To the Editor:

Next week is National Hunger and Homelessness Awareness Week. Around the nation, people will be discussing the problems of hunger and homelessness and how to solve them. Poverty is a serious problem in Lorain County, and right here in Oberlin. Thirty-seven thousand people in the state of Ohio live below the poverty line: 43 percent of those people are children. Forty-three percent. Hunger is one of the most serious problems that disadvantaged children and families face. People scraping to get by are often forced, due to lack of resources or unforseen expenses, to resort to skipping meals to save money. Here in Oberlin we're well insulated from such things; well not really. There are hungry people here too. There is a food box program here, and a hot meals program. Anyone who takes walks in the right parts of Oberlin can see there's poverty here.

It's not a simple question of jobs. Unemployment is about as low as it's ever been, and yet the poor remain poor. Many families are living right on the edge, just barely getting by. Some of them end up having to go to places like the Haven Center when their luck runs out. But Haven only has so many beds. It seems so simple: a roof over your head and food to eat. Right? Well maybe for us. At least right now. Because homeless people come from all walks of life: there are homeless people who used to be professors, teachers, builders, all kinds of people. It could even be you one day, maybe.

So is it hopeless? No. Food rescue programs and food banks do meet some of the demand. They have more trouble now; companies are more efficient and have less 'waste' to give away. Attempts are being made to provide housing for the homeless. Sadly, they are often inadequate.

So what can we do about it, here in the walled garden of Oberlin College? All sorts of things can be done, and are being done, both on campus and in the surrounding community. Look around. Maybe you don't have time? Well, then make some. If not for action, then at least for careful thought. We all have a stake in this. Maybe you think you can't relate. Well, next time you see a homeless person, talk to them, ask them what it's like and how they got where they are. At worst, you'll be better informed. At best, you may decide something's got to be done. If not us, then who?

-Alexandre Donald, Ohio PIRG

Diversity is irrelevant in terms of academic preparedness

To the Editor:

I read with interest and bewilderment a story you wrote in the Nov. 7, 1997 issue of the Oberlin Review. This news brief reported that the Wooster Voice, the student newspaper at the College of Wooster, had compared the Oberlin and Wooster campuses in regard to diversity. Neither you nor the Wooster article defined what diversity meant in this context, but I will surmise that it is racial or ethnic (or both) diversity; for indeed, you were quoting a Ms. Packer, who said, '... different kinds of people there [in Oberlin].'

Diversity is a good thing. Being a biologist, I know this. Diversity is, after all, the raw stuff of which evolution is made. Being an academic, however, (whether student or professor), I am not sure.

Diversity is an interesting, but irrelevant, consideration when the criterion for participation is academic preparedness. Ah, yes, perhaps in this country academic preparedness is inextricably intertwined with issues of race (but only certain races, as we all know) and gender, but even THAT does not change the fact that academic preparedness, and not entitlement or allotments, is germane to an academic enterprise like ours, the desirability of politically correct social engineering notwithstanding. Not that this does not negate the undeniable fact that diversity is of paramount social, biological and political value, and thus worth preserving. However, diversity is irrelevant as an a priori consideration for academic admissions, no matter how excruciatingly incendiary and undebatably important this issue is. Oberlin is an academic institution, the last time I looked. It would only be fitting if we, as the persons in it, acted accordingly, and defined our mission as the education of all academically qualified people, regardless of race, ethnicity , religion, handicap, sex, etc., etc. I will propose that accomplishment of such a goal will result in diversity of the appropriate and relevant type. In fact, I will suggest that the original intent of Oberlin College in accepting women and African-American students way back was to ignore sex and race as qualifications for education. I doubt it was to increase diversity.

Lest I be misunderstood in connection with 'appropriate and relevant' above, let me suggest a litmus test: Why is diversity not generally (or even specifically) an issue in the National Football League, the American Baseball League, or the National Basketball Association, or even in the International Association of Symphony Conductors (assuming it exists)? I suspect it is because the criterion in each instance is clear. If you can kick, hit, or shoot that ball, or make that orchestra play the way it should, you're in. If you can't, you're out. Each of those is a clear criterion, honestly and unstintingly applied. And no one questions such rigorous and unwavering adherence, although ballplayers and conductors may have other interesting (good, bad, etc.) characteristics.

