Issue 21

THE STUDENT NEWSPAPER OF AMHERST COLLEGE SINCE 1868

THE AMHERST

STUDENT

Follow us on Instagram!

VOLUME CXLVIII, ISSUE 21 WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17, 2019

@amherststudent AMHERSTSTUDENT.COM

Legacy Admissions Scrutinized in Wake of Varsity Blues Shawna Chen ’20 and Natalie De Rosa ’21 Editor-in-Chief and Managing News Editor

Photo courtesy of Matai Curzon ‘22

After a complaint filed by a student alleging that the Unity Ticket broke campaign expenditure rules in their election campaign, the Judiciary Council held a hearing on the issue, ultimately ruling against the ticket in a 5-0 decision.

AAS Voids Election, Disqualifies Ticket Zach Jonas ’22 and Alison Poussaint ’22 Managing News Editor and Staff Writer On April 9, the Judiciary Council (JC) issued a decision on a complaint regarding the recent Association of Amherst Students (AAS) executive board (E-board) elections, deciding that certain candidates had spent money above the allotted expenditure cap. The ruling disqualified four candidates and led the AAS to hold E-board elections again this week.

On Thursday, April 4, students selected their preferred AAS candidates through an online poll. Once voting ended, a student submitted a complaint to the JC about the campaign finances of a group calling themselves the “Unity Ticket.” The group originally comprised of five students: Gabriel Echarte ’22 running for president, Isiaha Price ’21

for vice-president, Serena Lee ’21 for treasurer, Dorjohn Boakye ’21 for JC chair and Angelina Han ’22 for secretary. Lee dropped out of the race before voting began.

The group had purchased fliers and used Instagram and other social media platforms to encourage fellow students to vote for the Unity Ticket, pooling together their campaign funds to advertise. The complaint claimed that the Unity Ticket violated the Elections Committee section H. subsection ii. clause of the Constitution. According to that clause, each candidate spent $148 instead of the $29.60 they had intended to spend.

As outlined in the AAS Constitution, “Total campaign expenditures shall be limited to $30 for all campus positions and $15 for class positions. An additional $15 shall be allowed for each candidate in a run-off election. Contributions shall be included in this sum. Any

campaign item promoting a candidate counts toward this sum. No reimbursement shall be granted without official receipts.”

The JC met to evaluate the validity of the complaint, and on April 9, the AAS sent an email regarding the results of the public hearing held to assess the students’ candidacies. In a 5-0 vote, the JC voided the students’ campaigns and banned them from running in the redone, upcoming election cycle. Emails for the new election cycle went out on April 11.

Price — who ran for the position of vice president on the Unity Ticket — said that the five members of the ticket pooled their money together to buy $148 worth of posters that advertised their ticket’s campaign.

They bought 2,500 cards, Price said.

“If you look at the posters and cards that we bought, they have all of our ticket’s names on it. It’s not $150 of ‘Gabriel Echarte for President’ propaganda,” Price said.

According to JC Chair Daniyal Ahmad Khan ’22, the complaint filed to the AAS stated that the four Unity candidates “violated the [Elections Committee section H. subsection ii.] clause in their respective campaigns.”

“We understand that this action came from a misinterpretation of a clear passage in the AAS Constitution. Though candidates made efforts to ensure they were acting in compliance, their breaking of the constitution gave the mentioned candidates an advantage above other candidates,” Khan wrote.

Price said that he was confused by the decision. “We checked with both the AAS secretary and AAS treasurer to see if it is consistent with the AAS Constitution,” he said.

The AAS Constitution, he said, does not explicitly talk about ticket policy.

Continued on page 5

In 2004, around 45 students and parents visited Amherst for what was deemed an “admissions workshop” tailored specifically for alumni and their children. Then-Dean of Admission and Financial Aid Katie Fretwell ’81 answered questions from the group, explaining the application process and the college’s expectations for yield rates.

At one point, a visitor raised his hand. “I feel a little bad asking about it, but is there an advantage to a family relationship?” he asked Fretwell.

“The director paused to choose her words, recognizing that her answer would be of critical importance to the alumni whose gifts filled Amherst’s coffers — and who likely wondered whether the president’s ambition for economic diversity would leave their children in the cold,” journalist Dan Golden observed in his 2006 book “The Price of Admission: How America’s Ruling Class Buys Its Way into Elite Colleges.”

“There can be,” Fretwell eventually answered, adding that the admissions office communicates with the alumni office throughout the admissions cycle.

According to this section of Golden’s book, over the 15 years prior to 2004, Amherst had admitted 50 percent of alumni children as opposed to 20 percent of all applicants. When

Continued on page 4

News

Alyssa Snyder Thoughts on Theses

April 8, 2019 – April 14, 2019

>>April 8, 2019 8:47 a.m., Off Campus Location An employee from facilities reported a suspicious posting on Facebook Marketplace out of Connecticut. The police in that area were notified of the posting.

1:43 p.m., Jenkins Dormitory Environmental Health and Safety confiscated prohibited cooking items from a room in the residence hall. >>April 9, 2019 12:06 a.m., Ford Hall Officers responded to an alarm in a room on the fourth floor and found it was caused by burnt food.

9:55 a.m., Hills Lot Officers responded to a report of a dog left unattended in a vehicle. The dog was not in distress and the owner returned before officers left the area. >>April 10, 2019 10:11 p.m., Alumni Gym An item was stolen from a backpack in a locker room. >>April 13, 2019 3:00 p.m., Pratt Field An officer encountered a group of students being disruptive at a game.

4:20 p.m., Mayo-Smith Lot Officers responded to a report of a group playing drinking games. The group was dispersed.

6:43 p.m., Morrow Dormitory Officers responded to an alarm sounding on the first floor and found it was set off accidentally by a hair dryer.

10:13 p.m., Frost Library Electronic devices were stolen from an unattended backpack.

11:01 p.m., Tuttle Farm An officer encountered individuals having a bonfire without permission. >>April 14, 2019 12:37 a.m., Hitchcock Hall Officers responded to an alarm in a room on the third floor and found it was caused by a vaporizing device for smoking.

1:36 a.m., Lipton House Officers responded to a noise complaint and advised residents to lower their level of music.

1:29 p.m., Frost Library An individual was found sleeping in the library and was told they were free to use the library, but not permitted to use it for sleeping.

1:29 p.m., Frost Library An item that was stolen was recovered.

6:10 p.m., Converse Lot An officer stopped a vehicle traveling the wrong way down a one-way street.

Department of Sociology

Alyssa Snyder ’19 is a sociology major. Her thesis explores first-generation, low-income students’ experiences attending college. Her thesis advisor is William R. Kenan Professor of American Studies and Sociology Leah Schmalzbauer.

Q: What is your thesis about?

A: It’s about hypermobility and how low-income first-gen students go from their parents not having gone to college, and low-income backgrounds, [to] how they experience coming to an elite college — that hyper-educational mobility trajectory.

I’m especially interested in how that mobility trajectory is understood in the context of family. So often mobility is thought of as a very individual, positive thing, but I look at it in the context of the family because those two can’t be separated. I look at how students feel about that — how they get to Amherst, what kind of resources they draw on, their experiences at Amherst, their experiences going back home, how [it feels] to go back home after having been in this elite context and then their perceptions of mobility.

Q: How did you choose that topic?

A: It comes based out of my own experiences as a first-gen, low-income student. When I went home I felt like it wasn’t quite the same, and I felt like Amherst had changed me in some way, so I wanted to figure out what that experience was like for fellow low-income students.

Q: What was it like interviewing other students?

A: I think it was really cool. It was a really great experience. I felt like my interviews were really rich; most of them were al-

most two hours long, and so it was a really deep dive into their lives and their experiences. And those really make the basis of a thesis. I have huge quotes throughout, which is normally frowned upon, but I feel like for me it was really important to bring their voices to the forefront, and it was also really validating to know that other students were experiencing things similar to me.

Q: What was the hardest part of the process?

A: I came from a really underfunded public school, and the longest paper I had ever written was three pages. So coming to Amherst, [writing] was a huge shock to me. And to have written a 100-page, year-long project was a really big deal so that was really difficult. It was also emotionally difficult for me because it was so closely tied to my life and really hard things.

Q: Did you have a favorite part of the process?

A: I think my favorite part was interviewing, for sure.

Q: What was the most unexpected part of the process?

A: I think something I didn’t quite expect was the huge variation in my participants’ views.

I have one participant that’s like “I want to be a millionaire, I want to have a penthouse,” and then someone else is like “F— Amherst College, I hate this place, I hate being upwardly mobile because that means I’m

losing my family.”

Q: What do you hope others will take away from your thesis?

A: I think my main takeaway is that, as I was saying earlier, mobility is seen as an individual, very positive thing. Amherst College is like “Yeah, if you come here, you’ll have a great, bright, shiny future,” and it’s all kind of seen as a positive. But I find that for a lot of students, upward mobility comes with a certain feeling of loss in terms of their family, and so it isn’t this individual, very positive thing for a lot of people that are coming from a low-income, first-gen background. So [I’m] thinking more about what a collective view of mobility might look like.

Q: Do you have any advice for future thesis writers?

A: I think I was pretty successful in creating a calendar and working backwards from the deadline, and seeing what I had to do each month, what I had to do each week, and sometimes saying “Okay, what do I have to do during this day?” And I think that really helped me follow a track and make sure that I was keeping time with myself, because no one’s really telling you, “Oh, you have to do this, this and this,” so [people should] be proactive about planning out what [their] time will look like.

— Ronin Rodkey ’22

News 3

5IF "NIFSTU 4UVEFOU t "QSJM

President Martin’s Email Addresses Recent College Controversies Shawna Chen ’20 Editor-in-Chief A ruling by the Judiciary Council (JC) that sanctioned the Amherst College Republicans (ACR) for transphobic comments in their GroupMe incited public concern from members of the administration last week. President Biddy Martin addressed the GroupMe incident as well as AAS and JC’s actions in a community-wide email on Wednesday, April 10 titled “Conflicts on Campus.”

After a complaint was filed to the Association of Amherst Students (AAS), the JC, a body within the AAS, announced in an email to students on April 8 that it found the ACR in violation of the AAS Constitution and would issue appropriate sanctions to the registered student organization (RSO). The AAS also condemned the ACR’s conduct in an email to the student body on April 9.

In her email, Martin criticized members of the ACR who used derogatory language to discuss the CLD and queer students and staff in their GroupMe. “Republican students on campus have their own reasons for feeling marginalized and derided,” she wrote. “Too often these individuals are not afforded legitimacy or inclusion by those on the left who reduce members to an objectionable stereotype …

That said, the mocking and derisive behavior of some members of the club is inexcusable, and has no place in our community.”

Martin expressed concern, however, about the JC’s sanctions on the ACR — an action she said “further escalat[ed] the situation.”

