Identity Politics at Oberlin

Review Editors Should Resign
February 23 Letter

To the Editor:

The last of my long list of worries in being a part of the Vagina Monologues was to be given ALL the credit for the four additional pieces for the performance. In fact, I did not see this coming at all. My very first reaction to the article was that of astonishment and then of anger. On a rudimentary level, I was upset because proper credits were not given to the proper people. Wrong information was printed with the pretense of being the truth. But as I thought about the situation more, I realized what the consequences of such mistakes could eventually evolve into.
Student writers will make mistakes, and I am understanding of that situation. But what needs to be realized by the Review as a whole is that such distorted information can lead to harm (be it physical or mental) to individuals and/or communities. The article on the Vagina Monologues stated that I wrote the piece “An Ode to Sally Hemmings” on African-American issues. I am a South Asian international student. How can I EVER begin to comprehend African-American women’s issues, let alone write about it? Most people who read the article knew that it was a mistake, but there might be some individuals who for the first time came across the performance through this article in the Review. Those individuals may take the Review’s word for “fact” that I wrote the piece on African-American women. This adds to unnecessary and false ideas as to who I truly am and what I stand for. Some people may interpret my concerns as paranoia, but please try to understand the seriousness of such a comment: to say that I wrote a piece on African-American women is to say that I gave a voice to the African-American women. That is a serious underlying allegation.
One could also argue that how can one predict the problems that may arise from such “harmless,” “legitimate” mistakes. That is why the credibility and responsibility of the editors are of such importance. There is a reason why there are individuals in the position of editors –– to look out for mistakes, to make sure the information is as accurate as it can be, to make sure that such problematic scenarios are avoided to a maximum. As easy as it would be for anyone and for me to concentrate the blame on the writer of the article, but the truth of the matter is that the editors are the ones who I personally hold accountable for this misinformation and thus the false allegation. The editors failed in correcting the article before it went to the press. I see that such “harmless” and “legitimate” mistakes are constantly being made by the Review. If the Review wants to be viewed as a serious journalistic attempt, the staff as a whole needs to shape up and be more aware of the consequences of such writings. Someday, such a misprint may cause serious damage to someone’s reputation and status. To be quite blunt, if the editors are unable to do their jobs right, I advise them to quit and find a new set of editors who are truly committed to their journalism and who are basically more responsible, rational, logical human beings.
Please note, that I wrote only ONE additional monologue that was untitled, while TWO of them were written by hiroshi including “?” and Dominique Atchison wrote “Ode to Sally Hemmings.”

–Shahana Siddiqui
College first-year


Arts Section Unprofessional
February 23 Letter

To the Editor: 

I would like to call attention to a recent trend towards errors in the Arts reviews of the Oberlin Review, most recently in the review of The Vagina Monologues in the Feb. 16 edition. In the review, it was mistakenly stated that Shahana Siddiqui, ensemble member of this year’s production of The Vagina Monologues, wrote all four of the original pieces included in this year’s production. In fact, there were four new monologues written by three Oberlin students; Shahana Siddiqui, Dominique Chantell Atchison and hiroshi, as was stated in the programs that were distributed at the event. The article referred directly to two original monologues; “An Ode to Sally Hemmings,” written by Dominique Chantell Atchison and “?” by hiroshi, both of which were erroneously credited to Shahana Siddiqui. Simply referring to a program, or interviewing and/or contacting a member of the production to clarify facts could have avoided this error. I find this omission to be extremely irresponsible of the entire editorial staff of the Review. As I understand it, having grown up with an editor parent, the job of the editors includes checking articles for false information. It is the responsibility of the editors to stand accountable for the articles that are printed in their publication.
This is a problem that has been occurring recently in the Review. There was a letter to thc editor in the Feb. 16 edition of the Review that called attention to errors made in thc Arts review of Godspell. I also noticed that in the Arts review of Equus and Venus two actors’ names, Ben Stuber and Thomas Taylor, were switched. It is unacceptable. These are simple mistakes that could easily be corrected with some thought and responsibility. I would think that the journalists and editorial staff of the Review would have more pride in their work than to print articles and reviews without even checking the information.
These kinds of errors take credit away from people who have worked extremely hard as a part of a production. It is an insult to those who have been misrepresented or not represented at all. Our names make us who we are, and connect to the activities, identities and events we are a part of. Stripping people of their names in an article of this kind is stripping them of a certain dignity that they deserve.
I find it problematic that no one from the Oberlin Review even took the time to interview anyone from The Vagina Monologues. It is a journalist’s responsibility to conduct interviews on topics they publish articles on, especially Arts reviews. To have insight from members of the production could alleviate errors of this kind, as well as giving more information on which to base a review. It is unprofessional of any arts review staff and editors not to assume this as standard practice. This is poor journalism. If The Oberlin Review would like to be taken seriously as a worthwhile, trustworthy and professional publication, these errors must stop and the staff and editors must take responsibility for what is printed.

