This is an excellent column. The debate over Amherst's mascot has been ongoing since my days at the College. It's a worthwhile debate to have, and while I oppose a name change, I have listened to and understand the arguments made by the other side. I disagree with these arguments for the reasons the author states above, but I don't think any less of the people who make them. If we keep the Lord Jeff name and continue the College's outreach to and support of Native Americans, we will have done far more for that community than any illusory and token benefits that would be conferred by a name change.

Thank you so much for writing this article. Though the writing is not perfect, this expresses an opinion that, in the face of overly zealous politically correctness and forced "liberalism," rarely gets voiced on this campus.

The best and most accurate thing I have read in the Amherst Student this entire year. Well done.

Because the mascot for a prestigious university must be [massa]cring a white man. I want to further your argument slightly and suggest that athletes actually have full dominion over the campus. For the sake of DIII athletics!

is this actually serious?

Great article. Very well-spoken and enlightening. Hopefully other students can read this article and understand your point of view.

Well said

Ok but Mike, are you Native American? Do you understand how alienating it must feel to know that this school's mascot is in part responsible for the genocide of your people? While Amherst's diversity efforts are great, they're soured by Lord Jeff. Lord Jeff didn't found the school, he founded the town---there's not actually a reason for Amherst to have him as a mascot (he was in no way a benefactor the school). At the risk of sensationalizing my comment, I'm asking you to consider a school that, in 150 yrs, makes its mascot Hitler (for whatever reason, maybe the school has some ties with Germany). Would Jews feel comfortable attending that school? Absolutely, even if the school tried really hard to recruit them. Why should two genocidal criminals be treated differently--just because one (Jeff) lived at a time when racism and war crimes were rampant and "accepted"?

Anyway, from all my conversations with high schoolers (back when I was considering Amherst, or was accepted here, or whatever), they all think the Lord Jeff is a lame mascot (frankly, he's unexciting. Also, full disclosure: I had absolutely no moral issue with Lord Jeff back in high school, so my opinions weren't coloring those of my peers). This attachment to the Lord Jeff forms only after one has matriculated here (or perhaps before, if you're a legacy, but that's a whole different story). If we were to change the mascot, after several years all the new students would love the mascot and no one would feel alienated by our current mascot's massive acts of bioterrorism. Just because something is "tradition," doesn't make it a sin to change it (see: co-education, admitting minorities, etc etc).

"Figures from history must be treated within the context of their time and circumstances. Yes, the mascot refers to [e.g., Adolf Hitler], and no one denies the fact that he treated [e.g., Jews] as enemies, which to [Hitler] is exactly what they were. It was during a time of [great crisis in Europe] when [Hitler] used [chemical] warfare against them by way of [bathrooms retrofitted with pipes that would carry toxic gas]. This is a fact, but we must take it with the proper perspective. Weapons of mass destruction were used by both sides in World War II, but we must recognize and understand that the generals in these wars were operating in a situation that had no morally correct solution. "

Why should changing the mascot make you lose the connection you have with alumni and peers? Instead of being Lord Jeffs you will be Amherst students...which is really the same thing. I'm not sure that the slight change in label will make all the networking you have made/will made for naught.

Thanks for writing this article. While it is not perfect, it broaches a topic that many avoid for risk of slipping and sounding offensive. You approached it optimism and a rationality.

This is possibly the only Amherst Student article I find reasonable. The rest are just bullshit. I agree, why would the mascot be a deer that happened to come across our campus for a couple hours? Moose are not even native to the region... Squirrels are here most of the time, why not just be the Amherst Squirrels?

Thank you. You are so brave. This is very brave of you. Bravery is a very brave thing. Context is a brave thing, and invariably objective. In the context I've defined, and others must abide by because it is clearly objective, my team's name is not offensive. I don't mean to give offense, so I'm not giving any. Bravery. Should I trade RG3 or should I fire Gruden? Be brave.

Typical amherst elitist at it again

FYI, we gave the moose too much tranquilizer and it died later that day

Amherst College was named after Amherst the town. Many towns in New England petitioned for the honor of having Jeffrey Amherst's name. Most residents of Amherst actually wanted the town named for Norwuttuck, a Native American tribe who resided here. A colonial governor overruled them. My point is that Amherst was never the intended name for the town. You're right, we should probably rename the college but it's taken us a long time to even consider a new mascot. The mascot should be changed and colleges should probably do away with varsity sports completely.

