"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. All of those things are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family. And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately." Senator Rick Santorum (R-Penn.).

Senator Santorum's statement defies fact and logic. Worse still, he misunderstands the true meaning of American freedom, the consequences of harmless consensual behavior, and the way to improve conditions for American families.

The meaning of American freedom is that citizens do have the right to do anything so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. The sexual crimes Santorum lists are illegal because they harm others or break a contract (to be monogamous). Consensual gay sex does not infringe upon the rights of others. Why shouldn't citizens have the right to engage in consensual acts within the privacy of their own homes?

Santorum claims to oppose gay rights on the grounds that an act of love between members of the same sex is "antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family." "Health and stability" are not requirements for heterosexuals to get marriage licenses, much less have sex. The high divorce rate among heterosexuals indicates that the instability of families bears no relationship to what gay men and women do in their bedrooms. Furthermore, people who engage in consensual gay sex often form healthy and stable families. Studies comparing children raised by committed gay couples to children raised by committed straight parents have shown that what matters in raising families is the presence of two loving parents, not the gender of the parents. While same-sex couples are not "traditional," neither are most modern families, including those in which women work outside the home. Would Santorum argue that women's rights to equal educational and vocational opportunities should be outlawed because they are antithetical to a "traditional family?"

After reflecting on the challenge that non-normative sexual behaviors allegedly pose to families, Santorum sighs "that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately." The decay of American families is indeed unfortunate. But there are plenty of ways to improve the health and stability of our families. Increasing funding for public education, expanding access to healthcare, promoting after-school and community programming, providing family planning counseling and contraceptives and reducing the tax burden on working class families are all measures that Santorum might find more effective than targeting gays.

Consensual gay sex does not harm families, but laws prohibiting it do. The high suicide rate among gay teenagers who internalize their rejection from American law and society brings tragedy to thousands of American families a year. Committed gay couples who would be loving parents cannot legitimize their unions through marriage, nor can they adopt children. These are only a few consequences of laws that make ten percent of Americans into criminals.

American history thus far has been a journey toward fulfilling the promise of equality. America celebrates the victories of movements for women's rights and black civil rights, and it continues to struggle against sexism and racism. But as long as powerful lawmakers like Senator Santorum cling to homophobia, both the American ideal of equality and the lives of people who happen to be other than heterosexual (and their families) will suffer. Scapegoating gay citizens for the problems in American society reveals both Santorum's ignorance and his unwillingness to work to really improve the condition of American families.

Amherst College Pride Alliance

Tanzania is more than an attraction

While I'm happy that Martha Nelson '04E had an exciting trip to Tanzania, the tone of her description regarding the slice of the country's culture she saw is disquieting. Writing that "in terms of cultural richness, authentic Maasai villagers still dress in their traditional tribal garb" and that "some hold long spears with which they still hunt lions," Nelson makes it seem like the Maasai are attractions rather than actual people. Reading her observations on Maasai life, which are sandwiched between descriptions of viewing wildlife and sipping daiquiris in Zanzibar, one gets the feeling that "seeing how the natives lived," as Hemingway might have said, was just one more thing to check off on a list of activities.

Such a feeling is furthered by her indirect comparison of Africa to Disneyland, a fantasyland of amusements and people in costumes. And although Nelson warns against Disneyland's tacky tourism, her indirect comparison of theme park attractions with Tanzanian people has unsettling implications.

My intent here is not to devalue Nelson's personal experience but to raise awareness about implicit judgements we all make when seeing people who live very differently from us. Clearly, Nelson had positive experiences with the Maasai she met. Furthermore, this is not to say that many Maasai don't market themselves as attractions. Indeed, in tourist areas, there are "cultural homesteads," where foreigners pay to see a replica village in action. However, it is my hope that discerning travelers like Nelson will think a bit more critically about what is being presented to them before returning and sharing their observations with friends, family and Student readers.

Certainly, one cannot expect to understand the place he or she is visiting after a week or two, but I'm sure any attentive traveler would realize quite quickly upon getting to Tanzania that what tourists see of the Maasai and "real Maasai life"-whatever that is-are two very different things.

Nick Wexler '03

The author of this letter spent the Spring 2002 semester in Kenya and several weeks in Tanzania.

Return tradition to Class of 2006

The recent alcohol policy crackdown by the Campus Police is affecting more than just the weekend relaxation of the student body, it's affecting age-old traditions of the College. Ask any freshman and they'll remark on the number of upperclassmen who have inquired about the status of James Reclaims, Stearns Returns and the other traditional freshman dorm parties, widely attended by students of all years.

As the year draws to a close, the number of weekends that James and Stearns can duke it out for the title of best dorm can be counted on one hand, but party planners and attendees alike have heard widespread rumors of police precautions and threats to freshman party hosts. For example, planning of the traditional freshman parties was stopped dead when students were informed that the Campus Police could and would charge every student living in the dorm $90 if a party occurred. That's $90 whether or not you attended the party, whether or not you were in the possession of alcohol and whether or not you were even on campus!

In addition, this past Thursday night, students in James Hall were subject to more than hourly patrols by the Campus Police because someone had leaked the information that James Reclaims had been planned for that night. However, while the Campus Police may have been informed of the status of James Reclaims, students in James were not. The dorm remained calm all night, as the patrol car stationed in front of the building no doubt observed.

As freshmen are continually questioned about the status of their traditional dorm parties, we are ashamed at the prospect of being the class to end the tradition. It is upsetting that our class will be labeled as the breaking point of an extensive tradition, when we have been looking forward to these reputed parties as much as the upperclassmen who hosted them in years past.

What brought on this act of cruelty by the Campus Police? They can't possibly have just realized that underage drinking occurs on the College campus. What brought on the crackdown this semester, this year? Underage alcohol consumption always has and always will occur on this, and every, college campus. We, the freshmen, just want to carry on the tradition.

Linden Karas '06

Not all extensions are due to laziness

Your editorial last week against the lenient paper extensions policy is well intentioned and rational, but I think more needs to be said about extensions. Extensions are unfair, depending on your definition of fairness. For me, fairness requires students to be rewarded if they meet their deadlines and punished for failing to meet their deadlines. However, failure to meet deadlines without prior notice does not automatically translate to "laziness" or carelessness.

Although there is some truth to the argument, it neglects the complexity of the extension policy. The fact is that Amherst represents an academically, socially and politically diverse range of students, which I think makes this institution unique and powerful. There are those students who could churn out a five-page paper in two hours, while other students require at least 5 hours to do the same amount of work. There are also students who stay up at insane hours of the night and end up with a paper of the required length, whether it is coherent or not. For other students, finishing a paper by pulling all-nighters is simply not possible. Although it is unfair to grant extensions, it is also equally unfair to judge the latter students by their inability to stay up late or write as quickly as other students.

Missing from the equation are students who are actively involved in Amherst outside of the classroom in the form of sports, student government or obligated work-study, etc. No doubt such involvement requires a lot of time commitment, which in many ways interfere with academic pursuits, but without such involvement, Amherst would be a lesser and weaker institution. Again, there are those students who do hand in their papers on time even with high extracurricular commitments, but requiring others to do the same is unfair.

Sure we can blame students for their "inabilities" or lack of time management skills, but ultimately, what is the school saying by punishing these students who fail to hand in their papers on time? You do make a good argument regarding a fixed extension policy, but I want to stress the complexity of the extension policy, which unfortunately, I do not have any solutions for. However, the administration, along with the student body, does need to address these major concerns regarding the extension policy.

David Eng '05