She and Chief Student Affairs Officer Karu Kozuma were particularly troubled by the JC’s assumption that it has “the authority to use the Student Code of Conduct as the basis for its actions. In fact, only the Office of Community Standards can adjudicate violations of the Code,” Martin wrote.

According to AAS President Silvia Sotolongo ’19, Martin’s concerns about the authority of the JC stem from miscommuni-

cation between the two administrative bodies.

The violation of the Code of Conduct was the reason the JC filed a report to the Office of Community Standards. The rest of the decisions — including requiring ACR executive board E-board members to step down, barring them from occupying any other E-board positions for the remainder of their time at Amherst, mandating sensitivity training for all RSOs and requiring ACR to publish a formal statement in The Student condemning the GroupMe comments — were made based on the AAS Constitution.

When the complaint came forward about the GroupMe messages, the AAS Senate voted to send it to the JC and publicly condemn the actions of the ACR members.

Sotolongo had not spoken with Martin prior to the email’s release. “I imagine her including that in her long list … to prevent any backlash from anybody else in the community who may have concerns,” she said.

“The [AAS] Senate specifically worked really hard to make it clear that we were condemning certain actions of the College Republicans and not as a whole trying to dismiss them,” Sotolongo added. “That either got lost in translation or Biddy didn’t see it that way, so she was trying to defend a position she thought we took that we didn’t really take.

There was more nuance to the letter than maybe she was aware of.

I wish we’d been able to talk more about what our intentions were and sort of what’s been going on that a lot of people aren’t saying.”

JC Chair Daniyal Ahmad Khan ’22 emphasized that there is no conflict between the administration and the JC. The JC has been meeting regularly with administrators to address any miscommunication. “There has absolutely been no unfair involvement,” he said. “Any confusion that came up due to the emails will be clarified. The JC will carry out its ruling.”

“We’ve been in constant con-

tact with the administration recently because we believe that instead of us taking action, it should have been the administration doing it first,” he added.

In her email, Martin referred to Kozuma’s open letter, which was published as an op-ed on The Student website last week and highlighted other concerns in addition to the JC’s jurisdiction. The JC’s sanctions may have “ripple effects that are punitive of other students and student organizations that have no relation to the underlying incident you addressed in the measures,” Kozuma wrote. He also questioned the basis on which decisions were made, hinting at the possibility of “some procedural anomalies,” and effectiveness of mandated sensitivity training.

“

“I think it was good that Biddy addressed the issues and the email was written with good intentions but some points she made were counterproductive.”

—Teija Pavao ’21

” “I like to think that Karu and Biddy and other administrators involved and have our best intentions in mind and want to help without overstepping,” Sotolongo said. “I think some of Karu’s concerns are valid in that they are concerns … He’s saying, ‘I’m unsure how you want to follow through with this’ as opposed to ‘You can’t do this.’”

It is unclear if ACR E-board members have agreed to step down. More than a week after the JC’s ruling, the AC Republicans have not submitted a statement to The Student per the JC’s orders.

According to the AAS Constitution, if any RSO defies a ruling by the JC, the JC has the right to defund the group and change its status to one not recognized by AAS. Martin’s email also touched on other events that have caused controversy in the last few weeks.

The first point of discussion was the swastika incident reported by The Student, which Martin condemned. The hate symbol, one used by Nazi Germany in its murder of and violence toward Jews — was drawn on the face of an unconscious student at a party last December and circulated on Snapchat by members of men’s lacrosse.

“When this atrocious symbol becomes visible, we have a responsibility to stop and reflect on what it means and what the symbol has been used to do,” she said.

“We also have a responsibility to work against the hatred that the symbol represents.”

While she believes the Office of Student Affairs handled the matter appropriately, she wrote that “there can be reasonable differences of opinion on that matter.”

On the CLD, she affirmed her initial statements that the document should not have been sent out without proper vetting.

“I do want to reiterate that there is a very serious need for improved understanding of the lived experiences of those who have been marginalized in our society,” she added. “Problems with the attempt to tell this story should not cause this important point to be lost.”

Finally, she addressed Sessions’ planned visit to the college on April 24. “At this time there has been no confirmation of this event and we have not entered into the necessary discussions that always occur, typically well in advance, about the terms and conditions required by such a visit,” she wrote, adding that the administration would keep the community informed.

Community members showed mixed reactions to Martin’s email.

Some applauded her for addressing the numerous recent events

on campus. Others felt it was too little, too late.

“I think it was good that Biddy addressed the issues and the email was written with good intentions but some points she made were counterproductive,” said Tejia Pavao ’21, one of the students who organized the Frost Library meeting mocked by ACR members in their GroupMe. “I also didn’t like that she put it all in one email because I feel like each topic touched on is important in different ways and can’t be appropriately addressed in an email with four other ‘campus issues.’”

Ethan Rosenthal ’19, a member of the Amherst Hillel E-board, said in a statement to The Student that “I personally think that Biddy’s message was pretty much the best I could have hoped for realistically. Of course, there is always more that can be said, but I’m happy.”

A day after Martin’s email, Professor of English Geoffrey Sanborn published an op-ed in The Student responding to Martin’s email and recounting his encounters with his father’s virulent racism.

Martin signed off her letter by encouraging the community to move away from the “back and forth of offensive and retaliatory actions at a distance.”

“We are all custodians not only of the educational opportunities this college offers, but also of the social environment we create while we’re here and the one to which we contribute when we leave. I accept my responsibility as chief custodian and, in that role, I ask for your help,” she wrote.

“I ask each of you to think about your responsibility for the larger good, and about the question of what kind of people and community we want to be,” she added. “I ask everyone to do your part to create the conditions that make it possible to think and to learn, not only about rights and wrongs, essential though those thoughts are, but also about how we create a liveable world in our relationships with one another.”

5IF "NIFSTU 4UVEFOU t "QSJM

News 4

Deans’ Day Provides Additional Support for Legacy Students

Photo courtesy of Matai Curzon ‘22

Students admitted to the Class of 2023 are seen attending an open house. Based on previous admissions reports, about 7 to 13 percent of these students are expected to be legacies.

Continued from page 1 When applicants are reviewed, they are rated on an academic scale from one (outstanding) to seven (unqualified).

“The college accepts 85 percent of applicants given a one rating, with most of the exceptions being impoverished foreign students to whom it can’t afford to give financial aid,” the book reads. “Legacy status comes into play with candidates given a two rating — strong students who have taken challenging courses and scored in the 1400s on their SATs. Amherst admits 40 percent of such candidates overall — but 100 percent of alumni children with a two rating.” A student has legacy status if they have one or more relatives who graduated from the college.

The visit ended with Fretwell encouraging the group of graduates and their children to reach out to Fretwell for “informal ‘conversations’” despite a ban on official interviews.

In the third part of its series examining inequalities in the aftermath of the college admissions scandal known as Operation Varsity Blues, The Student examines the history of legacy admissions at the college and the reflections of both legacy and non-legacy students attending the

college today.

History of Legacy Preference Legacy admissions originally began as a way to prevent Jewish and immigrant students from entering prestigious American universities in the 1920s. Legacy preference was invoked to maintain Anglo-Protestant dominance, according to a study titled “The Origins of Legacy Admissions: A Sociological Explanation.”

Today, an admissions edge for legacy students is common among admissions practices across the nation. Documents filed in 2018 in an admissions lawsuit against Harvard revealed that Harvard’s admission rate for legacy students was 34 percent from 2010 to 2015 — a sharp contrast to a six percent admissions rate for non-legacies. The documents also showed that more than 20 percent of white applicants admitted to Harvard in that same time period were legacy students. African-American, Asian-American and Hispanic legacy students each made up seven or less percent.

Similar legacy admissions trends are apparent at Amherst. In an email interview on behalf of Dean of Admission and Financial Aid Matt McGann, Chief Communications Officer Sandy Genelius wrote that the college does not release admission

rates “by subgroup of applicants, except in accordance with federal law or other required reporting.” Later on in the email interview, however, Genelius pointed to numbers highlighting the college’s role in “finding and enrolling talented students from everywhere and from all backgrounds” — including the fact that 46 percent of the student body identify as U.S. citizens of color and nearly 60 percent receive financial aid.

In a 2015 article highlighting the newly-admitted class of 2019, The Student notes that 7 percent of those admitted were children of Amherst alumni. Older reports to secondary schools on the college website also show similar numbers for legacy students — the college stopped publishing legacy numbers in reports for the class of 2012 and onwards. Based on these reports, anywhere from 7 to 13 percent of first-year students are legacy students each year.

Legacy admissions rates at Amherst proved even starker in previous decades. In 1960, the college reported that over 75 percent of legacy students were admitted, compared to 20 percent of the entire applicant pool.

Proponents for legacy admissions have argued that the process encourages alums to make larger donations to the college, benefitting the

entire college community. Research on legacy admissions, however, has found that abolishing legacy preference does not lead to a significant decrease in alumni giving.

Others have argued that legacy admissions only slightly increases the chances of students who are already better-than-average applicants.

In a 2017 letter to the editor in The New York Times, however, a former Princeton admissions officer wrote that “all the legacies I saw admitted were notably successful high school students and were fully capable of succeeding at a demanding college.

But a significant percentage of the class was reserved for these legacies.

I would say 5 to 10 percent of the admitted students were legacies who would not otherwise have been admitted.”

Amherst’s Practices According to Genelius, “all applications to Amherst College are evaluated and rated using the same procedures.” Legacy status is only one of the factors considered in admissions. Legacy students, however, gain access to the admissions office in other ways.

Deans’ Day — an event for alumni and their children to interact with admissions deans — “provide[s] an opportunity for Amherst families to learn more about the college admission process generally, and also to see the visiting and application process from Amherst’s admission deans,” Genelius said. Each program includes a group conversation for parents and students — such as the one outlined in Golden’s book — a student-led campus tour and lunch.

Both of Julia Pike’s ’19 parents are Amherst graduates. She attended Deans’ Day and talked to an admissions dean about her chances of coming to the college. “I got to come here and talk to the dean one-on-one,” she said. “It’s crazy that’s something that was granted to me because I have parents who went here … thinking about the scope of privileges — who belongs to the higher socioeconomic bracket or legacy.”

Though Genelius wrote that legacy applicants do not have the opportunity to have their applications reviewed at Deans’ Day, other legacy

students also described sharing their applications with admissions deans who let them know if they had a strong chance of getting into Amherst.

For Meg Foye ’21, having two Amherst graduates as parents offered a better understanding of the college’s admissions process. At Deans’ Day, she participated in tours with other children of alumni and a Q&A session with admissions deans.

“Deans’ Day and having that chance is definitely an opportunity that most other students don’t have,” she said.

Legacy status provided additional benefits once she matriculated to the college, Foye said. Though many students face imposter syndrome — the belief that one did not deserve to be admitted, resulting in feelings of alienation and fear of being found out — upon entering elite institutions, Foye said legacies tend not to share that same sentiment.

