I have watched the commotion surrounding the Scalia lecture from the center long enough. Now that I no longer lead the moderate protest movement, let me tell you what we should have said: Antonin Scalia is the personification of the Right's attempt to hijack the center and move it to the radical right, not the moderate right embraced on this campus. President Marx's attempt to justify his invitation to Scalia by calling him the foremost conservative Supreme Court Justice of our day belittles the importance of the very statements of responsibility on which we base our dialogue on campus. Scalia crosses the line of harassment that this campus guarantees its students will be free from. To invite a man who espouses such beliefs to the College is despicable.
I had thought that our Statement of Respect for Persons guaranteed that "respect for the rights, dignity and integrity of others is essential for the well-being of a community. Actions by any person which do not reflect such respect for others are damaging to each member of the community and hence damaging to Amherst College."
Enshrining Scalia's disrespect for homosexuals in the opinions of the highest court of our land is damaging not only to the homosexual community but to our entire society, including Amherst College. Adding our name to the list of places he has spoken makes us compliant in this disgusting enterprise.
I am an absolutist on free speech in the public sphere, provided that no intimidation takes place. There ought to be a marketplace of ideas, but a marketplace of ideas requires a decision by private organizations about what viewpoints remain within the general principle of their organization. We should not invite into our sphere people who step beyond our realm of discourse. Here, President Marx has failed us.
Had Scalia shown up on his own accord and decided to speak, I would have objected only to his views. What is so despicable in the scenario before us is that by inviting Scalia to campus, President Marx has lent his voice to the view that Scalia's opinions do not disrespect or damage Amherst College. He has said that Scalia's views are close enough to the mainstream to be considered within the realm of dissent that Amherst College considers acceptable.
I would hope that President Marx would not extend an invitation to Slobodan Milosevich to speak on this campus. To invite Slobodan Milosevich to campus is to imply that the logic of ethnic cleansing is something this college considers debatable. It is to say that we consider Milosevich's status as a leader acceptable enough that we will lend endorsement that his views may be subscribed to on this campus. Just as we ought not to invite someone who encourages discrimination against religion, we ought not to invite someone advocating discrimination against homosexuals.
In Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler says, "With repulsive flattery he [the Jew] approaches the governments, puts his money to work, and in this way always manages to secure new license to plunder his victims … Proportionally as the power of the princes begins to mount, he pushes closer and closer to them. He begs for 'patents' and 'privileges' which the lords, always in financial straits, are glad to give him for suitable payment. Finally he needs only to have himself baptized to possess himself of all the possibilities and rights of the natives of the country."
In Romer v. Evans, Scalia says, "The problem (a problem, that is, for those who wish to retain social disapprobation of homosexuality) is that, because those who engage in homosexual conduct tend to reside in disproportionate numbers in certain communities, have high disposable income, and of course care about homosexual-rights issues much more ardently than the public at large, they possess political power much greater than their numbers, both locally and statewide. Quite understandably, they devote this political power to achieving not merely a grudging social toleration, but full social acceptance, of homosexuality."
Hitler says, "With all his [the Jew's] perseverance and dexterity he seizes possession of it [the press]. With it he slowly begins to grip and ensnare and direct that power which, under the name of 'public opinion,' is better known today than a few decades ago."
Scalia wrote, "By the time Coloradans were asked to vote on Amendment two, their exposure to homosexual's quest for social endorsement was not limited to newspaper accounts of happenings in places such as New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Key West. Three Colorado cities-Aspen, Boulder and Denver-had enacted ordinances that listed 'sexual orientation' as an impermissible ground for discrimination, equating the moral disapproval of homosexual conduct with racial and religious bigotry."
I have put the evidence in front of you to see. Scalia's views go beyond what this College considers acceptable realm of discussion. These views are not constitutional arguments any more than Mein Kampf was.
Shame on you, President Marx, for not reading Romer v. Evans before inviting Justice Scalia.
Perhaps it is only my Jewish sensibilities, but I had thought that Amherst College recognized that intimidation based on sexual orientation was akin to racial or religious bigotry. If this is not the case, I urge President Marx to issue a statement to the contrary now.
Shame on The Student's editorial board for its condemnation of armbands as too extreme. Black armbands are an under-response to Scalia's blatantly anti-homosexual rhetoric. The Student's editorial staff has fallen under the aura of legitimacy. Scalia's position of power lends him to shove radically conservative beliefs into the mainstream. I commend the editorial staff of the Indicator for having the guts to point this out and stand behind our faculty.
It is the duty of the president of the College to keep the discussion in the realm our community considers permissible disagreement. We have laid certain ground rules for our community. While it is unnecessary for us to ban speakers whose views lie beyond this realm from our campus, we should not be lending our tacit endorsement to the legitimacy of such views by inviting their dissemination on our campus.
This is not an issue of conservative versus liberal. William Rehnquist would have been a perfectly acceptable speaker. We should not endorse gay bashing as a legitimate part of the conservative position.
If anything, the current balance has tipped the scales too far in favor of the conservatives. Shame on you President Marx for not striking a real balance. Anthony Romero is not an acceptable alternative to Scalia. The liberal advocate as opposed to the sitting justice? I can only imagine the Right's complaints if Bill Bennett had been brought in to counteract Bill Clinton.
To the radical Right who has hijacked our congress, our presidency and our Supreme Court in an attempt to implement an agenda far beyond what the Constitution allows, I say stop playing the victim. This campus will not give tacit endorsement to your coup d'etat.