Senate and GF vie for control

Final approval of pending student organizations' charters currently lies in the hands of the General Faculty, but a proposal awaiting a decision from the General Faculty could change that - placing Student Senate in the primary position to ratify charters. A tangled web of interconnected issues cloaks the debate over the proposed restructuring of the student organization chartering process. The General Faculty must consider the College's liability in chartering student organizations as well as the sensible position that students should decide which student groups it grants charters to.

Clearest in this foggy soup of opinion is that the charter approval process should be streamlined. In the current process it takes months for pending organizations to receive a final decision. No one debates the fact that the current process needs revision. It takes too long, and demands approval from too many governing bodies. Even though all parties are in agreement about compressing the charter process, the proposal treads through murky water in trying to achieve this. The proposal on the table puts Senate in a powerful position not only to approve charters, but also to censure student organizations and suspend their activity through a new grievance process.

Tuesday's General Faculty meeting aired out some serious problems with placing so much responsibility on Senate's shoulders. As pointed out by Professor of Economics Robert Piron, the College's pockets are susceptible to attack by legal action against student organizations. A perfect example of this is Charles Newkirk's pending lawsuit against The Review. Even though the College does not have any say in editorial decisions made by The Review, the College can be held financially responsible for The Review's actions. Placing the burden on a Senate subcommittee to evaluate legal aspects of potentially controversial organizations stands out as a week foundation for the proposal. The dean of students would serve as an advisor to the senate's subcommittee, but he would not have any voting power on the committee.

Now, Senate has not exactly demonstrated a menacing streak that would suggest its members would flagrantly grant charters that would endanger the College's purse. Senate has, however, established a strong reputation as a largely ineffective body. Last year saw senators resigning at an alarming rate. The elected student representatives put together a promising second semester, but lost most of their members. Only three senators will be returning this semester, with five new seats up for grabs. The Senate lacks any consistent leadership or experience. Senators often complain of the significant time commitment of their positions. Heaping more responsibility on their plate with charter responsibilities would make for an impossible meal to digest. Promising to shorten the already timely process to six weeks would mean that senators would not be able to fulfill their already existing jobs, or that they would poorly evaluate pending charters. Placed on top of this the grievance procedure, and Senate will find itself wallowing in even more ineffectiveness.

Landlords vs. the College

The ongoing debate between Oberlin College and Oberlin landlords may not be coming to an end very soon. With the most recent ruling by the Ninth Judicial Court of Appeals reversing the decision by the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas, which had originally stated that Oberlin landlords had no claim for relief from the College, Oberlin landlords have scored an important victory in their claim that Nancy Dye and other administrators have interfered with contractual/business obligations. However, the College now finds itself in a precarious position because two residence halls, Old Barrows and Allencroft, may be just the type of rooming houses that the College was so quick to declare off-limits less than two years ago.

At the heart of this debate is where the College must draw the line when it comes to student safety off-campus. While the issue before the courts remains libel, interference with contracts and the enforcement of retroactive laws, what lies at stake for students of Oberlin is of greater importance. For the majority of us, we come to Oberlin as adults. Nevertheless, though our drivers licenses may show us to be eighteen-years-old or greater, it is doubtful many of us would not know a legally binding contract from an edible CDS meal. It is obvious that Nancy Dye and any other administrators responsible for the off-campus housing decision were not acting out of animus or out of some compelling need to play Big Brother, but instead out of safety concerns for students as well as fiscal concerns for the College.