“A lot of people talk about imposter syndrome and for legacy students that may not be as big of an issue because you have this idea that, ‘Oh my family went here; this is a place where I belong.’ Even just having that mindset is a privilege or an advantage,” Foye said.

Though legacy students may not deal with imposter syndrome, Foye noted that she wrestles with “reconciling being aware that there is unfairness in the admission process but that I’m complicit and I benefited off of it.” She hopes, however, that legacy students take more initiative in being aware of their privilege.

“I think especially with [Operation Varsity Blues], people who are legacy students want to be defensive, and be like, ‘No, it was my hard work that got me here,’” she said. “I don’t want to discount that, but I also think it’s important to recognize that privilege. You can’t measure the level to which extent [legacy status] helped you, but you have to acknowledge that it helped you in some way.”

Rachel Kang ’21, a diversity intern, noted that she doesn’t understand the reasoning in favor of legacy admissions.

“I literally have no idea what legacy admissions is about, but I think

Continued on page 5

News 5

5IF "NIFSTU 4UVEFOU t "QSJM

Students Question College’s Legacy Admissions Policies Continued from page 4 that just shows what legacy admissions has contributed to my college experience,” she said. “[Legacy students] have not enriched diversity; they haven’t brought anything new.

The college has failed to answer the question of why they’re doing that.

People don’t ask that question to Biddy face-to-face because that’s such a tradition that has happened for a long time. It might be a good opportunity to start challenging that and ask those questions, especially for DIII schools.”

Diversity Intern Maya Hossain

’21 also criticized the ways in which legacy admissions continues to reproduce wealth inequalities on campus. “Before the early 2000s, college was way more inaccessible, so that demographic especially for Amherst College looks white and male and wealthy because we didn’t have huge, juicy financial aid packages until … the mid-90s. Because of that, the people who are having children are going to be wealthy and for the most part wealthy and white,” she said. “So if Amherst’s whole mission is diversity [and] progress … legacy by definition is contrary to progress because it’s about capitalizing on falling back

on tradition of what has been here and recreating that year after year.”

Pike called on the college to carefully consider the future of legacy admissions at Amherst. A “white girl from New York City who went to private school,” she said she’d like to think there are things that make her unique, but at the end of the day, she benefited from an immense privilege as a legacy student. “The meritocracy is such an illusion,” she said.

“I think one of the first steps is to start examining all the systems we think make a meritocracy and thinking about the ways they don’t do that at all,” Pike added. “Standardized

testing is a primary example. Something we want to be a noncontextual marker of people’s merit doesn’t function like that. We need to reexamine that and also take into account context more than we do. I think we as a country really like [the rhetoric of] pulling yourself up by your bootstraps.” Pike suggested that the college follow other colleges across the nation and become test-optional in order to better account for the ways money grants privilege to students seeking admissions.

She acknowledged that the admissions office has to make hard decisions to ensure funding and donors

— it is not a simple black-or-white scenario of abolishing or not abolishing legacy admissions she said.

“I think it’s more complicated than that — so much of Amherst’s funding comes from alums and alums whose kids go here, then we get into conversations about varsity athletics and how that also creates the illusion of meritocracy at Amherst,” Pike said. “I think it’s something that I, knowing what I know, and not knowing what I don’t know, can’t make a blanket statement. But I would hope people who have more knowledge and more power are having serious conversations.”

of whom I strongly identify with.

All of you who frequent this center, what a great resource and necessary set of resources.”

“Tenzin and I share living in Wisconsin. We have that ‘can-do’ Wisconsin attitude, which Tenzin has used to create a wonderful resource,” she added.

Angie Tissi-Gassoway, the associate dean for diversity and inclusion, also applauded the work of the CDSL. “I really want to thank the CDSL and the staff … for your working relationships with your campus partners. It’s off the charts,” she said.

Kunor then spoke about the growth of the CDSL since its inception three years ago. According to Kunor, the CDSL was founded as an office. The staff didn’t have a physi-

cal space until September 2017.

“With the acquisition of an office and our integration into resource center team model, we transitioned from an office over to a center. We never had a chance to celebrate our growth over the last two years,” Kunor said.

The change in title from office to center is significant to the staff in the CDSL, yet Kunor said that there are little practical differences.

According to Josue Sanchez Hernandez ’21, the leadership and development program coordinator at the CDSL, the recognition of the CDSL as a resource center “reflects Amherst’s trend to further provide resources and support for first-gen, low income, transfer and veteran students.”

Kunor said that supporting

these specific groups of students is a national trend “in growing consciousness around first-gen and low-income student identities and experiences. Our growth has coincided with those trends within higher education as a whole,” he said.

“Overall, [the change] represents our growth and our alignment with other resource centers,” Kunor said.

The other resource centers on campus include the Queer Resource Center, the Multicultural Resource Center, the Women’s and Gender Center and the Center for International Student Engagement.

Sanchez Hernandez was especially proud of what the CDSL has accomplished. “We have worked with the Meiklejohn Program, the social justice LEAP program and

we have done workshops for affinity groups,” he said. “Our center facilitates resources and information. I think we are successful in that.”

The Meiklejohn Fellows Program is housed in the Loeb Center. It provides internship funding and post-graduate planning for first-generation and low-income students on campus, Kunor said.“We offer a partnership that houses a lot of the resources and helps build a community when thinking outside of the career center,” he said.

“Almost all of our work is collaborative,” he added.

In the future, the CDSL is excited to continue “providing and building out resources and programs but also to have more dialogue about class and classism,” Kunor said.

CDSL Celebrates its Transition to Resource Center Zach Jonas ’22 Managing News Editor

The Center for Diversity and Student Leadership (CDSL) hosted an event on Thursday, April 11 to celebrate the relaunch of its space from an office to a center. The CDSL provides support for first-generation, low-income, transfer, veteran and undocumented students, while aiming to educate all students on issues of social justice.

At the launch party, President Biddy Martin praised the success of Tenzin Kunor, the director of diversity and student leadership.

“This set of communities of students is fabulous and a lot of fun for me,” Martin said. “I am thinking of transfer students, our veterans and first-generation students, the latter

Referendum Offers Hope for Disqualified Unity Ticket Continued from page 1 “That’s where the confusion came from,” he said. “It says each person running is allowed to have $30, but it has another line about grand sum totals. Anything that is used to advertise a candidate goes towards their total [of $30]. JC had a different interpretation of the passage than we did.”

Members of the JC ruled that although all five candidates were advertised on Unity Ticket’s posters, the $148 posters still broke the total campaign expenditures rule in the AAS Constitution.

AAS President Silvia Sotolongo ’19 was unsurprised, however, when the ruling came out. “I think that the Judiciary Council has a lot on their plate and are trying to make very sound and thoughtful decisions. I think it’s a very difficult decision because a lot of people were very passionate about the positions they were running for,” Sotolongo added.

According to Boakye, the group’s response was to “fight” the ruling. “We sent out a referendum to JC that could override the decision depending on how the student body answers,” she said.

The referendum submitted by the Unity Ticket to the JC on April 10 argued that the specific language in the AAS Constitution on the financial spending of candidates applies only to individuals and not a ticket. “This text was brought before a legal and political science Amherst College professor that pointed out that the text only uses the word, ‘candidate,’ in the singular, showing the text was never intended for application to groups or pluralities,” the referendum states. “To apply the text to a group strays from its original meaning and intent, and requires

the Judiciary Council to legislate beyond the grounds of the original text, warping it to fit something it was not intended to apply to.”

The referendum referred to a similar ruling in a 2014 case when a candidate overspent during the campaign. The JC voided the 2014 candidate’s election; however, the candidate was not banned from running in the new election. Using the example of the 2014 election decision, the Unity Ticket challenged the current ruling. The JC must submit non-binding suggestions on the referendum within one week to ensure its language

complies with the AAS Constitution.

On April 15, the JC said they had no comments on the referendum, allowing the Unity Ticket to try to override the decision through a student body vote. If each member obtains the signatures of 10 percent of the students in each year, the AAS will then send the referendum to the student body for a vote. If 15 percent of the student body vote in the affirmative, then this week’s re-election will be void, and E-board elections will be held again with Unity Ticket included as candidates.

Opinion

w

More AAS Candidates

THE AMHERST

STUDENT E X E C U T I V E B OA R D

With the new round of elections for the AAS executive board (E-board) occurring this week, candidates will have an opportunity to run, or run again, for the coveted E-board positions on the Association of Amherst Students (AAS). The new election was in response to the Judiciary Council’s (JC) recent decision regarding the Unity Ticket and campaign funding violations, the details of which can be found in their recent email to the student body. Despite these recent developments, the fact that three of the five positions were uncontested shows a larger problem within our student body. It is important for the democratic process and for concerned voters to have multiple candidates vying for these important positions. To increase the diversity of thought within our student government, more students should run for AAS positions, especially executive board positions.

The last executive board elections conducted two weeks ago had a lackluster turnout on the parts of candidates. The positions for secretary, treasurer and the JC chair were uncontested, demonstrating a lack of interest on the part of the student body. The low candidate turnout, however, does not negate the fact that all of the AAS executive board positions are important, valuable and worth fighting for. The secretary oversees the communications of the AAS as well as the AAS vans and election proceedings.

The treasurer maintains the AAS’ $1.2 million budget and works to allocate that budget to the entire student body. Lastly, the JC chair works to maintain the integrity of the JC and presides over important JC hearings such as the recent controversial ACR decision and the decision regarding the Unity Ticket.

This problem is not isolated to the AAS board elections. The Senate and the Judiciary Council have fallen victim to the student body’s apathy.

The recent JC election last semester had three atlarge candidates running for four positions. Not only was there no competition for these seats, there were not enough candidates to even fill the entire council. Furthermore, upperclassmen participation in Senate elections has been so abysmal that no more than a few Senators have been elected from purely write-in votes.

When a candidate runs for a position, competition is necessary for the candidate to develop their points of view, deliver their

arguments to the student body and work for a position that has so much power. Candidates have an incentive to develop ambitious platforms that will benefit the student body. This past term, the AAS has worked to support a rigorous renewable energy plan, developed a free printing initiative for students and hosted events like a talent show to increase student engagement.

Regardless of these great initiatives, the issue of AAS apathy on the part of the student body remains a problem.

Elections without competition tend to consist of candidates with lackluster platforms and empty promises that they are not incentivized to uphold. What motivation does a candidate have to be a qualified leader and voice for their peers when they are not held accountable at the ballot box? Candidates can make all of the promises they want, but if they are not scrutinized for their platforms, then there is no guarantee that their promises can or will be fulfilled.

Take the recent board election, for example, in which most of the candidates vowed to increase the transparency of the AAS. While the candidates supported the idea of AAS transparency, not one candidate provided a concrete plan that voters needed. Most of the candidates provided vague details about their plans and promises to increase AAS transparency. Had there been more competition, candidates would be encouraged to develop plans to differentiate themselves from their competition.

