ResLife's Motives Questioned

To the Editors:

Some students, on the outside looking in, may get the impression that the Oberlin College administration is nobly taking on the cause of LGBT students by altering the Domestic Partnership process so as to discourage abuse by students merely exploiting the College's policy of granting Domestic Partnerships so that they may receive off-board status. But alas, those of us who have attended recent LGBTU meetings and participated in discussions surrounding the issue see the administration's sudden interest in protecting us queers as being motivated by a desire that is somewhat less honorable. As always, the administration is out to protect its piggy-bank.

This fixation on the College's bottom-line is not new nor is it surprising given the high ambitions of the current Capital Campaign. What is extremely disturbing about this new administrative tactic to save a buck is that it follows a pattern of utilizing marginalized student groups on campus as a shield for administrative activity. This behavior was noted in Josh Rosen's letter to the Review last week and it is also evident in the fact that the needs and worries of LGBT students are currently being used to defend a policy change that does not appear to be supported by most of the LGBT students.

When Dean of Students Peter Goldsmith attended last week's LGBTU meeting, I confronted him with the following question: Why is the administration changing a popular policy and creating more red-tape for the LGBT community if the real problem is not Domestic Partnership, but the inadequacy of Campus Dining Services? He responded by saying that I had asked a good question. Yet he did not follow that observation with a good answer. Goldsmith and his colleagues in Student Life have also failed to acknowledge the hypocrisy that is inherent in the fact that they claim to act on behalf of the queer community while stabbing us in the back with increased bureaucratic obstacles to having our partnerships recognized by the College.

If Peter Goldsmith and others in Student Life are sincerely interested in supporting causes that are advocated by the LGBT community, they should cease their attacks on the popular Domestic Partnership process and instead turn their attention to the creation of policies that LGBT students actually support, such as the manifestation of co-ed dormitories. If their only motivation lies in saving a buck, then they should refrain from hiding their self-indulgent greed behind the auspices of marginalized student communities.

--Thomas Tredway, College Sophomore

Review Made Wrong Choice

To the Editor:

I find the Review's endorsement of Nader to be in poor taste. No other on-campus publications felt the need to endorse one candidate or another, but instead presented the opinions of individuals on the candidates.

However, more than this I am disturbed by the line, "But public support for a woman's right to decide what to do with her own body is too great for the Senate to take the risk of confirming justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade."

Perhaps the Review staff has been lax in its reading of history, but in 1992 Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania v. Robert P. Casey reached the Supreme Court. In Casey, a case fought over state regulations on abortion, four justices went on record as saying that Roe has been "wrong decided, and that it can and should be overruled." By a majority vote of five-four the Roe v. Wade decision was upheld, but this is too slim a margin to declare that the risk of Roe being overturned is so minimal.

I know not the gender of the writer of this article. I can only assume that, like the majority of Nader's followers, the author is white, male and privileged. If it is so, then he will not have to worry about the ending of affirmitive action under Bush. He doesn't need to care about the money that George W. Bush will not be spending on the poor, the homeless and those without health insurance. And he doesn't have to worry that some day he will be forced into a back alley with a coat hanger and a prayer to end an unintended pregnancy. Let us hope the right to a safe, legal abortion is upheld, so that his daughters will not have to either.

I do not want to think the author is a woman, for if she is, I have only one comment. Shame on you. You are risking the reproductive health of other women, for women will still have abortions, even if it is made illegal. The only difference will be that more women will die, bleeding from tools in the hands of unskilled abortionists.

Perhaps the Senate will prove your foolish assumptions correct and will not aprove anti-choice justices. (Although with a Republican majority this seems unlikely.) But are you willing to bet your body on it?

--Beth Hommel, College First-Year

Elections Are Not Everything

To the Editor:

I write in the hush before the votes are tallied, before the frenzies of celebration, of condemnation. Our next presidential administration is guaranteed to betray our beliefs, to frustrate our hopes, to mock our values. Fortunately, elections are not everything; now is the time to begin resisting, to begin anew the work of realizing a better society. What we as individuals, neighbors, citizens, activists, communities, organizations and movements do in the next four years has the potential, as it always has, to make a dozen times more difference than the platform of any candidate.

