Don’t Rush to Judgment, other letters

To the Editors:

I am very pleased that students made their voices heard about the proposed cut to the Asian-American history position, and I also commend the Review’s coverage of the debate. However, I would like to urge a little restraint.

In the article describing the recent open trustee meeting, Eli Szenes-Strauss is quoted as announcing to the assembly that “Darryl [sic] didn’t leave because he likes the weather better in Colorado,” adding, “Oberlin has a history of not retaining faculty of color.”

With respect, it is not Szenes-Strauss’s place to speak in a public forum about Professor Maeda’s reasons for leaving Oberlin. Professor Maeda’s decision was personal, and students and other observers should leave it at that. It is presumptuous for Szenes-Strauss (or anyone else) to pretend knowledge of a decision he was not privy to, and irresponsible to so casually invoke such a serious issue as institutional racism.

To be clear: I am delighted that students have taken responsibility to make their voices heard by the faculty, administration and trustees. Student concerns played an important role in this discussion, and I urge continued participation. Please just make sure you participate in a responsible and respectful manner.

–David Sepkoski
History Department

To the Editors:

I want to thank Reginald Patterson for his reminder in the Review on Nov. 18. I graduated in his class, so I’m not up to date with the activities on Oberlin campus; my only information is gained through friends on campus and what I have read in the Review. My timing may be a little late, but I still would like to speak to a number of events at Oberlin which upset me.

First off, I feel strongly that the College needs to take stronger steps to support the program houses, in particular the Afrikan Heritage House, as well as make off-campus housing available to a larger number of students. During my last semester at Oberlin, I attended a trustee meeting at which one topic was the future of housing at Oberlin. I attended because I had been to the city council hearings on the decision of whether or not to change the zoning near J-house so that the College could build a new dorm there. The city council was very upset with the College because College officials had not properly communicated with the council before proposing the development. At this trustee meeting, the trustees said that they were envisioning the proposed dorm housing to be similar to program housing. I told them that the program housing, even then, did not seem to have support from the College: J-house had been continually full of rumors that it was to be torn down in favor of new housing during my second year at Oberlin.

That is why I was surprised to read that the Afrikan Heritage House was having so much trouble getting a response to its problems from the College. If the trustees envisioned future housing based on program housing one would think that the college would work to make program housing a popular option for students. Related to program housing problems is the issue of new housing. I understand that the College needs money provided by students staying on campus. However, I do not think that the administration understands the benefits of off-campus living and its importance to students. For me, off-campus living provided a space to experiment in independence. The four of us paid for our own bills, built relationships with our neighbors (who were not College students) and learned to make decisions as a group about how to live together. In addition, off-campus living is much cheaper. With federal funds for student loans dropping and college bills rising, it is especially important for the College to not further alienate low-income students. Students and trustees should urge the College to rethink its stance on off-campus housing and to support the program housing that already exists.

Second, I would like to express my own surprise and anger at the College’s decision to cut the Asian-American history position. This position is crucial to the College’s comparative American studies program, through which I attained a minor. I often make use of the Asian-American history texts and theory that I studied in CAS now that I am working at a women’s shelter in my home town. Asian-American studies are extremely important to the well-being of the CAS department as well as Oberlin College. I sincerely hope that the College reverses its decision and that the trustees demand to know that future cuts will not take place in the CAS curriculum. The CAS department is new, the professors are already working hard to create the foundation for the structure of the department, advise CAS students (who often do not get the support they need elsewhere in the College), teach classes and conduct research. Daryl Maeda was an important advisor to a number of my friends who were working for social change within the college. His position needs to be retained.

Oberlin students have spent huge amounts of energy organizing for social change on campus. I believe that the College often does not fully recognize the work of the students working towards this goal. These students deserve support from the College for their work. Please refer to Rashné Limki’s letter in the Review last semester, on April 29. Her letter provides a concise and accurate account of the relationship between Oberlin College and the activism of its students.

–David Kreiss-Tomkins
OC ’05

To the Editors:

I think that it is interesting to note the letters to the editor on Aryeh Green’s speech. Both were made by students who did not attend the speech. These students, however, jumped on the opportunity to write a letter to the editor decrying Israel.

Both letters attempt to flat out negate the idea that a state facing waves of terrorism has any interest in defense of its civilians. Instead, Israel is “colonial” (Lee Gargagliano) and takes security measures for the express purpose of “brutalizing a population” (Rasha al Sarraj). Aryeh Green spends much time ardently working to improve Palestinian society and rights. He even spoke during his speech about many hardships Palestinians have to face.

Green presented a middle ground on how to approach peace. Gargagliano and al Sarraj attempt to fuel a dehumanization of Israel. Comparatively, it is easy to see which brings us closer to peace and reconciliation.

–Ezra Temko
College junior

To the Editors,

In Sophia Yan’s response to my letter to the editor last week, she states that she felt inclined to write so critically because $17,000 was spent on the production. In this case, I wonder why there aren’t brash critics at every single piano recital given in Oberlin. I believe a Steinway costs a little more than $17,000 (try at least $40,000!). Yan also attempts to justify her harshness by giving examples from New York Times columnists Bernard Holland and Anthony Tomassini, who are writing about Gerard Powers and Ramon Vargas. The difference between Sophia Yan and NY Times critics? Credentials and experience. In addition, Vargas and Powers are professionals at the tops of their crafts, not students who are trying their best to figure things out for themselves. Yan’s insensitivity will not go over in such a small and supportive community as Oberlin where we all try to respect the art that our peers are making.

