Review reviews cynical, frustrating

To the Editors:

Art criticism is a necessary evil. Painfully reductive, criticism is antithetical to the complexity of art and the emotional reactions generated by it. It can, however, serve to help people approach certain works and this is its most redeemable purpose. The critical essays on student new music that appear in the Review can have no such objective, since they appear after the performances of works which will probably not receive another performance at Oberlin. Why, then, do they exist? Perhaps because certain members of the Review staff enjoy bludgeoning the creative work of Oberlin's young, gifted composers.

In "New student works surprising," (Review, Feb. 26) Nate Cavalieri wields his axe against a work which I and many of my colleagues found extremely moving. Cavalieri claims that the piece's "minimalist ideas seemed somewhat outdated." This is a perfect example of one of the ugliest myths perpetuated by critics throughout history, that the syntax of an art work should follow from what is currently "in style." It gives the critic in false sense of usefulness where he would otherwise have none. He proclaims the acceptable aesthetic outlook and then condemns those that challenge it. It is a great source of frustration and nausea for many artists that non creatives often set up the "acceptable" boundaries for creative expression.

Essentially, these reviews are a sounding-post for a couple of noisy cynics. Who are they to proclaim whether a piece of music is effective? Certainly, they are allowed to hold their own pathological, cynical opinions, but why do they have to spread their disease? I know Cavalieri is probably an otherwise productive member of society and maybe even a nice person. That is why I beg him to consider a suggestion for the creative well-being of the entire campus: stop critiquing music, and start composing it! Or at least find a way to discuss art without sabotaging it.

-Grisha Krivehenia, Conservatory first-year

Rethink financial aid fears

It seems that many students are alarmed that Oberlin may stop being need-blind in admissions. In fact, Oberlin has not been purely need-blind for quite a while. When we look at admitting students off the wait-list, ability to pay is a consideration and has been for many years.

The College is moving toward greater use of ability to pay in admissions decisions, but this does not mean that highly talented students who are poor will not be admitted. Rather, it means that wealthy students at the margin will have an edge over poor students at the margin. To put this into perspective, applications to Oberlin are up 9 percent this year. That means that the College can be a bit more selective than it was last year, which means that a student applying this year might be put on the wait list or be denied admission, while a student with the same academic profile would have been admitted last year. These students are "at the margin;" the deciding factor between them is year of application (1998 vs. 1999). This type of year-to-year variability in where the line is drawn, as it were, is similar to the effect that ability to pay is expected to play in admissions decisions.

The faculty do care about attracting, admitting, and retaining talented students. If the financial aid budget is spread over too many students, then everyone is pinched and all students, including the most talented, are hard pressed to remain in school. We would rather give adequate support to a smaller number of students than give only limited support to many students.

I close with a personal note: My mother graduated at the top of her high school class. As valedictorian, she won two college scholarships and attended a public university - for one year. Her scholarships were not renewable, her parents had no money, and need-based financial aid was not prevalent at the time, so my mother's college career ended after one year, despite the fact that she was an outstanding student. I don't want to see something like that happen at Oberlin and I don't envision it under the system we have. Talented and dedicated students will continue to be admitted and those who need financial aid will be given adequate financial aid.

-Jeff Witmer, Professor of Mathematics

Changing the world? Need to try harder

To the Editors:

"Think one person can change the world? So do we." Okay, we make fun of the slogan on the front of our view books, and I do admit, it is a little silly. It did catch my eye though. Somewhere deep inside me there is an idealist who does want to make a difference and believes it is possible. Here at Oberlin we love to make a difference. Just look at all the petitions we can sign, speak outs we can go to, and letters we can write. While Oberlin isn't as politically active and revolutionary as I might have hoped, I figured that we were living up to our historic legacy. I was doing my part to help the world by signing the OPIRG petitions, learning about Mumia Abu-Jamal, and even donating blood.

Last week, my happy little world of making a difference received a major setback when I became aware of students' indifference. My week started out great. I found out that I could join the bone marrow registry and become a potential donor for people with illnesses such as leukemia. For years I have meant to enter the registry, but I never got around to it with all the other things going on in my life (see how committed I am?). When I found out I could get registered on campus, I was so excited that I started to talk to people about it. I was sure that they, too, would want to become part of the registry. To my surprise, I was often met with comments like "They really use a big needle for that, don't they?" or "It just seems like too big a commitment to make." People were indifferent.

I was really disappointed by these comments. Here we are at a liberal, revolutionary, making- a- difference school and people just didn't seem to care. All it takes to register is a little bit of blood drawn from your arm. If you are called on to donate, then yes, it is a big needle, and they stick it into your pelvic bone (with general anesthesia), but get over it! You have to go through a few weeks of soreness to save someone's life. I think priorities may be a little bit off here.

I could turn this into a rant about the apathy of Oberlin students, but I don't think we are apathetic. I think that we just want to change the world without having to go through too much trouble. I'm no different. While I may be willing to enter the bone marrow registry, I don't volunteer once a week like some people I know. In my own way, I am able to feel good about my commitment to making a difference without really doing any work.

It is easy to sign a petition or send a postcard to save the environment. It is much harder to make a commitment for the next 40 years of your life to save someone else's. If you want to change the world, why not start simply. Get together with a group of your friends and stop by the Root Room this Saturday or Sunday from 1-6. What greater way to start changing the world than by saving a life?

-Erica Seager, College junior