Campus Must Accept Conflict Before Overcoming It
Staff Box
by Bill Lascher

At a school that prides itself for a progressive tradition, such as Oberlin, the free and open exchange of ideas is essential to the development of creative, energetic, active individuals. That exchange of ideas has been seriously threatened in recent months.
I could cite the numerous claims made in the Student Bill of Rights guaranteeing free expression and freedom from harassment, but apparently these guarantees have been thrown out by this institution in the aftermath of the March 17 assault of Grape columnist and senior Jeff Harvey.
As an individual who has been involved with the Review –– and thus the campus’ public discourse –– for nearly three years, I have rarely, if ever, been more outraged than I am now about the decision to reinstate the thugs responsible for the beating. I use the term “thugs” consciously, for clearly anyone who would break into someone’s room in the dead of night and beat him up on the provocation of a column he wrote is nothing more than a low-life.
Over a year ago, as a news editor, I covered the stabbing of a student in her dorm room. Part of my reporting involved meeting with Dean of Students Peter Goldsmith, the then-Director of Security Keith James and attendance of a charged meeting on campus safety. Throughout this process it was emphasized time and time again that action would be swift, the perpetrator would be caught and security would become a re-emphasized priority. Disturbingly, I find it no coincidence that reaction was swift because the perpetrator was a townsperson. On the other hand, in Harvey’s case, reaction has been slow because it was students who attacked him. Of course, as students, the perpetrators were entitled –– and rightfully so –– to the due process afforded them in the aforementioned Bill of Rights.
In no way do I condone last year’s stabbing, but the double standard here is sickening. Despite all the paranoid depictions of our fellow community members in town, it is only now that I feel uncertain about my safety. Why? Because I don’t know who I will offend with this letter, or any of my writing, or simply my affiliation with this paper; however, it is clear that the administration has done absolutely nothing to discourage whoever it could be from beating me up.
Personally, I find Harvey’s columns insipidly failed attempts at satire, yet I cherish the freedom he has to write as insipidly or eloquently as he damn well feels. The very fact that this freedom has been compromised by the Community Board’s decision to reinstate these students is reason for any Obie to burn with anger. Despite the lesson being taught that intimidation and terror could easily be used to silence us, we must raise our voices in rejection of this cowardly policy.
Although, as suggested in a Review editorial last week, e-mailing and writing letters to President Nancy Dye and Goldsmith to express our discontent is a step, we must not stop there. In fact, although the story was well-reported, the Review made a grave news-gathering error by not reporting who the members of the Community Board were, or why their names were kept confidential if that were the case. These people should be receiving as many letters as Dye and Goldsmith, the usual symbols of the administration in students’ minds. These are the individuals who caved to outside pressure, and these are the individuals who have spit on the claim that “We as a community encourage and protect free inquiry and the open exchange of facts, ideas, and opinions,” and the suggestion that “individuals should be tolerant of differences in opinion, respect the convictions of others, and protect the rights of all to pursue diverse lines of inquiry,” to name just two of the numerous sections of the Student Bill of Rights they have trampled upon.
According to last week’s article, Harvey is still writing his column in the Grape, but Assistant Dean of Students Bill Stackman “advised him not to write anything inflammatory.” While it is encouraging to see Stackman’s quick and strong response to the attack, a suggestion such as this only caves to the terrorism of the attack. Anybody on this campus, including Harvey, should feel comfortable and free enough to express whatever ideas or thoughts they may have, in whatever form they feel is necessary. These ideas and thoughts can include those which will motivate, stimulate, educate, and, yes, even infuriate others. It is the responsibility of those who are angered to respond maturely. Many have been incensed by the words on these very pages, but they have been able to show their objections without threatening somebody’s life. It is totally irresponsible and contrary to the ideals of open discussion for Stackman to suggest that Harvey practice some form of self-censorship.
One of the essential reasons the administration has not followed a more strict course of action is surely that it fears the public relations nightmare that news of this incident could create. That is not convincing. Think of the shot in the arm Oberlin’s reputation could receive for showing that it will not tolerate any actions that threaten the flowering of public discourse here, rather than trying to push any sign of stress in our carefully crafted image into the shadows. A school that values ideas and discussion over winning football teams and showy new buildings would be truly progressive, and yes, news-worthy. Right now this campus reeks of desperation: desperation for attention, desperation for good publicity, desperation for money.
Tension exists on this campus. That’s a fact. We must tear the calm, stable image to shreds, for until we address this tension it will never be eliminated.