Living Up To A Progressive Legacy

A Oberlin’s progressive legacy of pushing the limits of societal norms to open doors for groups has been overlooked, even neglected, and the student body is frustrated with the extent to which the College is not actively pursuing the legitimization of this legacy.

The intern crises have been partially resolved with the reinstatement of the interns in the Multicultural Resource Center and the Theater and Dance department for at least another year, however the crisis illustrated to what degree parts of the Oberlin community were actually devoted to multiculturalism. The administration considered multiculturalism programming second to budget concerns until faced by student pressure. Even though the rhetoric of multiculturalism abounds on this campus, it is questionable how much of the student body actually cares about the issue — only 70 students showed up at the direct action to support the MRC.

In light of Booker Peek’s comments on the EPPC’s proposed changes to the grading system both in last week’s and this week’s Review, and also a new report released by the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, it is clear that the impacts on these communities come from many different and sometimes unexpected areas of policy.

The EPPC’s proposed changes to the grading system will reinstate Ds and Fs for all students. Peek has suggested that these changes will disproportionately affect underprivileged students. While as of yet the Review has no hard data to support such claims, what is important is that the issue is raised.

The report from the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, entitled “Losing Ground,” compiled statistics on the trends that accompanied the rising cost of a college education. Since 1980, the percentage of family income spent on college tuition increased for all families, except for families in the top 20 percent income bracket. Perhaps the hardest hit were the poorest families, who saw a raise from 13 percent to almost 26 percent spent on college. Trapped in cycles of economic disparity, minorities get double hit with disadvantages of poverty and decreased access to education.

Over the last 10 years tuition has risen at more than twice the inflation rate. The only other thing in American society to raise at such a rate has been health care. This problem has been solved with lots of people being denied access to health care, a solution that seems wholly undesirable for either health care or education.

In regards to admissions policy, the College’s recent amendments — from “need-blind” to “need-sensitive” — may create a false sense of security that financially in-need students are being considered fairly in the admissions process. The shift in policy makes sense in order to prevent the gapping of students when the College, in financially dire straits, cannot meet all demonstrated financial need. However, this policy does create a precedence for choosing the rich kid over the poor kid.

The question is how to reconcile Oberlin’s legacy of a socially progressive tradition when colleges must be run like businesses. The College — especially the admissions office — contributes to the false sense that Oberlin is in fact continuing in this tradition as an extremely liberal and progressive institution. However, this representation attracts the kind of student body needed to affect change. Perhaps it is this tension between the idea of legacy and the debate surrounding this legacy that will drive Oberlin to live up to that legacy.