Review editorial made me invisible

Two weeks ago, I was made invisible. The Review's editorial, which criticized (in many cases rightfully) the picketing of Bruce Babbit's use of Oberlin as a Clinton PR tool, mentioned several times that there were virtually no African-American protesters. Unfortunately, the conclusion was that the only students at the event were "[c]lusters of little white freedom fighters." This misses every Asian-American who was also at the protest.

As someone who identifies as mixed/Asian-American, I have become acutely aware of the binary nature of race-related dialog. This is especially troubling at Oberlin, where I expect better of my professors and peers. In the case of the former, I took a women's history class where we spent over a week watching PBS videos and 30 minutes discussing Chinese-, Japanese-, and Filipino-American women. For the latter, the April 10 editorial is just as responsible for the limited nature of discourse in this country.

But despite this invisibility, there are problems for Asian-Americans in the US. In California, statistics suggest that Asian-Americans (especially those of Japanese, Chinese, and Korean descent) will benefit from the dismantling of affirmative action in universities slightly more than whites, thus setting us up to be scapegoats. At the same time, significant portions of the rest of the Asian-American population, such as many Vietnamese and Laotian refugees, are faring poorly in the US - but are often ignored because of the "model minority" stereotype.

I expect everyone at Oberlin to fight inequality. That struggle was strengthened when my white allies joined me last week to protest the Clinton administration's hypocrisy; it is also benefited by those who offer constructive criticism. I can only ask that, when fighting exclusionary agendas, I'm not left out in the process.

--Dan Spalding, College junior College junior

Information incomplete

I am writing in regards to an article highlighting senate activities that was printed in the Apr. 17 Review. The information given about the fluorescent paper proposal was incomplete. I apologize to those individuals who took the time to fill out the survey and ended up having their answers manipulated and misconstrued. The only reason a few offices were mentioned is that a person in the office stated that there was some use of fluorescent paper and some stated there might be resistance to getting rid of fluorescent paper. This reply did not specifically deal with a college policy and it is evident that many people would be pleased to go along with a policy such as this. I supplied the information to student senate about those who responded to a survey.

This was not public information and I should not have even mentioned it at a senate meeting, I certainly should have made sure the information was fully understood and would not be made public. The information was gathered from a survey filled out by administrative assistants from some, but not all, offices on campus. The information was not to imply that these offices were resistant to a change in policy nor that the individual was resistant. There are likely other offices and individuals that feel that there may be resistance regardless of how they feel about the policy.

By printing that information in a paper read by many members of the community I have been responsible for drawing negative attention to a few individuals who were, in fact, doing their office and the college a favor by taking the time to give their input. I realize this letter is after the damage has been done. If the nature of this information has been a problem I apologize and ask you to contact me.

-Mark Frey, College sophomore College sophomore

President Dye's accessibility remarkable

I would like to publicly thank Nancy Dye for coming on my radio show. She took time out on an undoubtedly busy Friday night to trek up to WOBC and talk with me about town/gown (college/resident) relations. President Dye's accessibility is truly remarkable; it seems to me that students who would like to know about her policy goals ought to just ask her. Dye is not a figurehead, she is not an anomaly. President Dye is down to earth and truly cares about students.

From the show, I learned that President Dye is actively involved in promoting greater cooperation between the College community and the town of Oberlin. Also, it surprised me that over 1000 Oberlin students are presently taking time to volunteer in this community; 1 out of every 3 students! President Dye is committed to making this type of service possible through the Center for Service and Learning and her new initiatives with the Oberlin public school system. Students should take advantage of the opportunities the CSL (and other projects) provide to get involved in their local community. There is so much we as students can do with just a few hours a week. And when we get involved, we gain a new perspective that can greatly enrich our Oberlin educations.

-Jessica Kennedy, College first-year College first-year

Why deny students the full capabilities of Unix?

(An open letter to John Bucher and Kevin Weidentbaum)

I know that the current plan is to keep students from having a command line prompt on the new machine next year, and I wanted to share my displeasure at this. Unix is a perfectly secure system, and the versatility and power that it affords users should not be denied to the Oberlin community. Students will not have to be taught any more of the features of Unix than they currently are taught VMS. Since education, ease of use, and security should not be concerns, there is no reason to disable such a useful server. If other concerns are keeping you from allowing us a command line prompt, please make the student body aware of why you are denying us the opportunity to use the capabilities of the Unix system to their fullest.

--Mathias Wegner, College junior College junior