After an hour and a half of wrangling over amendments, amendments to amendments and questions of procedure, the general faculty postponed their intended vote on the strategic plan until Friday. The meeting adjourned with a proposed amendment regarding the status of African Americans at Oberlin still pending.

“It’s not for one or any of us to do this,” Volk said. “This document reflects a diverse set of interests and voices. That’s its source of strength. The task for us now is to move ahead.”

English professor John Hobbs stated his intention to vote for the motion but expressed disappointment in the direction that planning had taken.

“I predict that in the next few years we will be coming to a fork in the road,” he said. “We can either fight our way into the first rank of liberal arts colleges or settle comfortably into the second rank. I believe we should take the first path and I wish I had seen more of that intention in this document.”

The faculty then proceeded seriatim through the motion, discussing each section of the plan individually.Politics professor Marc Blecher proposed an amendment to the “Strategic Directions” section of the plan emphasizing the role of faculty governance.

“The implementation of strategies will be flexible and pragmatic, with all of Oberlin’s constituencies being involved in the work of developing ways to implement the many and various strategies of the plan,” reads part of the proposed amendment.

Ezra Temko, a junior in the Student Senate, proposed an amendment to this amendment which would add language urging the administration and faculty to consult student senate about changes which would affect the student body. All present members of Student Senate seconded his amendment.

Blecher deemed the amendment friendly but many faculty members took umbrage to its scope.

“The language of this is simply extraordinary,” said Classics professor Tom Van Nortwick. “It’s hard to think of a decision we would make that wouldn’t affect the student body.”

Temko’s amendment was voted down and Blecher’s was passed with little discussion.

It was at this point that confusion broke out among the present faculty as to what exactly they were expected to vote on. Prior to the meeting an e-mail had been sent to faculty containing both the motion and the complete Strategic Plan. The complete plan contains strategies for implementing the goals of the project which were not up for vote by the faculty.

“It is possible that once we start implementing this plan we may find that some things in it aren’t good ideas, in which case we won’t do them,” said Politics professor Ron Kahn.

Russian professor Arlene Foreman brought a motion to remove language which endorsed curricular verticality as a specific strategy for improving opportunities for upperclassmen.

“Verticality is not always required to create more research opportunities,” she said.

Foreman’s amendment passed. It was at this point that African American Studies professor James Millette asked to be recognized so he could speak to the concerns raised in a letter circulating among faculty regarding issues facing African Americans at Oberlin. The letter is reprinted in the Commentary section of this week’s Review.

College President Nancy Dye informed him that he was out of order as his concerns applied to the document as a whole rather than a specific section. After a failed motion to move to a final vote, Dye continued seriatim through the document.

When the review had been completed, Politics professor Harlan Wilson brought a major amendment to add a new strategic direction to the plan.

His amendment titled “Move Towards Sustainability” states that “Oberlin is in a favorable position to be a national leader in promoting sustainability on and off campus” and urges the College to reduce its use of natural resources and work towards the further “greening” of the campus.While acknowledging that “the term sustainability is quite unstable,” Wilson assured faculty that the amendment was not meant to “create or reallocate faculty positions or programs” but was simply a statement of the College’s intention to move towards sustainability.

With only minutes left in the session, Millette’s concerns had still not been addressed but no motion had been presented to the chair.

“When is the appropriate time to voice these concerns?” Millette asked.

After several unsuccessful calls for a vote on the main motion many professor began to urge that the meeting be adjourned till Friday so that Millette’s concerns could be addressed.

“I think that that if we present this plan to the trustees while the concerns of African American faculty have not been addressed we will be doing a great disservice to this plan,” Van Nortwick said.

The motion to adjourn was eventually passed and the meeting ended with Dye assuring faculty she would be on hand to chair Friday’s meeting.

Later that day, Dye told the Review she was still “optimistic” that the plan could be presented to the trustees for a vote at their meeting this weekend.