Many students feel as though the AAS is an isolated body on campus, in that members of student government often run for positions within student government, which discourages non-AAS members from running in elections.

While this concern does have merit, this mindset ultimately contributes to the AAS apathy that seems to be rampant within the student body.

How can we break this cycle of self-selection within the AAS if members of the student body at large don’t even run in the first place? To fix the problems of AAS apathy, students should engage more with the AAS, whether through running, voting or simply showing up to AAS meetings to voice their concerns.

Unsigned editorials represent the Editorial Board (assenting: 9; dissenting: 0; abstaining: 5)

Editors-in-Chief Shawna Chen Emma Swislow Managing News Natalie De Rosa Ryan Yu Zach Jonas Managing Opinion Jae Yun Ham Camilo Toruno Managing Arts and Living Olivia Gieger Seoyeon Kim Managing Sports Connor Haugh Henry Newton Managing Design Julia Shea S TA F F Publishers Joseph Centeno, Emmy Sohn, Mark Nathin Digital Director Dylan Momplaisir

Letters Policy The opinion pages of The Amherst Student are intended as an open forum for the Amherst community.

The Student will print letters under 450 words in length if they are submitted to The Student offices in the Campus Center or to the paper’s email account (astudent@amherst.edu) by noon on Sunday, after which they will not be accepted.

The editors reserve the right to edit any letters exceeding the 450-word limit or to withhold any letter because of considerations of space or content.

Letters must bear the names of all contributors and a phone number or email address where the author or authors may be reached. Letters and columns may be edited for clarity and Student style.

Publication Standards The Amherst Student is published weekly except during college vacations. The subscription rate is $75 per year or $40 per semester.

The offices of The Amherst Student are located in the basement of Morrow Dormitory, Amherst College. All contents copyright © 2019 by The Amherst Student, Inc. All rights reserved. The Amherst Student logo is a trademark of The Amherst Student, Inc. Additionally, The Amherst Student does not discriminate on the basis of gender, race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or age. The views expressed in this publication do not reflect the views of The Amherst Student.

Connect With Us Email: astudent@amherst.edu Twitter: @amherststudent Instagram: @amherststudent Like The Amherst Student on Facebook amherststudent.com.

The Amherst Student • April 17, 2019

Opinion 7

Keywords in the Classroom Jen Manion Professor of History I loved college. For most of my life before college, I stood out as a person who was overly prepared for class, too engaged and persistently asking the teachers “why?” “why?” “why?” I went to Catholic school my whole life. I say this because half of the time the answer to my question “why” was “Because that’s what we believe” or “Because that’s the way things are supposed to be.” Neither of these answers satisfied me. I became a fiercely independent thinker.

It is why I loved college so much. In the humanities classes I was drawn to, I learned that the most important issues of the day — from reproductive justice to LGBTQ rights to racial equity to freedom of speech — had

rich, complicated histories.

I found a home in the campus women’s center and the LGBTQ center. In those spaces, I learned from women and queer people of color about racism as an individual experience and a structural force. I found my lifelong friends who continue to support and challenge me to this day. I also found a home in the history department, with faculty who would “out-why” me at my “why” game. There was often a synergy between my activism and coursework that pushed me to do better or to be more thoughtful about both. In campus activism, I was compelled by my personal experiences and vision for a more just world. There was an urgency and an intimacy to this work, which led many of us to put it ahead of coursework. “The reading

can wait!” we told ourselves.

While activism kept me engaged with college, my coursework deepened and grounded my politics. I learned about the complex history of the United States, including the anti-war, civil rights, women’s and LGBTQ rights movements. I read extensively on the history of race and racism in America and wrote papers on the strategies and conflicts within these movements. This research gave me the opportunity to explore — from a distance — questions that lingered from my own activism about strategy, alliances and hierarchies of oppression. I took risks in these research papers, arguing things that would have been unpopular in other circles. I believed it was my duty to learn about and think things through for myself

rather than adopting a view that someone said was correct because I fought so hard as a child to maintain independence of thought in the face of Catholicism. I maintain it today, even if it sometimes puts me at odds with communities or groups with whom I generally agree.

I write this to invite Amherst students to see the opportunities available in the classroom to deepen your engagement with the history of social change movements and categories of identity and difference. There is a powerful synergy between the life of the mind and the work of those seeking to end injustice. My own research aims to understand the historic roots of mass incarceration in the creation of the penitentiary system. I examine how categories and concepts of dif-

ference were defined and leveraged to justify the human rights of some and the oppression of others. I am now writing a book on the history of transgender people, expressions and representations from the mid18th to the early 20th century. Each of the many terms pertaining to gender and sexuality in the Common Language Document (CLD) has a rich and contentious history. I hope the conversations that the CLD has ignited are just beginnings of serious inquiry, reflection and study on the many important terms raised within. Courses and the faculty who teach them are an amazing resource for everyone, regardless of your identity or view point, to deeply and critically study the most important concepts that mark our lives and our histories.

If I May: The State of Political Comedy Jake May ’19 Columnist Recently, I watched an episode of “Patriot Act,” the Netflix show hosted by comedian Hasan Minhaj. By many accounts, the show has succeeded in its goal. It was picked up for a second season, and the few episodes I have seen were certainly well done. Minhaj delves deeply into just one topic during each episode, which allows him to address the nuances present in a given issue.

The structure of “Patriot Act” is similar to that of “Last Week Tonight,” John Oliver’s HBO show. Both comedians choose topics that are less mainstream than the general news.

Oliver has highlighted televangelism and robocalls, while Minhaj has covered the streetwear brand Supreme and the Indian election system. This is not to say that the two shows are identical. Both hosts have distinct points of view, and the aesthetics of the shows are different. However, the premises of the two shows are similar.

This similarity points to the fact that there are too many political comedy shows on the air.

In the age of Trump, people are clamoring for political commentary. Oliver and Minhaj’s shows are just the tip of the iceberg; “The Daily Show” and “Full Frontal” are both political shows, and late-night television shows, specifically “Late Night with Seth Meyers,” have become political since Trump’s election.

In a vacuum, a surplus of political commentary comedy shows is not a

problem. However, to me at least, we are currently in a bit of a rut. When watching these shows, I get the same feeling of incredulity from the hosts.

The hosts know that their audience already agrees with them, and so when they present these issues, it seems less about satirizing and more about sharing in a communal horror of our current situation.

This leads to something that many have called “clapter.” Clapter occurs when the audience briefly laughs and then begins to clap and

cheer rather than laughing more in response to a joke, usually an anti-Trump joke. When I watch clapter, it almost creates an eerie effect.

Clapter feels forced, like the audience is desperate to latch onto a criticism of Trump. It makes the whole show feel a bit cultish, even though I agree with the anti-Trump sentiments.

However, I think far too often, hosts take the easy way out by making jokes designed to generate clapter for their audiences instead of truly commenting on the issue at hand.

“Has Anyone Been Censored?” Is the Wrong Question Nishiten Shah Professor of Philosophy

I appreciate Professor of Law, Jurisprudence and Social Thought Martha Umphrey’s effort to complicate our discussions surrounding speech by adding more questions for us to think about. But I do want to voice a concern. I want to focus on one question in particular that I fear obscures the most important issue facing our community with respect to the Common Language Document (CLD).

The question “Has anyone really been censored?” is given a re-

sounding, if implicit, answer of “no”

by Professor Umphrey. Although I agree with Professor Umphrey about this, I fear that this question may set us off in the wrong direction by leading us to think that, since nobody has been censored, there are no important issues of academic freedom at stake. In fact there are, and to see why, let us turn to another question: would the publication of the CLD, by an office of the college, be inimical to our educational mission? Of course, our mission involves many aims, but I would hope that it is uncontroversial that central to our pedagogical mission is teaching students how

to excel at thinking for themselves, especially about important political, social and moral issues. Would the publication of the CLD by an office of the college be inconsistent with teaching students to think for themselves?

One might think that, since nobody has been censored, the answer is “no.” But I think the answer is “yes.” The stated goal of the guide is laudable (if possibly quixotic): to fill a need for a shared understanding of the meaning of important terms in order to foster communication across difference. But by baking controversial positions on important

issues — such as the nature of our identities, the effects of capitalism, the nature of social justice, etc. — into definitions, the document, especially if taken to be stating official college positions, forecloses the possibility of the very discussions that I think it was intended to foster. For instance, if it is just part of the definition of “capitalism” that capitalism is exploitative, then it would make about as much sense to deny this as it would to deny that bachelors are unmarried. Many of these “definitions” takes sides on issues that we all need to think about for ourselves if we are to hold views about them; we cannot

allow ourselves to accept substantive claims about important issues just because they have been packed into definitions that have been handed down to us by an office of the college.

Returning to the question of whether anyone has been censored, the important point that might be obscured if we get sidetracked into debating it is this: if the guide’s stated aims had been achieved and the definitions had been adopted as a framework for discussions on our campus, we would have been foreclosed from having some of the very discussions about identity that we must have if we are to be true to our mission.

The Amherst Student • April 17, 2019

Opinion 8

AC Dems Are Not Contributing to Extremism Cole Graber-Mitchell ’22 and Ella Peterson ’22 Contributing Writers In a recent opinion piece published in The Amherst Student, Thomas Brodey ’22 accused the Amherst College Democrats (AC Dems) of contributing to extremism by declining to engage with the Amherst College Republicans (ACR) in light of their recent actions. We respectfully disagree, and feel that if AC Dems had agreed to debate ACR, they would falsely equate a culture and politics of acceptance with one of hatred. ACR still has not apologized for the reprehensible comments of their members, giving substance to the feeling that they are no longer a valid political group on campus. Declining a discussion does not contribute to extremism.

Instead, it calls out extremism where it is found on our campus and refuses to acknowledge it as

acceptable.

Politics isn’t some pickup basketball game that ceases to be important in social contexts. Instead, it extends into our entire life, especially when many in the Republican party actively deny the rights of members of the LGBT+ community. To say that politics should be confined to ideological discourse, as Mr. Brodey does, ignores how radical conservative viewpoints harm our communities. As we have learned over the past month, not all of our peers are capable of affording every person the basic respect and recognition they deserve. As an organization that proudly supports the LGBT+ community, AC Dems cannot alienate its members for the sake of some theoretical political discourse. This reality was a nuance missing from Mr. Brodey’s piece. There is no requirement to debate those who actively deny the humanity of our friends, col-

leagues and mentors.

To call AC Dems the extremists in this situation is disingenuous, and faulting them for not trying to reform ACR from the outside is unrealistic and profoundly unfair.

In better circumstances, a debate could be a wonderful contribution to political life on campus.

However, it is inconceivable that the proposed event would actually be the productive conversation Mr. Brodey yearns for. Backlit by the events of the past few weeks, a debate would only legitimate the divisive rhetoric of ACR members.

