Responses to the Right, other letters

To the Editors:

Jonathan Bruno, in his column last week (“Students and the Presidential Search,” May 4, 2007), fallaciously dismissed legitimate student desires for involvement in the presidential search. Instead of responding to real student concerns, Bruno built straw-men and then tore them apart.

The desire for involvement is pragmatic. We understand that we are not trustees or faculty, but we are significant members of the community. Without the trustees, Oberlin would remain a school. Without students, Oberlin would turn into a think tank. At a time when significantly increasing alumni donations must be a top priority for our president, alienating another generation of Oberlin students by shutting them out makes that fundraising more difficult.

Alienation has been a problem. The Review’s editors identified the “cycle of lies, mistrust and secrecy” (“The Search for College Honesty,” April 27, 2007) as a significant cause. It’s a problem I’ve experienced personally. Last year I was concerned about the Fearless marketing campaign so I asked questions at the March 2006 Class Trustee Forum. Several trustees aggressively assured me that Fearless would not be a motto. But it is. This is one example of poorly-thought out and non-consultative administrative actions that create a pervasive student attitude of mistrust and apathy. That lingering attitude conceals the wonderful work of good people and the great things that occur at Oberlin. This hurts the college on a daily basis. The lack of respect for students causes the student discourse that Bruno’s sensitive ears find so overwhelming. The limited involvement of students in this search hinders our next president’s ability to overcome these problems.

The desire for student, as well as faculty, staff and community involvement, comes from the recognition that open, inclusive, consultative decision-making leads to better outcomes. Bruno seems to confuse the way things can be done with the way things could be done. The trustees can just hire a new president without consulting anyone. Yet by significantly involving all constituencies, the trustees can help that new president gain credibility and respect from the people who he will have to work with and lead.

As a progressive institution, Oberlin has always been dedicated to the way things could be done. Even the Presidential Search Committee realized the importance of student involvement in Oberlin’s governance. In the search profile published by the committee, they recognize, “A new understanding and more widespread agreement about open and effective processes of shared governance and the roles of each constituent group will support the realization of Oberlin’s long-term goals.” Additionally, the Student Bill of Rights asserts, “Students, as well as faculty, staff and all other officers of the College, must play a major role in campus governance if the College is to thrive as a community of scholars.”

The idea that students are customers is absurd. Bruno, a “customer” buys tea cozies, airplane tickets and groceries. We, however, spend four or more years of our lives here, at a cost of over $40,000 a year. And as alumni, we’re asked to give more money and provide opportunities and internships for future students. We are investors in a community — not customers.

Luckily, the search committee seems to have identified a strong finalist to serve as our next President. Mr. Krislov is a dedicated advocate for social justice issues like equality and opportunity. As the Vice President and General Counsel at the University of Michigan, he continued to teach because he valued interaction with students. And hopefully, we will connect with the Oberlin ethos.

–Colin Koffel
College junior

To the Editors:

Oberlin’s Strategic Plan calls for increasing communication, consultation and collaboration among various stakeholders, including students. Jonathan Bruno does a disservice to the student body in his recent letter to the editor [sic: column] calling for Oberlin to view the inclusion of students in decision-making as unnecessary.

Students should be integrally involved in the decision making process.

Trustees, staff, even the president, are at Oberlin College because of Oberlin students and for Oberlin students. There would be no school without students to attend. As a former Student Senator, Mr. Bruno should know this.

Should students, because of their briefer tenure at Oberlin, have less of a vote in national and local elections? If someone works for a year in Ohio, then leaves for a job in New York, should they not be allowed to vote while in Ohio? Nine months of the year, Oberlin has over 2500 students. Though individuals come and go, this number does not drastically fluctuate. I would argue that if someone is a community member, they have a stake in the decisions that affect them. It is one thing to be uninvolved in campus politics; it is entirely another to promote apathy and disengagement. Mr. Bruno exhibits signs of a self-hatred complex seen in various extremists, from Michelle Malkin to Students for a Free Palestine. It is shameful when members of groups that have been historically disenfranchised and denied equal rights and representation actively work to advocate against their community.

