Oberlin is a haven for acronymed groups. One of the latest on the horizon is SWOC, the Student Workers' Organization Committee. This organization was affiliated with the brief - and, to some onlookers, amusing - walkout/ protest in Dascomb last week.

Apparently, a few jobs that student workers assumed would still be waiting for them after our winter term siestas were axed. While these students would still be employed - and would enjoy the wage increase that will be implemented next semester - they wouldn't continue in their position as a grill guru or salad shooter. Students said the phasing out of their jobs was unjust; "the bosses" (CDS managers with unions of their own) said that it was due to the new Dascomb dining experience. They didn't know how many workers to sign up for each job, so they miscalculated a bit. Yet another case of communication gone awry.

The students in SWOC say unionizing would insure them greater job security, bargaining power and would help erase that pesky adult-student power dynamic upon which we Oberlin students seem fixated. (Never mind the fact that a degree from Oberlin is an Excaliber capable of slaying most job markets and graduate school admission processes, a tool that "the bosses" in this saga may not have. This "unrespected" job is only temporary for most students.)

The national minimum wage is $5.15 per hour. At Oberlin, starting salary for a "grade level I" position - one that requires no special skills or previous training or decision making/ leadership skills - is $5.45. Level IV jobs' beginning wages are $6.20, with a cap at $6.70. Work long hours, add a nice summer research grant, and some of us are making close to what our parents earn.

Does the inequality of students making more per hour than people with families to support mean that we should suck it up and realize that we are in a much better situation than some of our peers who weren't fortunate enough to attend an institution of Oberlin's caliber? Maybe not enough of us are close enough to people in those situations to truly appreciate them.

Conversely, is it pointless to make comparisons between "real world" wages for less skilled jobs and the wages here? Just because injustices are greater and more harsh off campus probably doesn't mean that we should stop "fighting the good fight" on campus. That is, if we students determine it is truly a valid battle, an evaluation that will be made after the SWOC petition drive has commenced.

A few points have not been addressed fully by the students fighting to unionize the part-time student workers on campus. Could one union represent the diverse student jobs on campus? Can students organize a union without aid from an established union like the UAW or OPEIU? How much union dues will siphon out of a 5 hour per week check? What happens if the union decides to strike? Would students be hurt too much by losing their work-study checks? And, what if an individual student decides the union isn't for her? Will she be allowed to exist without the union umbrella?

One of the NEA-Four visits Oberlin

Karen Finley has proven herself one of the most provocative American artists of the last 20 years. Anyone fortunate enough to have attended her talk on Wednesday night was treated to a very intimate look into the life and work of this firebrand of controversy. Since having her NEA grant rescinded in 1990, Finley has courageously fought for freedom of expression through her arduous court battles, while at the same time amassing an amazingly diverse and impressive body of work.

In discussing her pieces on women's subjugation, abuse and AIDS, the hour and a half talk demonstrated just how powerful and challenging her work has been. Finley's first slide of the evening was of her now infamous, mythologized performance featuring yams and her naked bottom. Viewing such slides and performances, it is easy to understand the controversy which has pervaded Finley's career. Unfortunately, what is often neglected by demagogues such as Jesse Helms is the emotive power behind the jarring displays of feces-covered bodies, or her other controversial performances.

It is ironic that two weeks after the Review was inundated with letters screaming for censorship in response to a "Bad Faith" comic on the Asian American Alliance, Oberlin is welcoming an artist who has devoted much of her life to push the envelope of free speech and expression. If there was one lesson to be learned by Wednesday's talk and Finley's controversial past it is simply that the dark aspects of life must be approached as forthright and honestly as possible. There are many ways to understand a topic, and provocative art is a valuable contribution to the exploration of any issue. To limit expression to those means that are comfortable and acceptable to everyone curtails not only artistic output but also communication. Even worse, hindering the modes and content of art, society is left without one of the most powerful tools we have to learn about ourselves.