The March 2 article on childcare made it sound as though professors can simply take parenting leave when they have or adopt a new baby. In fact, however, they do so at considerable financial loss. Professors who choose not to teach at all during a parenting leave receive just 44 percent of their pay for that semester; professors who elect to teach one course receive 72 percent of their pay for that semester.
This level of compensation during a parenting leave makes it difficult, if not impossible, for some professors to take parenting leave at all. Many of our peer institutions offer a semester of leave with no pay reduction.
Should the College wish to recruit and retain the best faculty possible, it should reconsider its ungenerous parenting leave policy. While no one is likely to take or leave a job at Amherst College on the basis of that policy alone, the College should not jeopardize its recruitment or retention of faculty-and female faculty in particular-with ungenerous family policies.
Assistant Professor of History
Catherine Epstein
The Hamster's racist humor has no place
As students that condemn racism in any form, we are shocked and disgusted at The Hamster's article entitled "Tsunami Devastates Asian Culture House," which is not only a work of blatant racism but also mocks one of the greatest human tragedies in recent consciousness.
The article is full of degrading misrepresentations of Asian Americans that rely on racist stereotype for its source of "humor." We, as should the entire Amherst community, strongly believe that demeaning and stereotyping a race and culture for the sake of a moment's laugh is not only ignorant but is also highly offensive.
Beyond this, we need to put the tsunamis as a source of humor into context. Had The Hamster written a piece in the same light about the thousands who were killed in the tragedies of 9/11, every American on campus would have and should have been up in arms protesting. The fact that the tsunamis killed not thousands but hundreds of thousands should have been enough for The Hamster staff to realize that some subjects are simply off limits. The tsunamis were an international disaster of the greatest magnitude and mocking this catastrophe is simply tasteless.
The Hamster needs to seriously re-evaluate itself and its role on campus. Those responsible for The Hamster claim to use humor to "heighten intellectual stimulation on campus," but perpetrators of ignorant, tasteless humor fall far short of adding anything meaningful to Amherst life.
The Asian Students Association
The Hamster is still a good use of funds
In light of the controversies surrounding their renewed funding, I applaud The Hamster's recent publication of their successful collection of satirical stories. I remember when some students voiced their concerns over funding a "frivolous" journal. I congratulate the staff and the journal's advisor, Barry O'Connell, for proving the smarts and dedication of Amherst students. While the publication could have gone unattended, the staff has surely demonstrated their dedication. They have shown that satire provides a wonderful and keen means to examine our lives.
In light of the strange desire by some students to de-fund The Hamster, one must ask why Amherst is spending $355 to advertise the Spring Formal? The party is widely talked about and remains the most prominent social outlay of the academic year. No need exists to plaster the campus with posters for an event that mostly everyone is attending, and those who choose not to attend will still not do so in the presence of what the AAS voting site calls "advertisements." Their reasons are beyond the power of advertisements to overrule. That money should be put to better use-like funding another Amherst publication, The Amherst Spectator, which has bravely struggled to stay in print.
Jia-Jia Zhu '08E
Humor does not justify bigotry
I almost convinced myself not to write this letter because I knew that I would immediately be accused of being an over-the-top militant and of having no sense of humor. But the article within the last issue of The Hamster entitled "Tsunami Devastates Asian Culture House" terrifies me because it shows me that at least to a small segment of the Amherst campus, racism is acceptable.
Frankly, I was dismissive of the article when I was first told about it because I honestly believed that Amherst students-even the irreverent staff of The Hamster-would be above publishing such dehumanizing humor. But I was apparently mistaken.
Ignorant comments such as the "philosophical" statement that "life is both sweet and sour, just like the sauce Asians like to put on their food" and the implications littered throughout the article that all Asians (who are of course indistinguishable from Asian Americans) believe in yin and yang and practice feng shui have no place in a campus-wide, school-funded publication. One mock quote even reads, "I'll especially miss my roommate from freshman year. I couldn't pronounce her first name, but her last name was 'Park' or something," poking fun at the supposed interchangeability of all people of Asian descent.
I believe that the staff of The Hamster thought they were being funny and acted without malice. But racist remarks come in all tones, malicious and not, and the fact that this article was written ignorantly makes it no less insensitive. By playing the article off as light-hearted, The Hamster insidiously adds to stereotypes of Asians and Asian Americans in a way that is acceptable.