What is the harm that comes from student involvement? I would say there are only benefits — better process, better solutions and better implementation.

–Ezra Temko, OC ’06

To the Editors:

Congratulations to Review editors who give space for informative articles about campus architecture! As an alumna, class of 1938, whose family is descended from Henry Churchill and Julia Coates King, both 1879 grads, I am pleased students are reminded of why money was raised to build the King classroom building.

Long before numerous special-tasked administrators were added to the roster of Oberlin College officers, President King traveled personally to New York to thank Andrew Carnegie for funding a new library — still in use, though recycled a century later to other purposes. Carnegie was so sympathetic with his visitor’s educational philosophy and the College’s need, he continued with generous gifts. In particular, The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching offered funds for College faculty retirement, and President King was invited to serve on their first Board of Trustees. He continued with that august body throughout his professional career.

Again, when the College Chapel burned, King saw the urgency of replacing it with a building of distinction. Architect Cass Gilbert came at the president’s bidding not only to design a structure suitable for assembling students and faculty, but to consider the broad College landscape, a far-sighted decision, as environmental considerations have loomed ever larger. To fund this and new costs, President King aligned himself with Cleveland men of means to see the Allen Memorial Art Museum and the Cox Administration Building rise up from Cass Gilbert’s designs. Wilder’s cost in 1911 was covered by a Boston manufacturer who admired Oberlin. I would suggest that Laurel Fuson concede that Henry Churchill King was indeed one of our famous presidents who enlarged Oberlin’s reputation as an independent college of academic excellence.

Rather than shifting the focus “toward music, the fine arts, morals and religion,” I would suggest that he had inherited such a configuration from his predecessors, served up with a degree of fire and brimstone that he chose to move away from. In the new century he led the College in a commitment to undergraduate education rather than giving in to pressures making Oberlin into a university. He chose to center on first-rate teaching of the old subjects and more, keeping abreast of scientific discovery, seeking scholars who would be outstanding teachers of history, languages, and literature as well as Bible and philosophy.

It is an astute observation of Ms. Fuson that Henry Churchill King is known for his diplomatic service “outside Oberlin,” thereby suggesting little attention is paid publicly on campus to the State Department paper he pulled together in August 1919 aboard an American destroyer sailing in the Mediterranean. In the 1980s I began reading with some astonishment about the King-Crane Commission and asked the late Professor Geoffrey Blodgett why it appeared to be ignored on campus. With a wry smile he replied, “Oh, it’s a hot potato, that’s why.” So I, in the Oberlin tradition, have chosen to find out why.

Oberlin is fortunate in having the nationally recognized Roland M. Baumann and his predecessor William E. Bigglestone as archivists. These men with their dedicated staffs have not only maintained the dry-as-dust statistics and annual reports for the College, but as scholars themselves have preserved pertinent documents necessary for an understanding of the wider world beyond Oberlin. The King papers reveal that from the time of his own graduate studies in Berlin and his around-the-world observations 1909-1910, in China and Japan especially, President King believed Oberlin should be internationally-minded. The Shansi educational exchanges are testimony to that century-old commitment, as are new courses offered.

My own research in the archives and beyond suggested that indifference on campus to the failed King-Crane mission was not matched in the Middle East. William E. Stevenson, Oberlin’s eighth president elected in 1946, also found this to be so: the King-Crane Report was a working document 50 years ago in Jerusalem and Beirut at least. Since military assaults in Afghanistan and Desert Storm in Iraq, some of the Report’s old words (often out of context) are being pulled up for reference, even in the United States.

Whether in bowdlerized versions or in its official 1947 publication as U.S. Department of State Foreign Relations of the United States, The Paris Peace Conference Vol.XII 751-863, the 1919 King-Crane Report spells out stark truths the Great Powers chose to sweep under the rug immediately on its receipt. Henry Churchill King had preached long and hard, “respect for the other,” which he and President Woodrow Wilson both believed could be embodied in a League of Nations. Politics destroyed that early attempt to create a structure for resolving conflict worldwide. Politics threatens the successor United Nations, while religion makes headlines, with fear, fear, fear of “the other” permeating the popular media.

