We have always understood that attacks by members of the faculty against other members of the faculty are not appropriately carried out in the pages of this venerable paper. So we would not dream of attacking Professor Arkes' recent letter in which he suggests that, while a particular named student is a careless and perhaps even dishonest reasoner, he (Professor Arkes) would not dream of attacking him publicly because it's always been understood that attacks by members of the faculty against students are not appropriately carried out in the pages of this venerable paper.
No, of Professor Arkes himself we will not speak. We write only to suggest to those members of the faculty who do feel compelled to assure a student in the pages of this venerable paper that they would not dream of attacking him in the pages of this venerable paper that they might seek to resist accompanying said assurances with an attack on said student in the pages of this venerable paper.
Finally, lest it be thought that we are open to debate regarding the above suggestion, we must let it be known that the undersigned members of the faculty will not pursue the liberal ideals of constructive disagreement with, nor even attend lectures by, anyone who holds a divergent opinion.
Alexander George
Professor of Philosophy
Daniel J. Velleman
Professor of Mathematics
Marriage doesn't need offspring
I began reading Ryan Raskopf '05's opinion piece against gay marriage in the March 10 Amherst Student with an interest to see what new could be said about the topic. I was surprised by the blatant falsity of the ideas used to defend the "principled argument" and would like to point them out. The idea that marriage is a framework for begetting children is not supported by biology, as Raskopf asserts. First, the variation in types of sexual reproduction through nature is astounding, all of which result in offspring. Second, some of these animals have considerable parental investment in their offspring (comparable to humans) and I don't see them needing marriage as a framework to provide for their offspring. Thirdly, men and women aren't necessary. Women could do quite well without men, as males simply provide a reshuffling of genes. Finally, humans are not biologically monogamous, but socially monogamous. Marriage is a social, not a biological, institution. And what does this say about a society that blocks marriage from a subset of its members? Furthermore, does Raskopf's "principled argument" mean that if the woman I love has cervical cancer and can't bear children, we can't get married?
I recommend Raskopf do some research the next time he uses "biology" in an argument. Yes, sex is about offspring. Marriage is not.
John Stanton-Geddes '04
Gay marriage is about legal rights
I wish to address and clarify what Ryan Raskopf '05 fails to distinguish in his "principled argument against gay marriage": the difference between biological and social parenting. Though he begins by claiming that "the unmistakable telos of human sexuality is the act of begetting," he then launches into the assertion that "the purpose of marriage is to provide a morally suitable framework for the rearing of children," without establishing a coherent link between the compatible but different aspects of parenting.
Simply put, "rearing" can occur without "begetting" and vice versa; it is wrong to say that because two homosexual people cannot procreate without the assistance of reproductive technology, they therefore have no potential role in child rearing. Furthermore, Raskopf's emphasis on "filial respect and affection" in the social parent/child relationship, as opposed to the biological, makes an equally strong case for the legitimacy of the relationship between either heterosexual or homosexual parents and adopted children or offspring produced through alternative methods of reproduction.
None of this really matters in the gay marriage debate, however, since the real issue is one of legal rights, sometimes involving children, but also involving inheritance, property, tax status and employment benefits. The institution of marriage socially and legally validates the committed relationship of a couple, whether or not that couple chooses to bear or raise children. Were this not the case, and Raskopf's reasoning were considered the true basis of marriage, then an infertile couple's claim to marriage would be illegitimate, as would that of a couple that chooses not to reproduce. Therefore, we should focus our attention on social and legal benefits when debating gay marriage.
Katherine Willis '07
Children are not basis of marriage
Having just read Ryan Raskopf '05's recent column on gay marriage, I would first like to congratulate him on not only assimilating the substance, but also the tone, of a Hadley Arkes lecture. Having been out of Amherst for a few years, I can tell you, you miss such things.
The problem with his argument is that our marriage laws draw no distinction between married couples that have children and those that do not have children. While the concept of marriage may indeed draw from an ancient intent to provide a "morally suitable framework for the rearing of children," the modern legal institution does not require that this be the basis for a marriage; if it did, a sterile man or woman could not marry. That is not to argue that Raskopf supports denying sterile people the right to marry, but only to point out that the logic of his argument transcends his intentions.
In the U.S., our legal institutions of marriage are more like a contract; certain obligations are accepted by the entering parties, certain legal rights and privileges are enjoyed by married couples and certain penalties are imposed upon the contract's dissolution. Under this framework, it makes little sense to deny homosexuals willing to undertake the obligations the right to enjoy marriage's rights and privileges.
But it is telling that Raskopf fails to recognize the nature of marriage today, and yet feels a moral apprehension not for sterile couples, but only with regard to gay couples. Richard Russell's Southern guard had the same tendency in the Senate of the 1950s: Their "moral" concern for states' rights tended to increase with direct proportionality to liberal calls for civil rights legislation.
Ennis Parker '99
What qualifies as anti-Semitic?
Chris Pochon '07, in his opinion letter in the March 10 issue of The Amherst Student, suggested that "The Passion" is anti-Semitic.
What do the critics of this film mean when they say it is anti-Semitic? Most people would consider hostility toward and prejudice or discrimination against Jewish persons as anti-Semitism. Indeed, Christians have taken it upon themselves to kill Jews simply because they felt that "the Jews" killed Jesus and that they had a mission to punish those who killed their Lord.
But, is Mel Gibson being anti-Semitic when he shows a crowd of Jewish persons consenting to Jesus' death? Is he not only being consistent with what the Gospels say (in Matthew 27:11-26 for example)?
Let me get at the same question by way of comparison. Is CNN guilty of being anti-Arab when they show people in the Middle East burning American flags and shouting anti-American slogans? Not necessarily. Was CNN or any other media from around the world being anti-Saudi when they reported that most of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudi citizens? Or were they just telling it like it was?
Critics of "The Passion" say to show a crowd of Jewish persons passionately consenting to the crucifixion of Jesus is anti-Semitic. But people do not debate whether or not CNN is being anti-Arabic when they show Arabic persons protesting passionately against America or the West. This is strange indeed.
Gibson is not being hostile to Jews nor prejudiced against the-especially as he showed many Jewish persons sympathetic towards Jesus, as well as the role Pilate and his Roman soldiers had in putting Jesus on the cross. Claims of anti-Semitism ignore the fact that the only role Gibson had in the film was driving the nail into Jesus' hand-a gesture that underlies his belief that Jesus died because we all broke our relationship with God.
Julius Nanna '04