We have little confidence that accepting the ACR’s invitation would lead to any substantial change or more robust understanding. ACR must instead work to transform their own culture, and it is not the responsibility of any other organization to rehabilitate them.

Furthermore, in a fundamental misreading of the intentions and words of the AC Democrats,

Mr. Brodey claims that they “alienate[d] conservative students on campus” by refusing to debate with ACR. In fact, the AC Dems extended a hand to conservatives who want to contribute intellectually instead of dehumanizing members of the Amherst community. In a letter to the ACR, they wrote that “there are people … whose views are more socially and fiscally conservative than ours, and it’s essential to our democracy that we test our ideas against theirs in a public forum.” AC Dems certainly does not regard conservatives on campus as politically untouchable.

It specifically calls out the toxic rhetoric of the now-infamous GroupMe messages as evidence that the current culture of ACR is not acceptable, rather than implicating all conservatives. In a time when conservatism is increasingly linked to fomenting hatred of certain groups, AC Dems gives conservatives a chance to shake that

A Response to “Conflicts on Campus” Geoffrey Sanborn Professor of English

I’d like to offer a couple of thoughts in response to President Biddy Martin’s “Conflicts on Campus” email to the Amherst College community. The first has to do with her discussion of the drawing of a swastika on the face of an unconscious student during an off-campus party. Why, she asks, would anyone draw such a symbol — and, although she doesn’t say it, why would anyone take pictures of the student’s face and post them on social media — when it is, obviously, “the symbol under which the Nazis exterminated over six million Jews and large numbers of other targeted groups”? The answer, I think, has to do with the way in which racism and things like it — misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, etc. — have acquired, in some people’s eyes, a glamor, as a result of the way in which it is possible to associate them with transgressiveness, with the pseudo-hero-

ic expression of an unimpeded freedom. Why would anyone do something so shocking? To shock people — or, in this case, to signal to oneself and one’s peers that one is free, courageous, fearless, pleasure-seeking, pleasure-taking and fun.

I say this because my father was a virulent hater of non-white people — including, in his mind, people of Irish descent, like my mother (along with me and my brothers). I grew up in an almost entirely white town in rural Maine and almost all of my afternoons and early evenings (he would pass out between 7 p.m. and 8 p.m.) were spent trying to manage his drunkenness. That meant, in part, listening to him say — in the belief that he was being free, courageous, fearless, pleasure-seeking, pleasure-taking and fun — awful things about many different kinds of people.

In addition to coming away from that 17-year experience with a basic feeling of moral repulsion, I came away from it, as I have

told many of my classes, with an important piece of information about racist forms of expression: that they are excruciatingly boring. By the time I was a teenager I had developed, in addition to a moral repulsion, sharpened by the fact that many of the racist attacks were attacks on my mother, a kind of despair. Again and again and again, he would express the same absence-of-thinking thoughts in the same crude formulations (“That’s the way those sons of bitches are!”). When I was very young I knew only that it was cruel; when I was older I knew as well that it was illogical; when I was a teenager, I knew that it made me want to shoot myself. Anything to escape a vicious, cramped space that was, to its monarch, the freest, most pleasurable kingdom on earth.

So that’s one of the things I want to say: that it seems very likely to me that the person who drew the swastika — and the penis that appeared alongside it in the Snapchat photos — did it be-

cause he wanted to think of himself as a magnificently liberated being. It is worth underscoring just how agonizingly familiar and predictable he actually is.

The other thing I want to say sort of follows from that. I fully share President Martin’s conviction that we need to “develop greater curiosity and knowledge on campus not only about one another’s social identities, but also about one another’s inner lives and what we can create when we interact with openness, rather than prejudice, and when we seek to learn in greater depth.” I want to add only that these forms of interaction are worth pursuing not just because they are right and good, but because they are truly pleasurable openings-up of oneself and one’s world. One of the central tenets of contemporary American racism is that anti-racists are joyless.

This is insane. Racists think of people as fixed facts, done deals, things from whom nothing new can come. Anti-racists, by defi-

image and contribute to civility in our politics.

Mr. Brodey is right when he says that political debates are integral to our society. We hope that in the future, a debate between AC Dems and ACR will be feasible, but reality prohibits that collaboration right now. The statement clearly indicates that AC Dems is open to future collaborations, but does not — at the present time — feel that a public debate would benefit the campus’s political climate. Debating with political opponents is valuable, but engaging with bullies only elevates their hurtful attitudes, validates their ideology and inherently undermines the premise of civil conversation. It is our fervent hope that there will soon be a time when ACR and AC Dems can work together in pursuit of productive political discourse. However, unlike Mr. Brodey, we sadly recognize that this is not our current reality.

nition, don’t know what, or who, is coming next. Racist enjoyment is thin, limited and obsessively protected; it depends on the separation of one’s mind from worldly reality. Anti-racist enjoyment involves a sensing of possibilities in one’s interactions with others, with an emphasis on the possibility of thinking and feeling differently when one is thinking and feeling in conjunction with someone else. From a zoomedout perspective, anti-racism is most obviously a moral and political issue. From a zoomed-in perspective, one that is focused on moment-to-moment interactions with others, it is (I think) most obviously an experimentation with the possibilities of consciousnesses and relationships. The more aware we are of that fact, the more likely we will be to value, in President Martin’s words, “the conditions that make it possible to think and to learn” — because they are the same conditions that make it possible to really like being alive.

Arts&Living

Thesis Project AWAKE Inspires Thoughtful Introspection

Photo courtesy of Amherst College Theatre and Dance Department Facebook

Lauren Thompson '19 and Benjamin Kissinger '20E created AWAKE, an immersive experience where viewers participate in introspective meditation.

Olivia Henrikson ’21 Staff Writer On the evenings of April 3 through April 7, Lauren Thompson ’19 and Benjamin Kissinger ’20E were in the Kirby Memorial Theater showing their theater and dance thesis project, AWAKE, for members of the Amherst community. Described in its event page as a “multimedia work of installation art/experimental theater designed as an immersive, single-viewer experience,” AWAKE takes the physical form of a large cube.

The cube is composed of an abstract collection of various rectangular wooden panels which the viewer is invited to step into for the duration of the 25-minute immersive experience. While the project falls within the theater and dance department, the show does not include any performers or a collective audience. Instead, the narrative of life and death is told through intricate interactions of light, sound, projections and space.

One of the most striking aspects of the project is that it is meant to be experienced in isolation. “We wanted to get someone to actually think without looking to someone else, whether that’s the performer or fellow audience members,” Kissinger explained.

At the beginning of AWAKE, a single viewer is invited into the

dark theater and instructed to take a seat in the back row. They are then left alone in the dark until a large cube onstage fills with multicolored light and a voice asks the viewer to walk towards the stage and enter the cube. The narrative follows the timeline of life to death and is broken into four sections: one for birth, one for childhood, one for suffering and one for death.

In each section, corresponding archival footage accompanied by both a male and a female voice is projected onto panels, creating an immersive and, at times, aesthetically-overwhelming experience.

The project ends in a kind of introspective meditation as the viewer stands facing the empty theater, staring into a mathematically-generated, never-ending pattern projected on the panels in front of them. Amplified voices read from Buddhist teachings pertaining to the self, the impermanence of human life and our purpose in the world. Standing or sitting alone in the cube, the viewer inherently begins to contemplate their own mortality and place in the universe.

Kissinger and Thompson drew inspiration for their thesis from Buddhist teachings and philosophers, as well as their own experiences and those of their friends.

Kissinger explained that he and Thompson “did a lot of research into Buddhism and philosophers

and looked at where their messages overlapped and what they had to say about the human self; not so much about dogma, but what people are capable of when they set their mind to wholesome actions.”

“We were trying to create an experience everyone can connect to on some level,” Thompson added.

“There are a lot of ideas and topics within Buddhism and philosophy that we wanted to touch on, but we ended up settling on life and death in general because that’s something that everyone goes through … And it’s really easy to get swept up in patterns that we’re caught up in, ‘the system’ if you will, and just feeling like we’re in this endless slog, working towards something and accidentally forgetting everything that’s already around us. So we wanted to pay attention to those things and remind people that life is more than some abstract end goal.”

Although the two students were set on collaborating from the beginning of the thesis process, Thompson noted that, as far as their professor could remember, no one at the college had ever done a joint thesis before. “We kind of always knew that Ben wanted to do some programming and stuff with mathematics and computer science and loops. And I was going to bring my design background to the table but we both would collaborate on

the narrative, what the story was,” she elaborated.

Both Thompson and Kissinger acknowledged that the collaboration challenged them in the creative process but in the end made the final product better. “We had to learn how to feel like your ideas are being represented and there’s a cohesive whole, but also being able to give up certain things in order to make the project better,” said Thompson In addition to being incredibly technically complicated, AWAKE was profoundly thought-provoking and emotional for many of its viewers. Wanting to hear from those who came to experience the project, Thompson and Kissinger reserved 10 minutes at the end of every showing for a talk-back in which they could share some of their inspirations and hear their audience’s reactions. They were both struck by the number of people who shared that the project fell into their lap at the perfect time in their life, in that encountering AWAKE allowed them to deeply consider their life experiences in a new light.

Kissinger was also surprised by the number of people who shared the experience of being uncomfortable with coming to the show and experiencing it alone. “That can be intense,” he said.

Reflecting back on his own time at Amherst, Kissinger believed the

teachings of his project are especially salient to young people. “I think the things we were exploring reflect a lot of what I see myself going through and what a lot of my friends have gone through,” he said. “Everyone says this is the time of your life to find yourself and personally I think that means something a little bit different. I think that means finding yourself as accepting who you are and then also understanding what the potential of a person is when you look past the everyday desires around you. It’s about what happens when you sacrifice a little bit of something and what can you do with that; how much can you create.”

Adding on, Thompson reflected, “I’m going to be leaving this school in a matter of weeks so it’s been a helpful practice in remembering these things. Watching and hearing it over and over again, night after night, it almost became like a meditation for the both of us. We walked out of it changed and just more mindful of our place in the grand scheme of things.”

Experimental in nature, AWAKE challenged and expanded general conceptions of what a thesis project could look like. Its universal message of life, death and self-reflection contains important lessons for all young adults as we navigate our individual places in the world, both at Amherst and beyond.

Arts & Living 10

The Amherst Student • April 17, 2019

The Last Season of “Game of Thrones” Finally Premieres

Photo courtesy of roylyfernando.wordpress

The long-awaited last season of “Game of Thrones” premiered April 14, featuring new interactions between characters and setting up future plot lines.

Mark Simontis ’19 Staff Writer The final season of “Game of Thrones” has finally premiered after more than a year-long hiatus, starting us down the road to the finale of one of the most popular television shows. Much like previous “Thrones” season premieres, this was a set-up episode.

All of the characters are shifted into place, we touch base on old dynamics, get a refresher on the threat of the undead and take a deep breath before the plunge to come.

