| << Front page | Commentary | April 15, 2005 |
Co-op article facts questioned, other letters
To the Editors:
As Campus Visit Coordinator for the Office of Admissions, I wish to clarify mistakes in first-year Emma Dumain’s article “Prospies denied entrance to co-ops.”
At the outset of Dumain’s quest to write this article, she focused only on Harkness. However, without the knowledge of the College employees interviewed, it encompassed all co-ops. She gave neither my office nor ResLife the opportunity to investigate further; I will only comment on issues surrounding Harkness.
ResLife programs cards distributed by Admissions to prospectives staying overnight to allow access to all residence halls and co-ops. Michele Gross, Associate Director of ResLife, just brought to my attention that for several weeks, the system by which they grant access has been malfunctioning.
I met twice with OSCA president, Kate Tierney, and other students representing Harkness to present my office’s concerns regarding the complaints about Harkness. The complaints on which I focused were from this fall. Most grievances focused on the lack of cleanliness and prospectives being drawn into conversations about drug and alcohol use/abuse or witnessing it firsthand. The majority of prospectives are 16 or 17 years old, hence minors. It is my responsibility to provide prospectives with the tools to have an enjoyable stay and to remedy anything preventing that, including potential liabilities to the College.
Dumain quotes Colin Gunn, Harkness HLEC, as saying I “came up with the idea that Harkness prospies were less likely to come to Oberlin...” I “came up” with this information by researching enrollment for students the past two years who’ve stayed in Harkness. The matriculation of Harkness overnights in comparison to other residences is low enough to take notice.
We reached a consensus that if Harkness (literally) cleaned up its act, Admissions would continue to permit overnights. However, less than a few weeks later, I received another complaint. I met again with Kate, et al. I decided that we’d no longer assign prospectives to Harkness unless prospectives specifically requested a co-op. As a show of good faith that Admissions wasn’t attempting to obscure co-ops, I suggested that OSCA inform us when they had completed their website’s overhaul so that we could link it to the Campus Visit website. I also asked that they provide literature to display in our lobby.
Removing Harkness as an option isn’t an attempt to “weed out the students who are more likely to appreciate what Harkness has to offer.” If prospectives seek a community such as Harkness, they do find it. We aren’t asking Harkness to change what it is. However, I will demand that Harkness provides clean, safe, drug-and-alcohol-free accommodations to prospectives. If this means that Harkness must change what it is, then so be it. However, it is their choice to not meet our expectations. Harkness no longer hosts because “we’d rather [Admissions] not have prospies come to Harkness than to have you put so much pressure on us to change....” Again, this is their choice.
Finally, Dumain stated that when contacted, I declined to comment on this “late-breaking” story. Also inaccurate. Dumain visited both Gross and my assistant, Jen George, on Wednesday, April 6. She chose not to make contact with me until her email at 11:08 p.m. on Thursday, April 7 (Josh Keating, a Review editor, then called my colleague’s home at 11:11 p.m. trying to obtain my number). Having not heard from me in the 10 minutes after she emailed, Dumain awoke me at 11:18 p.m. Since calling me at my unlisted home number was extremely inappropriate at that hour, I chose to not respond to her inquiries but suggested that business hours existed for a reason.
I appreciate Dumain’s green enthusiasm but trust that in the future, she and the Review will take more care in their research to not create a story where one doesn’t exist.
–Crys Latham
Senior Assistant Director of Admissions
Campus Visit
Coordinator
To the Editors:
I walked home through Wilder Bowl Friday night, and I couldn’t believe how messy it was. It seems the majority of the TGIFers did not feel the need to take their trash with them.
Not only is that littering, but the grounds crew do not serve as Mommy and Daddy to lazy students. Take your trash with you, people. It’s rude, gross to look at and pretty disheartening. I thought Oberlin students were more environmentally friendly than to leave their brown bags, bottles, cans and wrappers wherever they were finished with them.
Be a little more responsible and respectful, please. Take your trash to a trash can or recycling bin next time.
Thank you!
–Sarah Jones
College senior
To the Editors:
Hey You! Binary Slut! When you saw me at Drag Ball on Saturday, you had me pegged. You saw a man dressed up as a woman, or a woman dressed up as a man. Your eyes passed over me and left you confident and secure in your knowledge of who I was. You looked at me and saw my baggy pants and not quite hidden breasts and knew what I was really about. Sure, you were appreciative of the drag queens that could have passed as women on the street, but you still thought you knew the truth about them. Yet what about the person appearing to be in drag who made such a convincing woman that you couldn’t believe she was really a man? Was she cheating? Did you go up to her and ask if she was really a boy or a girl?
Honey, please. Do you really think those are the only options? Maybe you knew her face and knew that she responds to she and her on a daily basis. Did you tell yourself that some people don’t get the point of Drag Ball, that people who don’t dress as the opposite gender should go back to Safer Sex Night? What made you presume to know what constitutes her sex? Her gender? Her genitals? Her identity? When you see me on the street, don’t keep me pegged. Shake that gender binary off and give me a chance outside of it.
Look up these awesome people online: Leslie Feinberg, Emi Koyama, Kate Bornstein, Anne Fausto-Sterling, Imani Henry, Joan Nestle and Minnie Bruce Pratt.
–Erica Kapitan-Daniel
College junior
To the Editors:
I am writing to express my outrage at the Theodore Herzl display in Mudd Library. As a Palestinian, I am concerned by the many ways in which the display dehumanizes an entire population and obscures the human rights abuses they are currently suffering.