In this work we will be served by careful reflection on the dialogues we've had in the past months. To that end, I offer the following observations.

People who assess political situations differently than you are not necessarily stupid, mean, arrogant, hypocritical, sellouts or selfish. They may have values similar to yours, perhaps very similar (perhaps not). It is possible for people with the same objectives to sometimes disagree about strategic political advantages. This election, after all, presented a genuine dilemma, of a sort we are bound to run into again.

Furthermore, it is not only disingenuous and unkind, but fruitless to insult and condemn each other as we have all been so thoughtlessly doing. Quite simply, it turns people off and tends to damage whatever cause you are arguing for.

Let me be unequivocal: these mistakes have been made by many of us, whether we advocated voting for Ralph Nader or for Al Gore.

To cite but one example of the lamentable kinds of discourse that have abounded lately: some denounce those who disagree with them as thoughtless people of privilege, and suggest that they would see their error if only they knew how it felt to be poor, female, queer, Black, Chicana, etc. By equating social position with ideology, this formulation gives everyone too little agency. Marginalized people of all kinds differ tremendously in their values and ideologies; they wouldn't all agree with you. Marxists, right-wing libertarians and centrist Democrats have all used such arguments; they can't all be right! By the same token, people from more or less privileged backgrounds may (and in the cases I am referring to, clearly do) care deeply about the interests of marginalized people - in much the same way that a less privileged person might. In any case, name calling and incivility take the debate nowhere.

I hope that in the time to come we will not begrudge one another the arguments we made or the votes we cast. I hope that we will not make the same all-too-easy mistakes that prevent useful discourse. I hope that the activity around this election, and after it, will strengthen progressive and dissident politics, rather than fragment and weaken them. I hope that we will look for our common ground, civilly discuss our differences, and work in every way which is effective and gratifying to build a just and vibrant society.

Yours in love and anger.

--Nathan Tobin, College Sophomore

Nader Supporter Decries Vandalism of Posters

To the Editor:

As an active member of the Oberlin Nader for President campaign, I want to address two issues that have created controversy on campus by putting them in the political contexts of the Nader and Gore campaigns. The first is the poster headed "The Real Al Gore: Mass Murderer." The "Real Al Gore" poster series included five different posters. We made them late Saturday night in response to the anti-Nader propaganda plastered all over campus. One poster was on the Supreme Court, one on abortion, one on LGBT rights, one on racism, and one on Gore's foreign policy.

The text of the foreign policy poster explained, under the mass murderer headline, the reasons for that headline: "Over one million Iraqis are dead due to the Clinton/Gore sanctions on Iraq. Clinton/Gore committed troops abroad over 46 times, more than Bush, Reagan, Carter and Ford combined. Clinton/Gore just delivered $1.3 billion to the Columbian dictatorship to protect investments such as Occidental Petroleum. Gore supports our nuclear arsenal, the new Star Wars program and expanding our military. Gore recently pressured African governments not to produce cheap generic AIDS drugs because it infringed on US pharmeceutical companies' patents. Now tens of millions are dying without access to affordable care." All of those statements are factual. For those of you who find those facts to be offensive, I agree with you. That's why I voted for Nader, not Gore.

I spent Sunday evening, as did many Nader campaigners, carefully placing Nader signs next to every sign attacking our campaign. I was angry and upset on Monday to find that practically EVERY pro-Nader sign I had put up had been ripped down. This is the second issue I want to air. We made a campaign decision not to reciprocate, but to leave the Gore signs in place, and to keep on with our postering. I have been assured by members of the Gore campaign that they did not officially sanction the vandalism. I believe them. In my opinion, however, the destruction of Nader signs does expose the real political motivations of many Gore supporters. The goal of the Nader campaign wasn't to get 5 percent of the vote. It was to create a discussion of the need for independent politics and to help build a movement against the two-party system. Integral to that goal was postering, as well as the canvassing we did in town, as well as the debates that the Nader campaign single-handedly publicized and organized. The goal of the Gore campaign? To win, by any means necessary. In this case, that involved acts of vigilante censorship. Individual Gore supporters decided that they didn't want certain information about Gore and Nader to reach the eyes of the Oberlin community. I condemn those decisions: I know that the best way to convince people of my politics is to show them all the information, thus enabling them to make educated decisions. That's why I put up Nader posters next to Gore posters, instead of ripping down Gore posters and replacing them with Nader posters.

