<i>Senator Asks for Fair Search</i>, other letters

To the Editors:

The Presidential Search Committee is responsible for reviewing applicants and narrowing down the field to the best candidates to serve as Oberlin College’s next president. The selection of a new president is about declaring who we are, what we stand for and what role we want Oberlin to play in the world. This is an essential dialogue we must have on campus. It is an attitude we must bring to interviews with candidates for the job.

To ensure that Oberlin emerges reenergized out of this potentially divisive search, special care must be taken with the process chosen to make the decision. While the choice of who to hire is ultimately the responsibility of the Trustees, they must ensure that the new president can function with everyone on campus. The Presidential Search Committee serves as a guide to help the Trustees make the correct and best choice. Equally importantly, the Committee serves as the definitive voice for those of us who actually attend, teach and work at Oberlin.

Providing for fair representation on the Committee is essential for a positive outcome. It is in keeping with Oberlin’s spirit of cooperation and a proud tradition of student involvement in governance that we ask the Trustees to reconsider the Committee makeup. On the 11 member Committee, students were only granted one seat.

We believe two students on the Committee is not only a fair request — the faculty have two seats (one Conservatory, one College) — but a pragmatic one: the success of a president largely depends on how Oberlin accepts them. To ensure the right candidates are brought to campus and that all students are provided an opportunity to influence this decision, we should have more than one student voice. The wonderfully-diverse student body could not possibly be represented by one student.

In an email to the student body, Robert Lemle (chair of both the Search Committee and the Board of Trustees) warned of high competition for a small supply of talented and qualified candidates. “Consequently,” he wrote, “the campus community needs to begin assessing now how we will present ourselves to the candidates.” Mr. Lemle: The key to finding a great new president is not a temporary makeover but rather a reassessment of how the Trustees view students, faculty and alumni. We don’t want to be another Gallaudet; we want a powerful future for Oberlin.

Oberlin students must be consulted throughout this process and guarantees must be made that our input weighs heavily in the final hiring decision. We are heartened by Lemle’s commitment to student forums as soon as November. But the trustees must take further action — including the expansion of student seats on the Search Committee — to ensure that this search is a transformative and unifying experience for the entire Oberlin community.

Remember: all of us — students, faculty, staff, alumni and trustees — are allies in our desire to have and to work toward a better Oberlin.

–Colin Koffel
College junior

To the Editors:

I write to call attention to the Voters Guide prepared by the League of Women Voters of the Oberlin Area (LWVOA).

The Guide is available in all of the college libraries and in Wilder Hall and the Science Center Commons. More copies are at the Oberlin Public Library and were published this week in the Oberlin News Tribune, Elyria Chronicle Telegram and Lorain Journal.

The same information can be found online at the LWVOA Web site. If you filled out an application for an absentee ballot and have not yet received it, check your registration status online at the Secretary of State web site. Look for the “Voter Information Searches ” link on the left navigation bar. The LWVOA Web site gives more information.

–Alison Ricker
Science Librarian and LWVOA Treasurer

To the Editors:

I’m not voting for Sherrod Brown. Nope. Not at all. He says that he is going to fight for the middle class, but what about the rest of us? Aren’t we all Americans working for the same goals — to have a better life? I work hard for what I have and budget, hopefully, just like the rest of us.

Brown continues to categorize us into the rich, middle class and poor. He says he’s fighting for the middle class. Well, Mr. Brown, stay out of my American dream.

In the storybook fairy tale Goldie Locks and the Three Bears, Goldie Locks threw out all of the porridge except the one bowl of porridge that was just right. Will Brown throw out the rich and poor and look at only the middle class as “just and only right?” Will he look at the rich and only see people to tax? Will he look at the poor as non-voters who don’t have much “pull” and dump them?

I used to think I was middle class. I am one of six children from Lorain whose father was a U.S. Steel worker. My mom stayed at home and worked hard making suppers from scratch and the washer and dryer ran 24-7 cleaning our clothes, mostly hand me downs. During the steel plant’s one-year strike, we lived on potatoes and oatmeal and once a week could afford to eat hamburger. The money was very tight but our parents saw that we were educated, fed, clean and respectful of others. We did not see ourselves as poor. My parents were honest, good people who worked hard to keep up.