The challenge facing this “Thrones” premiere is a classic one; for 54 minutes, the show has an admittedly thankless task of juggling the need to remind us of ongoing plot points, get us reacquainted with the characters, introduce new hooks for the coming season and keep us entertained throughout. Overall, this Sunday’s episode did a pretty great job.

The episode opened on an especially strong note (after one hell of an opening credits

sequence) with Daenerys Targaryen (Emilia Clarke) arriving at Winterfell alongside Jon Snow (Kit Harington) and the rest of her entourage. The whole sequence acted as a great callback to the very first episode of season one, with events mirroring Robert Baratheon’s arrival to Winterfell.

I was thrilled to draw parallels between the two events, taking note of how far characters such as Jon, Arya Stark (Maisie Williams), Bran Stark (Isaac Hempstead Wright), the Hound (Rory McCann), Jaime Lannister (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) and more have come since the pilot episode.

However, it is not long until we are thrown into the latest iteration of Winterfell drama, as the Northern lords offer quite the frosty welcome to Daenerys.

Honestly, this plot point would not feel as boring as it does if we hadn’t already done this dance last season.

Same old story: Jon Snow must do something to ensure his people’s survival, but they’re not happy about it. I understand

that the show wants to hammer the point home that the public is not truly cognizant of the threat of the undead, but it sadly feels like we’re just crossing over old territory.

On the other hand, this premiere shares one of the strengths of last season, namely the new character dynamics brought into play. I would say that approximately 75 percent of this episode is dedicated to exploring interactions between characters who have either never met before or haven’t crossed paths in previous seasons.

It was great to see long-awaited reunions between pairs such as Arya and Jon or Tyrion Lannister (Peter Dinklage) and Sansa Stark (Sophie Turner), so we could be reminded of how much they’ve all changed over the years.

Oddly enough, this was also one of the funniest episodes of “Game of Thrones” in my recent memory. The show has never been a stranger to humor, with characters such as Tyrion taking up much of the screen time.

But in the premiere, there was

definitely a sense of lightheartedness for a surprising number of scenes — when people weren’t busy worrying about the impending apocalypse, of course.

Whether it was Jon getting stared down by Drogon, Arya and Gendry awkwardly flirting or Bran having a strange knack for staring people down in his Three-Eyed Raven persona, the laughs kept coming. I have to wonder if this is simply a matter of getting the humor out of the way now, or setting the audience at ease before taking the plunge into the massacres that we have lined up ahead of us.

Special credit has to go to John Bradley for his performance as Samuel Tarley in this latest episode.

While he’s always been great at playing Sam in his various capacities, the scene where Daenerys informs him that she executed his father and brother was absolutely heartbreaking to watch.

I went back to watch the scene again when the episode was over, and was impressed by the subtle differences in his facial features

as he learned about each layer of bad news. And, of course, this translated naturally into some very satisfying rage and indignation on Sam’s part, as he finally tells Jon the truth about his heritage.

Of course, the other standout scene tonight was the dragon-riding sequence with Daenerys and Jon. It really builds on the previously-mentioned sense of lightheartedness and wonder.

At the end of the day, it was simply really cool to see two fan-favorite characters finally saddle up and ride dragons together. It really is incredible how unbelievably lifelike these CGI dragons look, with the close-up of Drogon towards the end being a particularly jaw-dropping moment.

Overall, this was a decently-strong start to the last season of “Game of Thrones.” While I’ve given up hope of another season ever reaching the lofty highs of seasons one through one, I have confidence that HBO will still deliver one hell of a crowd pleaser.

Arts & Living 11

The Amherst Student • April 17, 2019

A Quirky, Artistic Tribute to Community and Cardboard

Photo courtesy of Julian Raiford ’21

In this scene from “Have You Seen the Ghost of John?”, two box creatures discuss whereabouts of the ghost of John before a starry backdrop.

Julian Raiford ’21 Staff Writer What do people and boxes all have in common? According to the performance artists in Whoop Dee Doo’s interactive art installation “Have You Seen the Ghost of John?”, the answer is the right to fall in love. Although the show was held in collaboration with Macon Reed’s “On World-Making: Context, Narrative, Myth and Truth” class at Amherst, it was only through the whispers of a few keen individuals that I was able to hear about the project and secure a spot at one of the three same-day showings which were held on the third floor of Fayerweather Hall.

While these might sound like a strange assortment of individuals and items to premise an entire show around, Whoop Dee Doo makes a point of embracing the absurd. For over a decade, the travelling and performance-based project has explored what it means to make meaningful and unique community-based art. For this project, that includes enlisting local artists to create a bizarre world of bright colors, transcendental sounds and experimental theater elements.

The performance art leanings of the project prove the mission of Whoop Dee Doo unique

enough; however it is the limited show runs and community-based focus that truly make the project notable. There is an element of ephemerality that characterizes Whoop Dee Doo and its works: the production is preceded by little fanfare and hardly more than a Facebook page advertising the upcoming spectacle.

This third floor corner of Fayerweather is a floor rarely seen by even the most studious of art students who may consider themselves regulars of the hall. However, on April 12, the warm attic space of the floor was packed with assorted community members from the five colleges, alongside many artists from the greater Amherst community.

A docent dressed as a cardboard box ushered small groups into a classroom that had been flipped to embody the image of a futuristic haunted attic. Towering stacks of cardboard boxes flanked the sides of a makeshift stage emblazoned with a monochromatic “Whoop Dee Doo” logo. The letters reflected onto the foggy metallic floor below it, littered loosely by packing peanuts. The space was tight, and silence washed over the seated audience in anticipation of a host. However, the only cue the show had begun was the complete cutting of the lights.

With a flash, the lights returned in a burning red, as the flaps of the cardboard boxes opened in unison. From each hole, a sheet ghost popped out its head and began to sing an eerie a cappella rendition of the old children’s song “Have You Seen the Ghost of John?” for which the show was named.

At the end of the song, the flaps closed, and the lights were cut once more. The lights blinked back on in a fluttering of pink and blue which left a blurry patchwork on the reflective floor, lighting the room from above and below. A set of boxes cleared away to reveal a falling curtain and a “2001: A Space Odyssey”-inspired display constructed entirely of cardboard.

Two figures draped in tin-foil clothing with cardboard boxes for heads sat in front of a picturesque window, revealing a cartoon-y universe of stars as they conversed about the potential whereabouts of the ghost of John.

The remainder of the show passed through skits like these, phasing through a series of dancers and another round of singing ghosts. The turning point of the show came after a pause of darkness when a man popped out of a cardboard coffin toting a white Fender electric guitar while sporting fuzzy black hair and round, wire-rimmed glasses.

“It’s me, the ghost of John,” he paused, as he announced himself in a feigned British accent, “Lennon.” He went on to perform a song titled “Boxy Lady” about boxes falling in love. The tune was admittedly a catchy success with the audience, even though the British accent disappeared as soon as the song began. Despite that being the climax of the show, it was the most stripped-back and traditional performance of the evening. While most performance artworks maintain an air of earnestness that is frowned upon to laugh at, in this moment the audience was clearly invited to enjoy the comedic nature of the spectacle.

“Boxy Lady” was emphasized by the penultimate skit which featured two boxes engaged in a wedding ceremony as an organ rendition of Richard Wagner’s ever-familiar “Bridal Chorus” played. A priest humorously ordained the ceremony between the two partners, asking, “Box, will you take Box to be your loyally wedded box? And Box, will you take Box to be your loyally wedded box?”

The show concluded with the return of the singing sheet ghosts who covered Kehlani’s “Honey,” the lyrics of which were cleverly reworded to be box-centric puns.

Confetti fell from the ceiling, turning the room into the site of a wedding reception. The audience left the space feeling as if they had witnessed some act of love, despite the curious experimental elements and the lack of narrative that marked the short performance. While perhaps not the explicit point of the performance, in some way, the audience had witnessed an act of love. Whoop Dee Doo had met its mission of bringing together a diverse group of creators who had shared their collective passions in an art piece centered on the joy of community.

Like any good performance piece, the meaning of “Have You Seen the Ghost of John?” is highly contentious and the verdict is still out on whether the performance is a bizarre tribute to cardboard and John Lennon, the absurdities of love, both or perhaps neither.

Regardless of intent, the piece was immensely enjoyed by the audience, myself included. While the performance lasted no more than 20 minutes, the work of Whoop Dee Doo has certainly left a lasting impression. As it turns out, bringing together the community to celebrate the life and love of cardboard boxes as soundtracked by the ghost of John Lennon is exactly what the Amherst community needed.

Arts & Living 12

The Amherst Student • April 17, 2019

Klint Interrogates Intersections of Science and Spirituality Emmy Sohn ’22 Staff Writer The exhibit “Hilma af Klint: Paintings for the Future” runs at the Guggenheim Museum in New York City until April 23.

This exhibition showcases the works of one of the first artists to usher in the movement of abstract painting, Hilma af Klint.

The installation begins with a series of work called the 10 Largest, which are intended to be viewed together as a collection showing the stages of life from childhood to old age. The inspiration for this series came from Klint’s practice of transcendentalist spirituality, a practice of communicating with the world of the spirit that was popular during Klint’s lifetime. Klint received a commission from the spirits telling her to create a body of works to be hung in a temple celebrating spirituality. The temple never came into being, but Klint painted over 100 works, including this series. Klint uses

bright colors, particularly purples and yellows, and features abstract patterns and symbols.

At over three meters tall, these works are a striking and engaging way to begin the exhibit. While they show some continuity, each work is unique and interesting.

Klint’s colorful, imaginative works depart from the traditional academic painting of the early 20th century. Klint, who was born in Sweden in 1862, began painting in this style in 1906, before those credited as pioneers of abstract art, such as Vasily Kandinsky, had adopted the style.

Klint knew her abstract style was radically different from anything seen before and decided that the world was not ready to understand it. She requested that none of her paintings be shown until 20 years after her death. Her family followed her wishes, and her work wasn’t seen until 1986, over 40 years after her death in 1944. Today, the Guggenheim Museum has put together a show to explore Klint’s revolutionary

style and give the public a chance to see her work.

Clear in the exhibition is the intersection between science and spirituality that influenced Klint’s works. During a short window in the early 20th century, the scientific community pioneered groundbreaking discoveries around atomic models, X-rays, the laws of physics and the size of the universe. Science proved that there was another dimension beyond the ones that can be physically seen or touched.

Simultaneously, there was a surge of spiritualism across Europe and the United States. Klint practiced spiritualism and theosophy, an individualized spirituality that seeks an understanding of divinity. Klint, along with a community of other women, held seances which they believed allowed them to access spirits of another dimension. It was in channeling these spirits and listening to their instructions that Klint created much of her work.

The spirits often spoke to Klint through repeating symbols and letters that she recorded and featured in her paintings.

This combination reveals itself well in Klint’s series on the tree of knowledge. The iconography of the tree comes from the story of Adam and Eve, which relates to her spiritual beliefs.