Ripping down the Nader posters was an attack on the Nader campaign. But while it saddened and infuriated us, the real victims of Gore's Goons were the Oberlin students, faculty and staff who were prevented from making informed decisions about their votes. Those Gore supporters who tore down our posters had so little faith in their candidate that they were afraid to allow negative facts about him to be seen by the Oberlin community. Our signs were not slanderous: everything we said on them can be substantiated. For a works-cited list, email me.

--Eve Goodman, College Sophomore

Professor Points Out Peek's Problems

To the Editor:

First and foremost, Professor Peek needs a lesson in how to construct a more nuanced account of history. With all due respect to his credentials, Mr. Peek's blustery divide between caring Democrats and cruel Republicans is simply rhetoric couched in factual errors and the circular logic that because Blacks have supported the Democrats, the Democrats have in turn supported their advancement. Indeed the history of the present day is much more interesting because it does not add up so evenly.

The essential misstep in Mr. Peek's footing comes when he offers civil right era politicians are progenitors of today's self proclaimed "New Democrat." The differences between these two incarnations of the Democratic name could not be starker - and for many of the very reasons Mr. Peek offers in supporting today's Dems.

Peek writes of the Democratic push for "higher minimum wages," yet we live in an era where eight years of Democratic rule, in an ostensibly booming economy, have seen real wages continue to fall when adjusted for inflation following the trend of the past two decades. Blacks have endured a lopsided portion of this effect.

And while the welfare system of the United States was begun by a Democrat, it was also dismantled by one in 1996. With Al Gore pushing Clinton to sign this election year "reform," this Democratic president effectively subjugated the already impoverished - disproportionately black - to an even deeper well. Those people became the great cuts in the welfare rolls and were blessed with the "good jobs" of below minimum wage workfare that is often touted as an accomplishment by campaigning Democrats today.

As with so much politicking in this New Democrat era, manipulation plays the guardian to the unflagging support of Democrats by minority groups like the Blacks. With so much talk of conservative Supreme Court justices, we neglect to mention that both Scalia and Thomas were approved with Democratic support in the Senate. Al Gore even voted for Scalia. We ponder the candidates' stands on hate crime legislation as a possible litmus test on racism, and give no pause to the expansion of our prison system. While stumping Dems have sought to capitalize on "falling" minority unemployment rates, it is failed to be mentioned that the cause for this false celebration is almost uniquely the incarceration

of that same population.

The Democrats' unvoiced acknowledgement that Black voters will more or less uniformly pull their levers has created a lack of necessity to perform in the area of policy. Lip service and misinformation have polluted this campaign in the same way that soft money has eroded the boundary between political parties. It is unfortunate to watch as Black voters respond to charade of good intentions Democrats proselytize, some even venturing the misplaced courage to attack those candidates that earnestly have their interests in mind. The awkward jab Peek makes at Ralph Nader is the most unfortunate facet of his letter.

For a man who supports an end to the death penalty, the granting of universal health care, and end to the war on drugs, and real attention to the growing situation of poverty, Peek certainly offers sharp criticism. Meanwhile, he provides only positions that Democrats should support based on the historical record, but ironically seems unable to flush out the great inconsistencies this new crop of Democrats presents. Wouldn't it great if the Dems championed progressive causes such as those listed by Peek in more than language? Unfortunately these New Democrats have abandoned their strong suits in favor of centrist do nothing ideology and created the need for a candidacy like the honorable Mr. Nader's.

--George Balgobin, Swarthmore College

Anti-Democratic Acts of "Gore's Goons" Infuriate

To the Editor:

Two weeks before election day Al Gore's campaign manager, Bill Daley, announced a radical tactical shift in their campaign. From a conspiracy of silence against Ralph Nader they shifted gears into an all-out $30+ million assault on the Nader campaign. As soon as the Democrats snapped their fingers, the corporate media led by the pro-Gore New York Times, began running front-pages stories and editorials against Nader, distorting his message and bashing his character.

