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 L E T T E R S  T O  T H E  E D I T O R :

Counseling Center Director Defends New Alcohol Policy
Passion Insufficent Without the Proof
Don't Confuse Race With Culture
Naming Names
Opposition to Summers Demands Right To Speak
Better a Mockery than Silence
Adrift in a Bureaucratic Sea
Will Oberlin Lead Fight Against Chief?
When Will Our Government Respect Democracy?
Urging Clinton to Protect Our Forests
Smith's Point Lost In Rhetoric


Counseling Center Director Defends New Alcohol Policy

To the Editor:

As director of the Oberlin College Counseling Center and a member of the committee on Alcohol and Other Drugs (AOD), I have an interest in, and a responsibility to address the health and well-being of Oberlin students.

As a psychologist I feel fortunate to have been trusted with the very personal perspectives shared by students during our work together. Students have shared their experiences and stories with me, many relating to challenges and struggles associated with the increasing independence and self-reliance that accompany young adulthood. Students do NOT want parents or other authorities telling them how to live. This is not a preference, but a NEED! As adults we all are called upon to develop a level of autonomy that allows us to cope with the challenges that life will present when the advice and support of family are not available or wanted.

So it is with some ambivalence that I try to make the case for a policy about intoxication on our campus. On the one hand, I know that the committee's motivation is to facilitate helpful interventions for individuals who over-drink, and also to provide support for the community affected by students impaired by alcohol and drug abuse. On the other hand, I realize that our efforts will be viewed by some as a threat to their autonomy and to their ability to make decisions about how they live their lives.

With these considerations in mind, I would like to make the following brief points:

Alcohol abuse does involve issues of personal autonomy. Equally important, however, are issues of community responsibility and accountability. Many students are negatively impacted by the behavior of drunken students. They also have rights that deserve respect and attention.

Serious alcohol abuse left untreated can become alcohol dependency (alcoholism) by the time a student graduates from Oberlin. Often the only effective intervention with serious alcohol abuse includes some kind of legal requirement to attend treatment (read judicial charges). Anyone familiar with the field of drug and alcohol treatment knows of the many lives, families and careers that have been saved as a result of mandated treatment.

As a representative of Oberlin College, it is extremely painful to try to explain to a parent that some of us were aware of their son's or daughter's history of getting drunk every weekend, and did nothing to prevent their suicide, sexual assault or death from alcohol poisoning.

The committee has a responsibility, the Dean of Students and administration have a responsibility, and the student body has a responsibility to help those few students among us who cannot drink responsibly. For me, that's what this is about, and placing the word "intoxication" into our alcohol/drug policy will help facilitate getting these students the attention and help that they need and deserve.

--Charles W. Ross, Director, Counseling Center

Passion Insufficent Without the Proof

To the Editor:

I just glanced through the Review and was dismayed by the "open letter to Peter Goldsmith" from senior Ben Ezinga entitled "Goldsmith the Liar." Oberlin is a charged place, and many of us feel passionate about our positions. But this charge is both hurtful and unfounded. Failure to supply someone (Mr. Ezinga) with the data he demands hardly is grounds for such a charge. To the contrary, the burden of proof would fall upon Mr. Ezinga to present data to prove Mr. Goldsmith's claim is false. Cannot we keep our public rhetoric a bit more civil?

And what arrogance do we have at Oberlin College that we feel it necessary to lecture Mr. Dolan regarding the "Chief Wahoo" symbol? Is being an Oberlin College Trustee such a coveted prize that he will bow to our demands? Mr. Dolan has little to gain from his new status as an OC trustee but we have much to gain from him.

--John Scofield, Professor of Physics

Don't Confuse Race With Culture

To the Editor:

In an article in the Oct. 26 issue of The Grape titled "Administration Opposed to Co-ed Dorm Rooms," Dean of Students Peter Goldsmith, in echoing administrative concerns over co-ed dorm rooms, stated, "My own feeling is that this issue comes down to the degree to which we are prepared to be sensitive to people's various sensitivities. For many cultures - I'm thinking of international students particularly, this may not seem acceptable. The potential is to set up a dynamic in the residence halls where people have to confront living arrangements they find culturally anathema."

