Dye's Vision: Myth or Reality?

To the Editors:

Well, it is that time of year again, flowers are blooming, birds are chirping, the College is feeding prospies a line of horseshit. In fact, I was leaving the mailroom the other day as I happened across a particularly large mob of naïve geese (i.e., prospies) who had a funnel in their throats while a tour guide shoveled the shit in. He was telling them how great Obieland is because of the excellent dance facilities it has. Facilities, according to him, many other similar colleges lack. Hip hip hooray! This incident sparked a desire in me - I should become one of those tour guides, after all, I would be good at it. Alas, I'm a fifth-year and missed my golden opportunity. Oh well, I don't think the College would hire me anyway. You see, I'd be too likely to tell the geese that after the feeding they'll be slaughtered and the College will dine on their nice shit-fattened livers. It's obvious that the College has never heard of truth in advertising.

The sketchiest Oberlin sales pitch employs its progressive legacy. We all know the legacy to which I refer. Oberlin College was the first to admit African Americans, women, the first co-ed dorms, blah, blah, blah. What, you may ask, has Oberlin done lately? Not much, and that is my final answer. Sadly, our illustrious President Dye seems to be throwing away with the leftovers CDS calls food. (You may know her best from her Black & White World escapades, I know I do.) She's doing that for one of two reasons, either she is selling out or she lacks a progressive vision for this college. Many people believe the former; she is trying to make the College seem more like a Dartmouth, Harvard and all those other uppity schools.

While this might be true, I propose that she simply lacks a vision of what a truly progressive Oberlin should look like. Examples of this lack on her part are plentiful, the no-sweatshop, prison labor, or SMBD issues for starters. The College either came late to the game, remains indifferent or staunchly opposes these issues. Despite the fact that our president does not seem to know what progressive means, most professors will propound on her blessings forever. What makes her so great, if I may ask? If I didn't see her walk past me once a semester, I'd hardly know she even existed. Hell, for all I know she could have been on sabbatical last semester, I never saw or heard anything from her.

So Nancy, I have a few suggestions for you. If you have a vision for this college make it known. By this I don't mean let Professors Norris or Henle speak for you. I mean YOU. If you haven't a clue as to how Oberlin should continue its progressive legacy, then admit it. If your vision is to sell out to the Ivy League, then have the courage and respect for us to admit that as well. Otherwise we are left to assume either that you don't exist and when we do see you it's actually a chimp wearing a Nancy Dye costume, or that you think us peons undeserving of an explanation. Whichever is the case, I request that you hold yourself accountable to the College community, students included. You owe it to the geese. By the way, please stop force feeding horseshit propaganda to people.

Lastly, during your sabbatical, I suggest that you brainstorm about where Oberlin's progressive legacy should take it. If your Oberlin will only employ that legacy as a marketing tool, then I suggest you drop the bullshit and market the College honestly as a playground for rich freaks and misfits.

--Yahya Ibn Rabat, College fifth-year

Graffiti Artist Assaults Campus

To the Editors:

Over the past few days, and particularly over the past weekend, Oberlin's campus has been assaulted with a rash of graffiti in bathroom stalls and a number of other available surfaces. As trite as it may seem, I'd have to deny empirical evidence and all common sense not to link this phenomenon to the recent Hip Hop conference.

I'm not going to call into question the arguments of whether Oberlin should have an annual Hip Hop conference, or the significance to the community the conference has. Rather, I call into question the validity of Hip Hop subculture at Oberlin, and its role in campus life in light of this necessary sacrifice that it seems to entail. Is it right for the student body and SFC to support and finance a movement that is apparently associated with and typified by belligerence and petty crime? Or, to put it differently, is it right for the student body to tolerate it?

I don't mean to be misunderstood. To say that Hip Hop causes graffiti is perhaps a bit simplistic and inaccurate. To say that they are related is not. I'm not condemning every associate of the conference with having personally defaced our bathroom stalls, and I'm sure the culprits were limited to a select group of vandals who were inspired or otherwise driven to deface this past weekend. But the connection is still clear and present.

In an abstract sense, if I happened to identify strongly with arson, could I organize an arsonist conference, utilize Oberlin funds to teach students and community members the craft of small scale demolitions, lecture on the manufacturing of thermite and other incendiary compounds from household chemicals, behind a thin veil of cultural identification? I think not. In addition, if a few buildings happened to explode in fiery conflagration during this conference would I be able to justify this expense again by the fact that I am a cultural minority and need to excise myself from the oppressive white hegemony and establish my individualism? I find it hard to recognize, and/or condone a social movement so immediately associated with such outwardly malicious excuses for self expression. If these events were not culturally or racially related, then I retract a majority of this letter, but find the situation to be even more absurd.

I am not in opposition to the Hip Hop conference. I think it's great that people are fervent and passionate about their work. However, I find it unacceptable that one of the consequences of this fervor is public, unwanted vandalism. If supporters of Hip Hop would like their movement to grow and be taken seriously as a valid, respectable art form, they'll have to remove the stigma of being so closely linked to the criminal element. They can start by cleaning up their act.