In areas where the "Nader factor" was strong, the Democrats moved the bulk of their resources away from Bush attacks and towards Nader. The Gore campaign mobilized their liberal allies in the unions, environmental, civil rights and women's groups to carry out the dirty work against local Nader campaigns.

Democrats spent millions on anti-Nader ads and high-profile tours of liberal celebrities like Gloria Stienham and Melissa Ethridge to cut across Nader's support. Alongside the public face of the anti-Nader campaign, however, much seedier, malicious and anti-democratic methods where used to beat back the Nader threat.

On cue, at Nader events across the country, Gore organizers (notoriously known as "Gore's Goons") began a campaign of vandalism and lies. At events in San Francisco, cars with a Nader sticker had their tires slashed. In several cities in Ohio Nader yard signs where systematically stolen in late night crusades. The Boston Nader headquarters had rocks thrown through their windows. In Washington, D.C. and several other cities, posters for Nader super-rallies and other events were systematically torn down.

Within a day of the Daley announcement, pro-Nader e-mail lists across the country became flooded with an organized campaign of character assassination and distortion. Messages slamming Nader's character where sent out, often by Gore campaigners posing as fence-sitting Nader supporters.

Some of these attacks were "organic," and not centrally organized by the Gore campaign. However, evidence shows that much was organized and coordinated. Moreover, the generally malicious and non-political tone set by the organized anti-Nader campaign certainly prompted "disorganized" Gore vigilantes onward.

In Oberlin the anti-Nader campaign followed the pattern. While a few isolated incidents of vandalism occurred before the Daley announcement, it was nothing like the enthusiastic and systematic vandalism and campaign of distortion which occurred after.

With an impressive quickness and thoroughness, Gore supporters ripped down the Nader campaign's posters. Last weekend, for instance, Nader supporters plastered the campus with posters comparing Gore's record and positions to Nader's. We made over four rounds of postering across the campus, each time followed by Gore supporters making rounds to tear our posters down. On Monday morning we put up 70 silk screens, which supporters had spent days designing and creating. By afternoon most of them were torn down, several left shredded on the floor below! I understand these actions were not centrally organized by the Gore campaign, but there was no organized attempt made to avoid vandalism (as was done in the Nader campaign).

I write this letter because I fear a very nasty precedent has been set. As a community we must not tolerate such anti-democratic and malicious behavior. When political conflict emerges, we must deal with it politically. Disagreements are not resolved by keeping your opponent's views from being heard, by character assassinations or fear mongering. They must be dealt with politically, by answering arguments, by dealing with the issues involved. These tactics, which were employed nationally against Nader campaigners, expose most clearly the lack of political confidence the liberal hangers-on to the Democratic Party have. Unable to answer the political critique of Nader's campaign, Gore supporters are compelled to answer our arguements with distortions, vandalism and fear-mongering.

--Ty Moore, College Senior

Critic Disappointed by Band

To the Editor:

I was seduced by rock Śn' roll.

Last week I wrote a highly laudatory review of At the Drive-In's new album, Relationship of Command. I did so after listening to it for only two or three days, and I realize now that my review was shaped by media coverage labeling the band "best live band ever" - the kind of thing we critics are all-too-eager to do, and the kind of thing which implies worth even when none is there. I turned the review in anyway, and that night I saw ATDI play live.

The show starts well enough, but it's very crowded, a point to keep in mind. Then after a few songs guitarist/songwriter Jim leans down into the crowd to scream at somebody for taking pictures. Hey, when you're trying to be a rock star, lord knows you don't want fans taking pictures. Only poseurs like the Backstreet Boys allow that! This is a solemn event.

Then lead singer Cedric makes fun of us for going to college (?) and says, "you're the kind of people who beat me up in high school."

Right. Oberlin students.

