|
Essay by Mark Rosenthal |
I recently became aware of last fall's "Tribe 8" concert and the surrounding controversy. I beg your indulgence in bringing up such an old topic, but I have some comments which I would like to address to both students and faculty. As an alumnus who has long been proud of Oberlin's tradition of social consciousness, I find student reaction to the concert extremely distressing.
The concert Review in the Nov. 1, 1996 issue of the Oberlin Review states "violence was a key theme." It reports that "several shocked male attendees cowered in the corners" and that "the evening was filled with anti-male commentary." The accompanying photograph depicts lead singer Lynn Breedlove brandishing a knife near the now-famous dildo.
I would first like to address some of what has already been said in objection to and in defense of the concert. Some have objected to the nudity during the concert. This objection seems silly to those of us who were in college when "Hair" was the biggest musical off-Broadway. Some have objected that the simulated fellatio constituted a violation of community standards. But as a member of the generation that cheered as Jimi Hendrix used his guitar to simulate masturbation, I can hardly object on that basis. Some have objected because of the offensive speech involved. But I believe the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech to be a cornerstone, without which our society would crumble.
On the other side of the debate, the concert's defenders have argued that artistic expression is protected by the First Amendment. Yet, somehow I doubt that they would have been as ready to invoke the First Amendment in defense of Jake Baker, the former Univ. of Michigan student whose rape-torture fantasy on the Internet gave Congress the excuse it needed to try to do away with the First Amendment via the "Communications Decency Act." Just like Tribe 8's concert, Mr. Baker's fantasy was art. Bad art - in both cases, but nonetheless art.
The concert's defenders frequently point out that, "those who voiced concern did not attend the concert," as if that somehow invalidates their objections to the concert. To those who make this argument, I would simply ask, would you feel precluded from objecting to a K.K.K. rally simply because nobody who was actually present at the rally was offended by it?
Now that I've addressed what I believe to be invalid objections to the concert and invalid defenses of it, I would like to state what I find upsetting about student reaction as reported in the Review. In a free society, the proper response to hate speech is certainly not censorship, but better and more persuasive speech. But that better speech has been notably absent. Since when is it socially acceptable to celebrate, as the Review&)#160 did, that certain members of the student body "cowered in the corners?" These were not people selected for having performed hateful acts or even for holding hateful ideas. They were singled out for no reason other than the roll of the dice at conception which made them one sex rather than another.
I remember the moment I decided that I wanted to go to Oberlin. I heard a news report about a Viet Nam war protest at Oberlin. Military recruiters had driven into town. They were met by a huge number of students who filled Oberlin's main streets and surrounded the car, preventing it from moving forward or backward for many hours. Sometime during the demonstration, some of the student demonstrators brought the recruiters sandwiches and coffee. When I heard that, I decided that Oberlin was the place for me. It was a place with a social conscience, but it recognized the humanity of all people, even including those seen as the enemy.
In the era when I attended Oberlin, "male chauvinist pigs" were an object of scorn. Nowadays the epithet is "white male." This subtle difference disguises a huge change in values. We used to object to people who held offensive ideas. But it seems that some of today's students revile people simply for having been born wrong, and everybody else stays silent.
Oberlin now seems to be fostering an environment in which students not only tolerate hate speech, but actively cheer it; an environment in which closed-mindedness is the norm. It appears that Oberlin is failing to teach students that social consciousness means standing up for what is right even if your friends don't consider it fashionable to do so. It means emulating the Danish citizens who risked their lives to evacuate the Danish Jewish population before the Nazis could exterminate them. It means emulating James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner who lost their lives in the struggle for civil rights in this country. Bringing it closer to home, social consciousness means emulating the brave Oberlin citizenry who in 1858 rescued escaped slave John Price from slave catchers and who then spent time in jail for violating the Fugitive Slave Law.
One thing social consciousness most emphatically does not mean is venting your spleen on whatever group it is fashionable to hate! What appalls me the most is that while "several shocked male attendees cowered in the corners," not a single student in attendance at the concert had the courage to rise up and say, "This is wrong!" What's the worst that could have happened to someone who objected? This is not, after all, Nazi Germany. No thugs would have dragged them away to a death camp. Perhaps that person might have faced social ostracism from their peers for a while. But in a college in which students fancy themselves courageous voices for the oppressed, it's shocking to find that courage is so lacking. Or perhaps the problem is that students are so myopic that they can't see hate speech right under their noses.
It seems to me that Oberlin is failing in its mission to produce educated, compassionate leaders with a social conscience. Oberlin should be a place where students learn to think independently, and faculty should be taking an active role in bringing that about.
Following Oberlin's herd does not constitute independent thought any more than following the center/right-wing herd that makes up the majority of this country.
Above all, the Oberlin community, both students and faculty, must commit itself to standing up against hatred in ALL its guises. Even if it involves danger. Even if it's not the fashionable thing to do.
Related Stories:
