When I first heard that a group of professors was boycotting Justice Scalia's speech, I was disappointed and embarrassed by my college. I don't know when it became acceptable to refuse to listen to another's viewpoints. Isn't this the very type of behavior that open-minded liberals abhor? No matter how vehemently we disagree with another person, it is never a waste of time or effort to listen to him. I am proud of Amherst students for realizing this and picking up where their professors faltered.

Especially shocking is that many of the professors who chose to "stay away" teach courses in the law, jurisprudence and social thought department. Shouldn't they, of all people, want to hear a talk given by a member (yes, any member) of the Supreme Court? However, I respect those people who confronted him. They showed bravery and conviction. I see this as a testament to the student body of Amherst College. Their intellectual curiosity has surpassed that of some of their professors.

The professors explained their absence by saying they refused to offer a "tacit endorsement of this man's presence on campus." They continued, saying they "will neither ask questions nor debate Justice Scalia" because he does not subscribe to the "liberal ideals of constructive disagreement." They acknowledged that "there are many who would argue that such a course is contrary to the democratic exchange of ideas." There are also many who would argue that this is the adult version of covering your ears and yelling, "I'm not listening! I'm not listening!"

Let us consider the professors' accusations against Scalia. Are the "democratic exchange of ideas, the respect for differences of opinion and the need to maintain some distinction between private preferences and public debate" concepts that are lost on Justice Scalia? In answer to that question, allow me to introduce myself. My name is Meg Scalia and I graduated from Amherst College in 2002.

My father, who is one of the most conservative figures in government, chose to send me to Amherst to be taught by some of the greatest minds in the country. I took classes with four of the protesting professors. Would a man who is opposed to the "liberal ideals of constructive disagreement and debate" send his daughter to a school well known for its liberal leanings? Absolutely not. My parents encouraged me to go to Amherst, where I would be challenged academically, and where my conservative views would also be challenged. It is a shame that when my father came to our campus he was unable to enjoy an intellectual debate with the very people he respected enough to teach his own daughter.

Scalia protest is unreasonable

It is with much sorrow that I read the letter by Hussain et al. to The Student in the Feb. 4 issue. The signators to this letter are people whose judgments I have respected. But this letter presents the College poorly. The explanation presented for the authors'refusal to converse with Justice Scalia is, "We believe that the liberal ideals of constructive disagreement and debate only work when both sides act upon these ideals in good faith." To support this position, the remainder of the letter presents examples of how Justice Scalia fails to "act upon these ideals in good faith."

The first charge is that Justice Scalia is unable "to maintain some distinction between private preferences and public debate," and that he is guilty of "vitriolic name-calling." To support this proposition, the Justice's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas is presented, particularly the phrase "homosexual agenda." But the full context of this phrase is: "Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct." This is clearly not a presentation of private preference, but rather the reverse. He accuses the majority of supporting a position that is, at least in his reading, still subject to public debate on the grounds of personal preference.

The second charge seems to be that "judges who disagree with [him] over the reach of the equal protection clause ... are not just part of a debate over 'constitutional interpretation,' but rather are on the wrong side of a 'Kulturekampf.'" The original sentence is, "The Court has mistaken a Kulturekampf for a fit of spite." This statement merely accuses the Court of having mistaken a conflict in culture for a mean-spirited political action.

The final accusation is that "to disagree with Justice Scalia over the morality of legality of the death penalty is ... to be a bad Christian and/or a European." But the quotation in support of this claim is merely and assertion of a fact: the more Christian a country, the less likely it is to see capital punishment as immoral. One can disagree with the claim, but one cannot say that the justice is accusing those who disagree with him of anything.

For these reasons, I find the reasons presented by the signers for not confronting Justice Scalia in dialogue to be inadequate. To deny the students of Amherst the opportunity to see these conflicting opinions meet is to deny them the basic opportunity that Amherst provides: the ability to make judgments.

Sex column lacks respect

We were dismayed and discouraged by what we read in the "High Hard One" column of the Feb. 4 issue of The Student. Besides the internal contradictions, heterosexism and factually incorrect information, this column was truly disappointing in its promotion of hollow stereotypes rather than healthy and fulfilling sexual relationships.

It is ridiculous that XY would discourage XX from wanting to enjoy receiving oral stimulation because he assumes, based on his own narrow experience, that her partner would not enjoy it. At the same time, he describes fellatio as an almost effortless, pleasant experience by comparison, without any experience of his own on which to base this opinion. Perhaps if XY had done more research prior to writing this column, he would have discovered that there are a range of emotions associated with performing both cunnilingus and fellatio-some people enjoy it, some people don't and everything in between.

Both cunnilingus and fellatio have drawbacks as well as rewards, and communication is essential for both partners to enjoy themselves and feel comfortable. We believe that in respectful, and, in XY's own words, "reciprocal" sexual relationships, both partners would try to sexually satisfy each other and both partners would have the right to ask for their own sexual satisfaction. It would be much more effective for XY and XX to encourage dialogue between partners than for them to suggest that men solicit advice from each other.

We hope that in the future XY, XX and The Student will more carefully consider what the purpose of this column is: to attempt juvenile humor or to offer an interesting and responsible discussion of healthy sex.

Vagina is not a revolting thing

We are writing in response to the sex column "The High Hard One," in the Feb. 4 issue of The Student which addressed cunnilingus. Instead of creating a discourse on cunnilingus that would educate as well as promote respect for women's bodies, this column perpetuated the shame and mystery already associated with the vagina.

XX begins by complaining about her unskilled lover, and XY replies by naming a common reason men use against giving women oral sex. XY first mentions the fishy smell and later goes on to include other myths about women's bodies. First of all, he cannot even refer to the vagina by its name, choosing the euphemism "down there," which indicates his inability to deal with sexuality maturely-not a positive quality in a sex columnist. Of all of the purposes a sex column should serve, the most important is that it creates a positive discourse on sex and bodies. Historically, women have not been able to call vaginas by their name because of the shame associated with female sexuality. This column only reinforces these stereotypes.

Later on in the column, he refers to the vagina as the "Axis of Evil," a melodramatic comparison to Nazism and Fascism. By describing this insidious tripartite as made up of "unruly hair, foul odor and mysterious juices," he again shows his total lack of respect for the female body. This disparaging description reinforces the idea of the hidden, dangerous vagina, rather than appreciating its naturalness and beauty.

The penis, however, is perfect. Its only incidental drawback is its "slightly salty" taste. While XY encourages women to try out cunnilingus before they point the finger at unwilling men, he believes he does not need to perform fellatio to know that the penis is clean, pleasant and easy to please.

In their attempt to enlighten us on "The Lost Art," both columnists fail to emphasize communication and respect-important aspects of relationships and good sex. The Student should not provide a space for this kind of immature diatribe against women's bodies. We are grateful for this past week's showing of The Vagina Monologues, which provided a space where vaginas are loved and respected.