Review editors cloaked standards

To the Editor:

Having read the recent letters about the rejection of the McShane cartoon, and especially the defense of that decision in the recent Staff Box, I can only conclude that the editorial staff of the Oberlin Review has no idea what the phrase "responsible journalism" truly means.

You claim that you routinely reject material that does not meet the Review's "standards," and that this constitutes "responsible journalism," but in fact these are completely separate areas. As a managing editor in the professional world, I often am called upon to judge the suitability of material for publication. I judge first whether the content is responsibly rendered: Is it factually accurate? Does it present its facts in a fair and ethical manner? When necessary, does it seem reasonably objective?

As an editor-in-chief, I also check the same material to see if it is consistent with the "standards" of our publication. Firstly, is it of comparable quality to our previously published materials? Secondly, is it appropriate for our audience? The "standards" are rather arbitrary and have almost nothing to do with journalistic integrity or responsibility. Instead, they are the guidelines for setting the tone of our publications. They are, quite simply, matters of taste.

I cannot fault any publication for trying to maintain a certain tone or level of taste. But to cloak those arbitrary "standards" in the robes of "responsibility" or "journalism" is ludicrous. I am quite certain that even Hustler magazine has its standards, but no one can call that magazine either responsible or journalistic. A highly respected publication such as The Nation has its standards as well. But if their editors reject an article that is both well-written and conservative in viewpoint, you can be sure that they would not imply that the decision was reponsible journalism. They would simply indicate, as I would also, that the piece was not appropriate for their readers.

In a different vein, you go on to say that the cartoon was in violation of Federal Copyright Law and imply that McShane's material was either libelous or misappropriated trademarked material. It has been shown repeatedly, however, that the use of popular materials in satirical pieces is perfectly within the bounds of "fair use." That's the only reason why political cartoonists, Gary Trudeau, and Saturday Night Live are still in business. The idea that the collective hands of the Review editors were bound by Federal law is more than misleading; it is a sad attempt to deflect public censure.

Call a spade a spade: The Review attempts to foster a tone that is acceptable and unoffensive to a wide range of students. That is its standard. The McShane cartoon was not in line with that standard and was rejected. Don't shift the blame by interpreting Federal law, and don't cloud the issue by throwing around noble ideals. Responsible journalism sometimes means taking responsibility for your decisions and actions.

-Robert J. Anthony, OC '94

Oberlin students deserve a great health clinic within two years

To the Editor:

(This is an open letter to President Dye)

Oberlin College is currently faced with an ideal opportunity. Our entire student health plan is being revamped to meet the new challenges of health care, wellness and preventive care on a college campus. The members of the Health Plan Board have worked tirelessly to negotiate an extraordinary quantity of services for the student body. With our new services and our new medical care providers, Oberlin College is about to enter into an exciting new era in its health care delivery.

Unfortunately, this otherwise succesful overhaul of the student health plan is tarnished by the unresolved issue of the clinic. The Health Plan Board has tentatively agreed to move the student health clinic to a location on West Lorain Street. Although this facility is adequate for medical needs, it fails to provide the necessary space and configuration for preventative health services, education programs, meeting facilities or office space for student organizations related to health. The location is undesirable, being located over ten minutes from the nearest dormitory. In order to make the new health plan successful we need additional space and a location oncampus.

It is imperative for the success of the health plan for the clinic, as well as the envisioned education center and meeting space, to be located on-campus. We understand that it is impossible for an adequate space be created on-campus by next fall, the starting date of the new contract. We also understand that given adequate time your office has pledged to find an on-campus location for the clinic and provide funding to build a new facility. However, we are troubled by the lack of commitment from your office to a timeline for this construction project. Enclosed please find a proposed timeline that we hope you can approve. We strongly feel that two years is an adequate span of time for a new health facility to be built. Will you make us that commitment?

In the meantime we believe that a space on campus should be created for a Preventive Health Care and

Health Education Center. We have many goals for the new health plan that require strong college support and central and accessible facilities. As part of the new health plan there will be a full time Health Educator. This person will be working closely with many college departments (including Residential Life and Services, Wilder Student Union, Counseling Center and others). Therefore this individual will need an on-campus office. Furthermore, the new health care providers have promised to install a Self Help Center and Health Library. we want to have these services located on-campus.

In the past, the Student Health Clinic was relegated to a small space off-campus that was not accessible, available or welcoming to students. Please help us ensure that this situation does not continue, or perhaps even worsen.

There are many flaws with the proposed location for the student health clinic. The facility is small and the location is undesirable. We understand the need to use this facility temporariy but at the same time we need your support and commitment to making the health plan successful in the long-run. Your commitment to creating an interim on-campus location for the non-clinical components of the health plan in necessary for the success of the health plan. Similarly, we need your commitment to building no later that two years from now a new Health Care Center that will truly meet the needs of the students at Oberlin College. Can we count on that support?

All are Members of Health Plan Board