This all serves as a timely reminder of the myth that you can't be intelligent to play rock Śn' roll - just wise, man, wise. Oh yeah, and if you're not skinny, you're not cool. Sorry for liking Cheez-Its, you fucker.

Then comes the moshing incident. Yes, there was moshing, but it started off as dancing, and I was under the impression this was punk - not nod-your-head-appreciatively indie. Whoops!

The band stops cold and Cedric scolds us severely for "pushing people" and then quotes Planet of the Apes. How witty! "I didn't see any girls moshing," he says. What, you mean besides the four girls holding their own right in front of you? Perhaps you were too busy putting on that "best live show ever" by rolling around on the floor of the stage where no one beyond the first two rows could see you.

"Indie rock!" I yell sarcastically.

"Did you just say, ŚGirls suck?'" sneers Cedric. Ah, sweet denial.

Where do you get off? Do you think you're big rock stars now because you're managed by the same guy who manages the Beastie Boys?

It's a problem that everyone likes ATDI - including me, last week, which I am now horribly embarrassed about. I toed the line by mindlessly venerating something putting on the proper pose of authenticity and "passion." ATDI have passion like Silicon Valley venture capitalists have passion. They've forgotten that there's actual people out there when they're playing.

It's decent music, but just because it sounds like the Stooges doesn't mean it is the Stooges ("At the Drive-In are the Stooges," as I wrote last week. What was I thinking?). Just because Cedric is energetic like Iggy Pop doesn't mean he's going to roll in broken glass and throw peanut butter at the audience like Iggy (no sense of humor whatsoever). It's all right, but it's not real, and I feel like a chump for not remembering that.

This is not a backlash. This is a religious missive. Maybe ATDI will become rich and famous. But on the day they get their first platinum record, I will come to them, and I will cut the balls off of Cedric, and I will cut the balls off of Jim. They won't be needing them. To allow this evil to spread its demon seed any further is something I cannot conscience. I will take their balls, and I will roll them in my hand, and I will say: "You have done enough."

--Mike Barthel, College Senior

Drug Survey Input Needed

To the Editor:

The Committee on Alcohol and Other Drugs at Oberlin College is pleased to announce our participation in a national survey sponsored by the Core Institute, part of Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, beginning Nov. 6, 2000. A random sample of students will be selected, with all responses guaranteed confidential. Data gathered will provide a picture of alcohol and drug use by students at Oberlin. In addition, the survey findings will play an important role in the development of programs and delivery of services throughout the campus community, as well as help Oberlin College remain in compliance with mandates for drug and alcohol programs and policies.

We encourage anyone who receives the survey to complete it and return as directed by Dec. 1, 2000. Your input matters, mostly because the survey will provide valuable information about use, consequences, opinions and attitudes regarding alcohol and other drugs by our students. We welcome questions, directed to Lori Morgan Flood, Health Promotion Coordinator or student research assistants Sarah Wyatt and Katherine Hopkins, 775-6577, or wellness.center@oberlin.edu.

-The Committee on Alcohol and Other Drugs

-William Stackman, Chairperson

-Caroline Jackson Smith

-Norman Care

-Tracy Murry

-Lori Morgan Flood

-Neil Gray

-Robert Jones

-Laura Hieronymus

-Nikhil Majumdar

Senate on Hiring

[This letter was originally addressed to Dean of Students Peter Goldsmith and is reprinted at the Student Senate's request]

As per your attendance at the senate meeting in October and our discussion regarding the roles and responsibilities of search committees, we would like to better understand the specifics of the position to establish a clearer understanding of the roles of students on this committee. We also hope that a more specific outline of the extent to which the search committee is involved in the event of a hiring position will provide the committee with adequate information and understanding of their role.

Senate is concerned with working to encourage and ensure the adherence of the committee to a clear process. While Senate understands that extenuating circumstances have exacerbated the process in the past, it is still incumbent upon us as a representative body, to work towards a process which serves the overall needs of the community, and to this end we are hoping to establish a clear understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the committee and the overall administrator. It is our hope that in those rare cases where action must be taken quickly that such decisions be made following communication with the committee.

