In his article in last week's issue of The Amherst Student, Ryan Raskopf '05 feigns ignorance at the similarity of his ideas to those of "one of America's pre-eminent conservative academics." In fact, almost every idea found in Raskopf's original article can be found in a lecture by Professor of Political Science Hadley Arkes at http://www.fww.org/articles/wfpforum/harkes.html. Raskopf uses many of the same examples and phrasings in his article.

The problem is that Arkes' name is not mentioned even once in Raskopf's March 10  article, "A principled argument against gay marriage." Changing the order of words in a sentence or using synonyms may have been acceptable when we copied school reports out of the encyclopedia in third grade, but in college, I think they call that paraphrasing without attribution.

I don't mean to cast aspersions on Raskopf's intentions; he obviously has the utmost respect for Professor Arkes. However, one can admire and strive to emulate a person without forming a sort of weird personality cult-hello, College Republicans and Arkes' alumni group-and taking on his writing style and affectations. Perhaps it would be apt for Raskopf to find his own voice, and beget his own ideas.

Sam Hayman '07

Keep an open curriculum

One of the reasons why I came to Amherst was the open curriculum. There was something remarkably freeing in the prospect of taking classes that I was truly interested in with other students in the same position. I find the open curriculum a great way for students to be engaged in subjects that each student finds appealing without the possibility of taking that dreaded math or history course. David Golann '04's article in last week's issue of The Amherst Student worries me because I think a core curriculum will hurt the student life here. We, the students, are all here, in some part, for the curriculum and the options that it gives to us. I'm afraid of a set of distribution requirements and even more scared of a core curriculum that would force students to take courses that don't interest them. 

What separates Amherst from other comparable colleges and universities is the open curriculum. Without it, Amherst becomes just like any other small liberal arts college in New England and the rest of the country. If we, the students, value the openness of the Amherst curriculum, then that needs to be expressed; it is not in our interest to sit and watch as drastic changes arise. It is up to the students to determine if the open curriculum will remain. Losing interest in academic freedom will be the death of the open curriculum.    

From another perspective, it is ultimately not up to us to define a core curriculum, but the faculty. It appears that the faculty would be just as unwilling to make the transition from an open curriculum to a core. The professors appear to enjoy teaching courses that interest them instead of courses that will become part of the core.   

In so many ways, a core curriculum can only exist if both the students and faculty give up the freedom they currently enjoy. The Frostian spirit that Golann seeks to give to Amherst can easily be achieved in independent learning. Students should not be forced to take courses, but instead be interested in a topic enough to study it independent of class. The open curriculum is capable of sparking individual interests without forcing students to take classes that are not appealing to them.

Roz Foster '05

Sharpton lecture coverage unfair  

The front-page layout of last week's issue of The Amherst Student shows a disappointing instance of the ill-advised, seriously flawed and possibly biased nature of the layout staff.

In particular, I am concerned with the placement of Andrea Gyorody's article on the lecture by Reverend Al Sharpton.

In most student newspapers, the articles that are placed in the top right corner are those of interest to the readership. In looking over past issues of The Amherst Student, these choice spots on the front flap are reserved primarily for significant on-campus events. Minor articles appear in these spots of the newspaper when, and only if, there are no noteworthy events to be covered.

Last week's issue of The Amherst Student indicated otherwise. Sponsored by the College Democrats and Office of Alumni and Parent Programs, among others, Sharpton was the first, and only U.S. presidential candidate to grace the Amherst campus. Surely a visit by such a high profile speaker qualifies as a noteworthy event.

I am eager to learn why, then, a "Curious George"-like Sharpton photograph found itself near the bottom flap of the paper, squeezed between weekly features and an article on admissions acceptance. Elevated to those places of significance were articles on the Hawaiian Luau at Valentine, new incentives on parking and an international Spanglish conference.

While I would rather not make comparisons, I can't help but note the attention given to another distinguished and perhaps equally as controversial guest of the College who visited not too long ago on Feb. 11-Justice Antonin Scalia. Placed front and center, the Scalia article, also by Gyorody, accompanied a photograph depicting the intensity of the Justice's personality and beliefs and the severity of criticism he received for it.

It is hard to believe that the editor-in-chief and layout staff allowed such a glaringly misexecuted layout proceed to print. I can only wonder as to whether by relegating the Sharpton article to the bottom of the page, they attempted to perpetuate and convey their own, presumably negative, feelings toward Sharpton.

I hope, of course, that this is not the case.

Nzingha Tyehemba '06