It is fondly wished that the Oberlin College community, activist from its beginnings, will, with sound geographical and historical scholarship, contribute graduates for diplomatic solutions to conflict. May the King Building shelter for years to come such intellectual ferment as leads to honorable compromises, wise action, and peace among nations.

–Ernestine E. King, OC ’38

To the Editors:

Commencement marks a very pivotal time for this year’s graduating senior class. In the flurry of post-graduate concerns, one issue is all-too-often overlooked. That is, the decision to walk around — or through — the Shansi Memorial Arch in Tappan Square during the closing ceremonies. It may seem like a trivial concern when a large constituent of the graduating class walks through without a second thought.

But, on that fateful Monday morning, this decision should be at the foreground of graduating seniors’ minds, as it entails a serious political statement. There are many opinions and rumors surrounding the Arch, and we hope to clear up any misconceptions or confusion regarding the history of this controversial monument.

The Shansi Memorial Arch was dedicated on May 14, 1902, as a gift from the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions to Oberlin College. Its purpose was — and continues to be — to commemorate those white Christian missionaries from the United States who died during the Boxer Rebellion uprising. The American Board voted to place the monument on the Oberlin College campus, as 14 of the 18 killed were affiliated with Oberlin.

We can’t present all potential meanings of the Arch, but here are some meanings to help you make your decision: Walking around the arch represents solidarity with and commitment to legitimizing the struggles of marginalized communities worldwide. Due to the fact that the Memorial Arch commemorates the deaths of white Christian missionaries, it serves as a daily statement that privileges white lives. Walking around the Arch at graduation is an annual affirmation that the Chinese lives lost in the Rebellion are not forgotten. This issue is not an isolated incident, but rather exists within a larger system of Western imperialism silencing the voices and histories of People of Color. By choosing to walk around the Arch at your commencement exercises, you are recognizing and refusing to perpetuate this silence. Taking such a stance is a powerful statement.

However, walking through the Arch is also making a statement, albeit a very different one. For many years, students have understood it to be one of sheer apathy, yet walking through the arch should represent a conscious, political statement.

Until recently, the Arch never made any mention of the death of Chinese citizens who were not only the impetus and organizers of the uprising, but also by far the biggest victims. The Class of 1994 dedicated a plaque that has been installed on the Arch. The plaque is, according to its inscription, “in memory of the Chinese Citizens killed” during the Boxer uprising. While this installment does address that Chinese died, it is important to remember that the plaque came about only after years of education that the Asian American Alliance and other active students promulgated.

In the 1970s, students decided to take an alternative path by walking around the Arch. From the onset, the Asian American Alliance (AAA) was a prominent voice in educating students about the significance of the Arch. AAA printed a pamphlet entitled, “Haven’t decided to walk around the Arch, yet?” which explained that walking around the Arch “does not deny or dismiss the history, or condone the killing, of Oberlin’s missionaries and others with ‘good intentions.’”

In other words, walking around the arch is making a statement that does not at all demonize the missionaries. Walking around the monument “reminds others of the alternative histories that have been submerged under, and conveniently forgotten by, Western expansionism and imperialism,” and honors “those struggles that are obscured or denied by the dominant narratives of history.”

The tradition to walk around the Arch during Commencement has historically been important for campus solidarity and thus should be continued. It also emblemizes that the struggle for immigrant and minority recognition doesn’t end with a gift from the senior class of 1994. This unified act raises awareness of racialization and the continuing fight for equality and recognition for marginalized communities.

It is necessary for this education to continue. Before listening to rumors or jumping to conclusions, we encourage you to take into consideration the historical truths and implications of the Shansi Memorial Arch. When you graduate, you are making a statement, whether walking through or around the Arch.

