The Chief Must Go

Despite the fact that Larry Dolan, the owner of the Cleveland Indians, has been on the Board of Trustees since last December, it is only just recently that concerns about the offensive nature of Chief Wahoo, the team's mascot who takes the form of a degrading characterization of Native American stereotypes, have been publicly voiced. It is vital that Mr. Dolan realizes that as a trustee of the College, he must represent the values of this institution. He should make himself available to students to speak to these concerns or we should insist that he is removed from the Board.

Dolan must be aware that Wahoo is a gross misrepresentation of Native American culture. But perhaps he is like many of his team's fans and feels somehow that perpetuating the use of this symbol is not racism; rather, it is a memorable symbol of an organization that they love and cherish. Consequently, it is necessary that a dialogue be initiated immediately to inform him that the image promotes a false perception of the Native American community. To continue to justify the logo's use as part of some sporting tradition would be to continually take the problem further and further from the general public's grasp and would thus continue to habitualize people to their misconceptions.

Having Dolan as a member of our Board of Trustees can be either a blessing or a curse. If Dolan does not address the issue of Chief Wahoo immediately and work to remove him as the team's mascot, and the Oberlin community allows him to stay, then we will slip further from our position as a progressive institution that strives for tolerance of all segments of society. However, if we talk with Dolan about our concerns and are able to change one of popular culture's most offensive traditions, then we will know that there is someone who is part of our community, shares our ideals and is respected and influential enough to spread these ideals to other parts of society that we normally would not reach.

Intoxicating Power

Over the past year the Alcohol and Other Drugs and Student Life committees have been reviewing Oberlin College's policy regarding on-campus intoxication. One has to wonder why reworking the policy is necessary now. Why does the school feel it must involve itself any further when there are already efforts by the administration to counsel and educate individuals who may be having problems? Currently these efforts are not articulated as part of any specific policy and the proposed changes would put the school's responsibilities and duties in writing. This is troubling because those who have to deal with students who drink too much, such as Residential Life and Services staff, would not have the flexibility to address the uniqueness of individual situations.

If you live in a dorm, it's possible that while brushing your teeth on a Friday or Saturday evening you'll hear someone who has had too much to drink throwing up in the toilet. If there's some sort of trouble - perhaps the binger is yelling at other people or is in danger of hurting him or herself - then the R.C. on duty will step in and try to take control of the situation and make sure everybody is out of danger. Perhaps you'll even shudder a bit, knowing what it was like when you were in that situation a few years or a few weeks before and in sympathy for the guy who's going to wake up tomorrow morning with a raging hangover.

But is the question here whether or not binge drinking is safe? Of course it's not safe. Should the College really have the responsibility to monitor behaviors that are unsafe? Yes, it should, but the policy changes make it possible that students who drink too much will be punished for violating a rule, rather than given aid in dealing with their problem. While the College should have the ability to step in when our actions constitute a threat to other students, as drinking too much can be at times, it is counterproductive to send those who aren't harming others to J-board.

The committees are not examining the school's alcohol policy because there is some plague of inebriation that must be eliminated, but because of concerns about the law. But there have been no particular problems relating to the school's adherence to the law, and no pressure from state and local governments to shape up. Consequently, we must question why changes are necessary. Shouldn't the Student Life committee be focusing on more urgent and relevant issues, such as the possibility of co-ed dorm rooms or the multitude of concerns students have with current housing and dining policies? Furthermore, even if there weren't other pressing issues, as a private college we should wonder to what extent the public domain should be involved in determining the school's policies. Finally, where will the College stop making policies to address every possible problem at school? Will policies be written in the future that prevent males from being in females' rooms because there might be problems? The school's responsibility should not be to act as parents, but to ensure the safety of the community.