In response to The Amherst Student's article and last week's letter to the editor, the Judiciary Council would like to explain our decision to not hold a hearing on the Snowboarding Club's complaint.
According to the AAS constitution, before a complaint can be heard, the Judiciary Council must first determine if the complaint is constitutionally valid. In this case, the Judiciary Council originally determined that the complaint was valid, because we had been told that the denial of the Snowboarding Club's check request had occurred during the current fall semester. However, after the Judiciary Council further investigated the case, we learned that the treasurer's decision had actually been made last spring, meaning that the appeal had not been filed within the Constitution's required time limit. After learning this new information, the Judiciary Council immediately reversed the decision on the validity of the complaint and cancelled the hearing.
By canceling the hearing, the Judiciary Council in no way determined or even examined the merits of the Snowboarding Club's complaint. The decision was not based on whether we believed the Snowboarding Club deserved the money outlined in the check request. The cancellation of the hearing should not be considered a vindication of the AAS treasurer's decision to deny the funds.
We would also like to clarify some facts surrounding the complaint. The Snowboarding Club believed that it had been allocated the money for the expenses in question. They contend that part of the "financial assistance for riding" was to pay for the costs of experienced snowboarders. The dispute arose when the AAS Treasurer denied the check request on the grounds that it did not meet the description of the original allocation.
It is insulting and offensive to all involved that this case has been construed as the Snowboarding Club trying to "fleece the College." It is only a disagreement between the Snowboarding Club and the AAS Treasurer regarding a specific expenditure.
It is the hope of the Judiciary Council that in the future, the Budgetary Committee and the AAS will provide a more detailed explanation of the exact allocation of funds in club budgets. We are pleased to see that in the new club budgeting process this consultation seems to be occurring. Only through better communication between the AAS and its clubs during the budgeting process will such disputes be avoided in the future.
The AAS Judiciary Council
Andre Deckrow '06, Chair
Taamiti Bankole '06
Richa Bhala '07
Ceridwen Cherry '06
Erin Mariano '06
Jessica Rothschild '06
In defense of snowboarders
Before making a judgment, writing an article or submitting a letter to the editor, a responsible person researches the issues and becomes informed of all sides. Omitting this step leads to poorly informed and indefensible opinions, and often results in harmful damage and injury to affected parties. Such was the case in last week's letter to the editor, defaming the Snowboarding Club's members. I'm writing to set the record straight and to clear the good name of the club.
In the spring of 2003, the Budgetary Committee (BC) allocated $900 to the Snowboarding Club in appeals for "any single lift tickets and/or season passes" purchased by club members, which could be accounted for with receipts at the end of the semester. To ensure fairness, the former president warned all club members to save their receipts so that the allocation could be divided up equally. Though many club members bought one-day lift tickets, no one saved or presented receipts to the former president at the end of the semester. At the deadline for submitting check requests to the BC, the club only had receipts for three season pass holders. Therefore, these receipts, $330 each, comprised the total request for reimbursement.
Unfortunately, the current treasurer of the BC denied the check request. Club members suffered an enormous financial burden. The good faith that must exist between clubs and the BC was broken. The club filed an official complaint with the Judiciary Committee (JC) in the fall of 2003 against the Treasurer. The JC decided by a 4-0 vote that the complaint was valid and scheduled a hearing. Then the night before the hearing, the JC suddenly cancelled the hearing, invoking a statue of limitations clause.
Readers trust reporters for fair and objective articles. Though I submitted a detailed two-page letter to The Amherst Student, in the Nov. 5th issue, only two lines total were printed. It is the shared responsibility of writers and readers to be fully informed of an issue before rashly responding. My main concern is that the 35 new members of the Snowboarding Club have the support of the BC and the school.
For spring '04, the BC recommended to allocate the club $0. It's disheartening to think that the organization is being "punished" for appealing a budgetary decision. It's essential that clubs have the right to question the financial decisions made with student activities fees. It's imperative that the BC encourages rather than dissuades discussion, and that the student body actively enters the dialogue.
Catherine Itaya '04
Snowboarding Club President
Fight apathy with other colleges
Russell Kornblith's '06 opinion piece on apathy, privilege and responsibility indicates a rather ivory tower view of our status here at Amherst College. Although he advocates a more active role in politics, a role students can and should take, he mistakes the source of student apathy and arrives at no real solution to it.
Kornblith underestimates Amherst when he asserts that students think politics do not affect them. Students today are as concerned about their future as students 30 years ago. Students know at least as much about politics as the average American voter. They care about the issues that surround them. Still, though, the student voting numbers indicate an "apathetic" student body. Why?