In a letter in the Nov. 5 issue of the Review titled "Letter Seeks SECURE Facts," senior Joshua Rosen appears to have transformed Dean Goldsmith's concerns for cultural differences among international students into sensitivities to different "racial" and ethnic groups, and to "minority students." Rosen also writes, "Without this evidence, your arguments come across as a not-so-clever form of race baiting." I wonder who is race-baiting, Mr. Rosen. This substitution of "racial" issues for "cultural" ones is not wise - as any thoughtful student of the social sciences knows, a "culture" cannot be easily mapped onto ostensive "racial" differences, nor vice versa. Co-ed rooms is an issue over which reasonable people can disagree.

Moreover, in an open letter to the dean of students published in the Nov. 17 Review, Ben Ezinga called Mr. Goldsmith a "liar" for having made what Ezinga thought was an insufficiently supported statement about the possible affect of co-ed rooms on international enrollment. But actually, Mr. Goldsmith's quote in The Grape of Oct. 26 (to which Mr. Ezinga, and before him Mr. Rosen, was referring), makes no mention of either enrollment or admissions issues. It is simply a suggestion that we be considerate of people's CULTURAL sensibilities.

I think it is important that robust and full debate occur at Oberlin College. However, I would hope that such a debate would reflect the actual words and ideas of those with whom one is debating, rather than one's interpretation of such words, especially when such debates involve sensitive issues which our wonderful diverse Oberlin community must resolve, while also respecting those differences and the needs of the many constituencies at Oberlin College.

--Ron Kahn, Monroe Professor of Politics, Chair, Student Life Committee

Naming Names

To the Editor:

The wonderful subject of your lead photo for the Nov. 17 issue is not identified by name. She personifies the Allen Hospital: she was the first person born there and appears to work there as well. What a great image to include with an article about the College bailing out the Allen Hospital. But, who is she? Isn't her name as important as the photographer's?

--Edward Derby, OC '87

Opposition to Summers Demands Right To Speak

To the Editor:

On Monday, Dec. 4 at noon, Secretary of the Treasury Larry Summers will speak in Finney Chapel on "Economic Challenges and Priorities in the New Economy." A coalition has come together to protest this event, as we demand the right to voice our outrage at the anti-poor, anti-union, anti-environment and anti-Third World policies on which Larry Summers has spent his entire career working. Summers, before he was appointed to the Clinton administration, was the vice president of development economics and chief economist of the World Bank. As chief economist, he sat on the Bank's Loan Committee, played a key role in the design of country-assistance strategies, and had overall responsibility for the Bank's research, statistics and external training programs.

People have begun to raise serious questions about Summers and the globalized "new economy" he represents. What were the international consequences of his policies in the World Bank, and how has his continued implementation of those policies as part of the U.S. government continued those effects? We think that the following quote from a memo sent by Summers to senior World Bank staff in 1991 begins to shed some light on the answers:

"Just between you and me, shouldn't the World Bank be encouraging more migration of dirty industries to the LDCs [Less Developed countries]? The economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that. I've always thought [that] under-populated countries in Africa are vastly under-polluted; their air quality is probably vastly inefficiently high compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City. The concern that that causes a one-in-a-million change in the odds of prostate cancer is obviously going to be much higher in a country where people survive to get prostate cancer than in a country where under-five mortality is 200 per thousand."

Summers represents exploitation of the Third World on behalf of the multinational companies that continue their domination at home in the U.S. Summers is personally responsible for Structural Adjustment Programs that have furthered the impact of poverty by destroying what little social safety net exists in many semi-colonial countries and by opening up the economies and resources of these countries to the multinationals. Contrary to popular belief, the IMF/WB does not hand out free money, but has actually received more in payments than it has originally lent. The majority of current loans are merely to service interest on past loans; for example, Sub-Saharan Africa pays more in debt "service" than it does on health and education combined for the entire region. Summers is one of the chief instigators and cheerleaders of these policies. He has recently proposed shifting the World Bank system so that more loan money is brought from private sources of capital, causing loans to be increasingly manipulated by and serving the interests of that private capital. As secretary of the Treasury, and assistant secretary before that, Summers has been a key figure in the development of destructive domestic polices such as NAFTA, Welfare DEform, privatization programs and various corporate welfare schemes

Such a speaker must not go unopposed. We demand the right to speak at the Dec. 4 event before Summers gives his speech, so that he can address our concerns and questions. The ideas of Summers and the system he represents receive overwhelmingly more media attention than the ideas of our opposition movement, ideas supported by an increasing number of people worldwide. We demand the opportunity to explain our opposition from the same stage at the same event in order to create a dialogue on these important issues. We want to present the audience with another perspective so they can decide for themselves whose ideas and whose practice can best advance the interests of people across the world. We appeal to the readers of the Review to join us in our protest.

