November 18, 2005

To the Editors:

We, the undersigned, are writing to express our deep frustrations regarding the decision made public last Friday, Nov. 11, by the College Faculty Council to cut the Asian-American history position. The loss of this position is severely detrimental to our academic, social and personal growth. We are extremely disappointed because CFC’s verdict has effectively pushed Asian Americans and Asian-American issues further to the margins of this institution — academically, socially and politically. This decision is representative of the Council’s failure to recognize the academic legitimacy and integrity of fields such as Asian-American studies in particular, and ethnic studies in general. More importantly, this decision is emblematic of a serious lack of understanding of and commitment to the needs and concerns of students of color.

The decision by the current CFC is shocking also because this Council appears to have chosen to ignore decisions made by past Councils as well as the Educational Plans and Policies Committee. This position has been reviewed twice in the past seven years and each time its importance has been reaffirmed. Furthermore, the current Council has shown disregard for the efforts invested by students for over 35 years to institutionalize Asian-American studies on this campus. Asian-American students and allies have committed themselves individually and academically in order to acquire the knowledge that these history classes have provided. This position was created out of a groundswell of student activism for classes related to Asian-American issues and ethnic studies. In fact, the comparative American studies program was established with the understanding that the classes provided by this history position would play an integral role in the curriculum. Decisions such as these hinder students from pursuing a comprehensive CAS or history major.

CFC’s decision is a great disservice to past, present and future Oberlin students. We are deeply concerned that Oberlin is not as progressive as it espouses to be and that this decision has contributed to the “mainstreaming” of the College. Moreover, refusal to return the Asian-American history position will undoubtedly endanger the recruitment and retention of students of color.

We urge the campus community to mobilize and demand that Council return the Asian-American history position.

To view all 44 signatures please refer to the Nov. 18 online edition.

---

December 9, 2005

To the Editors:

I am very pleased that students made their voices heard about the proposed cut to the Asian-American history position, and I also commend the Review’s coverage of the debate. However, I would like to urge a little restraint.

In the article describing the recent open trustee meeting, Eli Szenes-Strauss is quoted as announcing to the assembly that “Darryl [sic] didn’t leave because he likes the weather better in Colorado,” adding, “Oberlin has a history of not retaining faculty of color.”

With respect, it is not Szenes-Strauss’s place to speak in a public forum about Professor Maeda’s reasons for leaving Oberlin. Professor Maeda’s decision was personal, and students and other observers should leave it at that. It is presumptuous for Szenes-Strauss (or anyone else) to pretend knowledge of a decision he was not privy to, and irresponsible to so casually invoke such a serious issue as institutional racism.

To be clear: I am delighted that students have taken responsibility to make their voices heard by the faculty, administration and trustees. Student concerns played an important role in this discussion, and I urge continued participation. Please just make sure you participate in a responsible and respectful manner.

–David Sepkoski
History Department

---

December 2, 2005

To the Editors:

As a former editor at the Review with a year as editor-in-chief; as a two-year member of the College Educational Plans and Policies Committee; and as an Asian American, I vehemently decry the administration’s handling of the faculty reductions that lie in direct opposition to the College’s laughable Strategic Plan.

I did not support the short-lived faculty cut of an Asian-American history position, but it is ridiculous to blame the faculty council for testing the waters with this drastic move. Instead, I place all responsibility upon the hypocritical and backstabbing behavior of the Nancy Dye administration.

Let me be clear: the Board of Trustees and the administration are the sole decision-making body on campus capable of delivering a mandate as unprecedented as eliminating faculty. The method the administration has used is coercive power to divide-and-conquer the faculty and the faculty with the student body, and it is sickening.

Two weeks before the end of school last year, well into the downsizing fiasco, I wrote a detailed article analyzing the process leading up to the mandate for faculty cuts. [Please refer to May 6 online edition.]

In that piece, I posited this question: “As faculty begins the self-executing task of thinning its ranks under an administrative directive, a simple question has underpinned the ongoing friction: are these reductions a choice or a necessity?”

This “administrative directive” was never a necessity. In the article, I detail how the administration crafted the aura of necessity, which never really existed.

When I wrote that article in May, I was not harsh of the administration — after all, as computer science professor Bob Geitz noted, “Maybe we do need to reduce faculty.”

