I was discouraged after that game, but the fact that our oldest rival out-cheered us with a quarter as many people in our own house on Friday evening left no question in my mind as to the condition of the Amherst soul. Williams played a phenomenal game, but the turning point came after the first quarter, when our fan base decided to sit back and observe rather than participate. For the remainder of the game, the Amherst cheering was essentially relegated to one of these three cheers: 1. “Let’s go Amherst,” 2.“Here we go Amherst” and 3. “DEFENSE.”
As an athlete, I know how important momentum can be. Anyone who has watched a Duke basketball game knows that a well-organized, enthusiastic group of fans like the “Cameron Crazies” can be a crucial factor. A deserving fan base is crowned with the “sixth man on the court” title. On Saturday, we were the opposite. We were a liability. We were unnecessary weight to our team. Each time only half of us participated in the cheer; each time we recycled “Let’s go Amherst” for the tenth time; each time we remained silent when Amherst was on defense, we demonstrated to our fellow students on the basketball team, to the alumni, to the administration and to ourselves one thing We aren’t Lord Jeffs.
One has to wonder, did we ever have school spirit? And if so, how did we lose it? The absence of Lord Jeff is definitely not limited to the basketball court. The other day, I was asking friends to think of one tradition at the College that the entire student body participates in that isn’t related to the Williams rivalry. After all, we are one of the oldest institutions in the country. We should have a few, right? The only response I got was from Christina Martinez, who pointed out the tradition of Sabrina, but quickly added that Sabrina is a negligible tradition because only a small fraction of the student body participates in it.
My cousin, Jack Mackenzie ’52, told me that when he attended Amherst, the rule was that “Amherst men say hello,” meaning that everyone was expected to greet each other on the sidewalks around campus, regardless of whether they knew each other or not. Now, I know that Amherst changed when it went co-ed, but was that really a prejudiced tradition we had to leave behind? If only the Amherst students of those days could see the fear of interaction that defines all of our sidewalks today. Another tradition he mentioned was that freshman weren’t allowed to wear t-shirts from their respective high schools. They had to wear Amherst College clothing. These rules undoubtedly fed the spirit of Lord Jeff because traditions unite the student body in a common interest, even if it is just for a second.
This brings us back to the question, how did we lose our school’s spirit? This is a question I openly pose to students, alumnus, administration, trustees and Tony Marx, but I certainly have theories of my own.
First, Amherst has an explicit agenda to make this campus the most diverse and accepting campus it can be. While this is an admirable goal, the administration becomes obligated to enthusiastically support all ways of life — effectively prohibiting them from supporting anything that could possibly threaten the ideal of diversity. They are terrified of offending people. I even get the feeling sometimes that the administration would replace our mascot because of its politically incorrect history if it wasn’t one of the oldest mascots in the nation. Therefore, Amherst is unable to tailor its education to the “whole” person. It restricts itself to academics.
Besides going to class, there is nothing that everyone at Amherst does on a regular basis. This is part of the reason why there are no paternal or maternal figures on campus. Gretchen Krull is the only administrator or coach at Amherst who makes herself visible and has a connection to the entire student body. Before the switch to co-ed, there was compulsory chapel attendance for all students where teachers, administrators and coaches would be present. Of course that could never happen now, but here again I think the simple act of uniting the students was more important than any religious objective the school might have had. Currently, promoting some sense of identity with the College among the student body is the administration’s third priority, at most, behind diversity and academics.
After all this, my point is that Amherst has become a stepping stone for its students. Regardless of what they expect before they come here, Amherst students receive a disproportionately academic education. Sure, we learn from each other, and we learn about different cultures, but are we really having fun? Will any of us say that our blood runs purple in 10 years? Will it ever really matter to the non-football players here that we haven’t beat Williams in their own stadium since 1985, before almost all of us were born?
For the sake of the students here, I hope that someone hears my plea. The administration is doing us a disservice by treating us so timidly. The ideal college graduates confident students — not just in their academic qualifications, but also in their ability to interact with people and form intimate relationships based on their experiences in college. In these fields, I believe Amherst is failing us.