Now, each of us six children has families. We aren’t poor and we worked hard to be who we are. Brown might call us rich. If I didn’t know better, it seems according to Brown’s standard, we should feel guilty for what we worked so hard to have.

Brown has a contorted view of America. Ask any American who took his or her last dollar and worked to build a successful company. These Americans sacrificed much to work to their success. I am sure Brown had nothing to do with it either. Those who believe in the American dream — that anyone who works smart and hard enough can achieve — have it right. Mr. Brown is like bad porridge.

The General election is Nov. 7. I will take great pride to vote for those who believe in the American dream. I thank our soldiers who support our country. As for candidates like Mr. Brown — each needs to be thrown out. We Americans will make it without you.

—Kathleen O’Brien Wilhelm
Lorain County, OH

To the Editors:

I would like to add to Quentin Jones’ article published Oct. 6 (Who’s Who in Ohio’s Election Races). There will be a free public talk tomorrow, Saturday, Oct. 28 at 1 p.m. at First Church in Oberlin (corner of Main and Lorain). Kenneth Miller, Prof. of Biology at Brown University and expert witness at the Dover Trial, (who can be seen via YouTube as a guest on The Colbert Report) will talk on Science, God & Intelligent-Design: Why all three matter in the 2006 Ohio elections.

I have been following very closely the actions of Ohio’s State Board of Education concerning the curriculum standards that have been revised for science, particularly about evolutionary theory. The BOE is composed of some members appointed by the Governor and some members who are elected. We in Oberlin are in the State’s 2nd district and have been admirably represented for decades by Martha Wise, who has led the fight to keep Intelligent Design and Creationism out of the classroom and to stop efforts to undermine the teaching of Evolution. She is now running for State Senate in our 13th district as the moderate republican candidate and is a person of great integrity and commitment.

There are four people vying to fill her position on the BOE, and because the membership of the board is supposed to be non-partisan, party affiliations are not included on the ballot. I urge your readers to vote for John Bender, a democrat, who has a Ph.D. in Educational Administration, an M.A. in Guidance and received a B.Sci. in Biology. He has affirmed his commitment to science education without religion. You can meet both candidates at Ken Miller’s talk.

—Carter McAdams
Theater & Dance Program

To the Editors:

Next Tuesday, on Halloween, you are likely to be approached by someone asking for you to sign the Ohio Public Interest Research Group petition. OhioPIRG is a student-directed, student-funded organization on campus that undertakes awesome campaigns such as Hunger and Homelessness, No Drilling in Lake Erie, New Voters Project, Student Loan Debt, Local Foods and much more. We have been on campus since 1974.

What is also special about OhioPIRG is that we are funded by students through an $8 waivable fee on the tuition bill. OhioPIRG uses this funding to hire professional staff to guide us on campaigns, to travel to rallies and conferences, and more. OhioPIRG is democratically accountable to students in two ways. First, every two years we must get 51 percent of the student body to sign a petition to keep us funded in this manner. For every petition since 1974, the student body has reaffirmed our funding. Second, students who do not wish to contribute to OhioPIRG may waive the fee at the beginning of each semester.

Please support us by signing the petition so we can stay on campus and continue to do awesome work to benefit students, the community, and national and global causes!

—Gabriele Johnson
College sophomore

To the Editors:

Many of you may have heard of OPIRG (Ohio Student Public Interest Research Group). This year so far our campus branch has had campaigns to register new voters, help the local hungry and homeless, protect Lake Erie from drilling and support local foods.

On Oct. 7, our Local Foods campaign had our second annual Local Foods Fest. We had farm stands, local food samples, family activities and there was a great turn out, with over 600 people attending throughout the day. The campaign not only used this event to raise awareness about local foods, but also made a big effort to get the larger community of Oberlin involved in the event. I think this last piece of our project is possibly the most important. By supporting local farmers, connections are formed and a community is made stronger.

The Local Foods Fest is just one great way that the college and the rest of the town can be brought together. OPIRG made this campaign possible and helped us with funding and provided us with the invaluable help of our OPIRG campus organizer, Deborah. OPIRG is funded through an $8 waive-able fee in the tuition. This gives our campus OPIRG funds to attend rallies and conferences and to get professional staff, such as Deborah.

