Students are not only ones who show apathy in their inactions

Hopefully by now most readers are aware of the distress following the Tribe 8 concert and the aura of possible censorship manifested by comments from President Dye. As Tribe 8 has been covered extensively, I do not wish to speak to this. I am a Student Senator, member of the Student Life Committee, Individual Majors Committee, College Faculty Committee, and General Faculty Committee. I was in the GF meeting on Tuesday for the discussion of Tribe 8 and censorship. What amazed me most was not the concerns voiced on either side of this issue, but the lack of interest by faculty.

I walked into the monthly meeting where, as usual, faculty left the first three and a half rows untouched. After 70 minutes, we arrived at the agenda item which almost one hundred gagged students lined along the hallway outside the meeting silently pleaded for us to discuss. And I watched faculty members begin to leave the room.

A discussion commenced, monopolized by a handful of professors, Dean Cole-Newkirk, and President Dye. I commend those professors who voiced any opinion at all, both those immensely bothered by the idea of censorship, and those who felt the need for dialogue concerning what is "appropriate" here at Oberlin. At least they spoke. At least they bothered to show up. At least they were interested.

Meanwhile, others escaped from the room. My advisor helped lead the way, just as discussion began. Professors and administrators regularly quite interested in my positions on committees and in pushing their agendas, were conspicuously absent from the room altogether.

President Dye's prepared speech and light tone did not help convince me that students' concerns are of any interest. One student senator commented that whether misconstrued or not, students perceived quotes by President Dye, Dean Cole-Newkirk, and Joe DiChristina as intent that would possibly lead to censorship on campus.

This student went on to suggest that President Dye clarify her actual intentions, whatever they may be, to the entire student body, not simply the 12 Student Senators, 2 Review Reporters, and 1 photographer in the room. Someone suggested that we senators simply go out and inform our fellow students of our President's actual intent. I wanted to scream- It is not our responsibility to save face for you by explaining what you did or did not mean! (Especially when I'm not sure I'm convinced of what her actual intentions are.) A letter to the Review was suggested by another student senator as a means for clarification, which President Dye agreed to write.

Now I hear that she will be out of town until Friday, and wishes to write a letter for next week's Review, which I guess she didn't realize falls on Thanksgiving break and alas, won't be published. (This is starting to remind me of the beginning of the semester when it took us three weeks to successfully get President Dye at a Student Senate meeting, at the right time.

By the way, one confusion surrounding getting her to a Senate meeting occurred when we planned for her to show at 7pm on a Sunday night, which is when our meetings always start, and she had scheduled to arrive at 10pm, because that's when she thought she was supposed to be there. Didn't she decline invitation to a Tribe 8 discussion because she never goes to meetings at 10pm on Sunday nights?)

Tuesday afternoon, President Dye quickly dismissed the possibility of any trickle down effects from her comments quoted in the Review. Wishful thinking. What actually occurred was the following: many faculty members didn't even show up to find out why their students were demonstrating in front of a GF meeting. A significant portion of those actually present at the meeting left before or during the discussion of this issue. The issue was tabled almost unanimously, (save several students' and one or two faculty "nays"). And can someone tell me if even one member of the faculty who is not tenured said anything? I can't decide if the trickle down effect on the part of our faculty was fear to express concern at all, actual apathy, or both.

Meanwhile, the Student Life Committee isn't the only committee that can't get faculty to show up. There were supposed cries of complaints when SLC recently created temporary co-chairs, one of which is held by a student. Well, the fact is, SLC hasn't done anything yet this semester, because we keep waiting on the arrival of more than two or three faculty members at any meeting. More students than faculty have been present at every SLC meeting so far this semester. We could barely keep quorum in the room last week.

I no longer question student apathy on this campus, because we're learning it from our profs and administrators. Maybe this is the trickle down effect of not taking student's concerns seriously enough. Tribe 8, and what happened in its aftermath, is easily one of the biggest issues to hit this campus this semester. How difficult is it to show enough interest to come to a GF meeting and become informed of an issue of great concern to many students? I didn't realize that 100 students (representing many others) had to demonstrate in order to get 10 professors to so much as acknowledge a situation.

All of this comes from an institution which boasts that one person can change the world. Well, if we're learning by example, don't expect any of us to leave this place and attempt to challenge anything. Because currently, our public example to student concerns and efforts is little more than apathy.