The administration enjoyed a victory last Friday when the General Faculty voted to approve the strategic planning document that has been heavily debated over the past several months. One hundred and seventy professors voted in favor of the motion while 33 opposed it and two abstained. The document was unanimously approved by the Board of Trustees the next day.

The vote came after being postponed when the faculty could not arrive at a decision at a meeting two days earlier. The meeting this week, facilitated by President Nancy Dye alongside Provost Clayton Koppes, was similarly prolonged due to specific concerns of the members of the faculty as well as student senators, who were also present and had an opportunity to voice their opinions.

African American Studies professor James Millette opened the meeting with a statement explaining the reasons behind the proposed amendments to the main strategic planning motion he developed with Professor of Religion A. G. Miller. The draft was also reviewed and supported by African American Studies professors Pamela Brooks and Yakubu Saaka, art professor Johnny Coleman, English professor Gillian Johns, Conservatory jazz studies professor Wendell Logan and sociology professor Clovis White.

“Somewhere on the road to developing a final report on strategic planning exercise the perception seems to have emerged that it was either not necessary to say anything about Oberlin’s traditions or that it was perfectly proper to be silent about them,” said Millette in his opening statement, reflecting his concerns over the direction in which the College is heading as well as referencing the strategic plan’s apparent neglect of the need to promote cultural diversity not just among students but among members of the faculty as well.

“Oberlin’s traditions are not cheap gifts to be used for a while and then discarded as they grow old...to be regarded as inconvenient and ill-advised in difficult times or as the world changes around us,” Millette continued. “In difficult times we should be cleaving to our traditions, not thinking of abandoning them or passing over them in silence in hope that...their protection will be realized.

“If that is an option for some members of our community, it is not, should not and cannot be an option for thinking members of the small community of Black faculty,” he said.

The proposed amendments directly responded to these sentiments. One in particular expressed trepidation that the diversity of Oberlin’s student body might be lost in a large-scale effort to enroll more full-paying students in response to the College’s growing financial crisis. The amendment called for the administration to realize that its first priority in maintaining financial sustainability should be to “honor Oberlin’s long traditions of racial and socioeconomic diversity.”

The other amendments expressed the need to “enhance the educationally enriching possibilities” of the institution by “expanding and diversifying [the] applicant pool.”

Also emphasized were the goals of improving the “admissions yield and retention of African-American, first-generation and low-income students” as well as the development of “a plan to recruit and retain faculty and administrators of African American and of other American racial minorities, especially in areas in which there is significant underrepresentation.”

The amendments were all passed after discussion and deliberation over specific details such as wording and clarity. History professor Gary Kornblith observed, “this is the problem of trying to write a document as a collective pool,” to which another professor responded with an “amen!”

The meeting then directed its attention to broader issues with the strategic plan, which included an impassioned speech by economics professor Luis Fernandez, who strongly opposed the strategic plan.

“Despite the title, this is not strategic, and thus, it is unlikely to accomplish very much,” said Fernandez.

He went on to argue that a “true strategic plan” answers three questions: where are we going, what is the environment in which we’ll be operating, and how will we get there? The strategic planning document, Fernandez said, did not answer these questions adequately, and should be sent back for a “thorough re-evaluation.”

Alfred McKay, professor of philosophy, voiced his support for the Strategic Plan:

“This is not just something that occurred two weeks ago[...]I think it’s marvelous that we are where we are.”

But physics professor John Scofield agreed with Fernandez, saying that “just because it took over a year to form doesn’t make it a good document.” He went on to say that he planned to vote against the Strategic Plan “because it isn’t a plan.”

Another professor asked with concern, “what is the downside of making a decision and being wrong?”

Amidst pessimism, however, was optimism that the strategic plan could, in fact, result in positive changes for the Oberlin community.

“We need to continue to own the plan and work together. Let’s claim our role in it and continue to work with it,” Ann Albright, director of gender and women’s studies and the associate professor of dance said.

Economics professor Robert Piron said he planned to vote for the document “somewhat reluctantly,” adding that “it will make things better...it’s not a plan now, but I think it will continue to evolve.”

Steven Volk, professor of history, supported the strategic plan, stressing that it “shows the tremendous strengths of Oberlin as well as our weaknesses.” He continued to say that “the way to improve this document is to send it out into the light.”

In an e-mail to the Oberlin community announcing the results of the vote, Dye said: “No strategic plan is self-executing. The hard work of implementation lies ahead. I am confident that, if the community can muster the same good will and imagination that characterized the planning process, the plan will become a living document that will open the door to a bright future for Oberlin College.”