Pundits and politicians alike see the 2004 election as a crossroads in the political development of our country. We will be asked to choose whether the peace and prosperity of the Clinton years was an anomaly. Many in Washington today hope to roll back much of the social progress of the last half-century. It is our duty to say that Bush's 2000 election "victory" was a last hurrah for the voices of social conservatism that our parents sought to disprove.
We must all consider what we have at stake in the upcoming 2004 election. Contrary to what Ralph Nader may think, this election is about more than one bozo versus another; it is about whether we want the world to more closely resemble Amherst College or Bob Jones University. It is about whether the sexual, social and cultural mores of 2010 will resemble more closely those of 1950 or 1999.
A number of programs widely supported on the Amherst campus will come under fire in 2004 and I hope that we will all rise to meet the challenge. Most recently, we have heard President Bush call for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages. Many experts, including those with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), have speculated that the application of this ban would not only prevent the marriage of two people of the same sex, but would challenge many domestic partnership benefits already in existence.
This suggestion should be abhorrent to all of us. Amherst College provides the same benefits to domestic partners as it does to married couples. Our Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay and Transgender (LBGT) faculty involved in committed relationships rely on the benefits Amherst College provides them as much as any married heterosexual couple. These benefits make it possible for them to teach here. As this arrangement is challenged, it is the duty of all of us in this community who value our faculty to do our part to ensure that this arrangement is not destroyed. Its maintenance is integral to the existence of our community. This is not to say that we must all support gay marriage (a position I personally espouse), but we should at the very least ensure that we do not roll back the status quo.
Bush has also advocated a constitutional amendment banning abortion. This amendment, far more imposing than any bill banning partial-birth abortions, would reach well into the first term of pregnancy and perhaps challenge some of the so-called "morning-after pills." The ultimate outcome would mean that one unlucky "hook-up" could terminate your Amherst College career, or at least put it on hold for a year.
This is another suggestion that we must all meet with protest and, more importantly, our votes. Amherst College health services offers online information on emergency contraception, and helps students gain access to abortions in case of emergency. This safeguard and second chance is essential to the sexual freedoms many Amherst College students enjoy. Even if you do not personally support abortion, this amendment goes far beyond limiting you: It takes ownership of the bodies and sex lives of every woman, both at Amherst and in the country. If we value the sexual freedom enjoyed on this campus, we must meet calls for a Constitutional amendment banning abortion with great outcry and opposition. The atmosphere of our campus is being challenged.
We only have to look back to last summer to recall another way in which the Bush administration challenged the existence of our community. In the Michigan affirmative action cases, Bush instructed Solicitor General Ted Olson to file amicus curiae briefs on behalf of the White House calling the Michigan affirmative action system a "quota" system and demanding that it be declared unconstitutional. In lieu of traditional affirmative action systems, Bush has proposed systems such as the one he supported in Texas in which students graduating in a certain percentage in their class are granted admission to various campuses of a state university.
First, it should be apparent that such a system of percentages relies on the "ghettoization" of neighborhoods and schools in order to achieve diversity. Only if there is a "black" high school and a "white" high school will this measure result in any kind of diversity. But beyond this mere fallacy in Mr. Bush's "solution," we must consider the implication of this proposal for Amherst College.
Former President Tom Gerety realized that the diversity we cherish at Amherst is dependent on a system of admission that considers the backgrounds and cultures of prospective students, which is why he submitted an amicus curiae brief supporting the University of Michigan. Not only have we failed to close the achievement gap omnipresent since the Civil War, but this achievement gap continues to be perpetuated by structural racism in this country, both explicit and implicit. To correct this situation, we must first account for the differing experiences that blacks and whites still undergo as a result of race. Beyond this, if our institution fails to expose white students to students of differing backgrounds, it will have failed its white students as well.
Many people claim that the only disadvantage today is in fact based in class. While it is true that socioeconomic class does affect educational outcome, this is one of many factors that affect diversity and disadvantage. The two African-American students in my high school graduating class of 36 did not have the same experience in that class as the approximately 12 Indian kids, the three Jewish kids or the 19 white kids, despite the fact that all of us led relatively comfortable lives. A diverse experience comes by exposing us to not only the stereotypical "black kid from the ghetto" who will also be helped by socioeconomic affirmative action, but also exposing us to people like my classmates who had a very different minority experience. To fail to account for these differences of experience is to fail to create diversity; something President Bush would make the norm. If we value our Amherst community, we must meet the suggestion of ending affirmative action with strong opposition.
The 2004 election brings us to a crossroads, and this time it really is more than just one bozo against another. We are called upon to choose the direction of our country for the next decade and more. We must choose whether we will continue the social progress for which our parents strove or whether we will roll back this progress. We are asked to choose whether the Amherst bubble in which we wrap ourselves will continue to exist, or whether President Bush will reshape our community without consulting us. This time some of the most fundamental assumptions on which we form our community are being challenged. I hope we all realize what's at stake.