Editorial

The virtues of debate

While Oberlin students traveling to New York this weekend are to be lauded for speaking their minds, they should also remember that healthy debate is the core of a healthy society. In that vein, reacting with intolerance—defacing a fellow student’s door because of their convictions and occupation, to take a recent example (see article, page 1)—is to be roundly condemned.
Besides simply being base, such acts are at variance with the attempts of others to make Oberlin a bastion of diversity of thought.
Furthermore, such techniques aren’t going to convince anyone. Honest intellectual engagement is and must be the way to change the minds of those who think differently than you do.
Oberlin students of all political persuasions will do well to foster a more lively debate on campus. The point here, of course, is to engage in debate on the issues at hand and not make it a personal political attack on another individual. This is difficult to do when one is passionate about his or her view, that is why it is called a skill. Though, once this skill is executed properly, maintaining one’s focus on dealing with the issuing instead of the person. Impassioned debate is only an aid to ones argument the he how of that passion is what is of concern. If protestors around the world can unite for a cause against war they should also be able to demand of themselves and others to think and act wisely when speaking and acting in efforts to change the world. If one is prepared to challenge government on technicalities and political loopholes then in theory the government can challenge protestors about their poor ethics within the debate. Lets raise the standard of behavior and represent a flawless argument.

INS needs to fix SEVIS

As war with Iraq looms closer, Oberlin students are right to express their views on the big picture. But they should also stay focused on federal legislation that hits closer to home. SEVIS, the government’s new eyes and ears on America’s international students, was presumably created with the best of intentions. But America’s immigration policy has also, however, recently developed some serious flaws—as evidenced by the scores of students, professors, and others who were kept from entering the United States this year due to a paperwork backlog of visa applications.
The danger in this case is sending the world a message of exclusion rather than inclusion, of arbitrariness rather than acceptance.
At a time when America needs to win hearts and minds, placing barriers on allowing international students to attend higher educational institutions in the United States is a grave mistake. This policy risks alienating those who might otherwise come to think that America gave them the greatest opportunity of their lives: a solid education, a wider perspective, a questioning mind—in short, those same values Oberlin students value so highly.
Oberlin students will do well to remember, when organizing protests, sending letters to politicians, and generally choosing their battles, that America’s mission in the post-Sept. 11 world is not just to amend bad policies, but to keep from ruining good ones.

Editorials are the responsibility of the Review editorial board—the Editors in Chief, Managing Editor and Commentary Editor—and do not necessarily reflect the view of the staff of the Review.