On EPPC, myself as well as my faculty and student colleagues embarked on an unprecedented survey of the College curriculum. Not only did we send questionnaires to each department head and catalogue each faculty position to the best of our ability, but we poured into the departmental peer reviews and spent well into Finals Week discussing the strengths, weaknesses and possible axable positions for each of the several dozen departments.

What we discovered is the “bloated” department idea is a complete myth. One reasoning: There are generally two types of departments on campus, the academic workhorses — English, math, sociology, biology and the newer, more groundbreaking departments — CAS, third world studies and environmental studies. Let us argue that that the department landscape forms a pastry. If we, say, remove biology lab or Shakespeare, we’re removing the center of the pastry, and what we have left is a doughnut. On the other hand, if we remove multicultralism or environment and society, than we lose the richness and substance of Oberlin’s historical mission.

So either way, whatever is cut will result in some community on campus screaming bloody murder. That’s life. But it’s certainly not the faculty’s fault for that way of life. That reality lies squarely on the shoulders of the administration.

If faculty cuts are necessary, than President Dye should support her belegeured faculty who have been handed this ticking grenade. If faculty cuts aren’t crucial, than she should call the whole process off. Either way, Dye needs to quit the rhetoric and take some responsibility for the unrest she’s instigated.

Now that the process has begun, I admit I may have misjudged how painful and divisive this process would be. I don’t believe cutting faculty in a set time frame is the way to go. Unlike what’s going on overseas, there should be no timetable for these cuts.

How the administration behaves during the next raucous over cuts will say a lot about whether they believe in the democratic committee assignments, or simply want to pull the puppet strings without taking an iota of responsibility.

–Douglass Dowty
OC ’05

---

April 7, 2006

To the Editors:

We, the undersigned students and alumni, are writing to express disapproval of the recent recommendation to eliminate a geology faculty position, all in the name of the Strategic Plan. The proposed elimination of the professorship in igneous and metamorphic petrology would cut the number of professors in the department from six to five, and remove an essential component of our curriculum. Of these remaining positions, four would be full time and one part time. This decision will have negative consequences for geology majors and minors, geology professors, all other science departments and students looking to fill their 9-9-9 rule.

The loss of the petrology position will seriously handicap anyone looking to pursue a geology major. “Geology” is a general term — all geologists have a very specialized area of study. All but one of the remaining faculty positions deal with various sedimentary and geomorphological processes, or soft-rock geology. Of the three types of rocks — igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic — the petrology professor is the only one who deals with hard-rock geology, or igneous and metamorphic systems. Without this position, curious students would have no chance to conduct research in, or even discover their passion for, this realm of geology. Undergraduate research experience is essential for continuing into the highly specialized realm of graduate studies in geology.

The elimination has been rationalized with the suggestion that other professors could be trained to teach igneous and metamorphic-based classes. This proposal insults the professionalism of all faculty members, along with increasing the workload of those remaining and impeding or trivializing their own specialized research. Asking another professor to teach these courses would be similar to asking a flute professor to teach voice majors how to sing. The other option would be not to offer the courses at all. This would be like having a biology department without botanists — a major interested in studying plants would have no options.

With remaining professors taking on additional responsibilities, non-major courses would have to be cut. A large number of Oberlin students take classes in the geology department at some point in their college career and 100-level geology classes are in high demand. Professor Steven Wojtal’s Glaciology course had a 70-person wait list for an enrollment of seventy people. Positive experiences in these classes often inspire further upper-level coursework in geology, producing unexpected minors and majors. If the position were eliminated, required courses for majors and minors would be offered less often, making matters difficult for students who discover an enthusiasm for geology later in their undergraduate career. The number of majors and minors is continually growing, with enrollment caps frequently raised to meet student demand.

It is worth noting that a large portion of Oberlin-trained geologists goes on to attain successful professional positions in the field. Alumni have noted the value of their Oberlin education, often attributing their success in research to skills and knowledge gained from igneous and metamorphic petrology in particular. Many graduates attend top-ranked doctoral programs and go on to teach at other well-known colleges and universities. Of these alumni, Oberlin is adding a commendable number of women to a science that has always been dominated by men.

Though secluded to the top floors of Carnegie, we encompass a powerful and respected force of both faculty and students. A tenured petrology position has long existed, filled with dedicated geologists who have built up an admirable reputation and an extensive rock and mineral collection from which to teach. This position is in no way expendable. We ask for your support in this matter.

To view all 33 signatures, please refer to the April 7 online edition.