Printing Paranoia

To the Editor:

Fellow students, I am writing to warn you of a danger that many of you are already aware of. This peril stalks us at every turn and endangers our very existence. What hidden terror plagues the otherwise placid Oberlin campus? Theft of our precious print quotas!!!

This is not a problem that you can report to campus security or the Oberlin PD. The right to 500 pages is not guaranteed by the Constitution, but is written on the very souls of every Oberlin computer user. We are compelled to protect our print quotas and ourselves.

It is not enough to merely log out. Many of you have already discovered that you must shut down the entire computer. Sure this inconveniences and infuriates the next users who have to wait 3,000 years for the computer to restart. And, granted, with finals approaching people may want to actually use the computers rather than grow old waiting for them to restart. With tensions running high, already strained students may very well snap when they realize that they cannot log on to any computer in the whole lab because the previous users were concerned about the safety of their printer quotas and shut them all down. But it's a small price to pay in the face of such a menace.

In fact, I would argue that even restarting the computer is not enough security. Our precious parchment will not be safe until we have logged out, shut down the computer, and carried the hard drives away to secret locations high in the treetops where we can pelt invaders with stones should they dare approach and attempt to print from our quotas. I urge you all to consider the gravity of our situation and defend your quotas to the last page by shutting down the computer. Is the sanity of other students worth the risk? If not, please just log out and quit wasting my time!

--Constance Brichford,College Junior

Between a Socialist and a Kazoo

To the Editor:

Well friends, Larry Summers has come and gone and if we've learned one thing, it's that there ain't much getting in the way of a socialist and his kazoo. Certainly not the Secretary of the Treasury, the acting president or the lack of any desire to effect real changes of attitude in their fellow students.

Yup, we sure showed that imperialist bully Summers not to tread on good ol' Oberlin. I'm sure he's sitting at home right now, in his proletariat-hide smoking jacket, manufactured by the slave labor of the latest U.S. colony, thinking, "Gosh, I was going to wreck social havoc on Tanzania tomorrow, but gee, that bullhorn really got to me. I think I'll devote my life to incessant xeroxing and postering." Take that, globalization!

We'll overthrow the bourgeoisie sooner or later. But in case it is later, I have a number of real beefs in the mean time. How come the socialists got to read their statement on Monday?! Why are they so privileged? They're not the only ones who have something to say. I've got concerns too and more pressing ones at that.

Acting President Koppes, I demand answers to the following questions:

(1) What have you done with Nancy Dye? Is she really coming back?

(2) Why are there only two photography classes offered per semester, to like three students, when we're a campus of studio art junkies?

(3) When can I buy my prozac at the DeCafe with flex dollars?

(4) Will Brother Jed ever come out of the closet?

(5) Give us back the "Black & White World." There's no way Nate had the credits to graduate and we know you pushed him out. (Okay, so that wasn't a question.)

(6) When can we expect to see the football team take on the women's rugby squad?

(7) From whom do the administrators buy the good weed?

Shame on you socialists for dominating the floor with your hegemonic performance while ignoring the real concerns of this student body!

--Lev Ezekiel, College Senior

Alum Concerned With Trustees' Lack of Diversity

To the Editor:

During my frequent visits to Oberlin College as a member of the Executive Board of the Alumni Association and as co-chair of Oberlin Lambda Alumni I have the opportunity to meet with students from the various LGBT organizations on campus. During Alumni Council weekend in September LGBT Coordinator Tori McReynolds had arranged for the OLA Steering Committee to have a discussion and dinner with several students from LGBT organizations which was followed by an open reception for LGBT students with faculty, administrators and alumni. The reception, hosted by Tori and the MRC, provided an opportunity for different generations of the Oberlin family to meet informally.

As alumni, we are always impressed with the candor, confidence and creative thinking which is expressed by current students on campus. It is reassuring for us, many of whom are in the academic world, that Oberlin students show a commitment to making the world a better place through their social and political activism; this social and political activism and awareness remains with Oberlin alumni long after leaving campus. But it is the Oberlin experience which instills this sense of commitment in the vast majority of students and alumni.

During my second visit to campus this semester while attending November's Executive Board meetings, I had the opportunity to meet Joe and Joann Elder, both of whom are from the class of '51. Joe and Joann were in Oberlin for Joe's being honored as an outstanding alumnus. Joe, a professor at University of Wisconsin-Madison, and Joann have made significant contributions to the quality of life in Wisconsin and have also been pioneers as leaders of P-FLAG (Parents, Family, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) in Madison. On Friday evening I attended a panel discussion presented by staff members of the MRC for 68 exceptional prospective students of color who were guests of the college. On Saturday the Executive Board had lunch with several of Oberlin's Asian American students and had the opportunity to hear their perspectives and concerns about diversity on campus.