--Eve Goodman, College Sophomore
--Chris Thomas, Conservatory Sophomore

Better a Mockery than Silence

To the Editor:

In response to the posters that appeared two weekends ago in protest of Habitat for Humanity's "Shack-a-thon" fundraiser:

"If you're privileged and you know it, build a shack," was but one of several messages scrawled in magic marker on large posters that were as visible around Wilder Bowl as the controversial "shack" itself. A basic shelter that stood in the center of the Bowl, the shack was inhabited day and night by members of Habitat who were financially sponsored to stay there. Some posters accused Habitat of "mocking poverty" with their attention-getting shack; in general, the posters seemed to be asking whether "privileged" Oberlin students ought to be fundraising in this way.

Was mockery the intention of the Habitat members? I doubt it. They sacrificed time and energy to build the shack, and they presumably expend even more of both to build houses through Habitat in the increasingly frigid November weather. Since the posters were anonymous, there is no telling whether their creators have a similar commitment to such a cause. Except for well-organized benefit concerts in the anti-SOA tradition, it is difficult to find a highly visible way of raising awareness - and funds - at Oberlin. In my view, the shack was a relevant and eye-catching way to remind "privileged" students - including Habitat volunteers themselves - that adequate housing is just that: a privilege unavailable to many.

A few posters observed that Habitat members who spent the night in the shack would not have to sleep there the following evening, which again seems to be missing the point. Presumably these students are well aware that some people have to live in shacks - this is why they participate in Habitat in the first place. They are not obligated to spend even one night in the shack. Their choice to do so symbolizes their commitment to building low-cost housing for those less "privileged" than themselves.

On that note, it is unwise to assume that every Habitat volunteer is "privileged." I am reminded of the many chalkings that accused most Nader voters of being "rich, white, and liberal," a claim later found to be statistically untrue. Almost everyone is privileged compared to someone else, but I see no reason to assume that the students involved in Habitat are particularly well off. "Privilege baiting" can be an effective tool against any college organization, since being at Oberlin itself is a major privilege.

And even if you think the "Shack-a-thon" was a mockery, at least it brought the issue of homelessness out of the corners of many "privileged" minds and onto the green of Wilder Bowl. Better a mockery than silence; better some attention (and funds) than none at all.

--Neal Schindler, College Senior

Adrift in a Bureaucratic Sea

To the Editor:

The following is a copy of a letter I've sent to: I.C. Cleveland Regional Office; Board of Trustees of Oberlin College; Gates McDonald Company; Gates McDonald Health Plus; BWC Medical Claims; Occupational Health Clinic.

I am writing all of you, again, to try and elucidate a few of the problems with the worker's compensation system.

First, let me say that I used to be a big supporter of worker's compensation.

Here's what happened to me: I got a minor injury (sprained wrists) on the job (working for Oberlin College in June). I went to the clinic prepared to pay using my insurance. I was given a few forms to fill out and noticed that one said worker's compensation on the top. I was told that BWC would take care of everything. After my second visit I was told there was nothing else to worry about. The following week I received a copy of a letter sent from BWC to Gates McDonald. The letter was asking for information on my injury. There was no indication that I needed to respond (after all it was not addressed to me but to the organization that must have repeated contact with the hospital).

Later, I got a letter telling me that my claim was rejected because there was no description of my injury. I replied with an appeal and described the accident as I had described it during my visits to the clinic. At the appeal hearing I was told that my letter was fine but there was no doctor's signature on my records from the hospital. I called the hospital to learn that there is always a doctor's signature but the forms are often sent to BWC before that signature is placed on the forms. I also learned that this had never been a problem. I got the required information and sent it to every address I could find. At my second hearing my claim approved.

If either the hospital or I had been contacted directly we would have easily supplied the missing information (both times) and saved much aggravation and expense.