On the other hand, her composition and presentation of the tree evokes scientific diagramming.

Reminiscent of both biblical and scientific schools, Klint finds an intersection between the two to create her own representation of the tree of knowledge.

Similarly, in her series on evolution, a theory that was still considered revolutionary during her time, Klint uses abstract symbols, many of which are from her ritual seances with the spirits to explore the concept of evolution. Klint repeats the image of the snail shell as a representation of evolutionary theory, as well as geometric patterns. Her choice of bright colors and contrast-

ing black is striking and draws the attention of the viewer right away.

As a whole, the exhibit felt complete but not overwhelming.

It was mainly composed of series revolving around one concept, so viewers could fully engage in her thoughts, philosophies and depictions on how the world of science meets and merges with one of spiritualism.

Photo courtesy of Journals.hioa

Hilma af Klint’s trees of life series is now on display at the Guggenheim in New York.

Sports

Men’s Track & Field Opens Spring Season With Two Meets Veronica Rocco ’19 Staff Writer The men’s track and field team traveled to two different meets for the third weekend of competition. Some athletes drove south to compete at the Mondschein Multi-Event Invitational hosted by Kutztown University, a meet exclusive to the decathlon and heptathlon on April 11 and 12. The rest of the Mammoths competed at the two-day Silfen Invitational hosted

by Connecticut College on April 12 and 13.

At the Amherst Spring Fling a week prior, first year Henry Buren stole the show, anchoring the 4x100-meter relay to victory, winning the 100-meter dash in a school record time of 10.96 seconds and placing second in the 200-meter dash with a time of 22.10 seconds. For his efforts, he earned the NESCAC Track Performer of the Week Honors after press time last week.

“I didn’t expect to break it [the record] with that time this early in the year,” Buren said. “I have to thank my coaches for preparing me and my teammates for pushing me at practice.”

The long-distance crew of Braxton Schuldt ’21, Jamie Mazzola ’21, Spencer Davis ’22 and Ajay Sarathy ’21 ran the 10,000-meter race, a 25lap event. Schuldt emerged with the victory amongst college runners in his first 10K ever, an impressive accomplishment. Mazzola, Davis and Sarathy all competed well, qualifying for the NESCAC Championships with their finishing times.

In the 800-meter race, Ermias Kebede ’19 set a new personal best of 1:57 to place fifth. Maxim Doiron ’19 also set a personal best in the 110-meter hurdles with a time of 15.55 seconds.

Jacob Silverman ’19 won the 800 in a time of 1:58, defending his title from the meet last year. In a separate

heat, Andrew Swenson ’21 led from the outset of the race and never relinquished his lead to win the heat in a time of 1:59, an impressive performance considering this was his first time running the event since high school.

The Mammoths swept the long jump, as Theo Bates ’20, Troy Colleran ’22, Yaseen Zarroug ’22 and Jordan Edwards ’20 placed first through fourth, respectively.

Doiron also set another personal best in the 110-meter hurdles, lowering his time to 15.47 seconds and winning the event. Seniors Elorm Yevudza and Cornell Brooks had big days in the throwing circle, where Yevudza set new personal bests in the hammer throw and shot put. Brooks set new personal bests in the discus and the hammer throw.

At the Mondschein Multi this past weekend, Troy Colleran ’22 and Jack Dufton ’20 both competed in their first college decathlon. The decath-

lon is a two-day competition, where, on the first day, athletes compete in the 100-meter dash, long jump, shot put, high jump and 400-meter dash.

On the second day, athletes start with the 110-meter hurdles, then compete in the discus, pole vault, javelin and 1,500 meters.

Colleran won his division of the decathlon, earning a point total of 6,062 points, while Dufton placed fourth with his point total of 5,183.

Colleran won the 100-meter dash in a wind-aided time of 11.21 seconds, setting a new personal best in the long jump with a leap of 6.82 meters and winning the high jump with a jump of 1.93 meters. Dufton placed second behind Colleran in the high jump with a jump of 1.84 meters and won the 1,500 meters with a time of 4:25, more than 20 seconds ahead of the next competitor.

At the Silfen Invitational, Owen Daily ’22 started the competition on Friday with a personal best of more

than 20 seconds in the 3,000-meter steeplechase, running a time of 9:36.

In the 1,500 meters, Spencer Ferguson-Dryden ’20 placed fourth with a time of 3:57, a new personal best.

Behind him, Billy Massey ’21 placed sixth with a time of 3:59.

The 5,000 meters was an exciting race for the Mammoths, as Clark Ricciardelli ’20E worked his way up through the field, running a time of 14:42. Behind him, Schuldt ran a personal best to place ninth. Cosmo Brossy ’19 wasn’t far behind, running 15:02.

On the second day of competition, Spencer Davis ’22 also set a personal best in the 5,000, running 15:21.

Behind him, Chris Stone ’20 also set a personal best, running 15:38.

This weekend, the Mammoths will compete at the Tufts Sunshine Classic, their last regular season meet before the NESCAC Track and Field Championships hosted by Middlebury College.

Photo courtesy of Clarus Studios

First-year sprinter Henry Buren set yet another school record in the 100-meter dash.

The Amherst Student • April 17, 2019

Sports 14

Men’s Golf Wins Wildcat Spring Invitational Championship Henry Newton ’21 Managing Sports Editor

After a months-long layover, the men’s golf team finally resumed play with the Wildcat Spring Invitational on April 13, playing on the difficult course at Cranston Country Club in Cranston, Rhode Island. The field consisted of 20 teams from in and around New England, with Amherst matching up against NESCAC rival Tufts, among others.

The tournament was held over two consecutive days, with each day seeing multiple Mammoths impress in both an individual and team capacity. Leading the charge for the Mammoths was Cole Vissicchio ’20, who led the individual tournament by two strokes after an opening round score of 71, good enough for even par. Vis-

sicchio was the only golfer on the day to card a score at or below par.

Each of the Mammoths following him also carded impressive performances on the day, with Jack Burlison ’19 and Nicholas Kumamoto ’20 both turning in impressive first-round scores of 75 that landed them squarely in the top 10. Will Lonquist ’20 also impressed on the first day, clinching a spot in the top 15 with a round of 76.

Every Mammoth finished in the top half of the tournament after the first day, and the Mammoths as a team sat in first place at the break, leading by four strokes over hosts Johnson and Wales University and Providence College. Johnson & Wales was the only other school competing at the tournament that managed to place three golfers inside the top

10 after the first day of play.

The second day saw more strong play from the Amherst golfers, with Vissicchio again carding the best score on the day for the Mammoths with a second-round score of 72. Vissicchio’s combined score of 143 was good enough for first place overall in the tournament, with the Mammoth leading the field by only a single stroke over Gavin Dugas from Husson University. Dugas, tied for eighth entering the second round, carded a spectacular score of 69, the best score of the tournament and the only single round to break par in all of the 206 rounds played on the course over the weekend.

However, this was not enough to overcome Vissicchio’s remarkably consistent play, as Vissicchio held off this late charge to win the tournament.

In the team competition, a particular high note for the Mammoths was the comeback performance of Erik Zetterstrom ’22.

After a first-round score of 80 that saw him sitting tied for 46th place, Zetterstrom roared back to form in the second round, keeping pace with Vissicchio and recording a spectacular score of 72 on the day. Zetterstrom would finish tied for eighth place, an improvement of 33 positions from the first day.

Zetterstrom and Vissicchio’s second rounds would come in handy for the Mammoths, as each of the three other golfers who finished inside the top 15 the day before would see their scores increase.

However, Amherst had built such a commanding lead in the first day which, coupled with

Zetterstrom’s excellent second round, propelled the Mammoths to a comfortable four-stroke victory over Providence. The Mammoths finished with a total of 596 strokes, while Providence finished with 600. Johnson & Wales, which had started the day tied for second place, finished five strokes behind Providence and nine strokes behind Amherst with a total of 605 strokes. Tufts would finish in a distant seventh.

Amherst will return to action this weekend when the team travels to Williams for the Williams Spring Opener. The Mammoths will conclude their spring campaign by hosting the Little Three Championships the following Wednesday, as the team was unable to qualify for the NESCAC championships during the fall season.

where Tufts dominated and won 5-of-6 faceoffs. This lack of production at centerfield led to a lack of possession for the Mammoths, which resulted in fewer opportunities to score for the team as a whole.

Amherst also failed to change their faceoff misfortunes by winning the ground ball war. In lacrosse, every live ball is an opportunity to change possession; without getting to ground balls, there is no way to change the tide of the game. Amherst was out-hustled by a margin of 28-16 in the first half, and while there were some signs of life after two goals

by Trenton Shore ’19 and Colin Minicus ’20 closed the first half, Amherst still trailed 10-3 heading into the locker room.

The momentum didn’t truly swing until midway through the third quarter. After a quick goal out of the gate by Jon Coffey ’20, Tufts continued their dominant stretch with a three-goal run. Once that subsided, however, it was all Amherst for the rest of the afternoon.

An unassisted goal off of a ground ball by Jack Norton ’19 sparked a five-goal run for Amherst to close the gap. The run saw Amherst

returning back to their focus on fundamentals for a short time.

Completing clears and controlling loose balls all generated scoring opportunities for the Mammoths.

Goals by Jackson Herrick ’20, Coffey, and Matt Solberg ’20 helped cut the lead to four goals entering the fourth quarter.

The focus on the little things continued to help propel Amherst forward in the final quarter.

A failed clear by Tufts and a recovered Amherst ground ball led to the first goal of the quarter by Coffey, which was followed immediately by an Amherst faceoff win and a goal by Evan Wolf ’19 nine seconds later.

Logan Lair ’20 won his second faceoff in a row which once again led to a speedy goal, this time by Luke Malette ’20. Another Solberg goal would cut the lead to 14-13, favoring Tufts, with eight minutes to play.

After four minutes of intense back-and forth, Tufts went on to turn the ball over off of a wide shot. Amherst beautifully transitioned the full-field clear, and after a few missed attempts by Amherst midfielders, Minicus got the angle he wanted on his de-

fender and took a diving shot to knot the game at 14. Unfortunately Amherst’s luck had seemingly run short that afternoon, as a lost faceoff and tough defensive stand yielded what would eventually be the game-winning goal to Tufts.

The Mammoths took a few really good shots with three minutes left, but it was all for naught.

The men’s lacrosse team moves to 11-2 on the season, 6-2 in the NESCAC. The Mammoths will have a full week of preparation before traveling up north to take on top-seeded Bates on Saturday, April 20, followed by a match against Trinity on Wednesday, April 24 to close out their regular season.

Men’s Lacrosse Loses NESCAC Lead to Tufts Cale Clinton ’20 Staff Writer

The men’s lacrosse team continued their conference matches with an agonizing defeat against Tufts.