–A. Lara Dredge 
College sophomore


Copeland Questions Siddiqui’s Open-mindedness
March 2 Perspectives Essay

by Roger Copeland, professor of theater and dance

Only the most vigilant guardian of common sense could possibly find the time to respond to all of the nonsense that’s published, week after week, in the Oberlin Review’s “Letters to the Editor” section. But every once in a while, a letter appears that sums up the reigning orthodoxies –– the prevailing madness –– with such exquisite, if unintentional, precision that some sort of response becomes necessary. 
Last week’s prizewinner was a letter by Shahana Siddiqui that ran under the wonderfully hyberbolic title “Review Editors Should Resign.” I wish I could simply reprint the letter here, in its entirely, for it demonstrates with frightening forthrightness some of the more absurd consequences of Oberlin’s current obsession with “identity politics.” One of the most destructive underlying assumptions of this political ethos is that we are incapable as unique individuals of ever really understanding the experiences of those whose race, class and/or gender is different from our own.
Just for the record: Ms. Siddiqui’s letter was an angry response to a review of the latest Oberlin incarnation of The Vagina Monologues (The essay that enraged Siddiqui was published in the Review on Feb. 16). Ms. Siddiqui, it appears, was incorrectly identified as the author of an ode about African-American women. Ironically, the offending review of The Vagina Monologues referred to this ode as “one of the evening’s most well-written pieces.” 
Now, mistakes are mistakes; and it was clearly careless of the Review’s reviewer to attribute this ode to the wrong author. But Siddiqui isn’t content to correct the record. Siddiqui is a South Asian international student, and the ode whose authorship was mistakenly attributed to her is about an African-American woman (specifically, the black slave Sally Hemmings). Thus Siddiqui feels obligated to express her moral outrage at the very idea that anyone could be careless or stupid enough to believe that an ode about African-American issues could possibly have been written by someone (herself) who is in fact South Asian. 
Here are Siddiqui’s own words: “The article on The Vagina Monologues stated that I wrote the piece ‘An Ode to Sally Hemmings’ on African-American issues. How can I EVER begin to comprehend African-American women’s issues, let alone write about it?…This adds to unnecessary and false ideas as to whom I truly am and what I stand for…(To) say that I wrote a piece on African-American women is to say that I gave a voice to the African-American women. That is a serious underlying allegation.”
What lends a certain pathos to this letter is Ms. Siddiqui’s conviction that her very identity is at stake in this controversy and that any confusion about who she is (and, just as significantly, who she is entitled to “speak on behalf of”) can cause palpable harm. In her own words, “(what) needs to be realized by the Review as a whole is that such distorted information can lead to harm (be it physical or mental) to individuals and/or communities.”
Now, once upon a time, before the advent of identity politics, it was simply taken for granted that one of the principle functions of writing and acting (indeed of the arts more generally) is to help us transcend the limitations of our own genetic hardwiring, thereby enabling us to imaginatively project ourselves into the psyches of others. And once upon a time — again, before the advent of identity politics — it was also taken for granted that one of the principle functions of a liberal arts education is to promote precisely this sort of self-transcendence, this imaginative leap “out of ourselves.” The root of the word ‘education’ after all is e-ducere, which means literally, to be lead forth, to be dragged — kicking and screaming, if necessary — out of and away from our own instincts and preconceptions.
Now in closing, I have no idea which Oberlin courses Ms. Siddiqui has been enrolled in this year. But I have to wonder whether any reasonably intelligent young person would actually arrive independently at such ridiculously limiting ideas if it weren’t for the pervasiveness of identity politics in Oberlin’s curriculum. To paraphrase George Orwell, we’re talking about habits of mind so preposterous that only an academic could believe in them.