I have tabulated the expenses I have incurred solely during the appeal process:

Total cost to me:

$235.63

Cost of treatment:

$185.85

The total cost to me has exceeded what the original cost of treatment was by approximately $50. But, that doesn't include the cost to the IC: two hearings and preparation; the BWC: document preparation and mailing; Gates McDonald: administrative costs; Oberlin College: attorney presence at two hearings; Allen Hospital: document retrieval, phone tag with me and mailing.

During this process only two people told me anything about my role in the sea of bureaucracy. They are Jim Bartko (district hearing officer for my Sept. 9 hearing) and Kim Wiggerly (at the Occupational Health clinic). Thank you both.

My recommendation: The BWC should communicate with the injured worker. If information is needed, ask for it. A document should be created and given to each injured worker so that a worker knows the process and what he or she needs to do and when he or she needs to do it.

Thank you for your time,

--Mark Frey, OC '00

Will Oberlin Lead Fight Against Chief?

To the Editor:

As Oberlin prepares for our Trustees next week, the issue of Mr. Larry Dolan and his baseball team is a serious topic of concern. May I suggest that individuals interested in forming educated opinions view the Main Index for American Indian Sport Team Mascots at www.earnestman.tripod.com.

The timeless words of 18th century philosopher Thomas Paine are applicable to our current situation, "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But tumult soon subsides, time makes more converts than reason."

Public understanding and awareness that American Indians are people and not symbols or mascots will eventually send Chief Wahoo the way of Little Black Sambo, the Frito Bandito and the Chinese Launderer. The question that remains is whether or not Oberlin will progressively lead or obscurely follow this process.

--Peter Dominguez, Professor of Jazz Studies and Double Bass

When Will Our Government Respect Democracy?

To the Editor:

In 1973, the C.I.A. backed a bloody coup in Chile toppling its democratically elected president, Salvador Allende.

During the 1980's, the Reagan Administration surreptiously sold arms to Iran while denouncing it as a "terrorist" nation, then used the profits to finance and train the Contras to violently upend the Sandinista Government in Nicaragua that had won 63 percent of the vote.

In 1989, George Bush invaded Panama simply to apprehend his old pal, Manuel Noriega, on drug charges. In the dragnet, U.S. troops killed up to 4,000 Panamanians and destroyed large sections of Panama City.

In 2000, Al Gore was voted U.S. president by a margin of about 230,000 votes, yet, George Senior's son, George W. Bush, may be our next chief executive.

Will America's political legacy to the world be to sail its gun-boat diplomacy anywhere we perceive nations aren't democratic enough, or perhaps too democratic?

In turn, how democratic are we when we surrender the "will of the people," to the oligarchy of the electoral system?

Governor Bush's razor-thin lead of a few hundred votes in Florida not only invites a national and legal dilemma, but begs a crisis of our very concept of democracy.

Bush adamantly decries a hand recount in Florida; yet he himself signed a law calling for their use in Texas. Conservatives oppose "federal interference," yet applaud when those in Bush's league sue in federal court to stop recounts. Bush-men assure us that Pat Buchanan really received 3,407 votes in heavily Democratic Palm Beach County even though only 337 are registered in his Reform Party. Meanwhile, 19,000 likely Gore votes are tossed because they were double punched on the county's confusing and arcane ballots.

The Greeks gave us the word democracy meaning "rule by the people." Is this rule by the people? Or is it a patrician family trying to use archaic machines and the anachronistic electoral system to pry open the doors of the White House?

What about the Electoral College? Hasn't it dutifully served us in the past? Not in 1876. Democrat Samuel Tilden had just won a convincing popular AND electoral victory. Congress then sent a committee to recount votes in three disputed states, including Florida. It included seven Democrats and eight Republicans. So, the committee voted by eight to seven to flip-flop the three states from the Democratic column to the G.O.P.

Republican Rutherford B. Hayes still lacked one electoral vote. Partisans shipped in one more electoral vote from Oregon contriving Hayes a victory.

Twice more - in 1824 and 1888 - Democrats won the popular vote only to lose the electoral college, which isn't very Democratic, or democratic.