Next Tuesday, there will be volunteers around campus with petitions to keep the waive-able fee in the tuition. Please support us by signing, so we can continue to benefit students and the community as a whole.

—Liz Huessy
College first-year

To the Editors:

As a retired employee of the Conservatory still working there part-time, myself and my immediate family are allowed to use the Phillips Recreation Center. The general information brochure available at the center describes immediate family as spouse/domestic partner and/or dependents under 21. This acknowledged, I recently went to the center with my domestic partner, Lisa Shomo, to get her a membership card. The student at the entry desk said we needed to go to Human Resources with proper ID so that it could be documented that we lived at the same address. The following day, I called Human Resources to alert them of our coming and to see if someone was available that could attend to issuing Lisa a pass. The lady I was talking to said I could come in with “him” now and start the process. I politely informed her that my partner was a woman and that we would come right away. However, she then told me that Lisa could not receive a complimentary membership because the college honors only domestic partnerships of the same sex. I was shocked, and the only thing I could think to say was, “That’s discrimination!” to which she replied, “Well you could get married!”

After hanging up, I just couldn’t believe that Oberlin College would treat same-sex and heterosexual domestic partnerships differently. Lisa and I decided there must be some miscommunication somewhere, so we went to the recreation center to talk to the director. Once again, much to our surprise, we heard the same thing. The college honors only same-sex domestic partnerships. The director said that she sympathized with us but that “the line had to be drawn somewhere.”

I am at odds about her comment “drawing the line somewhere” because I don’t believe any lines regarding sexual orientation should be drawn in the matter. The college’s non-recognition of heterosexual domestic partnerships carries an implication that such relationships are not as “serious” as same-sex domestic partnerships, an implication I find offensive and completely out of the question in regard to the relationship between Lisa and me.

—Ken Sloane
Conservatory faculty

To the Editors:

Last night (Thursday, Oct. 5), a large audience in the West Lecture Hall in the Science Center was exposed to a skillful exercise in sophistry. The title of Patrick Michaels talk, “Inconvenient Facts Ignored by Elizabeth Kolbert and Al Gore,” promised a political speech, and that is what we got. Although Michaels agrees that global warming is occurring and that rising carbon dioxide levels caused by human activity are implicated, he rejects the catastrophic outcomes that the vast majority of climatologists now foresee.

He believes that technological fixes will support unlimited growth. Half-truths and some flimsy arguments were given in support of his political position, which is beholden to big business and big money. While ridiculing Elizabeth Kolbert and Al Gore, he never explained how they were uninterested in getting to the truth about global warming, as well as could be discerned, and suggested that they were promoting a political agenda. Is that political agenda the well-being of all peoples on the earth? Nothing in Michaels’ talk suggested an interest in carefully weighing data and models on climate change rather than giving any argument possible in support of his political position.

—Norman C. Craig
Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus

To the Editors:

Climatologist Patrick Michaels’ Oct. 5 talk (“Inconvenient Facts Ignored by Elizabeth Kolbert and Al Gore”) contained a multitude of flaws, which I have neither the time nor the inclination to list in total. However, I do feel compelled to comment on one particularly egregious piece of sophistry, which was one of the most disingenuous examples of “lying with statistics” to which I have had the misfortune of being subjected.

One of Michaels’ theses was that members of mainstream academia were “biased” toward pessimism about global warming. As support for this argument, he described a survey that he conducted of climatology articles in the prestigious journals Science and Nature, comparing the relative numbers of articles arguing that the effects of global warming were more severe than those predicted by the current models versus those arguing that the effects were less severe. The former group of articles outnumbered the latter roughly ten-to-one, which Michaels argued was overwhelming evidence of academic bias.

This argument was predicated on Michaels’ assertion that, “statistically,” one would expect equal numbers of articles arguing that current models over- and underestimated the effects of global warming. With this statistical expectation taken as valid, the probability that unbiased researchers would write articles in the proportions observed is one in an astronomically large number.