Thank you for being brave enough to put your name on a strong opinion, Michael. Unfortunately, I don't find your argument especially convincing.
.
[1] “Figures from history must be treated within the context of their time and circumstances. Yes, the mascot refers to Jeffery Amherst, and no one denies the fact that he treated Native Americans as enemies, which to Amherst is exactly what they were. It was during Pontiac’s Rebellion when Amherst used biological warfare against the Native Americans by way of blankets infected with smallpox. This is a fact, but we must take it with the proper perspective. Weapons of mass destruction were used by both sides in both World Wars, but we must recognize and understand that the generals in these wars were operating in a situation that had no morally correct solution. Furthermore, many of our greatest heroes, including the Founding Fathers, conducted themselves in ways that today would be considered abhorrent.”
.
You make the point that it is difficult to hold historical figures to contemporary standards of right and wrong. That’s fine. Most of us are familiar with that general argument.
.
You fail to explain, however, why that makes it ok to use such a figure as a mascot. It’s not hard to see how deciding to use someone like Lord Jeff as our competitive rallying symbol implies a certain endorsement of his historical actions. When we go into competition with Lord Jeff as a mascot, it creates an uncomfortable parallel with Lord Jeff’s violence against Native Americans, battles which included unambiguous crimes against humanity. If you look at older issues of The Student, you'll see writers deliberately borrowing the language of Lord Jeff's actions, talking about "putting a pox" on Williams and the like--the connection is there, and it has been repeatedly made in historical writing about athletics here.
.
You’ll have to forgive me for going heavy-handed here, but to best illustrate why your argument for using a someone who committed (by today's standards) crimes against humanity as a mascot is unconvincing, I’ve reproduced your argument paragraph, but switched in circumstances of other people who we judged harshly by contemporary standards that did not exist in the same way during their time. Tell me if you find these paragraphs convincing:
.
“Figures from history must be treated within the context of their time and circumstances. Yes, the mascot refers to Hitler, and no one denies the fact that he treated Jews as enemies, which to Hitler is exactly what they were. It was during the Holocaust when Hitler enacted a genocide against Jews by way of concentration camps and other methods. This is a fact, but we must take it with the proper perspective. Both sides killed innocent people during the Second World War, but we must recognize and understand that the leaders in these wars were operating in a situation that had no morally correct solution. Furthermore, many of our greatest heroes, including the Founding Fathers, conducted themselves in ways that today would be considered abhorrent.”
.
“Figures from history must be treated within the context of their time and circumstances. Yes, the mascot refers to Governor George Wallace, and no one denies the fact that he treated African-Americans as enemies, which to Wallace is exactly what they were. It was during the desegregation of University Alabama when Wallace used blatantly racist tactics against the African-American students by way of blocking the entrance to the school. This is a fact, but we must take it with the proper perspective. Racism was more pervasive in the United States in the 1960s, but we must recognize and understand that the governors in these states were operating in a situation that had no morally correct solution. Furthermore, many of our greatest heroes, including the Founding Fathers, conducted themselves in ways that today would be considered abhorrent.
.
To be clear, I’m in no way trying to suggest you support either of these evil men, and I’m not trying to create a hierarchy of historical evil or equate different instances of historical violence and hatred. What I’m trying to show is that your argument does not effectively connect your first point and your conclusion, a discrepancy which becomes apparent when you apply the same logic to different people.
.
1) It is difficult to judge historical figures by contemporary standards
.
2) ???
.
3) It is acceptable to use figures who committed crimes against humanity as our mascots
.
It’s true that we, as Americans, use historically questionable figures all the time. That’s true. That doesn’t invalidate the desire to change the mascot, however. We have it in our power to make a change, however small, in our community. There’s still meaning in that action, even if it means that slave-owners still appear on our currency. To suggest otherwise seems pretty defeatist. Changing the mascot is merely a single step in the right direction. No one is suggesting otherwise.
.
[2] “Far more meaningful activities are things like the Admissions Office inviting Native Americans to the Diversity Open House and spending extra time with them, in an effort to increase the amount of Native American applications sent to the college.”
.
This is simply a false dichotomy. We can do both. We can change the mascot and bring more Native American students to DIVOH.
