Don't demean suffering
Care presented practical solutions to a philosophical problem
Discuss socially responsible investing
To the Editor:
To begin with, I must compliment Hanna Miller for her article, "Dye thinks GF needs theory," in last week's Review. Although I am not sure if Ms. Miller herself was aware of the irony that she captured within that article (if so, it was done wonderfully), it ought to be brought to light for all.
In the "dialectic" between two big brains, Professor Norman Care and President Nancy Dye, and in the quoted commentary made by other faculty members, we caught a glimpse of struggle between those who want to act and those who want to play armchair academician. Ironically, the philosopher, Mr. Care, was decisively on the side of action: we must do all that we can in order to maintain faculty governance. This was, of course, in opposition to sentiments that we need some sort of a 'plan' or 'theory' of faculty governance in order to commence. Mr. Care offered practical solutions to a problem that threatens part of the essence of Oberlin. Others sought to determine the relationship between the problem facing faculty governments and alternative modes of interpreting Madison's discussion of factionalism in Federalist 10! Please!
My point in writing this out is twofold. First, it's just plain funny. Second, it's ironic because it flies in the face of stereotypes run rampant. Here we have it: an administrator, a "doer," our president talking theory, and a quiet senior philosopher talking action. Is it this particular situation that is anomalous, or is it the general sentiment that philosophers are abstract minded, semi-human academicians stuck full of pretense that is simply false? I'm inclined to believe the latter.
In doing so, it seems, I have placed the burden of proof on myself. That is, one might say, in order to prove my point it must be shown that philosophers generally ask questions that are obviously connected to some practical matter. Of course, that is a point that I will not attempt to make simply because it is also blatantly false. On the other hand, I must say that the question I have heard most commonly asked at Oberlin by philosophers and non-philosophers alike is "What do you mean?" And that, my friends, is as philosophical a question that can be asked. The practical problem, of course, is answering. How does this relate to Dye and Care? Dye, in effect, asked Care what he meant. Care responded on the chalkboard and showed (although I don't exactly know what he showed) what he meant. All of us would hope to be able to accomplish the same in such a situation, to present a practical solution to a philosophical problem. Philosophers can do that too.
To the Editor:
If you have voted in the Student Senate referendum, (if you have not, you should, you can't complain unless you vote) hopefully you remember the last item regarding socially responsible investing.
Oberlin College currently decides its investments solely on the basis of profitability, there is no standard for who we invest it and the money leaves the community. We can, and in some cases currently do, invest in corporations that have been convicted of corporate crimes, destroy the environment, have unfair labor practices, bust unions or use sweatshop labor, test on animals, create weapons of waste destruction, run private prisons and discriminate based on sex, sexual orientation, race, and ethnicity. We invest in companies like Chase Manhattan, Dow Chemical, Exxon, GTE, Philip Morris, Proctor & Gamble, and Wal-Mart.
To me, investing in such corporations is supporting and accepting their practices. Until corporations start losing money and getting bad reputations these practices will continue. Oberlin College has a history and reputation of being "progressive", let us also be one of the first colleges to only invest in socially responsible corporations.
But any decision regarding such a policy should come out of an inclusive process where all segments of the college community help to create the policy. No one person or group can define socially responsible and decide what the policy should look like. And besides, to get the college administration to take such a great step it will require a well researched and thought out proposal with all of us working together to push for it.
What do we want this policy to look like and how are we going to go about getting there? I invite you to join the discussion about socially responsible investing at Oberlin College.
Copyright © 1998, The Oberlin Review. Contact us with your comments and suggestions.
Don't demean suffering
To the Editor:
The Voice recently published an essay I wrote arguing that the Holocaust ought not to be the defining event of Jewish-American identity. I still believe this, to fixate on this one tragedy may be unhealthy, and the Holocaust ought not to be permitted to overshadow the many other Jewish identity-forming elements of the past millennia.
This does not mean, however, that we should feel the need to silence ourselves when faced with surfacing Nazi propaganda or Holocaust denial. That apparently posters for Holocaust Remembrance Day were systematically nipped down and that Holocaust revisionist films were shown in more than one dorm last week cannot be overlooked; they demand outrage and outcry.
Though the Holocaust ought not to be an obsession, it is unacceptable to demean the suffering of those who perished in it or survived, or that of those who came after. That the Holocaust or that the many cruelties associated with it never happened is not and never has been a tenable statement, but this does not diminish the violence that is done and felt when this statement is made.
Care presented practical solutions to a philosophical problem
Discuss socially responsible investing
Volume 126, Number 23, May 1, 1998