News

News Contents

News Briefs

Security Notebook

Community Events Calendar

Perspectives

Perspectives Contents

Editorials

Views

Letters to the Editor

Arts

Arts Contents

Campus Arts Calendar

Sports

Sports Contents

Standings

Sports Shorts

Other

Archives

Site Map

Review Staff

Advertising Info

Corrections

Go to the previous page in Perspectives Go to the next page in Perspectives

E D I T O R I A L S:



CDS Needs Reform
God is Good?

CDS Needs Reform

Food is something Oberlin students think about often. Whether it is what we choose to eat, how the food is produced, where we eat, when we eat and who we eat with, many students put almost as much energy into thinking about food as they do eating it.

The decision by Residential Life and Services to hire a consultant to do an overview of the current dining system is likely to stir up more thought in diners' heads. Hopefully, the consultant will be able to address the intense frustration students have with the Campus Dining Service.

It is questionable, however, whether the message is getting through to new Res Life Director Kim LaFond that students have serious worries about continuing the relationship with Sodhexo Marriott Service. While it is not guaranteed that they will return next year as the campus' meal provider, they will be considered on an equal footing with other possible providers. Students have made it clear that they do not condone the refusal of Sodexho Marriott's parent company, Sodhexo Alliance, to divest from its involvement in Corrections Corporation of America. Being new to Oberlin, it is possible that LaFond was not aware of the debate over CCA's investment in private, for-profit prisons. However, he should have been briefed on these concerns and taken appropriate action to ensure that the College's relationship with Sodhexo Marriott would only continue on a conditional basis: that it be proven conclusively that SMS has no involvement in the private prison industry.

Yet the concerns do not stop here. With the cost of tuition, the cost of books, and the cost of housing to consider, the additional cost of eating in the Campus Dining Service becomes frustrating to many. Whether we come from families with modest financial means and are used to attempting to make ends meet, or we have had the fortune to have strong financial backgrounds and are accustomed to a life of relative comfort, all of us are now experiencing how much of a burden these costs can be.

Thus we all do what we can to attempt to cover them. Some people choose to join co-ops to cut their dining costs, others get some sort of financial aid, while others still feel satisfied with what they are paying and remain on a normal meal plan. Most, however, still feel they do not get what they pay for, and do not have the flexibility to do anything about it.

Students are here for their education, not for the food. The common response to these concerns has often involved the College's ability to cover its overhead costs. Nevertheless, education is not a business. At least it shouldn't be treated that way. If the costs aren't being met, the burden should not be on the students. That merely turns them into commodities for the management of the dining system, a dehumanizing role which students feel they are playing far too often.


God is Good?

The above is a question that a fair number of people who are part of this community might answer with a "no." It is also a question many people at this school might answer with a "yes." Of course, many of us do not believe in any god, making this question irrelavent.

Because of this, the presence of a Christian evangelist in the middle of Wilder Bowl this week was disconcerting for some members of the community. For many people on campus, Wilder Bowl acts as a sort of hub. Furthermore, Oberlin has a strong secular atmosphere. Many students choose to come here because of the lack of religious pressures. Thus, it was shortsighted for the Oberlin Christian Fellowship to sponsor an evangelist to speak there, where many passing students would be in earshot, regardless of whether or not they wanted to take part in a religious discussion.

It is reassuring that Cliff Kinechtle, the evangelist, was a calm, respectful speaker. This came in refreshingly sharp contrast to the intolerant diatribes of Brother Jed and Fred Phelps. The OCF is to be praised for distancing themselves from these individuals, and for selecting a speaker willing to discuss religious ideas with students, rather than just lecture at them.

The OCF has every right to sponsor visits such as Kinechtle's. But those walking through Wilder Bowl whose religious views differed from the OCF have the right to go about their business without having to confront evangelism, which, despite his tolerance, was forcefully presented in Kinechtle's words.

Would it not have been better to have a well publicized meeting in a lecture hall or meeting room? That way, those who were interested in hearing more could have taken part in the discussion, and those who wished to stay away could do so without consciously avoiding an area as central as Wilder Bowl.


Editorials in this box are the responsibility of the editor-in-chief, managing editor and commentary editor, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff of the Review.

Back // Commentary Contents \\ Next

T H E   O B E R L I N   R E V I E W

Copyright © 2000, The Oberlin Review.
Volume 129, Number 3, September 22, 2000

Contact us with your comments and suggestions.