<p>Sometimes, some things are too easy to refute and best left alone, but given these disparate discussions, I think this deserves a comment.</p>
<p>@momsof3sons wrote, “Methinks that the alums of Amherst and Williams are living in glass houses based on some of the recent occurrences on their campuses, and they shouldn’t be throwing stones.”</p>
<p>I hope I was not the only person to shake my head at the above comment. This is the exact type of anti-intellectual approach that ruins high-level discourse. Reading that, I felt like I went to a grey matter dungeon.</p>
<p>Let me get this straight - because there are issues at my alma mater (Amherst), then it negates me from having a critical comment on another school on a totally different issue? Intellectual people, I thought, could have more than one critical thought and discussion on varying issues at the same time. Or, am I asking too much of some people? Seems that way.</p>
<p>To insinuate that a different issue stemming from a different set of circumstances at a different school somehow makes my (or anyone else’s) positions and arguments on something else at another school less salient is not only intellectually vapid, it is a conceptual and philosophical non-sequitur. My colleagues could keep separate issues straight and have vigorous conversations about each; it would be nice if we do the same here. It cannot be that tough to keep different issues straight.</p>
<p>I would happily discuss the issues at Amherst, but last time I checked that was not what the Swarthmore video that I was addressing was about - the video was not about Amherst, Williams, or sexual harassment - it was about divestment re oil companies and student behavior at a meeting. It cannot be too tough to ask that in the comments to each other we do the intellectual thing and keep the subject of the discussion in focus. Thanks.</p>