While Amherst handily dealt with their Connecticut College opponent on Tuesday, their match Saturday was a completely different beast. The combination of 75-degree highs and Senior Day brought crowds to Gooding Field for the highly-anticipated matchup between two NESCAC juggernauts.

After a close loss to archrival Williams last week the Mammoths hoped to not spend another Saturday looking up at other NESCAC teams in the standings.

Despite their desire to win, Amherst couldn’t help but fall back on the same mistakes that led to the loss to the Ephs in the first place.

The opening quarter did not go as planned; Amherst was shut out 5-0 after the first 15 minutes of play. The play on both sides was fairly even, with both teams almost perfectly completing their clears and having nearly identical turnover numbers. The biggest issue in the first half came at the faceoff,

Photo courtesy of Clarus Studios

Jimmy McAffee ’20 has been a force on defense for the Mammoths in the midfield, claiming 31 ground balls.

The Amherst Student • April 17, 2019

Women’s Lacrosse Splits Contests Against Conference Foes Nat de Jonge ’21 Staff Writer In the thick of conference play, the women’s lacrosse team split their two NESCAC games this past week.

After close losses in the weeks prior to Middlebury and Wesleyan, the Mammoths took advantage of the opportunity to bounce back this past Tuesday against Connecticut College.

On Tuesday afternoon, the team made the two-hour drive to New London, Connecticut to face the struggling Camels who were just 3-8 on the season and 0-7 in the NESCAC. Heavily favored, the Mammoths played to their expectations, winning handily.

Off the bat, the Camels scored two quick goals to establish an early 2-0 lead. This would be their only lead of the day, as Amherst then scored after six minutes and held steady for the rest of the night.

Countering the opening two goals, the Mammoths went on an explosive 5-0 run in just eight minutes. Sophomores Isabelle Sennett and Maia Noyes started the scoring when Noyes assisted on the first goal of the game to Sennett, scored the second and assisted Sennett again to put the Mammoths up 3-2. By the 15-minute mark of the first half, Sennett had notched herself another to complete the hat trick. At the half, the Mammoths held a 9-5 lead.

Right out of the break, Amherst scored nine unanswered goals with seven different players scoring during the run. Finally, with three

minutes to go, the Camels got one goal back on the board and the game finished with a score of 18-6 in favor of Amherst.

Goalkeeper Talia Land ’20 finished the afternoon with four saves, and the Mammoths edged out the Camels 16-10 on draw controls.

Amherst was back in action on Saturday with an important game against the Tufts Jumbos in a matchup against NESCAC-ranked foes.

The Mammoths entered the game ranked 11th in the country, while the Jumbos came into the contest ranked sixth. The Jumbos were undefeated entering the game. Tufts began the game with a 4-0 run, which was soon countered by the Mammoths with a 4-0 run of their own to deadlock the score.

The teams traded the next three goals and entered halftime 6-5 in favor of the Jumbos. The remaining half was a close one, both teams scoring five goals through the first 20 minutes. In the final 10-minute stretch, the Jumbos outplayed the Mammoths, edging them 3-2. As the clock ticked down, the scoreboard showed a score of 14-12 in favor of the Jumbos.

As Amherst enters the final stretch of its season, they look to improve on and learn from their close losses. In their four losses on the season, they have lost by only a combined six goals.

The Mammoths return to action this Wednesday against Babson College in the Mental Health Awareness game, which is held annually.

Photo courtesy of Clarus Studios

Maia Noyes ’21 scored two goals in the Tufts game.

Sports 15

Views From Sparrow’s Nest Matt Sparrow ’21 Columnist After more than 1,800 days, Tiger Woods returned to the pinacle of golf with his victory at the 2019 Masters. Matthew Sparrow tells us why this is not only good for the game of golf, but for the sports world as a whole.

He did it. It was a long and winding road to recovery, with many personal and physical challenges, but Eldrick “Tiger” Woods has finally won another major championship, his first in nearly 11 years. It happened at Augusta National Golf Club in Augusta, Georgia, the host of the Masters, and one of Tiger’s favorite courses. This victory marked his fifth at the illustrious course, long considered the spiritual home of golf. Tiger had many doubters, myself included, but he showed why there should be no debates about who is the best golfer of all time. With a virtuosic performance on Sunday, one that was reminiscent of “vintage Tiger,” I believe it’s officially time to say that he’s back.

And that’s good news not only for golf, but for sports in general.

Let’s get this out of the way: I’m not going to try to defend his prior actions. What Tiger did to his exwife Elin Nordegren was shameful and disgusting. His multiple infidelities and very public car crash showed that he was a jerk, but not a felonious criminal. He was on top of the world as one of the most recognizable sports stars, both on and off the golf course, with dozens of endorsement deals. He had an ego problem, and the controversy brought him crashing down to earth.

Since the scandal first leaked almost 10 years ago, Tiger has done everything in his power to repair his image, apologizing for his actions, going to a therapy program and dedicating more of his time to his two children. The moment when Tiger embraced his 10-year-old son after winning the Masters will be etched in my mind for the rest of my life.

The image mirrored Tiger hugging his late father after winning his first major championship at the same tournament 22 years earlier.

I’m going to be perfectly honest: I think golf is incredibly boring.

Maybe it’s because I’ve never played it, as I’ve been told by many peo-

ple that baseball is boring and that’s arguably my favorite sport. You just can’t convince me about golf, though.

First of all, there’s not much athleticism involved. I’m not referring to its difficulty, as golf might be the toughest (and most frustrating) sport out there. However, it’s a skill-based sport. No one is going to wow me on the golf course like a thunderous dunk or one-handed catch would. If someone hits a ball 300 yards onto the fairway, the crowd reaction is a polite “golf clap.” I think that term says it all.

Also, in my opinion, it’s not really worth watching until the back nine on the final day. There’s no point in watching the first three-and-a-half days because the only drama exists on the last few holes. A golfer can have a great first two rounds, but a few terrible holes of golf can take you out of contention. Consistency is the way to win, and consistency doesn’t usually lead to compelling television.

Finally, there’s only one person worth rooting for, and his name is Tiger. Sure, there are other wellknown golfers, like Rory McIlroy, Phil Mickelson and Jordan Spieth, but none of them can match the celebrity status of Tiger. When Tiger is in the hunt, the entire sports world holds its breath. The Masters saw a five percent increase in ratings from the year before, not only because America wanted to watch a man on a

mission, but because they wanted to see him succeed.

Last but not least, Tiger’s victory is important for sports. When you get the chance to watch legends like LeBron James, Serena Williams or Mike Trout play, you learn not to take it for granted because it’s gone sooner than you know it. Tiger is an idol to sports fans everywhere. As a kid, whenever I thought of golf (a historically white-dominated sport), the only face that came to mind was one of mixed African-American and Asian American heritage, that of Tiger Woods — I think that should not be forgotten. He means more to golf than any other athlete means to their respective sport. Both the golf and sports landscapes are better when Tiger is playing. I had tears in my eyes seeing his reaction when the final putt hit the bottom of the cup. He reacted as if a great burden was lifted off of his shoulders. So what comes next? There’s no way that Tiger will approach his old dominant self. It took him 11 years to win 14 majors, and then it took him another 11 to win number 15. Maybe he’ll win another few and overtake golfing icon Jack Nicklaus once and for all as the winningest golfer in history. Maybe this is his swan song, and he’ll drop off into retirement. Whatever happens though, you can be sure that the whole nation, myself included, will be watching.

Photo courtesy of Wikimedia

Tiger Woods won his 15th major championship last weekend at the 2019 Masters Championships.

Sports 16

The Amherst Student • April 17, 2019

Women’s Track and Field Dominates Weekend Meet

Connor Haugh ’21 Managing Sports Editor

Last weekend, Ella Rossa ’21, already a noted hurdler, made a startling breakthrough debut in the heptathlon. This seven-contest event, which includes feats of strength like shot put and javelin, distance races, sprints and hurdles, tests all-around athletic ability.

Rossa, along with her teammate Annelise Romero ’22, traveled to Kutztown University in Pennsylvania to compete in the Mondschein Multi-Event Invitational.

The event began with Rossa’s speciality, the 100-meter hurdles. In her element, Rosa finished more than a full second ahead of her closest competition. This gave her a cushion in unfamiliar events.

The huge margin of victory gave her more points toward her total.

Rossa, however, was not fazed by competing in these new events, as evidenced by victories in the 200-meter dash and the long jump, and a fifth-place finish in the 800 meters.

Her teammate, Romero, on the other hand, finished first in the 800-meter race, second in the javelin, and third in the shot put. Rossa had already secured victory before the final event, the shot put, and consequently did not compete.

The gold for Rossa, and bronze

for Romero, not only made the long journey worth it, but also demonstrated the potential success Amherst could find in the heptathlon going forward.

This is the first time the Mammoths have competed in the Mondschein Multi, with Amherst winning both the men’s decathlon and women’s heptathlon. Such success, particularly in the hands of underclassmen talent like Romero and Rossa who have plenty of time ahead in their collegiate careers, perhaps indicates an area of potential future dominance for the Mammoths.

In addition to the Mondschein, Amherst sent its main contingent of athletes to the Silfen Invitational at Connecticut College, where the team finished in 12th place.

Notably for the Mammoths, Dana Frishman ’21 finished third in the long jump, posting a leap of 5.29 meters, just a decimeter behind the winner. Christina Scartelli ’19 finished second in the 1,500-meter run, just moments behind her Middlebury opponent. Senior Julia Asin ’19 finished sixth in the 400-meter race with a time of just over a minute, earning her team three points.

Jenny Mazzella ’20 finished 10th in the 800-meter race.

Next week, the Mammoths travel to the Sunshine Classic at Tufts on Saturday, April 20.

G A M E WED SCHE DULE

Men’s Tennis vs. Bates, 3:30 p.m.

Baseball vs. Wheaton College, 4 p.m.

Women’s Tennis vs. Bates, 4 p.m.

Softball vs. Williams, 5:15 p.m.

Women’s Lacrosse vs. Babson College, 6 p.m.

Photo courtesy of Clarus Studios

Ella Rossa ’21, competing in her first heptathalon at the Mondschein MultiEvent Invitational in Pennsylvania on April 13, finished in first place overall.

FRI Baseball vs. Middlebury, 3:30 p.m.

SAT Men’s Track and Field @ Sunshine Classic, 9 a.m.

SUN Baseball vs. Middlebury, 12:30 p.m, 3 p.m.

Women’s Track and Field @ Sunshine Classic, 9 a.m.

Men’s Lacrosse @ Bates, 1 p.m.

Men’s Tennis vs. Williams, noon

Women’s Tennis @ Williams, 1 p.m.

Softball @ Williams, noon, 2 p.m.

Men’s Golf @ Williams Spring Opener

Women’s Lacrosse vs. Bates, noon

Women’s Golf @ Vassar College Invitational

Men’s Tennis @ Wesleyan, 10 a.m.

Women’s Tennis @ Wesleyan, 3 p.m.