I would like to direct this letter to the audience of the General Faculty. I am concerned that when discussion begins about the SMBD Charter at the next GF meeting, members will be forced to make an immediate decision on a controversial topic without adequate background information.
The SMBD organization has been planning and preparing to pass through their charter for three years, a period of many discussion and much research. The larger college community and especially the general faculty (who ultimately has the power to decide the fate of this group) have been absent for much of this process.
I have been involved in this debate for three years, first as a Student Senator on Senate when this charter was first bought to that body. I served on the Student Life Committee in 96-97 as the SMBD Charter was being discussed This is my third year working in the Student Union, and my second year as an Assistant in the Dean of Students Office. Last year I served as a mediator between the students in the SMBD group and the administration, including attending the meeting with the college lawyer. I have also been to meetings of the SMBD organization.
First and foremost, this is a discussion only organization. I feel it is dangerous for the General Faculty, or any other group to get involved in deciding who can or cannot discuss what- based on the content of discussion. I was under the impression that our institution cherished the values of free speech and diverse thought. If this is true, then we must respect and encourage dialogue on any topic, especially in the realm of education.
From last week's panel discussion it seems as though there is support for open discussion and free speech, however, the College is concerned with the important matter of funding and the related topic of what it means to sanction an organization. This issue has become a matter of interest to the Press outside of the realm of Oberlin College publications. One result of this has been that alumni, donors, and concerned members of the wider Cleveland area have contacted administrators and faculty members threatening to pull their monetary support to the college if this group receives official recognition.
I wonder if each member of the General Faculty can name all 120 student organizations, much less what they do, or whether they support the activities of every single group. Can the college claim to support and sanction the actions of a Palestine and Israel group simultaneously? It seems, instead, that the process of GF passing charters is one of sanctioning and supporting the values of diverse thought, student leadership, free speech and supplementary education outside of the classroom.
Regarding funding, I have to pose the question that if specific vocal members of the faculty and administration are so concerned about funding, then why was this issue ever taken out of the proper channels for discussion within Oberlin College? Dick Feagler did not simply hear of and investigate this issue on his own. On the contrary, a rather extensive packet of information was faxed to him by a member of the Oberlin College faculty. If funding is such a concern, this discussion would have stayed within the realm of Oberlin College. However, as soon as the outside media was contacted, this issue became one of concern to the wider national community. I wish to remind the Oberlin Community that this outside contact was made by the same faculty member who contacted outside media after Tribe 8, a lesbian punk band performed at the 'Sco. The result then was a large-scale discussion on the merits of censorship at Oberlin College. These sensationalist articles by the outside media using only one source from within the college community, and reprinting quotes from past Review issues without contacting any of the people they are quoting is nothing more than bad journalism. While this type of sensationalist, non-factual "news" no wonder the wider community is concerned about the on goings within Oberlin.
Last year I was asked to do research on other colleges and universities that have SMBD student organizations. Within an hour of research on the web I was able to find that Columbia University, Bard College, Oregon State University, Rutgers University, and the University of Washington all have some form of chartered student SMBD organizations. Members of Oberlin's SMBD organization have a more extensive list. I followed up this research with calls to Student Activities Directors and Deans of these institutions, to verify my research. One point that was brought up at last week's panel discussion, and which I have not yet discussed with the group, is the question of the name of the organization.
The question of losing funding to Oberlin that then affects financial aid, etc., etc., is important. At the other schools listed above , their groups have names such as: Conversio Virium, SM Aces, SILK, Evangelical Perv Association, RUST, and the Society for Human Sexuality. The primary purpose of each of these groups is to discuss SMBD practices. However, their names are mostly acronyms for SMBD activities. Would it help if the group slightly changed its name and would this be something they feel they would be comfortable doing?
On the other hand, there does come a point when the College needs to stand up for its beliefs. If this institution really does support the values of diverse thought and expression which the Admissions Office plasters all over the View Book, then perhaps now is the time to prove it. As one of my professors stated, if the College is compromising their values for money, there is a name for this type of activity, its prostitution.
Additionally, how much funding in the way of donations will the college lost now and in the future from current students and our parents, as well as alumni who do value free speech and diversity of thought? Personally, I will be significantly less inclined to support this college financially later on if my assumption that the right to diverse and open thought is not one of Oberlin's primary values.
We are faced with scarce resources, and decisions do have to be made. However, in this matter, I hope that the College has the balls to stand up and support the basic right to free speech and discussion. At the panel discussion last week, and at the upcoming GF meeting, faculty and administrators have and will continue to experience the opportunity to express and air their views on this issue. All this student organization is asking for is this very same privilege. At last week's panel discussion the SMBD student representative summed it up well when she stated humbly, "I just want a space for self expression and communication."
Thank you for your time.
Copyright © 1998, The Oberlin Review.
Volume 127, Number 6, October 9, 1998
Contact us with your comments and suggestions.