant use of Bush as an example of bad leadership, or scathing comments intended to ridicule the current government. Many other nuances come into play when the above paradigms are complicated by factors of race, gender or religion.

We are made to believe that Amherst is the home of the leaders of tomorrow. How true is this when students hide behind their books and run from a challenge or possibility of defeat? Did Abraham Lincoln not speak out against slavery when many were for it? Did Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. not voice his opinion when America was on fire and killing thousands of blacks? Did Margaret Thatcher not speak out and forge the path for contraception today? It seems to us that Amherst students need to hold themselves accountable and pursue their passions, even if that might mean feeling a bit uncomfortable.

In our opinions, the best arguments are those in which we listen to and understand other viewpoints, and others pay us the same courtesy. We may not be convinced by the arguments given, nor others by ours', but we will undoubtedly gain some more knowledge with which to defend our stance whenever the issue comes up. Such arguments undoubtedly do not take place where diverse opinions are not encouraged or nourished. It is the professor's duty to foster and mediate discussion, in and out of the classroom, and to discuss the issue as evenly as possible, in order to preclude the possibility of making students uncomfortable and hesitant to share opposing views. But it is the students' responsibility to make sure they voice their point of view during discussion. Without both the students and professors doing their part, how can we say Amherst has a healthy intellectual atmosphere?