| << Front page | Commentary | September 16, 2005 |
Wal-Mart debate reveals rifts
For many Oberlin students it is all too simple: the big bad corporation is prowling its way into town, threatening to engulf all that is virtuous and quaint, swallowing local businesses and forcing Oberlin’s poor into low-paying jobs. It is evil, it lends a tangible face to all we stand against and it must be stopped. Reality, however, spins a tale far less appealing in its complexities, with faults long in the past and a conflict exposing deep rifts along class and racial lines. Before petitions can be signed and action taken, students must look past the lure of petitions and inflatable rodents and examine what’s really at stake and what can now be done.
The decision to bring Wal-Mart to Oberlin — made before most of us stepped onto Oberlin’s campus, by a former group of city council members — has been widely recognized for its failings, namely the opaque manner in which the deal was conducted, in closed executive sessions with little or no community input.
With the election of Dan Gardner, Eve Sandburg and Charles Peterson three years ago, Oberlin’s residents were promised a departure from secrecy and cronyism. However, with an agreement with Wal-Mart already on the table, the council has not been able to do much beyond negotiating the exact size and shape that the store will take. They have won some concessions on aesthetics and environmental concerns but some members of the Oberlin community have not given up on blocking Wal-Mart altogether.
A group of concerned citizens are now putting forth a Living Wage petition designed to provide guidelines for employers in Oberlin. While these campaigners have denied before city council and a Review reporter that this petition is connected to a movement against Wal-Mart, it is hard to take this claim seriously when these same activists take to the streets with the “Walmrat” and cajole students to take a stand against the infamous Big Box.
While most of those who oppose Wal-Mart have the best of intentions, it is fairly plain to see the socioeconomic factors that shape opinions on this issue. To paraphrase Senator John Edwards, we now see that there are two Oberlins, a wealthy educated population centered around the College which opposes the store for political reasons, and the largely poor population who will actually work and shop at the store.
However right they may be, if the campaigners are serious about building a movement against Wal-Mart, they need to stop preaching to the choir — students who are unlikely to utilize the store anyway — and convince the working class of Oberlin why a store promising abundant jobs and low prices is not in their best interest.
This is not to say that there is no role for students to play. While the coming of Wal-Mart may be a fait accompli, the climate of overdevelopment overtaking America today will likely pose further threats to the fabric of Oberlin’s community in the future. Merely signing petitions isn’t enough. Oberlin students should make an effort to attend council meetings and community forums and, most of all, engage members of the local community in conversation to discover what’s really going on beyond Tappan Square. We must make an active effort to be part of this community if we expect to be able to have a say in its future and be viewed as anything more than transitory meddlers.
Although no one is happy about Wal-Mart’s arrival, the last thing that Oberlin needs right now is divisive political rhetoric. What we need are strategies for unifying our community-- town and gown, rich and poor.
Students need to realize that this isn’t the same type of grand,
idealistic crusade akin to last fall’s battle against the Bush
administration. If students want to help, it should be done through research,
coalition building and strategy rather than political grandstanding.
About us
Subscriptions
Advertising