The message we should draw from the lack of student activism is not that students don't care, but that they feel they can't change things. We are smart people; we recognize that our political system is designed to effectively disenfranchise all but the monied political elite. The charade of the 2000 election just proved to an already dispirited student body that votes are not what count in American democracy.
Students are right in realizing that the likelihood of their making a difference, individually, is practically zero. Political change requires vast movements, and one person will not change things by himself. But the fallacy of this argument, the one most students seem to ignore, is that students can be and have been a vast movement. Students can make a difference only if they stop thinking in terms of "what can I do," and instead think of "what can we do?" The answer to the latter question is "practically anything."
Despite its geographical location, Amherst College should not be placed on a metaphorical hill. If suddenly all the students at Amherst decided to become involved in the political process, the world would not stop and gawk and change at our whim. Creating any lasting change will require a movement far beyond the borders of Routes 9 and 116. Any effective movement we build will require students from UMass to the University of Florida to the University of California-Los Angeles. Voting is important, not because you are voting, but because thousands of other students across the country are voting, too.
We need to get rid of our Amherst bubble worldview. As much as we would like to think otherwise, Amherst College alone cannot change the world. But you can make a difference, you can build the movement and you can be a part of the force that can take this country back. You can take as much or as little responsibility as you like; you can vote, or you can register others to vote or you can organize registration events. But no matter where you are in the social change hierarchy, remember that change depends on the people above you and below you. Take heart, though. It is easy to feel apathetic when you realize that you, alone, can't do anything. But that apathy is ridiculous and self-serving when you consider what students as a whole can do.
Robert Cobbs '06
Running is a difficult sport
I realize that Justin Sharaf '05's column is intended for light-hearted banter and I can respect his reasons for refusing to acknowledge running as a sport.
But he was completely off the mark when he came to the conclusion that running a marathon is not as difficult as it seems, based on P. Diddy's abbreviated training schedule and the deceptive ease of putting one foot in front of the other. Sharaf's implication that anyone who can move their feet swiftly can run in a marathon is ridiculous. His idea that someone can just as easily run a marathon as be thrown into water and expected to swim totally undercuts the entire process of training for a marathon. As someone who prepared 20 weeks to run the grueling 26.2 mile course over five boroughs of New York City, I can assure Sharaf that running a marathon is much more difficult and much more painful than it seems.
The fact that running does not require hand-eye coordination or inherent skill does not make running a marathon any easier than competing in any other sport. As I learned, it is the dedication to the training and preparation that makes the marathon so challenging. I watched the MTV special too, and if you noticed, P. Diddy had some ridiculous resources available to him that the 34,999 other runners did not. If someone has a reputation at stake, along with a former marathon champ as a trainer, custom fit shoes straight from the Nike Lab, regular ice baths, massages and personal physical therapy sessions, then yes, anyone can probably run a marathon with two months training. But for the rest of us, preparing for a marathon takes months of training. It requires running a base of at least 400-600 miles covering 30-40 miles a week, developing an ungodly tolerance for pain, soreness and boredom, as well as devouring several bottles of Tylenol. On top of that kind of preparation is the actual race-navigating endless hills and streets while losing almost two liters of fluids, tearing through the caloric equivalent of a week's worth of McDonald's super value meals and subjecting our feet and joints to repetitive pain and pressure beyond comprehension, for three continuous hours or more! I don't think you can tell just anyone to endure all of that and reasonably expect him to come out successful, just as you can't throw someone in water and expect him to swim.
So, Sharaf is right-running a marathon doesn't take any inherent skill or talent for hitting, catching or throwing. But running a marathon also doesn't allow any kind of rest, time-outs, halftimes or breaks. I can't think of too many other activities or sports that require such a demand for endurance. Also, no one really expects to encounter any major discomfort on the golf course or in a baseball game. Yet every runner who attempts a marathon is well aware of the excruciating and endless pain of the dreaded wall in the final 6-7 miles where the body tries to resist shutting down completely. I'm not trying to prove that running is an actual sport, but I do not want to let the lack of required skill fool people into thinking a marathon is not as difficult as it seems.
One last thing. Imagine running 26.2 miles with 30,000 other runners, while 2,000,000 strangers are screaming and cheering you on every step of the way. Add to that the ecstatic delirium and euphoria of finishing the race even though you can barely walk, your toenails are falling off, you want to vomit and your knee caps feel like they have been shattered by a baseball bat. Despite all of that, P. Diddy and everyone else crossed the finish line grinning. I think that is definitely one of the craziest experiences anyone can have, don't you?
Betty Lin '01