This assertion, however, can be seen upon reflection to be quite risible. Consider the possibility that the current models of global warming are, in point of fact, incorrect in either direction regarding the phenomenon’s severity. One should then expect that more researchers would, eventually, argue for revision of the model in the correct, as opposed to the incorrect, direction. Put another way, Michaels’ 50/50 expectation has as its suppressed premise that the model is absolutely correct as it is, the only circumstance under which one reasonably would expect equal numbers of scientists to argue for its flaws in either direction.

Of course, Michaels spent most of the rest of his presentation arguing vehemently against the more ominous predictions of the current models, reassuring the audience that humanity and the planet are capable of weathering the storm until technological innovations eliminate anthropogenic global warming. This should, perhaps, suggest not that Michaels is either ignorant or unaware of the implications of his arguments, but that he is being intentionally obfuscatory, a possibility worth considering when assessing the remainder of his claims.

—Christopher Boyd

To the Editors:

Fearless?!? Please tell me this is an elaborate ruse.

—Ted Carleton, OC ’99

To Student Athletes and Everyone Else:

It’s taken me so long to get this article in the paper. I wanted to thank all of you for nominating me for staff appreciation day. I’m sorry I wasn’t there, but there were circumstances which I wasn’t comfortable with, so I thought it best not to put in an appearance, but as I said, thanks to all of you. So with that said let’s just get on with our seasons, enjoy playing our games and win. “Go O.C.”

—Virginia Covalt
OC Equipment Manager

To the Editors:

From the view of a concerned Oberlin alumnus (class of ‘73), Oberlin’s current financial problems looks like the most serious crisis to hit Oberlin since its last most serious crisis. Measures such as eliminating key professorial positions and such popular programs as Oberlin-in-London make me wonder about Oberlin’s current priorities. But rather than being a naysayer, I want to help! So here are eight modest proposals to help insure Oberlin’s financial future:

1. Sell naming rights for Oberlin buildings: Throughout the country, cities have raised money by selling naming rights to sports arenas and convention centers. Why can’t Oberlin do the same? Just think of how much money Oberlin could make if it had such buildings as Listerine Conservatory of Music, Rice-a-Roni Rice Hall, Lubricated Trojans North Hall, Hewlett-Packard Finney Chapel (they need some good press), Snapple Tappan Square and Unlubricated Trojans Cox. If my local synagogue can become Manischevitz B’Nai Jeshurun, why can’t Oberlin join the band wagon?

2. Add commercials to classes: The college-age demographic is highly prized by advertisers. Why not include commercial breaks in classes? Most students, raised on television, are used to letting their mind wander every six-to-eight minutes anyway (max!). Commercial breaks will have the added bonus of giving professors a chance to figure out how they really want to answer students’ queries by preceding it with, “I’ll answer that thought-provoking question, but first...”

3. Add prestige levels of student status: Just as credit card companies sell Gold Level and Platinum Level cards offering additional perks, why not have Gold Level and Platinum Level Students? Students who can afford to pay more could be rewarded with additional time with professors, hints about questions on exams and permission to butt in line during lunch.

4. Institute the Oberlin lottery: Although most grades are based on merit, let’s face it, don’t some seem arbitrary? Each fall and spring, Oberlin should have a lottery, and the winner is promised a 4.0 for that semester. Giving one more student all A’s won’t dilute the grading curve that much, it will bring great happiness to someone, and think of how much money it could raise! (I would’ve bought tickets every semester, and had I won, I might’ve applied to graduate school.)

5. Eliminate classes: Most of them are a pain in the butt, anyway. Classroom buildings could be rented to other institutions of higher learning (such as the proposed Oxford at Oberlin program) or turned into dorms. Besides, if there aren’t actually classes anymore, think of how many more offerings there could be! Oberlin could finally develop the Middle East and North African Studies program it needs.

6. Change the new slogan “FEARLESS” to “DESPERATE”: Trust me, this will increase the applicant pool significantly. Don’t trust me? Then answer this: How many people you know do you consider fearless? How many people you know do you consider desperate? Case closed.

7. Move the campus to Jamaica: Nobody goes to Oberlin for the weather. Move it to Jamaica, and they will. Whatever additional expense students will incur in plane fare will be balanced by the fact that Jamaican weed is much cheaper.

