Safe ... Are you?
Dollars and smoke
Walking home from the library or the party at Banana House, either weighed down by books or disoriented by some controlled substance, you hear the swish of a Starter jacket, and see that you're not quite alone on the darkened street. You wish you would have called Security for the escort promised in the all-campus mailing that you threw into the recyling bin, and try to remember whether making eye-contact is a good or bad idea when in a threatening situation.
Are we more scared to be alone at night after the recent beating in the parking lot by Keep? Should we be? Has the image of being"nestled in corn fields in the middle of Ohio" made us too complacent, too comfortable dawdling home from that off-campus friend's study group?
People are saying "we should be more careful," that they "wouldn't walk around after dark..." For the past few years there has been plenty of attacks that serve to alert us ... for a week or two. We keep up our guard, and speculate on the cause and effect of the assault, but only until some other issue captivates our thoughts.
Oberlin College, while often encased in a glass house that excludes much of "the outside world," is not a gated community. We often try to ignore "the townies," especially when a group of high school students shares the same patch of sidewalk with us. The life of an Obie normally isn't greatly affected by the fear of assault.
When we're alone in the dark, the privilege accorded to many of us is stripped, and we're as exposed, if not more, as any resident of this town. The main diference is that if one of us is attacked, an all-campus mailing is sent out, a kiosk message is posted, and neon pink signs sprout up all over the place to advertise Security's very valuable services. If a townie is beaten, we never hear.
Did we need this brutal reminder of our vulnerability? Or are we allowing what hopefully is an isolated incident affect us too much? Is it inviting trouble to walk or jog alone at night, or is it a right that we should foolhardily make a point to exercise?
Phillip Morris, a huge tobacco company, makes billions providing millions of humans with raw means for cancerous ends. It targets the most malleable humans, young kids, for their cigarette campaigns. It attempts to conceal the undeniable health risks of smoking, and reportedly manipulates the contents of cigarettes to make them more addictive. It, just as much as any illegal king-pin drug lord, is an accessory to suicide.
Phillip Morris is also the only corporate accessory to suicide who can call Oberlin College a major stock holder. Oberlin's investment in the corporation, coupled with political and business motives, led to Morris's $200,000 grant for an Environmental Studies Center.
Wait a second ... There's no way in hell that Oberlin College, the gleaming academic harbinger of hope and societal freedom, would invest thousands of dollars in tobacco, right? We're too intellectually savvy to be pawns in Morris's political games, aren't we? Surely, students would find tobacco divestment and Apartheid divestment completely independent of one another, right? The answer to all three of these questions is a big fat NOPE.
The college invests in Phillip Morris and whether it's morally right or not, we can't definitively know. We do, however, know that the $200,000 going to build the New ENVS building would not be, had Oberlin not invested in Phillip Morris.We know that as pawns in Morris's political games, we can and will use dirty money to actualize gleaming necessary ideas.
In calling for divestment, many have pointed to the college's stand against Aparthied in the early 80's. But there are differences. Let us not lapse into rushed judgment and utter ignorance. Using recycle words and battle plans for a completely different war is not only digressive, it's lazy and dumb.
Apartheid was a systemic system of racial domination. A white minority dominated a black majority and this black majority had no choice. Tobacco, and tobacco companies - as destructive and vile as they are - are irrelevant without human choice. People make the decisions that lead to death and sickness from tobacco. Should we also not accept money from alums who gained much of their wealth through investing in tobacco?
There are distinct actions that Oberlin can take to halt Phillip Morris's regime. Individually and collectively, students can stop smoking, or try to stop those we know from doing so. Oberlin students spend at least $200,000 a year on cigarettes. What if that money were spent differently? Senate, along with the divestment committee, are talking about holding forums to discuss and ponder such issues. It's in our best interest to push for these forums and have our voices heard.
We have the power to change ourselves and the world. Will we, or will we keep on blowing smoke?
Copyright © 1998, The Oberlin Review.
Volume 126, Number 14, February 13, 1998
Contact us with your comments and suggestions.