Putting aside Jonathan Yellen '89's personal comments on my background, social life and future children, I'd like to address the few substantive points of his letter on my article, "Reveal Admissions Decisions for Legacy Students." Yellen writes that I should "consider how much alumni support helps to defray the cost" of my education and that he is certain that "legacies as a group are statistically stronger" than the applicant pool as a whole.

In my article, I stated the following: "It is true that legacies are necessary for a private institution to continue its existence. I am grateful for both the monetary contributions of alumni as well as the sense of continuity legacy admits provide ... And I don't believe that legacies are somehow less qualified-despite the somewhat-suspicious 50 percent acceptance rate. I trust Amherst not to sacrifice its standards of academic excellence for anyone."

I do not question the process of legacy admissions itself, but the lack of openness about that process and the admissions system as a whole. The impetus for my article-a proposed act of federal legislation that forces colleges to reveal more admissions statistics-proves that not every higher education institution in this country is forthcoming.

Once again, I urge Amherst to take this legislation and then go further. This College has been engaged in a century-long process of opening its doors to different ethnic groups, geographic locations and socioeconomic sectors. Let's continue in this spirit and make the admissions process as transparent as it can be. Perhaps there is nothing amiss with Amherst's admissions policies, but I would rather find this out from the institution itself, instead of probing newspaper articles as a result of federal legislation.

If the admissions process were already open, it wouldn't have taken U.S. News & World Report rankings to force them to reveal yield and admit numbers, and President Marx wouldn't be so concerned with the implications of the early decision system. The magazines and newspapers of this country would not be filled with insider's tips on how to gain entry into the system or exposés on special admissions considerations for a few-be they the rich, the famous, the athletic or the legacies.

So let Amherst lead in yet another arena-the demystification of admissions. Let's make public all those statistics I'm sure our admissions office compiles, from the acceptance rate of tuba players to the SAT scores of football linebackers to the numbers from particular high schools. Far better for Amherst to suffer from candidness-overkill than to force high schoolers across the nation to search reference books and the Internet for information they will never find.

Mead attack inappropriate

On behalf of The Hamster, I would like to issue a public apology to J.R. Mead and the Amherst community for the statements published in the list entitled "J.R. Mead's Top 10 Ways to Spend Embezzled Money," which was featured in the most recent issue, dated Oct. 31, 2003. While the statements referring to Mead in this list were only intended to poke fun at the situation, they regrettably crossed the line and came off as inappropriate and rude.

The Hamster takes full responsibility for the decision to print these statements, and hopes that the list in no way caused Mead to feel as though he was the target of personal hostility. Though The Hamster cannot, unfortunately, undo printing these statements, I assure the Amherst community that in the future, these indiscretions will not be repeated. Furthermore, these statements were in no way intended to be a specific denigration of Mead's character, integrity or personal style. I fully apologize for the damage to him and to all others affected.

On a more general note, The Hamster is a satirical journal within the college community that has often fostered controversy and debate. Though there are varying opinions as to its quality and content, it remains to be said that it is important that The Hamster be given the chance to continue publishing its material. Many people have told me that they are openly "anti-Hamster." However, being against an idea or set of ideas should neither deny their right to exist nor their right to be expressed.

Though I openly admit there are many avenues for improvement within the publication itself which should and will be addressed, it still stands that students should be allowed to air minority views and dissenting ideas. A liberal arts education thrives on this very foundation. I am not claiming immunity to the stipulations that other student publications and activities must uphold, but merely the chance to address the concerns of the community and remain an actively evolving piece of work. If nothing else, The Hamster is quite a "piece of work."

Respect all of your neighbors

The forum of The Daily Jolt has long been a source of controversy on campus. Earlier this year, when anti-Asian comments appeared, anger erupted in dorm rooms, in Valentine, in classrooms and in the administration offices-and rightfully so. Of course, people have the right to say and believe whatever they like; that fact is undisputed. However, the issue had to be addressed that this is a multi-cultural campus, as much home to Asian and Asian-American students as to anti-Asian and anti-Asian-American students.

It is our duty as members of this community to make this campus as safe and comfortable as possible for everyone who lives here. The message in response to the anti-Asian comments on the Jolt was clear: Say what you want in the privacy of your own space, but remember that everyone at this college has just as much of a right to be here as anyone else, and everyone has an equal right to a good experience during their time here.

At the end of last semester, there were several strands on The Jolt forum regarding LGBTQA rights, most prominently the right not to have to hear slurs like "fag" in public places on campus, the right to adopt children and the right to marry. Some of the discussion was interesting and thought provoking, with valid points raised on both sides of the issues. Some of the posts, however, were offensive and hurtful. Here are some examples:

"After much soul searching, I have come to the conclusion that homosexuality is a genetic defect, similar to maybe down syndrome, or having been born with three fingers or whatever other disorder one can think of . . .While we would let retards or blind people marry, do we really want these people raising kids?"

"I think in general, just as sexual deviants don't want heterosexuals lecturing them on their beliefs, deviants (or 'allys') should refrain from lecturing heterosexuals on theirs. I personally think homosexuality is unnatural. Regardless, I am not homophobic. I have gay friends. I treat them exactly as I do anyone else. I use faggot and pussy as insults because they are insulting and that's what insults are supposed to do."

The people who wrote these posts have every right to believe and say whatever they want. However, we as a community must recognize that these sentiments convey prejudice and disrespect. This campus is just as much a home to people who identify as LBGTQA as it is to anybody else. A sexual slur is no more acceptable than a cultural slur, so if you hear someone using this kind of language, recognize that that is what you are hearing. Saying that LGBTQ people are inferior parents is no more acceptable than saying that African-American people are inferior parents, and calling "homosexual culture" immoral is no more acceptable than calling Catholicism or Latino/a culture immoral. If you hear someone making such an assertion, be aware of exactly what that assertion means.

We are all equal parts of this community. We all deserve to feel safe and respected, and it is all of our responsibilities to make sure that's the case. We owe it to ourselves not to let each other down.