Venue inappropriate for editorializing

To the Editors:

One of the first things reporters learn, if they take any journalism course or read any text on the subject, is the difference between reporting and editorializing. It seems Benjamin Clark, in "Faculty Speak Their Minds on Chartering Process," is not aware of the distinction, and I think the editors of the Review ought to make sure he and all their reporters learn (and practice) it. For Mr. Clark's edification, here is a quick lesson on the subject: in reporting on an event, in this case a meeting of the General Faculty - stay with the pertinent facts in reporting and let them speak for themselves - in editorializing one reveals the writer's opinions about these pertinent (or other) facts and the reader is (or should be) left in minimal doubt about what is fact and what is opinion. This distinction is so fundamental to the integrity of newspaper journalism that stories and editorials are firmly separated and easily identifiable (to distinguish them from advertising as well as each other) in all newspapers.

In characterizing John Scofield's position on the chartering proposal as "knee-jerk", and, by extension, my position as well; by referring to me as being perched atop the very last row of King 106 (implying that it was factually germane to his article), by saying I "dished out a sharply cynical view of the proposed charter process." Clark was committing a cardinal sin of reporting, thereby abusing his power of reportage. If his opinions differed from Scofield's and mine he should have written a piece on the issues which separated us in the editorial section of the paper. Not doing so is such an amateurish blunder that I wonder why the editors didn't edit it out. Do they know the difference? Does it matter to them, i.e., do they see it as a blunder?

I mention this not to denigrate Clark's opinions on the matter, but simply to point out to him that his venue was inappropriate. Further, I would be quite happy to debate the issues surrounding the chartering process with him, but on a level playing field. So, if he wishes to engage my opinions with his own, he should do so with a reply to this letter or, of course, an editorial.

--

Robert Piron, Professor of Economics

Postmodernism has its positives

To the Editors:

Perhaps my qualms about postmodernism as an ethical system were not clearly articulated in my last letter and so were misinterpreted as being primarily objections to postmodernism as an intellectual method of analysis. I apologize, and hope to remedy this by explaining my objections more clearly, and hope to do so by answering Mr. Micheal Barthel's specific critiques of my position. Particularly, I will answer Mr. Barthel's charges that humanism (as opposed to postmodernism) is intellectually "elit[ist]," "rationalist," and "utopia[n]" in that it conceives of truth (both moral and scientific) as being perfect, objective, universal, and in the possession of only a few select persons; and that it is "alienat[ing]," in that it marginalizes those individuals or associations that do not agree with that truth.

I will begin by confessing ignorance. I specified in my letter that I would concern myself with the postmodernist "claims regarding moral knowledge," rather than those regarding the Humanities or the Natural Sciences, as my knowledge concerning those areas of the postmodern thought is meager. I would agree that an opportunity to explore new ways of understanding the Arts, such as a gendered or race-conscious interpretation of Shakespeare, are to the benefit of students. However, using postmodernism as a moral instructive of how to lead or not to lead one's life is another matter.Mr. Barthel accuses humanists of following a "kind of intellectual religion," by appealing to some objectively existing category of truth.

Since humanism was borne in pragmatism, I would say that this

characterization of my position is false. I tried to specify that my belief

in universally applicable truth was a belief in "practical truth," or a belief in certain courses of action and policies that have been verified by experience not a priori reasoning to work in most situations and to have actually improved the human condition. So rather than advocating a course of action because I believe it to be "rationalist," or "linear" and "hierarchical," I advocate the implementation of plans or policies if they will help humanity or have been shown to do so. Certainly, despite Mr. Barthel's accusation, a humanist would allow for seemingly "multiple, conflicting meanings" if they accomplished this goal of improving the lives of people.

I concede that some humanists and Enlightenment liberals saw the movement towards this goal as "unstoppable" and the perfection of our existence as attainable. Agreed, this is utopian thinking, but I and most other humanists are not so unrealistic, and instead hold that it is not the goal itself, but the progress towards it, that ought to be utmost in our minds.

Experience has shown that the most realistic way to move towards that goal is through the mechanisms of liberty and responsibility to the community in the form of democracy, rather than other political systems. I

wholeheartedly agree that neither liberty nor democracy has historically

(or contemporarily) lived up to its ideal, likely never will, and that many

advocates of these ideals have excluded from participation, and oppressed, many people. Because of this exclusion and oppression, some groups have chosen to reject these goals of liberty and democracy for the whole community, and instead focusing on achieving these goals for their own seceded community, or rather, developing new goals. I agree with the first part of Mr. Barthel's closing words that these "are problems to be

overcome," but I disagree that they are "not reasons to abandon

postmodernism as a philosophy."

Indeed we should abandon it as such, for the problems to be overcome are in fact worsened by the egoistic isolationism of postmodernism that was first created by a lack of adherence to humanist values. If alienation and oppression are to be eliminated, and full democracy and liberty for human beings brought to fruition, the splintering and isolationist tendencies of postmodernism must be overcome first.