As an alumnus, I am proud of Oberlin's history of commitment to diversity. The College continues its efforts to recruit a diverse population of students, faculty and staff; however, it has been a concern of the Oberlin Lambda Alumni that the Board of Trustees of Oberlin College does not measure up to the rest of the Oberlin community in terms of diversity of its membership. The OLA Steering Committee has expressed this concern to the trustees. We are particularly concerned that there are no openly LGBT members on the Board of Trustees, and we encourage those of you on campus to encourage the Board to make the same commitment to the diversity of its membership that the institution has made to the development of its faculty, staff and student body.

--James Harrington, OC'73 Alumni Association Executive Board, OLA Co-Chair

Accountability Not Unreal Expectation

To the Editor:

I write in response to the criticisms that Ron Kahn, Monroe Professor of Politics and Chair of the Student Life Committee, made in a letter to the editor last week. In an act that may surprise many (especially Ron Kahn) I agree that Josh Rosen made a miscalculation when he used the term "race-baiting" to describe the pattern of behavior that Dean Goldsmith and other senior administrators exhibit in their willingness or reluctance to undertake certain policy initiatives.

As Professor Kahn noted, cultural sensitivities do not necessarily imply racial stratifications. Also, Thomas Tredway's letter in the November 10th edition concerns the administration's utilization of LGBT students to attack Domestic Partnerships and does not speak to issues of race. Taking into consideration the responses that Dean Goldsmith and senior administrators have given when questioned about issues such as the SECURE charter, co-ed rooms, and the revision of Domestic Partnerships, I agree that "race-baiting" is not the most accurate definition of this disturbing pattern. Though the worth of my education will soon exceed $100,000, it is difficult for me to bring to mind the term that most accurately characterizes the utilization of a group that has been historically marginalized on this campus as a shield to protect your Capital Campaign/pay off Stevenson/attract more full-paying students agenda from every valid criticism that comes its way. The only word that comes to mind is "cowardice."

I do not expect my Dean of Students or the Oberlin College administration as a whole to agree with me on every issue or to bow to my every demand. I do not expect these administrators to implement changes that will cause this college to go bankrupt. What I do expect and demand is personal accountability. That's not such an unreal expectation is it?

It won't make us look bad in admissions materials, it doesn't offend anyone, and best of all it doesn' t cost the College a cent!

--Erika Hansen, College Senior, Student Senator

Condescension Out of Place

To the Editor:

Sunday night, before Larry Summers and the great excitement surrounding his visit, 20 people sat in Wilder 215 discussing slightly less glamorous topics than globalization and the new economy, but ones that will likely have just as strong an effect on people reading this newspaper. Over nearly three hours, Peter Goldsmith explained, almost entirely through what he refused to say, how much influence students will have in decision making at this College during his employment.

All of this is my own opinion, based on what I heard. Place as much or as little value on it as you think proper. I would encourage people to have some interaction with Peter Goldsmith before they form their own opinions. Get to know him not just as a friendly person (which he is) or a "nice guy"(the exact two words which almost everyone uses, including myself) but as someone who makes decisions that affect our daily lives. I don't believe that people can be judged by their words. But watch his footwork.

There are no simple quotes or sound bites. Goldsmith is an incredible talker, knows exactly what can and can not be proven, doesn't make mistakes on the record and would sooner be caught dead than put something real in writing. But his statements boil down to: "I don't care what students want, my job is safe and I'll do as I damn well please." He will tell you anything you want to hear. But ask for something in writing and you will see him, in a manner so smooth it seems to be without effort, distance himself from all responsibility, accountability, or indication that we deserve more than platitudes in return for the well over $200,000 of our money it costs to keep him here.

All that can be proven is what he refuses to say. And what he refuses to say is anything concrete about giving students a part of decision making at this College as a policy rather than a suggestion, of student empowerment. He talks endlessly about letting students act and make decisions for ourselves, while not acknowledging that all real avenues to the decisions are blocked.

The most telling fact is that he recently changed his job description. Conspicuously absent in his new version (in both letter and spirit) is the line: "As a member of the president's senior staff, the Dean advocates for the interests of students at the highest policy-making level of the administration." Whether or not you believe Charlene Cole-Newkirk, dean before Goldsmith came in last year, did this well is not the issue. What is important is that we used to have someone in power who was supposed to represent us. Now the person with that power has shirked his responsibility to us. More dishonorable than the change itself is that he made it without talking to students first, and that he didn't see a need to inform us that we had lost our only advocate at the levels where decisions are actually made. What we are left with are referenda that he ignores, an impotent Student Senate and off-the-record communication which means nothing when the chips are down.