Finally, we, the Student Senate, are hopeful in establishing better communications with the faculty and administrators this year and in order to foster a better relationship between students, faculty and administrators. We are hopeful that through exchanges such as these, we can begin to work toward that end.

We are looking forward to fostering a positive working relationship and await your response.

-Student Senate

-Aaliyah Bilal

College First-Year

-John Byrne

College Sophomore

-Menna Demessie

College Sophomore

-Ashleigh Goldberg

College Sophomore

-Neil Gray

College Senior

-Erika Hansen

College Senior

-Evan Lovett-Harris

College Sophomore

-Noah Heller

College Junior

-Aneeqa Kayani

College Sophomore

-Aaron Leavy

College Senior

-Joshua Rosen

College Junior

-Danielle Tyler

College Senior

-Auriel Willette

College Junior

-Apryl Wynn

Goldsmith Responds To Senate Letter

[Reprinted With Permission]

Thank you for the letter that was delivered to me Monday afternoon in which you requested additional clarity concerning the search for a new Assistant Dean of Students. I am pleased to have a chance to clarify those things that I spoke about at the meeting I attended last month.

Allow me to say at the start that, as in any work environment, the success of a search committee must be based on a fundamental level of trust. The Search Committee and I need to be clear at the start about what it is we are seeking in candidates and how the process is to proceed. The role of students on this search committee is the same as that of other members of the committee, except that it is the students on the committee who are best able to gauge the response of other students to the candidates. Specifically, I am in need of a committee that can 1) review and evaluate the written applications from candidates, 2) advise me in determining which candidates to invite to campus, 3) help to develop an interview process which ensures the candidates' exposure to all available constituencies on campus, 4) assess and interpret all written and verbal responses to the candidates, 5) recommend to me those candidates whom the committee members find acceptable, with a clear articulation of their strengths and weaknesses. It is my expectation that committee members will be persuasive in communicating to me their views of candidates, and it is my hope that we will come to a consensus about the best possible candidate to serve the interests of the student body and of Oberlin College. In the event that we are not able to arrive at a consensus, I will reserve the right to make an independent decision. I would hope to do so, however, in a way that would enable all committee members to understand and respect my reasoning, even if some would have come to a different conclusion themselves.

What I have described is a process in which the search committee is advisory to me as the person who is charged with making the final appointment. In the end, I am held accountable for the quality of the work of new employees who report to me, and it is I who must supervise and professionally nurture them through their careers at Oberlin. But I would not wish to run a search without the advice and counsel of students, whose participation will be crucial to the success of this search (and others) in Student Life.

I believe that we all want the same things from this process - a candidate with the necessary talent, experience and credentials to perform the job successfully, and with the personal qualities that will make her or him accessible and welcoming to students. I am grateful for your interest in fostering better communication between Senate, faculty and administrators, and I pledge to do my part in making this so.

--Peter Goldsmith, Dean of Students

Many Perspectives of Middle-East Violence Exist

To the Editor:

Recently on campus there has been a lot of talk about the situation in the Middle East. I am a student who has had first-hand experience with the conflict. I have been to the territories and have met with Israeli officials and Palestinians. The common view of Israel on campus and in the media portrays Israel as a war machine which slaughters innocent civilians. This is simply not true.

The situation is not black and white. When the media reports on the conflict the headlines read "Two Palestinians Killed" or something to that effect, they show wounded Palestinians but there is no mention of Palestinian aggression. It is important to think about how pictures are portrayed. There has been a case of false reporting by the New York Times. The picture showed a Jewish American student and an Israeli police officer wielding a club by him. The officer was actually trying to protect the student who had been attacked, yet the caption read "Palestinian injured on top of the Temple Mount."

Some students tend to think to think that the Israeli army is firing live ammunition at unarmed crowds. The truth is that in the majority of these instances there has been gunfire exchanged on both sides. Israeli soldiers are only authorized to shoot live ammo when it is fired upon them. In instances such as the death of a twelve-year-old boy in Gaza last month, the civilians were struck by cross fire between Palestinian and Israeli troops. The boy was actually positioned near the Palestinians. Why then does none of the responsibility for the death fall on the Palestinian gunmen?