.
You should also consider, however, how retaining a genocidal mascot might just discourage Native American students from applying in the first place, even if we increase recruitment efforts as you suggest. In particular, can you imagine being a prospective Native American athlete looking at Amherst? Do you think he or she would be as supportive of the mascot as other student-athletes? Isn’t removing someone who used biological weapons against Native Americans a “meaningful” strategy for making Native Americans feel more welcome here?
.
[3] “Ask student-athletes if they want their team mascot to be the Moose and you will hear a resounding no. The students pushing this change are not the ones who would walk out onto the court, field, or pitch with “MOOSE” in big letters across their chest.”
.
I know student-athletes who are in support of the change. There is no way that the entire student-athlete community has rallied unanimously around keeping Lord Jeff. Also, you fail to mention that we already have teams on this campus who have adopted alternative mascots to the Jeff. Have you talked to those teams? Are those student-athletes against changing Lord Jeff too?
.
I feel the need to point out that suggesting the Moose is unappealing is not an effective argument for keeping Lord Jeff.
.
More importantly, I think it’s really damaging how you’ve decided to frame this as a athlete / non-athlete divide issue. You seem to suggest that the Moose movement is the product of a bunch of nerds attempting to take away student-athletes’ beloved mascot, an attitude better reflected in the next statement:
.
[4] “The Moose sounds more like the mascot of a created team in a video game than a prestigious institution.”
.
Again, I’m struggling not to feel like your reference to a “video game” is meant to emphasize that you see the Moose as some a non-athlete nerd movement. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, however, because I want to assume best intentions here.
.
I want to highlight, however, that NESCAC is full of odd animal “video game” mascots, making your assertion that the Moose is inappropriate pretty lackluster.
.
Polar Bears--Bowdoin
.
Camels--Connecticut College
.
Bobcats--Bates
.
White Mules--Colby
.
Panthers--Middlebury
.
Bantams (Roosters)--Trinity
.
Jumbos (Elephants)--Tufts
.
Cardinals--Wesleyan
.
[4] “When I think of a Lord Jeff, I don’t think of Lord Jeffery Amherst. I think of excellence, in the humanities, science, music, theater, art and athletics. I think of all the past alumni and administrators that worked to make Amherst the great place it is today. I think of sporting events and orchestra concerts, late nights in Frost and football practice. And I think of all the students of Amherst, some of whom will be groomsmen in my wedding, and godfathers to my children. The mascot Lord Jeffs provides a common ground for all of us with past and future generations of Amherst students. Changing the mascot loses this connection. They were Lord Jeffs. We are Lord Jeffs.”
.
You can have all of those things without keeping Lord Jeff. What connects us is our experience here, not the name of our mascot. Changing it wont make your friends disappear or the knowledge you gained here evaporate. What it will do, however, is make this place more comfortable for segments of society who have been historically minimized and excluded. It reflects our abiding desire to never accept things as they are, to always push, in ways however small, for a more just world. Don’t you want everyone to have the same opportunity to have as amazing an experience here as you did? If what you value is that experience, the change should be a no-brainer.
.
Michael, I really appreciate your willingness to articulate your thoughts here and contribute to our campus dialogue. I disagree pretty seriously with most of what you’ve said, but I don’t feel like your coming from a place of malevolence or hate.
.
Still, there's one passage in your piece that strikes me as pretty fucked up.
.
[5] “ It seems like everyone needs to be protesting something at all times. Let’s take a step back and really think about the things we are supporting.”
.
I’m going to close by asking you to take a moment to think about the things students have most seriously protested here in recent memory.
.
When over 500 students, faculty, staff, including our president protesting the killings of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and others, I did not think "It seems like everyone needs to be protesting something at all times."
.
When students organized a vigil for the 43 missing innocent Mexican students, who have almost certainly been executed, I did not think "It seems like everyone needs to be protesting something at all times."
.
When students marched to the Board of Trustees to demand that the college start treating survivors of sexual assault like human beings, I did not think "It seems like everyone needs to be protesting something at all times."
.
I think a lot about what I'm supporting, Mike. I think you might benefit from doing the same.
.
And remember:
We didn't choose the moose.
The moose chose us.
.
This school belongs to all of us.

"I think a lot about what I'm supporting, Mike. I think you might benefit from doing the same."