As the US government fights its battles, Oberlin students too, fight their own. In 1941 it was World War II and in 1967 it was the Vietnam War. In 1991 it was the Gulf War and today it’s the military situation in Afghanistan. For many people it’s this activist history that defines the school.
Fourteen days after terrorist attacks rocked the United States, a group of over 200 Oberlin students attended a peace rally in Washington, D.C. One month after the attacks, students participated in the national day of remembrance.
A walk-out was organized by the Coalition Against Racism and War (CARAW), and students were encouraged to sign a petition calling for a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Afghanistan. Oberlin’s visible opposition to the military action has received international attention, even finding its way onto the pages of the prestigious London Guardian. But does this sentiment fully represent Oberlin College, or simply the more organized and vocal students?
“I didn’t want revenge but I wanted the people who did this to be brought to justice...I think it’s important because [Osama Bin Laden] is a symbol...He’s a symbol of people who want to destroy our civilization,” senior Joseph Adriano said. Adriano is not the only student who articulated a stance more supportive of United States government actions.
Another student who has expressed support for the United States military action in Afghanistan is senior Miguel Villafana. “It’s justified, I think,” Villafana said. “I know that I’m not alone in saying that. We’re in the minority.” He makes the point that certain voices may not be heard as clearly as others.
The issue of creating a balanced dialogue at Oberlin is not new to this college. On Feb. 8, 1991, the Oberlin Review printed an article that featured students who supported the United States intervention in Kuwait. The students felt like their views were not being considered by the Oberlin community. Michael Kerns (OC ‘91), liason for the “small but vocal” College Republicans said, “There’s not a whole lot you can do at Oberlin — we’re so outnumbered.” Kerns said that signs posted showing support for the military were being torn down. “One of our members actually caught a faculty member tearing down a sign in Mudd [Library]” Kerns said. “That’s an example of what we face on this campus.”
The College Republicans, however, are no longer visibly active. Perhaps as a result, organized opposition to the more mainstream protests has become much less common. The tensions that existed between the Republican group and the rest of the Oberlin community were evidence of a problem that seems relevant today.
On Oct. 26, 1967 a relatively organized counter-protest was held to demonstrate against the detainment of a ROTC recruiter in his car by students protesting for peace during the Vietnam War. In 1991, Kern and his group did not picket or hold an official sit-in, but they did post signs campus wide publicizing their views. Today the voices of counter-protesters seem even less visible and organized, although students and faculty agree that this is not because those voices do not exist.

In a Feb. 15, 1991 article in the Review about the OC Republicans, Kerns said “I think it’s very indicative of how things really are here...people talk about being open-minded, and wanting to hear all sides, but that only means that they want to have their side repeated back to them.” The article paraphrased Kerns as saying “many students are scared into silence by the vast majority of the campus that does not support the war. That’s not what this place is supposed to be all about.”
The lack of a dialogue today may be due to the very nature of the protests. Adriano expressed concern about the nature of the protests at Oberlin, saying, “Everyone has the right to protest. I was upset not because they protested. I was upset because they said it was the Campaign Against War and Racism.” Adriano said that this made it appear that if one was supportive of the war one was also supportive of racism. “I thought it wasn’t thought through.” Adriano stressed that he is not “pro-military,” “I don’t want to see a war; I don’t want to see more people die”.
“I think [the protests] are badly misguided, dangerously misguided. I can write about it, but I feel like the stance of myself and my colleagues has been ignored,” Villafana said.
Students are not the only ones on campus who feel that the protests might misrepresent a complete unity of student emotion. “I’ve talked to many students who have felt isolation and frustration in their feelings. I think there are students who feel that the military action is needed,” Assistant Dean of Students Bill Stackman said. Dean of Students Peter Goldsmith also commented on the varied individual responses of students in regard to the issue of war.
“I believe that student views of 9/11 and the U.S. response are actually extraordinarily diverse, and that most students are trying conscientiously to sort out conflicting reactions (as are most other responsible adults). I have some concern that divergent points of views do not get the hearing that they deserve, and that students might feel reticent about expressing points of view that might not appear to be sufficiently in the Oberlin ‘mainstream’.”
While both Stackman and Goldsmith expressed the desire to create a community of diverse dialogue, the administration seems supportive of the recent protests. “It is important that Oberlin remain an environment which is open to, even welcoming of, protest, and it seems appropriate that anti-war protest remains a feature of our political landscape,” Goldsmith said.
According to Goldsmith, the administration must remain neutral while the faculty has more freedom individually to express opinions on the issues of this discussion.

“I think it is important that faculty feel at liberty to express their views about military action, to suggest otherwise would be to strike at the heart of academic freedom,” Goldsmith said. “I must reluctantly add that it is a slightly different matter for administrators, not because they are not entitled to the same degree of academic freedom as faculty, but because their views could be mistaken for an institutional, Oberlin College view...and if we are to be an environment in which divergent views are encouraged, it is a problem if the institution as a whole is perceived to have taken a particular position.”
Institutional neutrality is another issue that was considered during the time of the Vietnam War. An Alumni Magazine article published in the Fall of 1998 recalled how “many professors, along with President Carr, mistrusted a formal stand as a cramp on freedom of inquiry...In the end an anti-war resolution passed with the understanding that each faculty member could sign on or not as he or she decided.”
If the Administration remains neutral on the war issue, students will ultimately be the ones responsible for ensuring fruitful discussion. By acknowledging all perspectives on the local level, we will be able to create a productive dialogue about these serious global issues.