In addition, anyone who thinks that all the Palestinians have at their disposal are stones is mistaken. Palestinian gunmen have been firing consistently at Giloh, a Jewish suburb in Jerusalem, from Arab villages below. Palestinian police officers who are equipped with assault rifles have not been following orders to keep the peace. In some cases they have been firing on Israeli troops. I have also seen photographs of Palestinians with heavy artillery such as anti-tank missiles. There is also proof from an Italian news crew that police officers took part in the lynching of two Israeli reservists.

Many people including myself have been wondering why the military doesn't pull out and therefore relieve the tension. The fact is that they are stationed in strategic points to protect Jewish settlements. While I believe that those settlements should be removed, there must be a military presence there until they are pulled out. This is necessary because these settlements would be attacked if the military would pull out. Two years ago a rabbi was stabbed to death in his home in a Jewish settlement in Hebron. In addition, Joseph's Tomb, a Jewish holy sight, was desecrated shortly after the soldiers abandoned it.

The view of the Israel towards the territories is often misunderstood. Many Israeli citizens living in Israel proper and soldiers stationed in the territories would like nothing more than to give them back. To quote my friend Ilan, age 21, who has been stationed in Rammalah for three weeks, "I feel like a baby sitter with a gun." This is in reference to the soldiers that are guarding the settlements.

The only people who have anything to gain from this are Islamic fundamentalists who would like nothing more than to destroy the peace process and Israel. It is difficult to know how much of this view reflects the opinions of the general population, but for the sake of the Middle East, I hope it is the minority.

--Amir Osterweil, College Sophomore

Tossing a Coin to Make a Vote

To the Editor:

As a former Perot supporter, I feel qualified in calling myself an independent. I find myself drawn toward arguments from various parts of the political spectrum. Gore has his experience and promises for the masses, Bush has his charisma and promises of smaller, less intrusive government. Buchanan promises to crack down on illegal immigration and to protect U.S. businesses from unfair overseas competition. Nader focuses on protecting and preserving the environment for future generations.

They all sound good, don't they? However, they also all have a downside. Gore's promises, if kept, will mean a more socialist government, and higher taxes in the long run. Bush's ideas might lead to lower taxes, but benefits would also have to be decreased, eventually. Buchanan's ideas might lead to retaliatory tariffs, and could even cause an economic recession. Meanwhile, Nader's environmental arguments would have to come at the expense of jobs.

Even at this late point in the election, I haven't made up my mind who I'll be voting for. As an entrepreneur, I find myself favoring Bush. However, as an Environmental Studies major, I am attracted to the Green party, and I would like to see it get matching federal funds next time. About the only thing I am 100% certain of is that I won't be voting for Gore.

Several weeks ago, Gore completely lost my respect by pushing to have the federal oil reserves release oil to drive down prices of gas. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why - he was worried that high gas prices were making people upset, and when people get upset, they usually vote against the establishment. The problem with this is that the strategic oil reserves are designed for emergencies, such as war, but Al decided to use them for personal gain, then tried to pull the wool over our eyes. This truly woke me up to his shortsightedness, and it made me stop and wonder: If he is willing to abuse his power this way as Vice President, just to get votes, what might he do once he has the reigns of the entire country in his hands? Remember, power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely. I have decided that I simply can not afford to give Al Gore the chance to prove me wrong, because he has already had eight years to prove me right.

As for the choice between Nader and Bush, in the end, it may be a tossup for me. I'll probably have to consult Abraham Lincoln, who became an expert on divisive national issues during his presidency. Anyone have a spare cent? Heads, it's Bush, tails - Nader. After all, Grandma always said, "A penny for your thoughts."

--Dan Woodard, Dayton, Ohio.

Extend Practice-Room Hours

To the Editor:

I write questioning administrative policy. As one who has enjoyed the facilities of the Conservatory for some time each day, I write to encourage the conservatory to extend its hours of practice room operations in the Robertson Wing past midnight. While practicing at that hour is not always the most productive, the fact is that there are always students trying to squeeze in those last few precious minutes with a Steinway - or a Strad - before the building shuts its wailing doors for the night. For the security guards, this has got to be a terrible part of the day - who wants to ask musicians to stop making music? So why does the Conservatory close at midnight? I have some guesses.