Copeland Typifies White Racism
March 9 Letter

To the Editor:

I am deeply disappointed in Professor Copeland’s contorted way of thinking in his letter to the Review, “Copeland Questions Siddiqui’s Open-mindedness.” Open-mindedness is about being aware of and acknowledging different people’s experiences across race, class, gender and/or sexuality. It is not about the absolutely patronizing and even insulting notion that people can put themselves in the shoes of another person who is different in the aforementioned ways and claim to know where he/she comes from, or in Professor Copeland’s words, “understand the experiences.” Professor Copeland obviously was not at The Vagina Monologues or if he were, he certainly did not recognize the intense depth and passion with which junior Dominique Atchison wrote and shared her piece, a piece that could have only been written by someone who has shared her experiences.
In the early half of the 1900s, people of color characters in movies and other shows were continually played by white people, (black face in Birth of a Nation, yellow face in Broken Blossoms). This has continued in the Broadway musical Miss Saigon, where white British actor Jonathan Pryce played the role of the Vietnamese engineer. These white producers’ and actors’ perceptions of colored people were so absurd and so insulting, always giving the white characters status, always portraying people of color characters as submissive. White people used their own deception of knowing how other people are as an imperialistic mentality to go into other cultures and claim to “save the barbarians.” In reality, they committed mass genocide, brought over their diseases and forced the natives into indentured servitude in one way or another. It is this attitude that [first-year Shahana] Siddiqui ultimately does not have in stating that she could never give “a voice to African-American women.”
Professor Copeland could also never project himself “into the psyches” of any person of color, even though society would allow him to do so. People of color cannot claim the experiences of being white because we do not have the white privilege. We will always be rendered different, either as enemies or as “model minorities” — any extreme, never individuals. Whereas white people may think of race from time to time or what people they claim to “understand” on any day, people of color think about race everyday, every waking hour. 
To Professor Copeland and some white people, different cultures are like a masquerade. They jump between different races, different cultures thinking they know exactly where people of color come from and thus keep feeding their so-perceived liberal, progressive gut. This is exactly the same kind of imperialistic mindset that led to the destruction of so many cultures and it is this white supremacist attitude today that makes “identity politics” the scapegoat. It is the historical oppression of people of color that makes not only identity politics, but way beyond that, multicultural studies and a critique of racism in U.S. society necessary. Yet, many white people continue to dismiss these brutal circumstances. Apparently, Professor Copeland is quite content to live in his own conniving world of multiculturalism, along with the majority of the white race.

–Atley Chock 
College junior


Think, Then Speak
March 9 Editorial

Sometimes, what the Oberlin student body needs more than anything else is a collective deep, slow breath. This is one of those times. The controversy that began when Zeke was changed to co-ed housing for Fall 2001 more than two weeks ago has yet to abate, and the Review’s incorrect crediting of the author of a Vagina Monologues piece three weeks ago has launched a vicious back-and-forth of letter-writing and name-calling. This campus is a stressful enough place as is; there’s no need for excess grief. Especially with midterms coming up. And that awful sickness still going around. And the never-ending cold weather.
Let’s get down to the nitty-gritty facts here: we’re all Obies. This is a pretty self-evident observation, but sometimes –– especially inside the bubble –– we forget what that actually means. It means, first of all, that for whatever reason, we all at some point agreed on at least one thing: that we wanted to come to Oberlin. This is a pretty significant agreement. It means that a) we wanted to come to Ohio, and b) to Oberlin, Ohio. 
For a moment, discard the political term “diversity” and use the dictionary definition: “difference.” There is, indeed, much diversity at Oberlin –– there are a lot of different people here, a lot of different kinds and types and colors and sizes of people. In the real world, these things too often make a difference in the way people are treated. At Oberlin –– argue what you will about whether diversity is “celebrated” –– difference is rarely a determining factor, especially in the things that really matter. Sure, there’s room for improvement, but Oberlin as a campus is most definitely a safe space in ways that almost nowhere else in the world can or will be. 
Think about it this way. Some time after graduation, you are walking down the street and see a sweatshirt half a block off with the familiar white-on-blue or yellow-on-red lettering. What do you do? You say, “Excuse me, did you go to Oberlin?” or something to that effect. And it doesn’t matter if they played lacrosse, or the cello, or majored in sociology, or hung out at the Java Zone, or ate in Harkness or whatever. It matters that they’re an Obie, and so are you, and you’ve just found one other person in this huge world that you’re immediately connected to, that you’re automatically compatible with. Remember that the next time you’re about to call one of your fellow-Obies a coward, or a racist, or the Antichrist in print. 
The Review maintains a universal inclusion policy for campus letters in order to promote freedom of speech and freedom of expression, and would never seek to curb those rights that we all hold so dear. But there is a not-so-fine line between the kind of free speech that facilitates dialogue and just being mean. For the kind of intelligent, thoughtful college student who is supposed to inhabit this campus, the distinction should not be a hard one.