Hampshire College

May 4, 2007

The Climax
Hampshire College
893 West Street
Amherst MA 01002–5001

To the Editors:

We write in response to Justin Lutz’s piece “Identity-based housing: divisive and ill-intentioned” (The Climax, April 25, 2007, p. 5). First, let us be clear: our commitment to maintain the college's current policies supporting identity-based housing is unwavering. Identity-based housing fills a need for a sub-segment of our population, just as other application-based housing does.

There are any number of assertions and arguments in Mr. Lutz’s piece with which we disagree. We vigorously reject the claim in the headline that such a policy is “ill-intentioned.” If it continues to be to some extent “divisive,” it may be that some do not fully understand what college policy and practices are. Others may simply disagree with the principles on which our policy is based, which is their right. But we believe it is highly appropriate to enable students to choose and maintain residential situations to the extent possible free of the hostility that in our society, alas, still continues to be directed at some groups
more than others.

After the publication of Mr. Lutz’s article, some students asked us not just to clarify the college’s position, which we have done, but to condemn the piece itself. The essay is problematic in many ways, not least because it is impossible to determine whether it represents the views of the Editors of The Climax, as Mr. Lutz’s by-line “Staff Writer” seems to imply, or those of a single individual, as the header “Opinion Continues” suggests. We urge the Editors of The Climax in future not to permit any such ambiguity; your readers deserve to know whether this is a news article behind which you stand or a personal commentary that you have accepted for publication.

And although, as we have indicated, we take vigorous exception to Mr. Lutz’s arguments and his conclusion, and while it is certainly not a good example of either analysis or opinion, Mr. Lutz has the right to hold and express his opinions. An argument that some, even many, find hateful, does not constitute hate speech.

Neither Hampshire nor any college can – or should -- guarantee that its students will never encounter persons or opinions they find offensive. This article and the reactions it has inspired (and even more so the various emails and electronic postings one or both of us have seen) highlight the value of places like the Women’s Center, the Lebron-Wiggins-Pran Cultural Center, and the Queer Community Alliance as spaces fostering learning and awareness.  It also underscores the value of “Principles of Discourse at Hampshire College,” circulated by President Gregory Prince not so many years ago:

1) That we value truth and the process of seeking truth as ends in themselves;

2) That we accept responsibility to articulate a position as close to the truth as one can make it, using to the best of one's ability, available evidence, and the rules of reason, logic and relevance;

3) That we listen openly, recognizing always that new information may alter one's position;

4) That we welcome evaluation and accept and even encourage disagreement and criticism even to the point of seeking out for ourselves that which will disprove our position;

5) That we refuse to reduce disagreement to personal attacks or attacks on groups or classes of individuals;

6) That we value civility, even in disagreement;

7) That we reject the premise that ends, no matter how worthy, can justify means which violate these principles.

When we come face to face with an argument or opinion that runs profoundly counter to our own convictions and beliefs, even offends us personally, that is precisely the time not to turn up the rhetorical heat and give rein to one’s indignation, no matter how righteous. Rather, at that moment, one must be sure to listen and understand the speech or text with which one disagrees, the better to dissect its arguments and analyze its premises. Debate and persuasion are always preferable to name-calling and grand-standing. To respond with better and more compelling arguments based on yet deeper principles puts the discourse on a higher level, and weakens by comparison the triggering salvo.

R. Michelle Green, Dean of Student Services
Ralph J. Hexter, President