--Leonard Park, College senior

Alum Believes It's Important to Speak Truth to Power

To the Editor:

Here in Brooklyn, it's hard to tell if the brouhaha over having a non-student (of student age and temperament, mind you!) serving on the student senate is still a live issue, given the erratic web version of the Review. But I have to say that with a little distance, this whole Chris Anton "struggle" doesn't look too pretty.

A student senator justified keeping Chris Anton on the Senate by saying, "Chris is considered an asset with a lot of students." Yes, students may indeed be lucky to have Mr. Anton hang in Oberlin, and he may best embody the visceral antagonism towards the administration that Senate apparently values. That's "all good," but why isn't it obvious these qualities sadly don't mean anything if Mr. Anton is not a current Oberlin student? I briefly lived in Oberlin while not being a student, and while I kept active in College events, it would have been absurd for me to try to continue to serve on committee posts I held.

Believe me, I'm no President Dye or administration apologist. Ms. Dye's decisions (or lack thereof) have managed to evade the close scrutiny of alums, students, trustees, the Review and other purported guardians of the College. Hopefully Mr. Anton has some constructive criticisms to make.

But just on the level of realpolitik (a type of thinking the senate needs a dose of), his presence on Senate won't be constructive, as the General Faculty and administration have made it clear they (rightly) don't consider Mr. Anton a legitimate representative. (Sure, their applause as he left a GF meeting may have been crass, but see it as a sign of their own frustration over trying to get a damn thing done without asinine debates.

The senate could get into battle-mode to defend senator Anton, but what would that accomplish? It would only reinforce the notion that students are only ready for the romantic, ill-conceived fight, rather than negotiation and policy-making. Students can do better than that.

Senators may have assumed they'll be down with students if Mr. Anton is retained, but they also need to start strategically thinking about how to be down (i.e., politically effective) with administration and faculty. Mr. Anton's apparent predilection to vilify and alienate the faculty and administration is not the model. It's important to speak truth to power, but at Oberlin you may have to schmooze with power, too, if you want to have a say.

There are plenty of other ways Mr. Anton could put fire to the feet of his foes at Oberlin. I hope he finds them and lets it rip, while Senate can successfully get in the smoke-filled backrooms where decisions are made.

--John Kearney , O.C. '93

Students Tell CDS and College, "NOT WITH OUR MONEY"

To the Editors:

With this letter, the campaign "NOT WITH OUR MONEY! People Before Profits at CDS" seeks to further explain our grievances and demands. All the areas of concern highlighted in our first letter are pressing issues, which necessitate urgent action. Every day the trials of poverty and insecurity plague much of Oberlin's workforce and their families. This small community is nestled amid the poorest county in the state, and Oberlin College has a special responsibility to be a leader in working people's struggle for a decent life. Every day students eat overpriced low-quality food laced with dangerous chemicals, food with untested and potentially dangerous genetic modifications, and animal products made under cruel and unhealthy conditions. Every day the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) makes further moves to transform the criminal justice system into a for-profit enterprise, further corrupting our warped system and entrenching the Prison Industrial Complex. This letter particularly concerns Sodexho Marriott's connections to the CCA, and Oberlin College's complicity in the dubious scheme.

In the "Open Letter to the Oberlin College Administration," submitted to the President's Office and Residential Life on April 6th, we put forward the following demand:

"We demand Sodexho Marriott Services divests completely from the Corrections Corporation of America. If Sodexho Marriott Services refuses to do this in a timely manner, we demand Oberlin College severs all ties with Sodexho Marriott Services."

This demand does not give any specific time frame, but implies a certain flexibility allowing for some feasible agreement to be reached through discussion. However, as of yet, after three weeks and with semester's end approaching, no administrative office has either responded or indicated its intent to respond, and no statement of general intent on our demands has been produced, as was specifically requested in our Open Letter. As a result, we would like to offer more specific demands so as to focus what we hope and insist will become a fruitful dialogue in the immediate future.

To satisfy our above stated demand, to redress the grievances stemming from Oberlin's de-facto financial support for the corrupt private prison industry, the College Administration needs to produce a written statement which promises to sever all ties with SMS by a specific and not too distant date if Sodexho Alliance fails to divest completely from CCA. We suggest a statement, which promises such a resolution by the beginning of the Fall, 2000 Semester. If this date is deemed unfeasible, and evidence can be produced to indicate this, we urge the Administration to speedily suggest a specific date for resolving the situation.

We also here submit an additional demand. We demand Oberlin College recognize the right of every student to conscientiously object to providing financial support to the prisons-for-profit industry. Oberlin College must recognize every student's right to withdraw their support from CDS, from Sodexho Marriott, and be given off-board status upon request. We protest our enforced complicity in one of the biggest corporate crimes of the last decade: the incarceration of people for the sake of profit. We demand this right be recognized immediately.

Please respond with all speed to this second letter, as well as to all the issues and demands raised in the first letter. The expanding Prison Industrial Complex, for which private prisons constitute a cutting edge trend, is daily taking an unacceptable human toll. It is ripping apart and repressing our communities, criminalizing poverty and destroying lives. We will not accept our enforced complicity or the complicity of Oberlin College in these crimes. We will not accept being ignored by the Administration. Our demands are clear and we wish to rapidly commence a fruitful dialogue on the issue.

Sincerely,

--Ty Moore, College junior, NOT WITH OUR MONEY! People Before Profits at CDS