Don't shoot blanks on Tuesday
Wait until guilt is proven before condemning
"The ballot is stronger than the bullet." This statement by Abraham Lincoln summarizes the importance of voting, a lesson oft forgotten by a large segment of the American population. It is ironic to think how prevalent is criticism of politics and politicians, yet something so crucial and painless as voting often falls by the wayside for government's strongest detractors. The privilege of voting is the surest and easiest way to enact change withing the democratic republic. An informed voting populace is an assurance of liberty and justice. By not voting, or even voting ignorantly, an unresponsive and unrepresentative government is a certainty.
With this in mind, it is of utmost importance that the right to vote is exercised this Tuesday. The upcoming election is undoubtedly a very meaningful one. For example, Ohio will be voting on its new governor and new U.S. senator. The governorship is especially important, as the next governor will preside over the redistricting that accompanies the U.S. census.
Nevertheless, acknowleding that Ohio's election is very important poses an interesting question: Should Oberlin students not originally from Ohio participate in state and local elections? The answer to this is unresoundingly, yes. Citizens should never miss an opportunity to vote. Requiring voters, on principle, to abstain from a vote simply because of no historical ties to an area is not fair, as college students are a transient population. For this reason they must still be expected to vote, be this through the local election or by absentee ballot from their original home.
There is no reason to assume that students are any less knowledgeable or concerned with local politics than are permanent residents. The Oberlin campus in particular is a very politicized area, and voting is held in high esteem. While the Oberlin student body may not be entirely representative of the surrounding areas, Oberlin students should be accorded the same rights and expectations as anyone else. Furthermore, the stereotypical "crunchy" or liberal Obie is not representative of every student, and to presume that the cumulative campus voting bloc would be misrepresentative of Lorain county or the city of Oberlin is a short sighted assumption.
In conclusion, don't waste your vote next week. Unless you have your own personal PAC, voting is still the best opportunity to exercise governmental power. To neglect this is to neglect the future.
Does Roderic Knight's occupation as a professor at Oberlin College make him more immune to scrutiny for the allegations of indecent exposure allayed against him? Was he protected somewhat by the academic shield after his first arrest in late August? Or, do these accusations ring louder when levied about someone in a position with, as he said in his official statement, "everything to lose?"
Few people are aware that there are two cases against the Professor of Ethnomusicology. Prior to the Morgan Street incident, which happened a few weeks ago, he was arrested for public indecency. A witness identified him as the man she saw nude in Westwood Cemetery in early August.
Knight is cited as saying that "it wasn't his intention to let anyone see him," in the police report written about the earlier incident. In his official release, he emphatically denies all allegations.
What will this do to Knight's reputation as a professor? Does this affect the validity of the notes he teaches, his transport of Oberlin students to realms of music they may not have ventured to on their own?
We rarely can separate the man from his actions: although Richard Jewell, the Security guard accused of the Olympic bombings in Atlanta was later exonerated, he reported extreme difficulty in finding employment. Even more telling, an internet poll (http://www.creativeloafing.com/jewell/) found that even though 80 percent of readers felt that the media unfairly publicized the investigation about his involvement with the bombing, only 56 percent felt that he could be trusted to wear a badge. While the purity of the poll can be questioned somewhat, the trend is robust enough to suggest that we don't forgive people easily, even if we think they're not guilty.
In Knight's case, his statement that he didn't mean for anyone to see him seems to insinuate that he actually was the man in the cemetery. Indeed, he admits that he was in the graveyard, but not that he was nude. These statements may seem at odds with each other, but it is essential that we recognize that he, like everybody else, is innocent until proven otherwise.
Until his cases have been tried, we must honor this innocence. If he is acquitted, we must not let these accusations stain his reputation permanently. Whether he has been sheltered from earlier scrutiny by his standing as an academician, or focused on now because of it, is less important than the necessity of us to wait for the judicial findings before we incriminate him.
Copyright © 1998, The Oberlin Review.
Volume 127, Number 7, October 30, 1998
Contact us with your comments and suggestions.