The loss of the Sexual Assault Support Team’s hotline is regrettable for the Oberlin student community. SAST’s attempts to address concerns of racism and diversity lobbied against them have caused rifts within its own organization. (See page 1)

Shutting down the hotline in order to reorganize its structure and redress allegations of biased services may serve students in the long term. Cultural and ethnic sensitivity and training may be taught to SAST members to help them provide support to any person who has experienced abuse and/or sexual assault. Whether this redirected attention will serve current Oberlin students is questionable, however. Not offering an ad hoc anonymous service or any sort of comparable program in place of the hotline seems antithetical to the purpose of SAST, especially compared to their other activities such as workshops, Peacekeepers and Sexual Assault Awareness Week.

The vote for closure without the presence of the hotline leaders and coordinators and the decision not to permit them to be aware of this vote seem to point to greater conflicts within the organization than one would guess. It also points to an inexplicably sudden shift in priorities. Also, if the allegations of hostility and disrespect toward hotline coordinators are true, then there may be more to attend to than seemingly unintentional racial insensitivity.

At this point, the issue facing College students should be the future support for those who have suffered through sexual violence on campus. Will there be enough College and student-initiated resources and services to prevent and handle future abuse and assault incidents?

Granted, there are many places where students can still turn if they need help. There are on-campus resources such as the Counseling Center and the Sexual Information Center. OSCA has its own sexual assault policy advocates. SAST can still offer its services despite the absence of their hotline. Right now, as Lee McKeever and Rebecca Tinkelman suggest in their letter to the editor (See page 10), the Lorain County Rape Crisis Center may be the best option for those seeking confidential care.

Grape standards

The Review is guilty of many things. We may not get quotes word for word in 100 percent of the quotations in our pages. We may unfortunately neglect to cover events that should receive recognition on campus. But, above all else, we try to adhere to the stories that have an impact on campus.

We see it as a civic duty to represent Oberlin College: its diversity, its internal disagreements, its longstanding liberal opinion and consensus. We do our best to add to the “chaotic” complexities of media, as Gainni Vattimo puts it, and revel in our version of objective truth as a collegiate, not-for-profit publication.

As long as we can acknowledge that our content and article angles show our sensitivity and respect for our audience on these pages, we can say that our readers are our primary concern.

With this overarching purpose, it would be out of the question to, first, print unsubstantiated accusations guised in our articles, and second, to have an editorial policy that stresses, “views [contained here]…do not necessarily reflect those of Oberlin College…nor do they necessarily reflect the views of [the paper’s] staff.”

While editorial decisions at other campus publications are not the Review’s business, we must point out any incredible inauthenticity of “information” doled out with little regard for the effects that accompany even the most unorthodox of claims. To make iconoclasm an ideology, it must add something to a discourse. The only way to achieve this is through “facts,” which can then be debated and judged.

Information printed without reason is irrelevant but not unnoticed. The Grape paraphrased a quote in its April 14 edition that claimed that the Review printed anti-Semitic articles. We do not protest such charges as untruthful without talking to the accuser. But the charge itself is disappointing because it was not substantiated within its immediate context, nor was it printed by anyone willing to take responsibility for its inflammatory implications.

Printing this type of unsubstantiated claim against another organization cannot be excused by slouching on responsibility, by diluting the impact of accusations into a paraphrased quote or by promoting an ideology of non-interference. It can only be made by a publication floundering to find its purpose within a community that it looks upon as little more than subjects for its self-indulgent blather.

— Editor-in-chief, Douglass Dowty
— Commentary Editor, Margaret Carey
— Managing Editors, Eric Klopfer, Steven Kwan, Colin Smith

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