Painful Protesters

Protests have a long tradition at Oberlin, and it would be a shame to see that change. But judging from the reaction to the demonstrations at Secretary of the Treasury Larry Summers' speech on Monday, the nature of protest at Oberlin has taken a turn for the obnoxious.

Members of the "Larry Summers Welcoming Committee" began by rallying against Summers outside Finney Chapel before the speech began. If only they had left it at that. Instead, they proceeded to disrupt Summers' speech every few minutes, drowning out his words, heckling him and mercilessly blowing on noisemakers.

If the protesters couldn't tell by the chorus of boos from the rest of the audience that followed their disturbances, their brand of demonstration was not welcome. In a letter to the editor in the Dec.1 issue of the Review, sophomore protesters Chris Thomas and Eve Goodman demanded the chance to speak at the event in order to "present the audience with another perspective so they can decide for themselves whose ideas and whose practice can best advance the interests of people across the world." What they failed to realize was that it was impossible for the audience members to make up their own minds about Summers; they couldn't hear him.

If the goal of protest is to bring about a meaningful dialogue, those who disrupted the speech missed the point. It is safe to say many in the audience would have agreed with the protesters' views and been interested to hear the statement they prepared. But by the time the question and answer period arrived, the audience was so fed up that the protesters were subjected to heckling themselves and Acting President Clayton Koppes refused to let them finish reading the statement. Many of those in the audience who were undecided, and thus vital for the activists to have delivered their message to, have now been convinced this is not a movement worthy of their support. Meanwhile the protesters put the administration and security in a catch-22: if they were forcibly removed from the premises, it would have created a wider disturbance and inaccurately portrayed the protesters as victims.

The heckling and the noisemakers accomplished nothing but to deprive themselves of the chance to make their views known in an articulate and effective manner. This form of protest was not welcomed by the rest of the Oberlin community. It was ironic to see protesters interrupting Summers and other members of the audience with cries of "Free speech!" when their own free speech was the only speech they were willing to protect.

Involving Students

Article G of the Student Bill of Rights states that "Students, as well as faculty, staff, and officers of the College, must play a major role in campus governance if the College is to thrive as a community of scholars." This makes sense, not simply because of the amount of money, effort and time we invest in this institution, but also because our lives are more directly affected by the decisions made in running the College than any individuals in the Oberlin Community. Thus, it is disconcerting to think significant portions of our student body feel detached from the decision-making process within the administration.

Clearly, it is true that there are issues which are most effectively dealt with by experienced administrators on their own or perhaps are of no interest to the average student. Most of us probably feel comfortable that we don't have to deal with how snow will be removed from the walkways or other similar day-to-day issues. Nevertheless, it is insultingly arrogant of Dean of Students Peter Goldsmith, or any other administrator, to decide for students which decisions are worthy of our examination and input and which are over our heads or in danger of suffocating in webs of bureaucracy, especially when students have insisted that their voices be heard. In the outside world, what politician would overtly ignore the stated interests of his or her constituents and publicly claim that their input is unnecessary or inappropriate? None. Our administrators may not be elected, but one would think this would provide a lesson.

What right does Goldsmith have in telling us where our input is relevant? According to Student Senate, approximately 82 percent of nearly one half of the students on campus supported allowing co-ed dorm rooms, yet Goldsmith claimed that this didn't represent significant support. If respected nation-wide political polls with sample sizes of 1500 in a nation of 275 million people are considered accurate, then a sample size of a similar amount among 3,000 students is truly something to be reckoned with.

The point isn't so much which issues were supported by which students, but the fact that students must be allowed the opportunity to be involved in those issues they consider important. To deny this opportunity would be to erode one of this institution's fundamental values: the right for students to have a central role in shaping the College.