It is true that students have always supplied the primary fuel for change at Oberlin. Knowing this, the administration places great emphasis on monitoring student trends and interests. But MSA has only blossomed into a proactive student organization within the last couple years. MSA rightfully felt it needed a stronger presence on campus after the terrorist attacks, in lieu of a College Muslim Chaplain or other Muslim student support networks. But, like so many other realizations following Sept. 11, it should not have taken so long for Oberlin to comprehend the importance of an Islamic program.

In truth, the only reason students haven’t made a push for Islamic Studies sooner is because the College has never shown a commitment to wooing students interested in Islamic Studies to Oberlin. Those who do come find it difficult to have their voice heard in the community.

While it could be argued that this logic could run both ways — the College saw no need for a program — the administration has the ultimate duty to steer the College and preserve for its future. But, for some puzzling reason, it has taken the effort of numerous students to give the administration (and the faculty-run Educational Plans and Policy Committee) the prodding needed to move forward on an Islamic Studies program.

Without this essential area of study, there will be a void in the campus discourse on American foreign policy, a subject that desperately needs to be understood. The College will continue to lag behind in an essential area of academics, and its reputation will suffer.

We can only hope that the College’s indifferent attitude towards an Islamic Studies department has come to a close. Perhaps a new department will take shape in the coming year. The trustees and the EPPC have agreed to look into the proposal, showing some initiative by the powers that be.

Biggs closure
Here we are again. With the decision to close Biggs computer lab next year, the administration has once again made a decision that will adversely affect students’ academic and personal experiences at Oberlin without consulting the student body. Worse, it has announced this decision with no warning and at the end of the year, leaving students little opportunity to respond.

It is frustrating that this has been a recurring pattern with this administration. But what is particularly disheartening is that this is an issue we have already dealt with — last year at this time, in fact.

Last year, in the face of the College’s massive budget cuts, CIT announced that it would be eliminating 24 of the campus’s approximately 300 open-access computers.
Due to students’ virulent reaction to the proposed changes, the administration relented, cutting only one of the machines from the Lord/Saunders lab and opting not to remove the four machines in Wilder 210.

But the administration doesn’t seem to have learned anything from the experience. The old adage proves true: “the more things change, the more they stay the same.” Same as ever, the Oberlin administration continues to make unpopular changes without the slightest input from the students.

That is why this is an issue that, as senior student senator Vivek Bharathan aptly outlined, goes far beyond Biggs. While administrators maintain that this type of decision-making without student input is the exception to the way the College operates rather than the rule, within the last year alone we can point to decisions such as the changes in Dascomb, the new print quota and the changes in OSCA’s rent. Last year students were faced with the surprising disappearance of established amounts of Flex dollars, had the rug pulled out from under them when there was no meal plan provided during breaks and had to deal with the devastating cuts of departmental interns.

As an institution, the College has the power and the right to make any and all of these changes without our approval. But the administration claims that it doesn’t want to work that way, that instead it wants to include the student body in its decisions. If this is the case, it is time for the College to put its money where its mouth is because its actions continue to establish the opposite precedent.
–Editor-in-Chief, Sarah Carsman
–Managing Editor, Douglass Dowty