Last semester, after homophobic acts outside of Crossett, the Amherst College Pride Alliance responded forcefully and decisively. There was a protest outside of Valentine, flyers blanketed the campus, and the group wrote articles for campus publications. As a result, the student body became more aware of the homophobia that lingers on campus, an undeniably successful outcome for the Alliance. The speed and organization with which the Alliance reacted had much to do with the role of Craig Cullinane, Amherst’s LGBTQIA Coordinator. The presence of Cullinane gave the Alliance an advocate in an official capacity better able to influence an institutional response. More importantly, as a college employee with authority over LGBTQIA affairs, he could devote his full attention to organizing a response on behalf of the LGBTQIA community. A college-provided coordinating officer like Cullinane is an important resource for an affinity group to have, taking pressure off of students.

The Pride Alliance has the benefit of this resource; so do religious groups. However, for some inexplicable reason, Amherst’s ethnically-based affinity organizations don’t get an official staff organizer. The BSU, the ASA and La Causa must rely solely on student activism to organize their events, and therefore, their level of activity on campus is solely dependent on the schedules and energy of students. As a result, the extent of their services and advocacy fluctuates each semester, to the detriment of Amherst’s minorities and the quality of the College community’s continuing dialogue on inclusion.

What reasons could there possibly be for such inattention on the part of the College? Surely, the administration does not consider the minority affinity groups less valuable than religious organizations or the Pride Alliance. Certainly, on the level of principle, the College values the role played by the BSU, ASA and La Causa in making Amherst a more diverse and welcoming community. However, for the administration, there seems to be distinct divorce between oral commitment and actual action.

At this point in time, Williams College has a multicultural center with five full-time staff members and a faculty advisor. This entity organizes and oversees the activities of the various minority affinity groups at Williams. Other NESCAC schools have similar bodies to advance diversity programming. With our $1.7 billion endowment, our stated commitment to inclusion and our large minority student population, we can certainly afford to pay a few extra staffers to help us live up to our institutional goals. The fact that we are the laggard, rather than the leader, in this important area is frankly baffling. More than that, it is shameful and disgraceful—utterly unworthy of Amherst.

At the packed “Raising Our Voices” forum on campus diversity two weeks ago, President Marx raised his voice to loudly declare a communal responsibility to foster inclusion, then proceeded to obfuscate on his own direct responsibility to provide logistical support to the ethnic affinity groups. For its part, the AAS proudly declared its solidarity with the Multicultural Committee, but thus far, all it has done is create an ad hoc committee to study the problem.

This state of affairs is intolerable. That each ethnic affinity group does not have its own permanent coordinator is lamentable. That none of them do is beyond the pale of acceptability. The fact that, even if we hire such staff members, they will have no headquarters but a former storage room in the Octagon or a tiny room in the basement of Keefe calls into question Amherst’s commitment to its principles. The administration must take decisive action to redress these grievances, and if they don’t, the AAS must unite the student body to hold them to their responsibilities. This matter goes far beyond the simple demands of an affinity group, to the heart of who we are as a college. This is a crucial test; we must pass it.