Perhaps the worst part of the entire episode was the second-guessing and criticism of Stern's decision. Artest, Jackson and O''Neal got exactly what they deserved. It doesn't matter whether fans provoked Artest or not. If you're walking down the street and someone throws a cup of beer at you, you don't have the right to tackle him to the ground and start pummeling him. The law gives you the right to defend yourself, not to be the aggressor.
The brawl, though, speaks to a larger problem in our society. We are becoming increasingly violent and angry towards the opposition. It doesn't matter whether it is sport or politics. We are becoming a fractured society. One of my political science professors recently commented that our society has not been this fragmented politically since the Civil War. The idea that red and blue has replaced gray and blue is indeed horrifying.
Instead of attempting to understand other people's points of view, we vilify others as "the enemy." People in the red states are not people who think differently from us but are ignorant, hypocritical, Bible-thumping bigots out to destroy the world. Meanwhile, people in the blue states are godless individuals who hate America. Winning is not enough. We have to push every bit of our agenda through and antagonize the opponents. We are so blinded by our own loyalties that we lose sight of all reason. For instance, instead of saying that Artest, Jackson and O''Neal committed an inexcusable wrong, Pacers fans jumped to defend the players.
Even our fairest college is not immune to the problem of excoriating the opposition. During the Red Sox's improbable come-from-behind victory against the Yankees in the ALCS, it seemed as though many people were more excited to see the Yankees lose than the Sox win. The UMass rioting occurred after game seven of the ALCS, not game four of the Sox World Series victory. Even though I contend that I was only rooting for the Sox, I was accused of being a Yankee hater by some of my New Yorker friends. The notion that you can't root for your team without hating the other team is truly disturbing.
In politics as well, Amherst students engage in dragging their opponents through the mud. I'm considered a "traitor" to the liberal cause because my academic advisor is a notable conservative on campus. According to the rules of this game, am I allowed to have friends who are conservative, or is that also unacceptable? How about my best friend, who is a very religious Christian on campus and holds many of the same views as those 'Bible-thumping bigots' in the red states? Am I allowed to be friends with her since she voted for John Kerry or is she off-limits because of her religious views?
Judging people solely on the basis of their political or religious views is close-minded. To say that all conservatives are evil simply because they are conservatives is wrong. Students at this college actually refuse to take courses with my advisor, even if the course sounds interesting, because they "don't want to be forced to listen to abortion being called murder." This refusal to acknowledge the other point of view is wrong. The answer is vigorous debate, not denial and condemnation.
Tolerance starts at the top, though, and it was incredibly disappointing to see some notable student leaders on the Amherst College Program Board decide to pay Ann Coulter $20,000 to participate in a debate with Peter Beinart. The money would have been much better spent if we had ripped it up and thrown it in the recycling bin. This way, at least the paper is recycled.
Coulter coming to the College gave us no benefits but instead had significant drawbacks. Coulter is exactly the type of person who we don't want representing Amherst. She engages in vilifying the opposition and name-calling without any serious political arguments. By paying her thousands of dollars, we are sending the message that it is acceptable to be spiteful and hateful towards people who disagree with your point of view.
Amherst is the top liberal arts school in the country (the Ephs and U.S. News & World Report notwithstanding), and we should be setting an example for the rest of the country. We need to reject the anger and violence that is taking hold all over America, and form a sphere of tolerance that doesn't just apply to gender, race, ethnicity and sexual orientation, but also to other points of views. We need to refrain from vilifying those holding different views in sport and political debates. We, as a college, can do better.
Sidman can be reached at
mrsidman@amherst.edu