This is where the typical disenfranchised Oberlin student complains that this place isn't like the brochure said it would be. "They promised me that I would change the world." But Oberlin, of all the places I've seen, has a history of genuine progressive action and respecting its students as more than just a source of income. I've been here for almost four years and I still believe it. Yes, I know this is sappy but this place has a heart.

Peter Goldsmith, more than anyone I've ever met at this school, self consciously goes against what is good about Oberlin. We can have dialogues and arguments about anything from co-ed rooms to having a football team to how the endowment should be invested. Which side people take in an argument is not important to the spirit. What is important is that people do not lie, manipulate and say that they care while knowingly doing the opposite.

His condescension and lack of respect for students is as subtle as it is profound. He does not belong at Oberlin. If Oberlin becomes a place where he belongs, then the world will have lost a great progressive institution.

Anyone interested can contact me for a full recording of the meeting.

--Ben Ezinga, College Senior

Is Our Progressivism a Farce?

To the Editor:

John Scofield accuses us - the Oberlin College community - of being arrogant in telling Larry Dolan the racist implications of Chief Wahoo, mascot of the Cleveland Indians, the baseball team Dolan owns.

For Scofield to say that students, faculty and administrators who fight racism are arrogant undermines the progressive tradition that Oberlin College prides itself on and advertises in its admissions literature. So, either Scofield doesn't belong at Oberlin College, or the school's progressive tradition is a farce, only upheld when convenient, uncontroversial, or cost-effective. Or maybe it's both. That would make sense, for in that case, the hiring of an anti-anti-racist such as Scofield would not conflict with the school's agenda.

That would also explain other ways in which the College pretends to stand fully behind its progressive philosophy until it becomes too difficult. For instance:

The construction of the new science center, which ignores the environmental principles used in the design of our token green building, the A.J. Lewis Center.

The way the College restricts OSCA's size and autonomy and limits students from getting off board and off-campus and yet has made little effort in making dorms and CDS more appealing, such as the recent and disappointing decision to stop discussion about co-ed rooms in dorms.

The fact that there is only one administrator that looks after the interests of students of color as part of their job description (or perhaps, the fact that we need an administrator with such a job description).

So often at this school, students are the only body that recognizes its duty of social responsibility. We are forced into a reactive position because we are seldom included to any effective extent in decision-making processes. When excluded, we are rarely if at all given full disclosure of events. Then, when we protest after the fact, we end up looking like whiny, uppity, militant liberals and the "leaders" of this institution dedicated to students call us arrogant.

If, as Scofield seems to communicate, we are slaves to our trustees and unquestioningly seek them out for their money, then maybe we should at least avoid picking trustees that propagate racism.

--Kasi Chakravartula, College Junior

--Aay Preston-Myint, College Sophomore

--Sharon Tantoco, College Junior

Trustees Not Coveted Prizes

To the Editor:

In response to John Scofield's letter of Dec. 1, entitled "Passion Insufficient Without the Proof."

In his letter, Mr. Scofield makes a questionable transition from discussing civility in public dialogue to criticizing the recent opposition to Trustee Larry Dolan and his involvement with the notorious "Chief Wahoo" symbol.

Deciding how to protest a respected figure of considerable authority can be a difficult process, but it is an important one, especially in cases where that authority is abused. Deciding not to protest because an individual is respected and has authority (or money) does not seem to follow the spirit or temperament of Oberlin College.

Mr. Scofield claims that questioning the appropriateness of "Chief Wahoo" (and possibly the appropriateness of Mr. Dolan as an Oberlin Trustee) constitutes "arrogance." He appears skeptical that our esteemed Trustee, upon hearing the views of the opposition, "will bow to our demands." In my opinion and possibly in the opinion of others in the Oberlin Community, Mr. Dolan's status as a College Trustee should not remove him from the reach of criticism, particularly when such criticism comes in the form of civil public rhetoric. Mr. Scofield points out that "Mr. Dolan has little to gain from his new status as an OC trustee but we have much to gain from him," where I assume the "much" to mean financial support and not insight into cultural sensitivity (correct me if I'm wrong).

To assume that Mr. Dolan and his professional politics are unimpeachable simply because he is a Trustee would be an error. To believe that he must be appeased, whatever his politics, so that he will remain a generous donor would be shallow and misguided. Being an Oberlin College Trustee may not be "a coveted prize," but being part of a college community that is willing to question authority, whether through civil rhetoric or raucous noise, is something I treasure.

--Neal Schindler, College Senior

Retired Government Law Attorney Proposes Reforms

To the Editor:

Regardless of who finally wins, this election has taught us two painful lessons: that the archaic Electoral College must go, and that we need a single, uniform national election system. Constitutional amendments to do that will likely be introduced, but isn't it time to begin thinking about other basic electoral reforms, plus the many other structural features of our Constitution that are dangerously out-of-date?

