| << Front page | Commentary | May 13, 2005 |
Practical ideology necessary
Oberlin College is known for its commitment to social justice and its proactive students. This reputation is one of the many strong reasons that students come to Oberlin, and the realization of service and social activism on campus affects where they go after graduation. There are numerous groups devoted to student activism and plenty of opportunities for students to express their opinions about every possible issue. Campus policies often come under scrutiny by students, especially when the Senate referendum comes around.
This year’s referendum included several controversial questions related to social justice. The campus-wide Coca-Cola ban and the two questions regarding divestment encouraged students to voice their opinions on issues that could direct the campus’s decisions for years to come. However, these issues are not easy to resolve, primarily because of their perceived black-and-white, emotionally-charged nature.
The referendum results present a fairly clear stance by the student body on each of these issues. The Coca-Cola ban received overwhelming support, with 860 votes answering in the affirmative. Students saw divestment as a viable strategy for dealing with military occupations, but voted “no” on divestment from both Israel and the list of numerous other countries — despite the fact that the vote on divesting from Israel was very close.
Although the referendum votes place the Oberlin student body on one side of each question and this will help the administration understand how the students would like the College to officially respond to these issues, the decisions are much less clear-cut than they might seem. For example, the student body voted to continue the ban on Coca-Cola due to the company’s possible violation of purchasing codes. However, the Coca-Cola company does not produce and bottle its own product; the local bottling plant in Elyria is responsible for producing and selling Coke to the College. Students have demonstrated in the past that they have a deep commitment to local businesses and local workers, but in the process of banning Coca-Cola due to the corporation’s practices, a local company has lost the College’s business even though their labor practices are not in violation of the purchasing code.
Similarly, throughout the semester and especially during the week leading up to the referendum, flyers and forums explaining reasons for divestment from Israel gave opportunities for students to educate themselves on the issue. However, nobody ever put up signs indicating exactly which companies would be banned and what effect this would have on the College’s ability to find alternative vendors for products. Although the issue is certainly a larger moral question than: “Am I going to be able to buy candy bars at the DeCafe still?” some recognition of the fact that divestment would have a significant impact on the College is necessary.
Decisions make a difference not only in a general sense, but also in the
results of these difficult choices, which have ramifications for others who are
not directly involved in the larger question. These issues cannot be seen as
black-and-white, one -side -or -the -other decisions because they have
far-reaching consequences. Part of what makes Oberlin special is the fact that
people can recognize grey areas and create dialogue between sides. The ideology
behind these issues has strong implications and tensions inherent in its
existence. However, ideology cannot be as clear-cut when put into practice and
policy as many would like to believe.
About us
Subscriptions
Advertising