Student Senate, Goldsmith Tackle Student Issues

Last Sunday's open Student Senate meeting, in which Dean of Students Peter Goldsmith was a guest, saw the beginning of a tense week in Oberlin politics. The meeting, which sought to work toward establishing a more open dialogue between Goldsmith - representing the administration - and students, may have predicted the kind of atmosphere which would be seen the next day at Monday's speech at Finney by Secretary of the Treasury Larry Summers. Wilder 215 featured strong words and feelings between Goldsmith and student senators, a dynamic in which relations have been strained lately, as well as fierce words from other members of the student body for Goldsmith.

The meeting simultaneously opened dialogue and created conflict between Goldsmith, Senate and the rest of the student body. Exemplifying the confused back-and-forth of the meeting, senior Senator Aaron Leavy later said, "I learned that our dean of students is an advocate, and I learned that he isn't an advocate. Cognitive dissonance is hard."

For the most part, post-meeting thoughts from participants indicated an optimistic feeling from Goldsmith and senators alike. Said Goldsmith, "I'm absolutely certain, that a significant number of senators, perhaps the majority of them, are interested in working constructively with the administration for the remainder of the year."

Senior Senator Neil Gray was similarly hopeful for future interactions. "I think the real measure of our success [in this meeting] will be how smoothly interactions with Dean Goldsmith go, and I'm confident that we will be able to work better with him now," he said.

Senior Senator Erika Hansen, facilitator for the evening, opened the questioning of Goldsmith, who at times seemed to be on trial. She asked about the implementation of the class dean system, and why student input was not sought in its creation. Goldsmith responded by saying that it was a matter of reapportioning existing responsibilities in his office, a purely administrative move.

"I think it took putting it into place for people to understand how it works and what it's for," Goldsmith said. "The situation was one of, 'Let's put this in place and let's see how people react to it, and what kind of effect it has on the nature of people's experiences.'"

The Senate seemed dissatisfied with Goldsmith's answer, however, and kept after him to specify exactly on what kind of decisions student input would be sought. Fifth-year Senator Jane Glynn tried to pin Goldsmith down by asking why a broad student discussion was not initiated. Goldsmith acquiesced on this point, admitting that in retrospect, more student input would have been better. He also went on to say, "I have a strong propensity against risking leaving students with the feeling of having been co-opted by involving them in decisions in which they can't be involved. I'd much rather say that, 'This is a decision that I need to make, and I don't want to leave you with the impression that you have any means of changing it substantially.' So, if I went into a conversation about class deans and said, 'This is a system that's entirely open to discussion, and we can shape it any way you wanted to,' it would've been dishonest."

Beginning one of the most productive exchanges of the evening, junior Naomi Sabel followed up by asking whether Goldsmith would be willing to have open student forums; Goldsmith said, yes, he would, but that even in a forum of several hundred students it would be hard to know if the breadth of student opinion was being represented, and pointed out that public forums at Oberlin often turn into "public theater."

Senior Ben Ezinga, Goldsmith's chief antagonist on the evening, then asked a question about how Goldsmith would respond to a referendum of a broad portion of the student body on a specific issue. Goldsmith said, "It would be of some importance, clearly."

Glynn followed soon after with a suggestion for a bi-monthly forum-like lunch or snack session in which Goldsmith would regularly be available for student input and questions. Goldsmith said he thought it was a great idea. However, even after, junior senator Noah Heller was not completely convinced of Goldsmith's commitment to open dialogue. "I think Peter prefers private conversations with individuals and groups to public discourse," he said. "While private discussions can certainly have merit, they don't render the transparency and accountability that public discussions, such as the Senate meeting last Sunday, inherently provide."

Shortly after its most amicable moment, the evening began to take on a more adversarial tone. Senior senator Josh Rosen followed up on Ezinga's query about referenda by announcing that Senate did indeed have the results of a referendum from last spring on a wide range of issues, including co-ed dorms, the abandonment of Sodexho-Marriott, establishment of ethnic and queer studies departments and other issues. The results were read, with thundering majorities of the 1,353 students surveyed responding in favor of co-ed dorms, losing Sodexho and adding the departments. Goldsmith responded to the survey results by saying that though they were important, "[just because] a significant portion of the student body says that it's an important thing to do doesn't mean you automatically do it."

Junior senator April Wynn kept at Goldsmith, noting the time and effort devoted to the survey and asking what it took for Goldsmith to take student opinion seriously. Goldsmith, on the defensive, noted that he had seen the survey results for the first time just then, and that it was a very complex process in determining how the data would be applied to certain issues. Notably, he said, "Decision-making at Oberlin College isn't straightforwardly a matter of ballot referendums; it's not how decisions are made."

Ezinga again asked Goldsmith whether there was anything the students could do more powerful than a referendum, and Goldsmith said he didn't think there was.

Sophomore senator Evan Lovett-Harris then delved into the evening's most time-consuming issue, that of advocacy. He asked, "Do you see yourself as an advocate for the student body?" One might be tempted to think that this would be a simple question, but one would be horribly wrong.

Goldsmith said as much; "This is a very complicated question, it really is. I think it would be a mistake to imagine that it's the role of the Dean of Students, here or any other place, to simply advocate for what the majority of students, or any given number of students, think should happen. Sometimes a student's best interests might be served, in my view, from something other than what they regard as their immediate best interest."

After a brief foray into Goldsmith's own personal value system, the issue quickly turned back to advocacy; then to Goldsmith's decision-making process; then to questions of Oberlin's progressive legacy; and back to advocacy. Needless to say, the discussion was veering wildly around under the original topic of "student communication." Ezinga and Rosen asked more questions, and the session took a five-minute break.

The discussion during the second half of the meeting was poisoned with the accrued acrimony. There was some reasonably informative but not all that productive discussion of the possible new alcohol policy, the co-ed integration of Zechiel House and the issue of trustee and Cleveland Indians owner Larry Dolan.

Near the end of the evening, an again-disturbed Goldsmith tried one last time to clarify his view on advocacy following another barbed question from Ezinga, saying, "I am an advocate for a very particular version of student interest, and it's not simply what students articulate."

An exhausted Goldsmith then made his final statement and left. Senate took up several issues quickly after his departure, but the fire of the evening was spent and the meeting quickly adjourned.

Despite the at-times argumentative tone between himself and Goldsmith, even Rosen was later positive on the meeting as a whole. "Issues regarding student-centered processes, public discourse and community-based decision making must be dialogued by Senate, this dean, and the campus at large if students are to have a legitimate role in future policy making at Oberlin College," he said. "Sunday's discourse was not perfect by any means, but it was a start."