The logical method "We, the People" could use to re-form the Constitution from scratch, peacefully and legally, is based on three items from our national heritage: (1) our belief in democracy's keystone principle "government by the consent of the governed;" (2) the only U.S. Supreme Court decision in point, which held unanimously that the courts must keep "hands off;" and (3) the precedent for improvisation set by the founding fathers when they drafted our present Constitution. They boldly ignored Congress' instructions to simply amend the Articles of Confederation, and then improvised a new method of ratification instead of using the impractical one for amendments to the Articles.

We can follow their bold example and improvise an "unofficial" method along these lines: (1) forming a huge movement by getting the public-interest organizations and campus activist groups into a joint project, big enough to sponsor (2) an unofficial election of local delegates and national leaders to (3) an unofficial "Citizens' Convention" ("CitCon") which would draft a new constitution and submit it to (4) an unofficial ratification election. If the necessary super majority of voters nationwide, as fixed by the CitCon, voted "Yes, we consent to the new constitution," then it would all become "official" retroactively, and America would be re-born!

Here's a sample of the electoral and structural reforms which the "revising mothers and fathers" of the CitCon could propose in their new document:

Having a one-house Congress that combines about 400 district members ("DMs") and 100 senators elected at large, using proportional representation for fairness to small parties, but with an automatic adjustment based on nationwide two-choice vote for "most trusted party" to avoid the need for coalitions by guaranteeing a working majority to that party.

Electing the 400 DMs from 200 districts, with just one ballot but electing both of the top two winners. A two-choice vote would avoid wasting the votes of small-party supporters.

Letting Congress elect the "Chief" (CEO) instead of continuing to give the voters power to paralyze the government by separately electing a president with a charming personality but from another party.

Requiring Congress to use a state-of-the-art computer for speed and decisiveness in all voting, plus an accurate record. For equal representation of every voter it would be able to register a weighted vote for every member in proportion to votes they received when elected.

Safeguarding against abuse of power by having a group of 60 to 80 "Guardians" elected by the CitCon and serving for life, to oversee all agencies and keep them honest and on the ball. One group, the "Political Guardians," could conduct an official nationwide voter opinion poll every two months, and call an automatic election when that showed most voters no longer supported the majority party. They would also allocate free TV and radio time - just debates and interviews - plus limited public funds to all candidates to eliminate today's legalized bribery.

If all that seems to mind-boggling to start in on, remember Margaret Mead's words:

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has!"

--Sam Carr Polk, Retired Attorney, Author: Constitutional Reform For America, Santa Monica, CA

OPIRG Seeks Out New Blood

To the Editor:

We represent a group of students concerned about the possible implications of global warming across all sectors of humanity. We are writing to encourage participation by faculty, staff and students in a symposium on climate change that will take place this February. It will most likely be on Feb. 24, the last Saturday of the month.

We are interested in broadening the scope of how we view the implications of climate change. Everywhere in the news we see how global warming would change growing seasons, raise sea level and possibly affect the biodiversity of the planet. While these things surely would change our lives, we don't always think about what a warmer earth might mean for city planning, public health and other social issues. We are interested in hearing from as many different disciplines as possible to address what global warming might mean for our society and indeed the whole world.

We would like to address the problem of global warming across a wide range of issues. Would a warmer climate impact the ability of developing nations to feed their populations? Would global warming have effects on foreign dependence on heating oil? Would a less drastic season change affect seasonal mood disorders? These are a few examples of the countless questions that could be addressed.

We are looking to expand the breadth of knowledge of global warming and to create a panel of faculty that could serve as a resource for students as speakers are brought in from other areas later in the year. We are looking for a whole dialogue that addresses the science as well as the social implications of a warmer Earth.

This event would occur around the time that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will release their current report, and there will be much in the news about this phenomenon. We would all benefit from a discussion of what climate change means.

Have you been doing artwork relating to climate change? We would love to display it in the Adam Joseph Lewis Center atrium. Is there a theater piece you would like to do that addresses what our world might be like in 100 years? Have you done any research on coral reefs and bleaching as a response to warmer waters? Do you have a wealth of knowledge about solar panels or wind power and their role as a future energy source? Are you an urban planner that would like to talk about designing cities that are not dependent on personal vehicles? An engineer who would like to talk about fuel cells and their role in automobile design? A member of the politics department who could discuss the difficulties of ratifying carbon emissions laws in Congress? A statistician that would talk about the difficulty or ease of making numbers say what you want them to with contradictory scientific evidence?

Share your knowledge and interest and help us build a wide reaching dialog about climate change and how it will affect our world. If you would like to be a part of this in any way, please call or send us an email at climate.change@oberlin.edu

--Meagan Forney, College Sophomore

--Paige Wiegman, 2020 Project Coordinator