Early this summer, students received word of a letter sent by a portion of the faculty to the Board of Trustees, disputing the financial aid recommendations of the Advisory Budgetary Committee (ABC). In short, the signers of this letter argued that the modest cuts to projected financial aid outlays proposed by the ABC were insufficient to meet the demands of Amherst’s financial situation. The letter suggested that certain aspects of the College’s financial aid policy be changed in order to cut cost. Most controversially, it advocated reconsidering Amherst’s need-blind admissions policy toward international students and exploring a return to student loans (rather than grants) for some sectors of the student population on aid.

While student opinion of the suggestions made in this letter was by no means unanimous, the dominant reaction was one of strong opposition to the idea of substantially altering the College’s approach to financial aid.

We wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment, as we think that an institution like Amherst should never factor financial need into admissions decisions that should be based on merit alone. We also hold that the College, if at all possible, should reject the idea of re-imposing potentially burdensome loans. We did not believe that the letter presented compelling reasons why such drastic policy reversals were financially necessary.

Furthermore, we understand why many students may have been hurt at the support expressed by certain faculty members for changes to financial aid policy that would, if enacted, hurt them or people in similar situations. We worry, however, that this injured feeling might encourage students to approach campus debate on financial aid in an accusatory frame of mind.

We hope that students choose to avoid recrimination while participating in this discussion. In the midst of the passionate discourse regarding financial aid, it is important to remember that no one is served by uncivil behavior. Although there are strong disagreements between various parties on campus, and although it is admirable to see the passion with which students have come forward to defend financial aid, it is crucial to recall that ultimately professors, students, administrators, staff and trustees are all on the same side in this matter. We all want to see Amherst thrive as an institution. We share the same desire to ensure access to this amazing school. We are all committed to maintaining the highest academic standards. While we may differ on how to achieve these ends, these differences provide us with an opportunity to have an intelligent, well-reasoned and mature debate on financial priorities, out of which new and useful ideas can emerge. Certainly it is important to recall that there is no single ‘right’ answer when it comes to budgetary allocations.

It is crucial while having such a valuable policy discussion to maintain an environment in which anyone is able to comfortably air their views without fear of being branded as elitist. If we fail to preserve such an environment, we risk stifling a difficult dialogue even more. Better to remain civil and willing to engage with the ideas than force people to mask their true views or to speak only through allusion and sideways reference.

Likewise, this debate — and the campus environment in general — will be far healthier if the student-faculty relationship remains a bulwark of strength. For years, this relationship has been one of the most remarkable features of our educational experience, spoken of glowingly by students, faculty and alumni. It is for many students the very reason they decided to come to Amherst. However, It is predicated on a mutual faith in the idea that we can disagree on issues about which we are passionate, while maintaining amicable ties. There is no reason why these ties should not stay robust, even during these trying times. However, if the discourse on financial aid devolves into a name-calling match, we worry that mutual suspicion could begin to encroach on the climate of mutual respect that defines the way we and the faculty interact.

Generally speaking, the student body has kept its head thus far in its approach to financial aid. There have been some unfortunate claims made however; for example it is unlikely that the motivation behind even the most ardent opposition to maintaining financial aid levels is elitist sentiment. It is also doubtful that any member of the faculty actually discounts the importance of diversity or accessibility as key components of the Amherst education. Those claims adversely affect the tenor of the conversation. We hope and expect that students who participate in this campus debate (and we encourage everyone to do so) remain mindful of these considerations.

Ultimately, this debate is an essential one for Amherst to have, and one that, if properly engaged, can be a healthy and rewarding experience for the whole community. We, as students, have a duty to the institution to wage it in a dignified and fair-minded manner. We are confident that the student body will continue to rise to the challenge.