--

Jason Clark, College first-year

Student Senator explains recent constitutional concerns

To the Editors:

As a current member of Student Senate, I would like to take this opportunity to inform the Oberlin community about some situations with which Student Senate is concerned right now. First, allow me to clarify the fact that I am not drafting this letter on behalf of Student Senate. I am speaking only as an individual who has been heavily involved with the election process.

On Monday, when ballots first arrived in the mailroom, a candidate took six ballots, checked off his name on them, and began to pass them out to students. On that same day I viewed a message in the Student Senate e-mail account in which a student questioned the legality of such action. I did not respond to the message immediately since I wanted to confront the candidate before I drafted a reply. When I checked the account later, I learned that the concerned student had received a response to his query from a former Student Senator who is currently a candidate. This prompted the concerned student to email the Senate account once more complaining about the fact that a non-Senator had access to his e-mail.

Currently, there is no guideline, within Student Senate's constitution or by-laws that prohibits candidates from handling ballots. In some past elections, candidates have been explicitly prohibited from touching ballots, while in others, candidates have been encouraged to distribute ballots. I, as a member of Student Senate, apologize for my failure to draft legislation during previous years that would make specific guidelines regarding this matter. In response to the concerns of a few students who believe strongly that it is unethical for candidates to handle ballots, all candidates were informed on Tuesday that such actions will no longer be tolerated during this election. To prevent this sort of thing from happening again, I have been carrying on discussions with some of my Senate colleagues regarding the codification of more efficient election procedures.

To address the issue of e-mail access, I would like to apologize to the Oberlin student body for failing to change the Student Senate password. It honestly never occurred to me that a former Senator would feel that it was appropriate for him to use the Student Senate account, therefore I did not take measures to prevent this situation. The Student Senate password has since been changed.

I have attempted to create an e-mail discussion with other members of Student Senate so that we may come to a consensus about what actions can and should be taken. So far, I have not received enough input from my colleagues to have a firm grasp on their perceptions of these events. I have also communicated with members of the student body and I have received a wide variety of opinions, ranging from absolute outrage to utter indifference.

Once more, I would like to apologize for my failure as a member of Senate to foresee these events and prevent their occurrence. I welcome any member of the student body to contact me to discuss either the current election, or future election protocol.

--

Erika Hansen, College junior

Candidate apologizes for transgressions

To the Editors:

Students crying foul in Senate elections is almost as common as students running on an "I've never even set FOOT in a senate meeting but knows exactly what's wrong with it" campaign. Not that both aren't semi-valid, but both are also absurdly simplistic. True to form, someone's going through the "we must have new elections, and if not, I'll sell my slanted and misleading story to the Review motions, and I thought we might circulate all of the facts and let you decide. Call it a preemptive strike.

After resigning from senate and leaving school well before last semester's end (my mother's health and financial situation were unstable), I was glad to be back this fall, and anxious to continue where I left off. I was invited to school early to assist senate with Orientation stuff. Even as an 'ex-senator' I was still doing everything I had been as a senator last year, except without pay.

Right up until I was standing at Kinko's at 1 a.m. Monday morning helping a senator copy 3000 ballots, it'd never dawned on any of us that these were activities that a senate candidate should not be involved in. Bear in mind however, there's nothing that I've done that's compromised the integrity of this election, and more notably there's not even anything that I could have done. So the contention point is an e-mail.

I retrieved last year's lost senate password and gave it to the interim senate. Considering myself a resource for student problem solving, I continued to check the senate e-mail on a regular basis. Having helped coordinate last year's spring election, I knew for a fact that election paraphernalia was never relayed via e-mail until after the election, so worry of seeing anything I shouldn't have was never a concern. In truth however, this rationalization had never crossed my mind. I didn't think it was "okay for me to be checking the e-mail because there's no election stuff there" for the simple fact that I didn't think at all. I just checked the email I'd been checking for a year. Habit.

Two days into the election, a student emailed the senate account with a concern over the appropriateness of a first-year candidate handing out ballots in the mailroom. I responded via e-mail, making clear that the situation had been remedied, although there was nothing that specifically made it illegal. Not until this student raised the point had the appearance of a "candidate breaking into the e-mail" crossed my mind. Accessing the e-mail was a grave miscalculation, and for that I accept full responsibility. It should be perfectly clear that my intentions were good, however. Had I been accessing the e-mail to gain privileged information (even though I knew none was there), I certainly wouldn't have been responding to e-mails.

To quell the rumors, I offer the aforementioned explanation and the most sincere apology I have to give. Hopefully, this will restore faith in the integrity of this senate election. I have worked hard over the last year to earn a reputation as a hardworking, trustworthy student leader, and would hope never to betray that. It appears I may already have, however unintentionally, and that upsets me terribly.

Rest assured that, whether re-elected or not, I will continue to be available as a student rights advocate and a general problem-solver. Those of us who have a drive to accomplish meaningful change will do so regardless of this election's outcome. Again I apologize and hope that this doesn't serve to create/further your mistrust in a system that works on your behalf.

--

Chris Anton, College sophomore