This letter is not in any case a political polemic meant to ridicule a particular party, group or person. I am very aware of the sacrifices made for political engagement’s sake, and I am always very grateful to students who make the decision to participate in the political life of a rather apathetic campus.
However, as apathetic as this campus may be, over-simplifying political issues, reducing history to a list of wrong slogans and telling lies that “sound good” won’t guarantee greater success during tabling sessions. In fact this aggressive way of communicating might have the opposite effect—alienating more students than it should, and isolating your political group.
When you tabled on Human Rights Day to impose (sorry, no other word) your views on abortion, using flashy slogans such as “Protect Life” and concepts such as the right to life, I was appalled by the number of misconceptions and wrongly understood, out-of-context quotes. Bringing up “science,” “doctors say” and sentences sounding like “foetuses have feelings too” shows nothing, except maybe a blind faith in the success of a pamphlet because the word “science” is written on it.
I had the same painful experience a couple of days later, when one of my friends showed me your pamphlet entitled “Dispelling Myths About Capitalism.” I was originally thrilled because there were sources on this one. Unfortunately, the sources’ three lines were quickly followed by sentences like “Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man.” My goal is not to contrast my views of history and your views of history, but to urge you not to write things that don’t mean anything. Capitalism is not something fixed; it appeared gradually, with earlier forms, later ones, all different from one another according to location, political context, mores, type of society, climate, etc. There was no such thing as “the looting age,” and then, thanks to Western (white of course) civilisational influence, the miraculous appearance of the capitalist age. History is more complicated than the computer game Civilisation.
The crisis continued on Tuesday, March 11 about Che Guevara: “In Cuba,” you claimed, “people often compare Guevara to Hitler.” What people? In what cities? When? Under what conditions? With what social, economic, cultural background? Not to mention that comparisons like that do not lead anywhere. Even if Guevara and Hitler were comparable by some criteria that you fail to mention, what would be the use of such a comparison?
Please dear friends, let us debate, let us contrast our ideas on a higher level. There are very interesting cases to be made against abortion and in favour of capitalism, so use them! Do not think of the Amherst community as stupid enough to buy a list of slogans thrown on paper. For quality’s sake, please, do something.
Romain Cames ’09
The push for the Multicultural Resource Center (M.R.C.) is the wrong solution for filling the fundamental void in the College community that currently draws the campus’s attention. At the discussion at the open meeting on the M.R.C. in Fayerweather, four of the five students on the lead discussion panel expressed a need for a great campus center, not an M.R.C. They articulated that the campus lacked a space that was safe for discussion of all issues and a place where people could discuss perspectives both different from and similar to their own. Such a sanctuary is the ideal campus center. Thus, I think the push for the M.R.C. is a distraction from the more pressing need for a reinvention of what Keefe was meant to be. Only Valentine comes close to filling what is needed, but it is limited by its hours and architecture. Furthermore, the demarcation of a small room in the basement of Keefe would institutionalize further the notion that discussions of difference and inclusion are not meant for the whole of the Amherst community.
Therefore, we must push for the renovation of Amherst’s campus center from the office building it is into a forum where all students congregate, rather than pass through in search of coins for laundry or late night munchies. The campus center must be drastically, physically re-engineered so that it seduces and traps the College community within it. In effect, it needs to provide a Red Room that is located at the heart of campus, but one ruled by the student body. Only after the College transforms the campus center, will a discourse that includes all elements of the College be possible.
The recent discussion brought to our attention that a structured network is needed to consolidate and coordinate the event calendars of the campus’s many different clubs. The campus center would need to adopt this role as a key part of its mission, relieving much of the burden carried by student leaders on campus.
For too long, we have attempted to fix the fragmentation of its community by wedging improvised patches here and there. This method is problematic and will only grow more severe if Amherst intends to expand its student body. A centralization of the campus around a new Keefe would breathe new life into the College community that would provide the opportunity for the progress we desperately seek.
Jack Angiolillo ’08
Sincerely,
Jack Angiolillo ‘08