8. Eliminate the presidency: This will not only save money, it will also save everybody a lot of tsuris. The relationship between the Oberlin campus and its president goes through two distinct phases: 1) deep skepticism about the ability of the new president, and 2) conviction that the initial skepticism was deserved. I’ve seen five Oberlin presidents come and go, and each time, everybody was a lot happier when they went.

For those who say Oberlin needs a president to raise money, if you replace the president’s office with a Starbucks, it will raise almost as much. (Can you believe what they charge now for a mocha latté?) Even better: Replace part of it with a Ben and Jerry’s. (Jerry is a classmate, and I’m sure he’ll give us a good deal.)

For those who say Oberlin needs a public face, I know a lot of actors who would be willing to play that role. For a lot less money, they’ll be just as big a hit at alumni gatherings. It doesn’t take long to memorize the line, “That’s a great idea; I’ll take it under consideration.”

These are just eight modest suggestions; I’m sure that the Oberlin community could come up with more. For those who are concerned that my proposals will destroy the character of Oberlin in order to save it, my only response is that after reading about recent faculty and program cuts, I wasn’t aware that the current administration or Board of Trustees cares about such things, either.

—Rich Orloff, OC ’73

To the Editors:

French political theorist Alexis De Tocqueville wrote, “I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America.” He could’ve just as easily written “I know of no college in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as at Oberlin,” and it would have been equally true, because freedom of opinion does not exist here.

There is a social stigma attached to speaking out against the stereotypical Oberlin “view” that a majority of students here probably don’t agree with 100 percent but don’t dare to let that fact be known. If I were to criticize the Oberlin gay, lesbian and transgendered community publicly, for example, I might as well invite someone to stab me in the face.

Just the writing of this article is likely to result in a few people angrily e-mailing me and detailing all the ways in which I’m wrong and have no authority to speak on this subject. I appreciate that people here have the ability to be critical, but when anybody who publicly voices ANY contrary opinion is shouted down, it’s no wonder why so many people here seem like they’re holding themselves back.

It is incredibly ironic given the school’s reputation for being progressive and producing many “far out,” creative people that such homogeneity exists.

There are socially acceptable forms of “far out” here, of course, but those are involved more with the way one dresses or gesticulates wildly in the middle of Wilder Bowl than the way one thinks. Unless one’s appearance is an accurate reflection of their uniqueness as a person — in which case, I know a couple cell phone commercials that quite a few Oberlin students would fit perfectly into.

As far as producing creative people — I don’t believe Oberlin, or any place of “higher” education, fosters creativity as much as it frustrates the creative people who are already there so much that it eventually either inspires or destroys them. A large percentage of this country’s great future artists and writers are probably attending community college right now because they either were disillusioned by the great state of public education in America or disillusioned by the impossible and impersonal standards that are required for admission into the “good schools” these days.

As a result, a higher percentage of kids who are adept at selling themselves end up here than ones who have the perspective that enables them to say anything of substance.

I’ve heard several complaints that “Fearless” will sap away Oberlin’s unique flavor by bringing it too far into the mainstream. Based on my observations of this school, my question is: What unique flavor?

Most of the people who I have heard called “unique” by other students look like they are more concerned with bringing attention to themselves than saying anything insightful. I find it supremely frustrating because I know truly imaginative people exist here. I’ve been in class discussions where intelligent things far beyond my comprehension have been said. Once I step outside of class, though, no one seems to care.

But maybe that’s what college is supposed to be about. Maybe it’s just a place to have a fun time, let inhibitions go, make some friends and maybe learn a thing or two. College students are an insecure bunch, after all, and being just barely an adult is a disorienting experience. Perhaps everyone is best served by finding a group of people to cling to and “lightening up.”

I believe that is how a majority of Oberlin students think about this place, and in that sense, I don’t believe there is much that separates Oberlin from any other liberal arts institution in the country. It seems more and more likely to me that most people attend Oberlin not to “make a difference” but to reaffirm their own greatness by being at a school with a reputation. With self-doubt looming large due to the rigorous academic system they’ve been put through, and in the absence of a larger perspective or a creative spark in them, people here can be secure knowing that being an “Obie” makes them a truly unique and special person.

—Jack Ryerson
College sophomore