Back to the Global Village. Off the coast of Florida is a country the U.S. has been suffocating with an embargo for 40 years. The C.I.A. even sponsored an invasion - endorsed by the White House - at the Bay of Pigs because the U.S. pontificated that Cuba lacked democracy. Will Castro jump the Straits of Florida to rectify our presently nebulous and dubious democracy? Surely that will not come to pass.

But will it come to pass that someday our government will respect democracy all over the world, even in the United States?

--Bill Arthrell, Oberlin Resident

Urging Clinton to Protect Our Forests

To the Editor:

I would like to bring to the attention of Oberlin students a recent development in the efforts to protect our national forests. Most have probably noticed such efforts by Ohio PIRG here on our campus. We are finally seeing some action as a result of this on the national level. The Forest Service has released a final plan for roadless area management in our national forests. This is very important because it protects almost 60 million acres of roadless areas, it prevents commodity logging and mining and it is one of the largest land protections this century. These areas provide critical habitat for rare and endangered species, clean drinking water for 1,000 communities and recreation opportunities for millions of people across the country.

The plan released by the Forest Service reflects President Clinton's vision for true protection of our national forests. To ensure a lasting conservation legacy, President Clinton needs to make a final decision that protects roadless areas in all national forests, including the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, from logging, mining, roadbuilding and other destructive activities. His decision regarding this plan must not leave loopholes for further destruction of our national forests.

In the coming weeks preceding President Clinton's final decision, Ohio PIRG will be sending public comment cards to President Clinton to urge him to improve on the Forest Service plan by making a decision to eliminate the loopholes in the plan and by providing immediate protection of the Alaskan Tongass National Forest. Ohio PIRG will be asking the campus for its support in these efforts by signing comment cards to urge Clinton to make this important move toward protection of the national forests.

--Lauren Goshen, College First-Year, Ohio PIRG member

Smith's Point Lost In Rhetoric

To the Editor:

Oh, what to make of S. Andrew Smith's latest diatribe, "A Call to Dog-Raping Democrats," which appeared in the Nov. 17 Review. What vital intellectual contribution has he bestowed upon Oberlin this time? Is it the well-disguised cry of a wounded Democrat lashing out at traitorous Greens? A clever attack on repetitive, overblown socialist rhetoric? Or neither of these? Let's try to figure it out.

Smith takes on a ridiculously false identity and tries to make the more gullible of us believe that he is, in fact, a rabidly leftist Naderite, intent on "reducing everyone in the world to utter penury" after the sought-after "Violent Revolution." This is indeed a dazzlingly original and witty device, but Smith quickly explodes in an uncontrollable foaming rage that scalds both Stalinist Greens and Fascist Republicans and makes the whole attempt pointless.

One might be fooled into thinking that there is something like a real argument, maybe an especially angry defense of the Democrats, somewhere underneath the layers and layers of rhetorical bile. Is this a lesser-evil argument? Democrats aren't Stalinists or Fascists, so fuck Nader for blowing the election? Maybe the whole thing is just another exercise in the equation of any kind of left-wing politics with totally insane Communist dictatorship. After all, Smith enjoys playing the part of strident but fictional leftists. Everyone remembers his posters and Review letters of two years ago, yelling something about his little "Maoist" cadre. Don't we?

No, there isn't any point to the letter. It's an excuse for Smith to see the immortal phrase "dog-rapers with small penises and stinky breath" in print over his name, and also for him to chuckle about the idea of Ralph Nader wanting to sodomize brainless sheep. Ha ha. Nice job. Try coming up with something to say next time.

--Ross Golowicz, College Junior

Letters to the Editor

Letters to the editor and column submissions must be received by Wednesday at 4:30 p.m. in Wilder Box 90 (or as email attachments) for inclusion in the following Friday's Review. Letters must include signatures and phone numbers of their authors for verification and may not exceed 600 words. Submissions may exceed 600 words only with the consent of the editorial board and will be printed at the discretion of the editors.

The Review reserves the right to edit letters for libel, space and clarity. Opinions expressed in letters, columns, essays, cartoons or other Commentary pieces do not necessarily reflect those of the staff of the Review. The Review will not print advertisements on its commentary pages. The Review defines the following as advertisements: 1) any announcement of products or services for sale; 2) any meeting or gathering.

Letters may also be e-mailed.


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 10, December 1, 2000

Contact us with your comments and suggestions.