Letters to the Editor
By Meredith McNitt, Co-chair of SoCo; Peter Harper '05; Nancy Hawa '05; Dave Gottlieb '06; Tim Jones 05
Slur at Luau is unacceptable

Social Council would like to clarify what occurred this past Sunday morning around 2 a.m. on the social quad. A member of the band that we hired used a derogatory slur in order to clear off the stage. Social Council would like to state that we find this sort of language unacceptable. The mission of our organization is to create events that are open and accepting to the entire student body. In no way did we foresee this incident occurring, and we did not have any intention of hurting anyone who was present that night. We apologize for the pain that it might have caused, and hope that this does not cast a shadow over Social Council events in the future.

Band condemns homophobic slur

The Naughty Muffins wish to apologize for the use of a homophobic slur on stage last Saturday night by a non-Amherst member of the band. As a member of the Naughty Muffins, I am deeply upset and embarrassed that this occurred. Prior to this eperiencce, :I had known the inappropriateness of such language, and never used it myself, but now I realize that the effects are much more devastating than what we like to label as "offensive" or "politically incorrect" language. In hearing that comment, my friends could have felt excluded, attacked, or hurt-emotions I never wish them to experience. 

With one homophobic slur, a fun, relaxed environment became a hostile, unsupportive environment. This has elucidated for me the need to address the often common use of such disgraceful language. It is apparent that the use of homophobic and offensive language in our vernacular is a serious problem not only in popular culture, but right here on the Amherst campus. It is my hope that our community can take this unfortunate moment as a lesson in sensitivity and tolerance. I apologize and offer my support to the Pride Alliance in further combating this issue.

SHAC needs to inform students

Every April, Amherst College erupts into a frenzy over room draw, an agonizing process that tests friendships, tries patience and usually results in a slew of attacks on the Student Housing Advisory Committee. Eventually, people accept their one-room double fates, and the frenzy of room draw subsides to make way for the frenzy of finals and packing. Come September, however, there is generally a second wave of fury against the housing office. For example, this year, construction blocks all paved paths from Taplin to the rest of campus, forcing residents to navigate a wooded area adjacent to Keefe Health Center. Dodging branches is already unpleasant and unsafe. When snow falls, going back and forth between Taplin and campus will become nearly impossible. This is only one example of something that should have been advertised in the spring, when students were deciding on housing.

The SHAC Web site should be updated. The Web site should include detailed information, including dimensions of all rooms that are not currently available now, the number of electrical outlets in a room, the type of furniture provided in each room and the number of washers and driers in each dorm-surprisingly, Taplin has none.

SHAC should also provide maps of construction projects which explicitly mark the borders of construction areas, making clear which walkways will be affected. Students are unable to make an informed choice without this important information.

SHAC officers are paid in part to assist students with the room draw process. Access to this information before room draw would be more valuable than the often misleading advice given immediately before groups choose their rooms. This would enable students to rely on their own judgment rather than the tastes and preferences of a SHAC officer.

Lessons from 9/11 attacks

Three years after Sept. 11, the most important lesson to learn is that we must not be ruled by the attacks. The real moral of the 9/11 Commission Report is not what the Commission, our lawmakers or our presidential candidates say/think it is (i.e., that we need structural reforms, intelligence centralization, and Middle-East war). It's that no matter how much we strengthen our security and how thoroughly we patch the holes that got through previous attacks, we will always be vulnerable to surprise. Before Sept. 11, 2001, the establishment occasionally heard reports about attacks like those that eventually struck New York and Washington, and essentially dismissed them as ludicrous-and they were ludicrous. Ten intelligence czars couldn't have picked the potential 9/11 out of the crowd of other tremendously implausible terrorist scenarios, and they won't be able to pick the next one out either. The best we can do is be wary of fighting the last war, and smart and decisive when it comes to the next one.

Give credit to men's b-ball

A lot has already been said about the "Dream Team" and the lack of success that the United States men's basketball team had at the Olympics. This year's Games did not prove that we weren't the best anymore. It did prove a couple of other things, however. First, the NBA style of basketball does not work within the confines of the international rules. With the wider lanes, shorter three-point line, and the ability to play "complete zones," our players were at quite a disadvantage. Second, international players are better than they used to be. Argentina's Manu Ginobli is one of my favorite players because he plays for one of my favorite teams. No, not the Argentinean national squad, but the San Antonio Spurs. It was no surprise that he lit up the American team because he has the ability to light up any NBA team on any given night. How much better do you think he plays with national pride on the line?  

Argue all you want about the players not being the best, but America is killing me with this talk of them not playing hard. Comparing them to the American softball team is incredibly unfair. Softball is a completely American sport and the softball team did exactly what they were supposed to do: dominate other countries that are just learning to play the game. Furthermore, they had America's support. For some reason America did not feel the need to support this "Dream Team" when we sent them off to the Olympics. But why? Do Allen Iverson's cornrows and tattoos prevent him from representing America?  That's absurd. America should be incredibly proud of an Olympian like Iverson. If America would take off its biased eyes, it would see that Iverson displayed just as much, if not more, class and work ethic than any Olympian on any team. Who else would continue to play with a broken thumb on his shooting hand, jeopardizing his career? These basketball players aren't like the other athletes; this isn't their way of making money.  Iverson didn't need to play in the Olympic to get endorsements like Michael Phelps, Jennie Finch and others. He and those other basketball players went to represent their country and they did so by winning a bronze medal. For anyone else this would be okay, but for this all-black American team, only gold would have been enough to silence the critics. They were destined to lose for two reasons: lack of talent and lack of national support. God Bless America.

Issue 02, Submitted 2004-09-15 11:42:22