The truth is, no one who heard the production that knew anything about opera agreed with or cared about her inexperienced opinions. However, they were the only ones printed. Journalistic integrity also requires honesty about one’s own experience and knowledge of the subject they are reporting, of which Yan has none. I wholeheartedly hope she has learned something from her mistakes and reconsiders her responsibilities as serious a journalist next time she feels the need to share her honest opinion.

–Jon Hepfer
College senior

To the Editors:

As we all know, the cost of textbooks are constantly rising and causing many students to sing the blues while picking and choosing what books they should buy for a course. I am writing to remind and encourage students of the significance in recycling textbooks. During my four years working with textbooks here in Oberlin, I’ve come to recognize one of the best ways to combat rising prices is to recycle/sell back student textbooks. Recycling textbooks ensures three things:

1. More used copies available for purchasing at the beginning of a new term.

2. Less money out of students’ pockets when purchasing for classes.

3. More money in students’ pockets for their trip home.

Textbook recycling benefits not only Oberlin students, but also students throughout the nation. When textbooks are recycled and can’t be used in classes here at Oberlin, they are sent to wholesalers, who then provide recycled textbooks for other schools that need used textbooks for their students.

So, I encourage all students to sell back textbooks before leaving for break. Help keep the rising cost of textbooks down.

–Scott O’Grady
Assistant Manger
Oberlin Bookstore

To the Editors:

As anyone who has attended a dance or conservatory ensemble performance at Oberlin probably knows, there are two performance spaces at Oberlin with the same name: Warner Concert Hall and Warner Gymnasium. Not only is this duplication confusing to both students and visitors, it is a criminal waste of naming real estate. A school with the progressive and activist tradition of Oberlin should be taking advantage of every opportunity to celebrate one of the many talented, successful, meritorious and generous individuals in both the Oberlin community and the world at large.

Naming two buildings after the same person wastes an opportunity to commend such an individual. The present renovation of the Warner Gymnasium affords the college the perfect opportunity to match the building’s physical improvement with a philosophical restoration by rededicating the theater and dance performance space to an individual who epitomizes Oberlin’s diversity, creativity, ambition and mission to improve the world.

The obvious choice is, of course, myself. The dedication of the Sulman Center for the Performing Arts will represent the renewal of Oberlin’s commitment to creativity, diversity and excellence in the arts. The cost of a small ceremony and a modest plaque commemorating the important events of my life is tiny compared to the college’s annual expenses, and the benefit is incalculable. I urge Oberlin’s students, faculty and administration to unite behind me in taking the performance arts at Oberlin into a grand new era of excellence.

–Ben Sulman
College senior

To the Editors,

Again, in the Student Referendum, there is a pigheaded proposal pushed on behalf of smokers at Oberlin. Daily, I am appalled by the number of smokers on campus, a much greater number than I see in my home city of San Francisco. My peers know how damaging smoking is, and have been perpetually assailed by this knowledge. I am affronted by the fact that it is nearly impossible to enter a dorm or academic building without coughing on tobacco smoke, and am affronted even more about the arrogance of the smokers when they rebuff and ignore requests to move. Now, they have the arrogance to claim that smoking lounges will encourage “community” and “commingling!” This is an empty claim that excludes a large chunk of the student body, and is quite frankly insulting to non-smokers.

Oberlin is lacking a progressive vision towards a smoke free community, one that is in line with the scientific knowledge on smoking. Already, Oberlin is more advanced than many peer institutions in that it bans smoking in its buildings. We would build on this status by:

Now: Creating a student run organization, similar to SIC, which would provide quitting resources, counseling and subsidized quitting aids to students; it would be highly publicized.

Next Year: Vigorously enforcing the current 30 foot rule, by having a greater presence of safety and security personnel, having an apparent and publicized channel for anonymous complaints from students, and shifting responsibilities to confront smokers to professors and other staff.

In a few years: Superceding the 30-foot rule; permitting smoking only in parking lots on campus.

In about five years: Rejecting all accepted applicants who smoke, and putting on probation current students who smoke, giving them a semester to quit and then not being invited back to campus the next unless they have.

Concurrently: Staff would be given a several year period, starting now, to quit smoking, or quit their jobs, and no new professors would be tenured if they smoke.

This process would be transparent, so smokers would have plenty of time to adjust. This would keep smokers from feeling that their “rights” are being unjustly wrested from them, because they can see where when and why these steps are being implemented. It would also give ample time for students who vehemently oppose these policies to transfer to other institutions.

People are concerned about smoking policy when they apply to college, having a totally smoke-free community would be a unique draw of Oberlin that would draw accepted students who would otherwise go to our peer institutions, and would also encourage more applicants that would be lost. This is another area where Oberlin could be a shining beacon of the progressive values that we hold dear.

–Andrew DeFranco
College sophomore
 
 

About us
Subscriptions
Advertising

Previous issue
Archives

Powered by