In a recent letter to the Oberlin city council, President Nancy Dye states that the College and town are, and have forever been, in a symbiotic relationship. Recent events seem to suggest, however, that such a statement reflects either a willful denial or a gross ignorance of evidence to the contrary, since recent exchanges with the city have been a bit more troublesome than a “symbiotic relationship” would imply.

While council chair Dan Gardner’s characterization of the college-town relationship as “feudalism” may be taking things too far, clearly the blatant lack of open, coordinated communication between College, city and community members, which has cost the College well over $500,000 and resulted in significant setbacks in the student housing plans, indicates that the situation is less than “perfectly fine.”

No amount of denial can change that the main source of this conflict lies in the town-gown communication breakdown. This was simply not a matter of, “We tried our best, but it just didn’t work out.” This was a matter of failed relations resulting in the loss of a half million dollars that the College could not afford to lose under any circumstances, much less under such absurdly unnecessary conditions.

The hostility over the Johnson House dorm project is yet another indication that the relationship between the town and the College is not “perfectly fine.” Neither is it fine that a committee put together by the College consisting of civic, non-profit and College personnel to study housing issues in Oberlin has not met in the last year. We do not need to emphasize that this is occurring at a time when housing has been one of the most pressing issues and solutions are urgently needed.

Add to these blunders the fact that apparently neither the superintendent of the schools nor the school board was consulted when the College was drawing up the dorm plans and taking land off of the tax rolls and the situation drifts even further from fine. But that’s not all: the College is also undercutting the investment in schools that it has made to date.

While we grant Dye’s point that lawyers are not used solely to initiate lawsuits, we question how fine things have been when lawyers, not College and town leaders, meet to discuss, in Vice President Andrew Evans’s phrase, “looking forward.”

For progress to be made, it is imperative that the College, in Dan Gardner’s words, “get off the phone with [its] lawyers and get on the phone with the superintendent of schools”

Thankfully, the relationship between College and town has made a few key improvements of late. All parties appear ready to move forward. Although this is a positive development, we wonder how far things can progress if the lessons from the past are not heeded. As opposed to adopting a reflexively defensive position in its relationship to the town, the College should begin to examine how and why community relations have eroded over the last year.

We are not denying Dye’s positive intentions in trying to smooth over things with city council, but we urge greater transparency in the relationship if we are to avoid such erosion in the future. Only by learning from, acknowledging and avoiding past mistakes can the College, city and schools build a “fine” relationship that will “symbiotically” benefit us all.

– Editor-in-chief, Douglass Dowty
– Commentary Editor, Margaret Carey
– Managing Editors, Eric Klopfer, Steven Kwan, Colin Smith

Editorials are the responsibility of the Review editorial board – the Editor- in-Chief, Managing Editors and Commentary Editor – and do not necessarily reflect the view of the staff of the Review.