The Asian American Alliance
–Alexander Kondo
–Kimberley Meinert
College seniors
–Shibo Xu
–Minh-Tam Nguyen
College juniors
–Juli Martin
–Cheska Tolentino
–Peter Kim
–Daniel Tam-Claiborne
–Anjali Chaudhry
College sophomores
–Lam La
–Tuyet Ngo
–Sara Boxell
–Maneka Puligandla
–Sarah Kim
–Margaret Kent
College first-years

To the Editors,

While walking around campus, maybe you have seen posters that describe different fears, evoking the “Fearless” campaign that Oberlin College has recently adopted. These posters are part of a project our class has undertaken to address issues that concern us. We chose posters as a medium after studying the Chicano/a poster movement of the last 40 years. Inspired by their use of art to make their voices visible, we chose to combine art and activism to express our concerns about the future of Oberlin.

While we hope the text and images of the posters are provocative, we do not want our concerns to be lost in the iconography of the “Fearless” campaign. We have chosen this iconography not because it is our most important grievance, but rather because it is symptomatic of greater trends.

We would like to situate this project within a larger context of the continual silencing of student voices on this campus. We are outraged about what is happening at Oberlin College. We are seeing increased homogeneity in the incoming classes. There is no longer a need-blind admission policy. Oberlin no longer has enough first-generation and low-income students to qualify for the McNair fellowship program. Next year tuition and fees will approach $49,000, almost $3,000 more than the 2005 U.S. Census-estimated median U.S. family income of $46,242.

At the same time, lack of institutional support for faculty, students and communities of color is perpetuated through the lack of tenured faculty of color and inadequate funding for departments, programs, and student organizations, to name only a few examples. These issues are part of a larger ongoing conversation that needs to be heard in order for deeper institutional change to occur.

The diminished accessibility of Oberlin College also plays out in the college’s relationship with the larger Oberlin community. Racial and class profiling on- and off-campus makes many community members feel unwelcome and denies them full access to a large part of the town they live in. This divide limits the experiences of townspeople and students.

These social justice issues cannot be separated from the environment in which we live, one that we impact with our decisions and policies. Environmental problems exist as functions of social inequities; in order to address either fully, Oberlin must address both together. According to the Sustainable Endowments Institute’s College Report Card, designed to “grade 100 leading colleges by looking at campus greening practices and endowment policies,” Oberlin College’s overall effort is a C+ due exclusively to the low scores we received in regards to Endowment Transparency, Investment Priorities and Shareholder Engagement. Through our investments we can reinforce the economic and political structures that continue to actively dismantle the integrity of individuals, communities, nations and the ecological systems upon which all depend. They can also become a powerful tool for positive change in the world and to this we strongly support the idea of socially responsible investing. We also fully support the possibilities of the newly created Office of Sustainability, and hope that their approach is shaped by a commitment to environmental justice manifested in local, regional, national and international alliances.

While this list of issues is not exhaustive of the concerns raised by Oberlin students, the lack of response by the administration to these concerns demonstrates its disregard for student opinions. Due to this lack of response, we chose art as our means of communication and activism. Art can be both accessible and evocative in its ability to impact us. The visual and public nature of our project brings out our voices and invites the community to add their own. The event, held on Thursday, May 10, was our attempt to create a visual representation and documentation of the many voices of Oberlin.

It is our hope that our cultural activism can begin to facilitate ways that students can have a voice in shaping Oberlin’s (indeed, our own) future. We hope that in the future, students’ voices will be valued in decision-making processes. We hope to have given attention to some pressing issues, and perhaps have created a space for dialogue. We are not fearless, but we are willing to work to change the things we fear.

Latin@ Cultural Activism
Comparative American Studies 202

To the Editors:

Results have been tabulated from the election for the Class of 2007 Alumni Class Officers. The following students have been elected:

Keerat Singha, President
Melissa Hines, Vice President

For your information, the alumni class president is a member of the Alumni Council and returns to campus each fall for its weekend-long meeting. Each year, after the Alumni Council meeting, the class president writes a letter to members of the class reporting on Oberlin and on alumni activities and programs.

The class officers serve a five-year term until the class celebrates its first reunion in May 2011. They are responsible for planning the cluster reunion activities with officers of the other two classes (2005 and 2006) and the Alumni Office staff. If for any reason the president is unable to carry out her responsibilities, the vice president assumes that office.

–M. Danielle Young
Assistant Director of Events
OC Alumni Association