Considering the blatant lack of humor and tact, I challenge not only the staff of The Hamster but also every reader, regardless of background, who believes this sort of racist humor to be funny. It is not amusing in the least, and I don't understand how it could ever be construed as such. Expressing harmful racial and ethnic stereotypes is simply not acceptable.
Justine Chae '05
Facts, not myths, show Israel's faults
Regarding any political conflict, three basic views can predominate: One people is innocent and the other guilty; One is merely more guilty than the other; Or both are innocent (or guilty). Position one is extremism and position three is moral symmetry. Only position two describes non-genocidal politics accurately. Consider three contributions to the March Amherst Student. Joseph Kushick accuses "the Arab world" of anti-Israeli or anti-Jewish actions. Justin Epner contrasts Palestinian terrorism to Israeli democracy. N. Gordon Levin laments Arafat's "tragic" rejection of Barak's peacemaking. In each case, Israel is innocent, the Arabs guilty. Thus, the writers all adopt fundamentalist position one. From the inherent complexity of politics we know these views are ignorant or dishonest. We also know this from Israeli actions. But our authors think Israel is uniquely defending itself and seeking peace.
A student may answer Epner, as it is not my place as a professor. Kushick, who thinks "the Arab world" is a definable thing, denies the history of Zionist disputes and conquests because they aren't mentioned in his dictionary. Such thought speaks for itself. Levin, however, surprises me. I have maintained that copious evidence proves Israel has never intended to relinquish the West Bank and Gaza to Palestinian self-determination. Levin claims a deal offered "in December of 2000 ... refutes [my] view of the policy of the state of Israel." Levin says Arafat refused a deal amounting to 94-95 percent of the territories, Arab East Jerusalem and territorial compensation. Here are the facts: On Dec. 23, Clinton dictated an obtuse plan that would "develop a map" and "minimize annexed areas." On Dec. 28, Arafat requested specifics and clarifications. The next day, the Israeli Army Chief of Staff declared the plan "must be rejected." On Jan. 1, 2001, Barak said, "I have no intention of concluding any accord before the election" in two months. Arafat's negotiators went to Taba in January, where Yossi Beilin admitted, "any agreement is not binding." The Israelis made their same old unacceptable offer of apartheid: non-contiguous land, "sovereignty" without self-determination, only 92 percent of the Palestinians' own post-1967 land and a capital not in Jerusalem but in an outlying village called Abu-Dis. As always, Israel wanted as much of Palestine and as little of Palestinians as possible.
Israel's apologists rearrange 1948, 1967, 1982, 2000 and now 2005 (the Gaza "disengagement") to establish Israel's innocence and peacefulness in ways similar to Levin's. Evidence intrudes, but myths endure. But what is a nice deception like Levin's doing in a place like this?
Visiting Professor of
Political Science
Sayres Rudy
Ditch dogma and work for peace
In the recent flurry of debate in The Amherst Student concerning Israel and Palestine, numerous eloquent points have been made on both sides. Unfortunately, these arguments ignore the suddenly much more optimistic political situation the two nations face today, getting caught up in the self-satisfying mélange of intellectual/political masturbation and mindless dogma.
Consider the nature of the present-day situation in Israel and Palestine. Palestine is finally led by a moderate-Mahmoud Abbas-a man not only willing to work reasonably with Ariel Sharon and crack down on extremist military groups, but able to do so with popular Palestinian support as well. Violence caused by separately affiliated terrorist groups within the two countries has also died down recently with only a few exceptions. The fanatic and usually unreasonable Ariel Sharon himself has even showed signs of good sense: His support for forcibly withdrawing settlers from the Gaza Strip and parts of the West Bank is insufficient, but it is comparatively a huge step in the right direction. These are the actions of a man who grudgingly realizes that now is a golden opportunity to work with someone reasonable. It should also come as no surprise that-now that the uncompromising, idiotic Arafat is dead-both the Israeli and Palestinian leadership and populations are coming together to work towards a peaceful creation of a Palestinian state that will hopefully bring rest to one of the most war-torn regions of the world.
So does this mean that we should stop debating the abstract nature of the past and present conflict between Israel and Palestinians? Of course not. Such discourse is the heart of why we are able to understand and advocate for reasonable solutions that take both sides' perspectives into account. But it does mean that we should look at the bigger picture as well. Activists on both sides of the issue truly have for the first time a golden opportunity to look realistically towards peace. Let's not get too caught up in pointing fingers and instead work together to determine the best way to work for what's finally real: peace in Israel and Palestine.
Jimmy McNally '07