It's OK to drink on St. Patrick's Day

To the Editors:

(This letter is in response to an essay in last week's Review by Laura Wimberly)

First of all, let me get a few things straight about who I am. I'm not Irish. Neither is my mother, or my grandmother for that matter. You have to go back to my great-grandparents to get people actually coming over to this country from Ireland on a boat. So in my book that makes me, and most of my family, Irish Americans. I know a lot of my family history and none of it involves anyone taking a trip back to Ireland because ... well frankly, they were poor. Once my great grandmother and great grandfather were in this country they worked their asses off in steel mills, bakeries, and factories and experienced very little luck o' the Irish. That's my Irish heritage and I'm proud of it, proud of who they were and how hard they worked to get me where I am today. I also doubt that they could read or learned how to step dance, but there's one thing I do know about them, they could drink!

Now, (this is the part where I stick in the obligatory PC Oberlin disclaimer crap) I would never be one to make light of alcoholism, or advocate it in any way as it has had many dire effects on my family. However, I intend to celebrate MY St. Patrick's day by having more than a few drinks and some green mashed potatoes. In fact, you might call the party that I have planned at my house a massive, vomitous riot of drunkenness, but then again that's just one way of looking at it. The way I see it is that my ancestors would be really disappointed in me if I cozied up with a pint of Guinness and read something "gritty." I am confident that they smile down on me as I get loaded and dance a half assed jig, while wearing a "kiss me I'm Irish" button. So I invited 50 of my closest friends over to my house this weekend to drink some green beer in plastic cups out of a keg in my garage and if anyone wants to come over and kiss my Blarney Stone they can go right ahead.

-Linsay Adelsheim, College junior

LGBTQU: Alphabet soup?

To the Editors:

This letter is in response to the LGBTU's decision to add a Q for Questioning. It seems that it will keep adding letters until they form the entire alphabet, instead of using the term Queer, which is almost universally accepted. This is meant as satire, although it saddens me to have to say that. Please take this letter as nothing more than advocating that LGBTQU change its name to the Queer Student Union. If anyone is offended by this, I'm sorry. But Oberlin is supposed to be open-minded, and LGBTQU is quite exclusive as you can see from the list below.

A-Asexual; B-Bisexual; C-Castrated; D-Domination; E-Exaggerated; F-Friends; G-Gay; H-Homosexual; I-Intersexual; J-Jewish Princess; K-Kleptosexual; L-Lesbian; M-Masochist; N-Necrophiliac; O-Omnisexual; P-Pedophile; Q-Questioning; R-Retrosexual; S-Sadist; T-Transgender; U-Uncircumcised; V-Virgin; W-Wymmyn; X-Xenophilia Y-(Queer) Youth; Z-Zoosexual (a p.c. term for bestiality)

-Jonah Schmiechen, College sophomore

Krivehenia, what are they teaching you at Conservatory?

To the Editors:

As I began reading Grisha Krivehenia's letter in last week's Review, I found myself in agreement with the author - for the first five words, anyway.

Yes, I agree with his statement that art criticism is necessary, but I wonder at the idea of an artist (as the author of this naive letter is) labeling art criticism as an "evil." This letter was simply ludicrous.

The purpose of criticism is, as the author states, to "help people approach certain works." This is reductive and limiting, but true. Krivehenia then states that "critical essays on student new work that appear in the Review can have no such objective." I do not see how the Review, in its methodology of criticism, fails to live up to the task.

Krivehenia feels that since the work being critiqued will not likely be performed after the critique has been published, the idea of publishing any sort of response is invalid. Apparently, the only usefulness of criticism in his eyes is so he can read a review and know what events to attend, and what to think of them. He then suggests, rather absurdly, that "certain members of the Review staff enjoy bludgeoning the creative work of Oberlin's young, gifted composers." That's a sensitive point for me.

I know from experience that it is never the intention of a reviewer to make his or her peers feel bad about their work. It can be quite harrowing to review an arts event here in Oberlin, where inevitably the reviewer is going to have some sort of personal relation to at least one person involved in a given production. So the reviewer must choose. Should s/he be honest and critical, or simply affirming and, ultimately, unhelpful?

Thankfully, the Review has a tradition of not publishing fluff. Anyone can write sycophantic drivel. But that is the most useless type of criticism, not the insights and opinions expressed by reviewers who have thought through their opinions. I think it's quite touching that Krivehenia and his colleagues found a piece of music "extremely moving." I think it is distressing that he takes issue with the fact that the reviewer, Nate Cavalieri, did not share this opinion. Not to make this a meta-critique, but it takes far more thought to write, as Cavalieri did, that the piece's "Minimalist ideas seemed somewhat outdated" than to state simply that it was "extremely moving."

Mr. Krivehenia, you are in for a difficult career as a musician if you feel that criticism is simply a "sounding post for a couple of noisy cynics." Certainly that is true, but this is the Review, not a publication with one particular critic. Anyone can join the staff of writers and sound their own opinions, but no self-respecting arts editor will run drivel about a piece being "extremely moving."

And you are a student in the Conservatory. Are they really training you for a career where you wring your hands and cry over every slightly negative (note that Cavalieri's review was not overly negative) critical reception? Your condemnations of the vogue-ish nature of artistic movements, your concept of the usefulness of a critic, are deeply troubling in someone who is training as an artist at a supposedly world-class institution. Never mind that your argument has obvious factual flaws: you, as much as Cavalieri, are guilty of proclaiming an "acceptable aesthetic outlook" and condemning your challengers. And Cavalieri is an artist in at least two distinct media who is, I suspect, neither frustrated nor nauseated by critical boundaries, which makes him a far more developed artist than you, who obviously quake at the notion of the big, bad reviewer.

Criticism is a necessary aspect of the dialogue which makes art a vibrant and vital aspect of any society. It is not applause that demonstrates that an artist has reached an audience; it is the thoughts and critiques at which the audience will hopefully arrive. The media only has the power which the artist invests in it. S/he must learn to mature and develop as an artist and know what to take and what to leave, of both negative and positive critical reception. Discussing art without sabotaging it would create a society of demi-god artists with no perception of the world beyond their art. As an artist and critic myself, I can imagine nothing more detrimental, particularly in this community, where art is such a central part our experience.

-Rumaan Alam, College senior

Congress: increases Pell Grants

To the Editors:

We all know that college is expensive. We complain about it all the time. Of course, the cost of tuition is not just rising here at Oberlin but at colleges across the country, putting a college education out of reach for many people. Federal financial aid is essential to make college available to more Americans who cannot afford to assume crippling debt in order to gain a college degree.

For the past 20 years Pell Grant funding (the basic federal grant program for students) has not kept pace with inflation and rising college costs. While in the late 1970's the Pell Grant paid for three quarters of the average cost of a public four year college, today it only covers one-third of the cost. For private colleges, the maximum grant declined from covering one-third of the cost to one-seventh of the cost.

As a result, many students are unable to afford college or attain a degree. For those who do try, massive debt and part-time jobs are a fact of life.

Congress must increase the funding for Pell Grants. Currently, some members of Congress are considering increasing Pell Grant funding by 13% which would provide $1.5 billion in increased grant aid for the nation's 3.7 million currnet Pell Grant recipients. It would increase the maximum grant students can qualify for by $400. In addition, it would allow 215,400 more students to qualify for grant aid.

This increase in the Pell Grant would be a good first step in making college affordable for more people in this country. We need to urge our Congress people and Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) who is the chair of the Senate Budget Committee, to increase Pell Grant funding and make college accessible for all people in this country.

-Margaux Shields, College junior