In the Oct. 20 issue of The Amherst Student, two students wrote a letter to the editor expressing their concern over an Admissions Office policy that prevents tour guides from wearing political paraphenelia. As the Admission Fellow who coordinates the tour guide program, I can assure you that no such policy exists. The Admissions Office supports an open environment in the workplace conducive to diverse beliefs and free expression. 

While the most recent tour guide manual sets no specific policy concerning the right of tour guides to wear political paraphenilia, it is the Admissions Office's position that student and full time workers alike have the right to wear pins or buttons expressing a political message. The only restriction regarding attire states that a tour guide may not wear any clothing that refers to another academic institution in a derogatory manner.  Our workers express a wide range of views in the spirit of the political and intellectual diversity that Amherst embraces.

 I do not believe visitors leave our office with the sense that Amherst espouses any one political position.  Instead, through their conversations with students and staff, they see first hand the environment of intellectual curiosity and tolerance we have all helped to create. 

John Quigley '04

Admission Fellow

Article biased against Coulter

The Amherst Student's coverage of the Ann Coulter/Peter Beinart debate was nothing less than pitiful. The article was undoubtedly liberally slanted, pointing out Coulter's most ridiculous comments while ignoring the intelligent points she made, as well as the surprising amount of applause she received. The first paragraph alone abridges three of her most inflammatory remarks, and the caption under the photo on page 3, where the article continues, reads, "Coulter alleged that individuals who vote for Kerry cannot possibly love the U.S."   

Though I find her appalling, she did produce a few coherent arguments, despite her offensive digressions. In the section on her response to a question about same-sex marriage, the quote only contains a sarcastic aside about Muslims being our "favorite" among practitioners of the three major religions. In her full response, her primary argument-which was reiterated later in the debate-was that self-interested Democrats have been suppressing the people's right to vote on important issues, like marriage and abortion.     

In the second paragraph of the article, which begins "By contrast," even though the Coulter arguments summarized in the first paragraph have nothing to do with the Beinart comments recapped in the second, one of Beinart's arguments was wrongly summarized (he didn't "dismiss" the flip-flopper allegation, but instead explained that all politicians fit that description) and he was misquoted. Several other quotes throughout the article were also erroneous.

Toward the end of the article, only one student's reaction was quoted. Not surprisingly, the student echoed the tone of the article, expressing her disdain for Coulter's "hate speech."

Arguably, the point of the article-of any article about a large event that's recently taken place on campus-is to provide those who could not attend with an objective, full account of the affair. We should, at the very least, be able to count on The Student to deliver accurate, if not well-written, news. Unfortunately, this piece doesn't even come close.

Andrea Gyorody '07