I gained considerable respect for the Amherst College Democrats and other progressive groups on campus over the period of Justice Scalia's visit. The protests and information campaigns were handled with moderation and intelligence. Russell Kornblith's tirade has done much to diminish the capital of admiration that I had developed.

Presumably, when he invited Justice Scalia to speak, President Marx intended to stimulate debate on campus. This has been a success as an impressive amount of public and private discourse was generated. Why impugn President Marx's motives in inviting him? To say that the man's mere presence on campus somehow constitutes "harassment" is preposterous. Marx has given us the opportunity to alert people to the plight of individual rights in our country and the dangers of a reactionary judiciary. Raise awareness, don't attack the man who gave you the opportunity to do so.

When he juxtaposes a passage from Mein Kampf with an excerpt from Romer v. Evans, Kornblith goes too far. Scalia may have some offensive opinions, but he does not deserve the insulting implicit association with a man whose contempt for human rights, democracy and the rule of law rivals any in history. Whipping out Hitler as a convenient straw man is a manipulative ploy which cheapens the suffering of those whom the Nazis oppressed and murdered.

While he repeatedly asserts his belief in the free exchange of ideas, Kornblith takes the opportunity to attack the editorial body of The Student for no offense other than expressing a contrary opinion. Maybe Scalia has crossed a line beyond which debate is impossible. The same cannot be said of The Student. Mouthing stock phrases such as "the marketplace of ideas" does not convince me that you believe in freedom of speech any more than nine uses of "shame" in four columns convinces me that you are passionate.

The Student has not come under the spell of an "aura of legitimacy." Our society considers Scalia's views legitimate. Conservative backlash is pervasive. If we are going to fight back, then people like Kornblith need to abandon their self-righteousness and fight on the issues. The "Voice of the Left" threatens to reduce himself to a figure of no more credibility than the Babbling Bostonian. I hope that I won't have to consider my hope that the Democrats win Congress at the same level as my hope that the Red Sox will win the World Series.

Boycott of Scalia lacks maturity

I was amazed to learn that Justice Scalia's lecture prompted not only student protests but a professor boycott, and triggered a debate about "the appropriateness of Scalia's coming." It is one thing for the bulk of the College's student body and an even larger bulk of its faculty to maintain their concerted distance from political, social and legal realities that apply in the rest of the country. This detachment can continue to contribute to the academic discourse on campus and to serve as an amusing eccentricity that characterizes New England liberal arts colleges. It is quite another to demand that the College ban a sitting U.S. Supreme Court justice from setting foot on campus to explain the principle that underlies his decisions. It is time for some smelling salts.

By rhetorically asking, "Should we be bringing in ... someone whose views clearly exceeded the acceptable sphere of discourse [on campus]?" Russell Kornblith has reserved for himself the role of determining the "acceptable sphere of discourse." That's good work if you can get it. His reliance on the Statement of Respect for Persons as a basis to exclude a lecturer is, to put it politely, misplaced. If the Statement is intended to ban from campus a Supreme Court justice's lecture regarding the principles guiding his interpretation of the Constitution, the Statement desperately needs serious and swift revision. However, it is clear to most that neither the Statement nor any other College policy is designed to stifle thought and its peaceful expression.

The boycott of Justice Scalia's visit by 16 professors-some of whom teach "law," "jurisprudence" and "social thought"-is more alarming. Many of the Scalia 16 undoubtedly have insights that escape Justice Scalia (and even the rest of the Court). However, the fact remains that it is Justice Scalia and his colleagues on the Court that shape American jurisprudence, not the boycotters. I expected that any professor who purports to teach law, jurisprudence or social thought would seize the opportunity to hear from one of today's most influential lawyers, jurists and social thinkers. At the very least, I hoped that such a professor would have the emotional and intellectual maturity to not compromise his students' opportunity to hear those views.

I am encouraged that President Marx and others are committed to ensuring that blatant aggression to the principles of free thought and intellectual responsibility will not stand at Amherst. The fact that a debate questioning the propriety of a Supreme Court justice's visit even occurred indicates an alarming lack of perspective in segments of the College. Those who stirred this debate could benefit from the sage advice given by the call girl in "Risky Business" to Tom Cruise's character: "Joel, go to school. Go learn something." Professor, heal thyself.