Why can't we be unflinchingly clear when it comes to an academic institution? Or at least accountably consistent? If we are primarily to be truly diverse (and not diverse along just a few politically salient criteria) why have we not made an effort to have the x percent of incarcerated and institutionalized persons represented on campus? Or the y percent of avowed communists, z percent of rape victims, g percent of single mothers, h percent of agnostics, i percent of convicted felons, j percent of all registered Democrats, k percent of persons at least 5'4", l percent of children from families below the poverty level, m percent of identical twins, n percent of teenagers pregnant with their second child, or p percent of male teenagers who successfully fathered children before the age of 14, q percent of millionaires, r percent of children from divorced families, s percent of hermaphrodites, t percent of overachieving 18-year-olds, u percent of heterosexual high-school graduates, v percent of men at least 25 pounds overweight, w percent of ambidextrous persons? The list could go on, as you can see, and no it is not absurd. It is a logical extension of diversity being a virtue, positive or negative.

Diversity is a laudable and commendable goal. However, it should be the effect, not the cause, of a desirable educational system and institution which accepts students and recruits faculty on the basis of educational preparedness. Now, there's a concept.

-Yolanda P. Cruz, Associate Professor of Biology

Offensive flyer does subject injustice

To the Editor:

This week an offensive flyer appeared all over campus advertising this afternoon's presentation by Constâncio Pinto, former leader of the East Timor Underground Movement - a presentation sponsored by eight major campus organizations. The flyer in question - which didn't, of course, simply "appear" but which was planned and posted by Oberlin students - reads as follows. Quote. GENOCIDE SUCKS! Constâncio Pinto is LIVING PROOF. Come hear him talk about his experience with genocide in East Timor...(what else ya doing, washing your hair?) End quote. Now, in Oberlin, we are routinely confronted with advertisement appealing to everything from the visceral to the aesthetic, from curiosity to conscience. Some of these appeals actually relate to their subject matter. Often enough, they do not. But never have I seen an advertisement that did as much injustice to its subject matter as this poster for Pinto's talk. The organization responsible is Amnesty International. I was astonished when I learned this.

"Amnesty International" connotes many things for me. Appalling rudeness and ignorance are not among them. I address this letter, then, to the Amnesty chapter on campus. I have three principal criticisms.

1) "GENOCIDE SUCKS!" I can only assume this statement is an attempt to speak to us in a language we understand. It does not succeed. However loose we are with our language, would any of us say to a friend, for example, whose grandfather died of old age, "That sucks"? Would any of us say to someone whose brother was murdered on a city street in a random act of violence, "That sucks"? I seriously doubt it. So how appropriate is it to say of the rape, mutilation and extermination of a people, "That sucks"? It is not appropriate AT ALL. To say such a thing out of ignorance is to shame oneself. To say such a thing out of righteousness is to make a mockery of the people's suffering. Whether or not you think us capable of comprehending the horror this man and his people have experienced, it is your responsibility to communicate your own comprehension.

2) "Constâncio Pinto is living proof!" This sentence structure could be interpreted as a metaphor or a definition - but the statement is neither. Constâncio Pinto is not a metaphor. Constâncio Pinto can not be defined in two words. "Living proof," while perhaps less offensive, is not too far removed from "Genocide sucks" - it is a gimmick and a cliché. Can we not save the gimmicks and clichés for matters that don't merit more serious treatment?

3) "(what else ya doing, washing your hair?)" What IS this? Sarcasm? Scorn? Condemnation? Did the people who composed this honestly believe that they would attract us to their presentation by accusing us of brainless and cosmetically self-absorbed apathy? The sign might just as well have read, "We know you're all clueless fuck-offs; lucky for you, we aren't." The factors that play into attendance at campus events are numerous and complex. Not only does this poster communicate a complete lack of recognition of THAT, it also fails to express anything of the seriousness and importance of this man's visit. What it DOES express is disgust that you have chosen as your work the informing of the uninformed. I encourage members of Amnesty and organizations with a comparable mission statement who feel this way to reevaluate their roles as educators.