The first is smell. Maybe not now - maybe not during relatively stress-free days, when the days are nice and begging to be played with, but soon - mark my words, soon - the Con will be smelly again. People get really passionate in those rooms, fingers banging, lips throbbing against metal, hands aching and wrists contorted into positions of aural pleasure: it is a sweaty business, sometimes. And there are folks who do it all day, even though people tell them not to. Sometimes its hard to say no. So the Con needs some time to breathe at night. I suggest, then, that the hours be extended, not all night, but at least till 2 a.m., when Mudd closes.

How come college students get to have fun on A level, brains mushifying in front of computer screens, bad coffee mysticising even the most terse texts, when Con students have to go home at midnight? Conservatory students won the recent intramural soccer championships, which just goes to show you that they deserve some respect.

The second reason that the Con may feel the urge to shut out eager-beavers is that too much practicing can make you go crazy - especially at four-thirty in the morning. This is also true. But plenty of other students are allowed to go crazy with their art - the photography labs,for example, are open all night - so why not music? Eastman keeps their doors open all night. Why not Oberlin? Maybe it's a question of security. Maybe it is not the kind of thing a security guard wants to do at 12:30 at night. But Security is patrolling other parts of the campus, and Security only stays in the Con after 7 p.m., anyway. I don't think asking two or three hours more of them would be too much of a problem.

Look, the Conservatory may have some really great reasons for shutting at midnight. But I, for one, would like to know those reasons. Sometimes you feel the call to play the piano at 1:30 a.m., and Hales (which is open all night) can seem very very far away. Why not keep the Con open longer? It is time, I think, for a change.

--James Blachly, College Junior

PIRG Water Victory Remains Unfinished

To the Editor:

This semester Ohio PIRG, the Ohio Public Interest Research Group, has been working on a campaign to clean up Ohio's waterways. Ohio has the fifth most polluted waterways in the country, so there is a lot of work to be done. One of our main objectives is to get the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) to strongly enforce clean water laws by regulating Ohio's factory farms, some of the largest water polluters in the state.

Thanks to pressure from federal officials and lots of public comments, including the letters and postcards from Oberlin students, the OEPA has recently announced that it will be requiring federal water permits for these mega-farms. They will now be regulated just like factories and sewage treatment plants, ensuring cleaner water statewide.

This victory however is not complete. There is a bill still pending in the Ohio State house that could strip the OEPA of the ability to oversee factory farms. The bill would transfer that power to the Ohio Department of Agriculture, whose purpose is to promote the same mega-farms they would supposedly be regulating. This is a clear and unacceptable conflict of interest for the ODA, and would serve only the interests of corporate mega-farms at the expense of the water quality of the state of Ohio. The people of Ohio have a right to water free of the animal waste of corporate mega-farms, and hopefully our representatives in the statehouse will realize this and allow the OEPA to do it's job.

--Winston Vaughan, College Sophomore, Ohio PIRG Clean Water Now! Campaign Coordinator

Alum Delighted By Varsity Sports During Recent Visit

To the Editor:

When old alums re-visit the campus, we admire all the new buildings, but we also search for a familiar sight - like dear old Peters. On a recent visit I found a spot where I could pretend I was 50 years younger: a football game! As a cheerleader, I had spent many a Saturday bouncing up and down on the sidelines of that very field.

How happy I was to see cheerleaders continuing the tradition. What a treat to watch a team playing with both skill and enthusiasm. How great to see students in the stands and hear them cheer. I loved every minute!

Sure, Oberlin didn't win the football game, but the soccer team did. That wasn't the first time I'd witnessed a loss. (Incidentally, teams weren't perfect in those "good ole days." In my senior year, the football team's record was 3-8 while soccer's was 4-1-2.) I would gladly return to see another game because this looked like a team that could win and I'm sure they will.

This old alum is delighted to find varsity sports and enthusiastic spectators still alive and well at Oberlin.

--Barbara Staley Bayless, OC '49, Alumni Association Executive Board