One panel of the display depicts several Palestinian women in traditional costumes, heads covered and carrying babies through what looks like a vacant lot. This image portrays Palestinians as stuck in a time warp caused by their own backwardness, especially when contrasted with the portrayal of Israel as modernity. Israel is represented by women’s rights, the kibbutzim, a collage of modern buildings and people in non-ethnic dress. I really resent the images’ implication that Palestinians are somehow too...backwards to have our own country. It is really painful and frustrating having to watch my identity boiled down to such simplistic images that I cannot even identify with.
Another panel depicts Israelis holding signs reading, “Justice for Victims of Palestinian Terrorism,” “George W. Bush We Will Never Share the Land” and “Peace Now.” These signs paint Palestinians as terrorists and Israelis as pure victims. The burden of building a lasting peace is placed solely on Palestinians. The depiction of Palestinians as backwards and violent over-represents the role of terrorism in the struggle for self-determination, undermining efforts through civil protest, grassroots activism and diplomacy.
Israel’s contribution to the conflict remains invisible. There is no mention of how Israel has imposed its presence on the territories. There is no mention of the daily humiliation faced by Palestinians going about their daily lives. In fact, the only people deserving of “justice” in this display are the Israelis. “We Will Never Share the Land” echoes the frightening prospect of the Israeli government’s actions: the end to the viability of a Palestinian state, through the use of settlements, checkpoints, home demolitions and the Wall. Regardless of whether the military presence is removed from Gaza, Israel is systematically shrinking and isolating the Occupied Territories. In a recent report to the UN Human Rights Commission (E/CN.4/2005/29), UN Special Rapporteur John Dugard reported that “Israel will in law remain an Occupying Power still subject to obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention” and that “It plans to retain ultimate control over Gaza by controlling its borders, territorial sea and airspace.”
The weight of Israel’s actions stretches beyond its effect on physical boundaries. According to the Global IDP Project of the Norwegian Refugee Council “as close to 200,000 Palestinians could find themselves trapped in enclaves or closed military zones, with devastating consequences for the local economy. Their freedom of movement would be severely restricted, making it impossible for many to get to their work places, schools or hospitals.” An estimated 90,000 more could be displaced from their homes if the construction of the Wall continues as planned.
Furthermore, I am concerned that the display advances that Israel is an outpost of democracy and Western civilization. It perpetuates the idea that Israel is carrying some sort of “white man’s burden” in the Middle East and fails to interrogate Israel’s role in the conditions faced by Palestinians, both in the Occupied Territories and within Israel.
Finally, there is the matter of “Peace Now.” This display, through its silencing and dehumanizing of the Palestinians, supports a specific kind of peace, one in which the Palestinians are so subordinated they can no longer respond to violations of their human rights. More of our voices need to be raised for a just and dignified solution for both sides of the conflict.
Peace at the expense of another people is an unconscionable one.
–Rasha Al Sarraj
College senior
To the Editors:
Re: Ryan Silakoski’s letter in the last issue titled “Iraq: the cause for freedom”.
I can understand that Mr. Silakoski would be upset at a quote that seems to categorize Marines as people fundamentally different from the rest of us (The quote referred to read: “People going to the Marines are not like you or me, but even they don’t believe in this war”). The speaker was pointing out that Marines are traditionally the most gung ho fighters of the U.S.’s battles, and even they are questioning this war. The facts being pointed to were that: 1) the Marines did not meet their recruiting target for January, marking the first time that has happened in a decade, 2) the Army and Marines are not fulfilling their recruiting quotas, causing them to super-exploit those already serving by extending tours and calling up huge numbers of Reservists and National Guard troops, 3) the Pentagon estimates that 5,500 troops have gone AWOL since the beginning of the Iraq conflict, with thousands more troops exploring ways to escape service (as measured by calls to hotlines set up for disillusioned soldiers trying to leave the military). While I do not support any Marine in their capacity as a Marine (that is, a trained killing machine), I know many are people acting out of a strong sense of duty and are motivated by a desire to do the right thing. All the more reason to bring them all home NOW before any more die.
Frankly, much of what you wrote disturbed me. You referred to killing “non-combatants” as simply “collateral damage.” You are actually describing the murder of innocent people. You said that “regardless of the political reason” the U.S. invaded Iraq, troops on the ground will keep on fighting for the sake of freedom. Shouldn’t the disconnect between the real reasons for war and the values of the troops on the ground horrify you? Shouldn’t this disconnect PISS YOU OFF?! You say much about your Oberlin education, but I thought the most valuable part of a liberal arts education was supposed to be its development of critical thought.
Any U.S. presence in Iraq is criminal and an insult to Iraqis. How does a war for oil and empire become an occupation for democracy and freedom? It does not. As one of the (perhaps the) primary causes of destabilization and undermined democracy in the Middle East over the past half century, the only progressive role for the U.S. is to keep their dirty hands out of Iraq. However, Iraq’s oil and the prestige concerns of U.S. imperialism will keep U.S. troops in Iraq indefinitely.
You are right, though, that politicians cannot make war without the men and women fighting on the ground, which means that soldiers are in a privileged position to end the carnage, oppression and exploitation of this colonial occupation. The Vietnam War ended because, alongside the social upheaval at home, the U.S. military absolutely disintegrated. Soldiers simply refused to kill and die for empire. If you are serious about standing up for freedom and democracy, do not put your person at the service of the Washington hawks and their corporate paymasters.
–John Gallup
College senior
Socialist Alternative
About us
Subscriptions
Advertising