Clark had facts wrong about GF meeting

To the Editors:

In the September 10, 1999 issue of the Review, co-editor Benjamin Clark wrote an article reporting on the September General Faculty Meeting in which the faculty discussed a proposal from its Student Life Committee (SLC) to restructure the student organization chartering process. Mr. Clark reports on statements made by six faculty including Mr. Piron and myself. Mr. Piron subsequently criticized Mr. Clark for having injected his personal bias into a news article by characterizing, respectively, Mr. Piron's and my comments as "cynical" and "knee-jerk" (Sept. 17 Review). Mr. Clark defended his position, claiming that his article was factually correct and that it was proper for a reporter to convey the sense of a meeting by necessarily injecting his own perceptions (Sept. 21 Review). Here I add to this conversation.

First, I find Mr. Clark's original article to be factually incorrect in two respects. One, in describing my comments he conveys an inaccurate time-sequence. His article suggests that I spoke on at least two occasions with others speaking in-between my utterances. In fact, I spoke just once and was not interrupted. Secondly, Mr. Clark either ignores or misrepresents the comments of Classics Professor James Helm, in addition to incorrectly placing him in the History Department. Mr. Helm did not support the motion brought by the SLC, but instead, suggested that the existing chartering process be streamlined. Mr. Helm pointed out that, in the last few years, there have been considerable delays in the chartering process simply due to the fact that numerous General Faculty Meetings have been cancelled. Mr. Helm expressed a desire that more substantive matters be brought to the GF so that it would meet more regularly, thereby eliminating needless delays in the current student organization chartering process. Not only did Mr. Clark omit the specifics of Mr. Helm's comments; many of his readers were left with the impression that Mr. Helm actually supported the SLC motion.

In his September 17 rebuttal, Mr. Clark offers no defense for having characterized my remarks, and by implication, the remarks of other opponents to the SLC motion, as "knee-jerk." Certainly he is entitled to his opinion, but what is the factual basis for including this characterization in his reporting of the GF Meeting? The phrase "knee-jerk" is pejorative, implying a readily-predictable response devoid of thought. In fact, the SLC motion was circulated last May and faculty members, including myself, had some months to consider its implications. In my remarks I offered four substantive reasons why I thought the motion should be defeated. If my comments in opposition to the SLC motion were predictable were those by supporters of the motion, any less so?

In his original article Ben Clark reports on the comments of six faculty members and the President at the GF Meeting with regard to the proposed revision of the charter process. President Dye and two members of the faculty, Len Smith and Jane Armitage, spoke in support of the motion - their comments are described without negative characterization. Four members of the faculty, Ron Kahn, Bob Piron, John Scofield, and Jim Helm, spoke against the motion. Mr. Clark marginalizes the comments of Piron and Scofield and misrepresents (or omits) the comments of Helm. Is this the kind of unbiased, accurate reporting we expect from the Review? Sadly, it may be.

--John Scofield, Associate Professor of Physics

Mumia appeal necessary

To the Editors:

The commentary offered by The Oberlin Review (October 1, 1999, p.6) regarding the debate over "almost equal amount of skepticism" as anonymously posted joke posters, some with the heading "Fuck Mumia." First of all, if the Review editors think they've seen posters bearing the slogan Free Mumia "proliferate exponentially" on campus lately, they need to get their glasses prescriptions checked. The central demands of our movement are 'Stop the Execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal! A New Trial Now!'. Of course, many supporters of these demands also call on the state to "Free Mumia." Why? Because even an elementary examination of the case will show that Mumia was never proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. The logical conclusion is that a new trial, in which evidence was not suppressed, witnesses not coerced and intimidated, and the defendant's constitutional rights not flagrantly violated, could result in nothing short of Mumia Abu-Jamal's release from prison.

I will not try to lay out the details of the case here, in part because a list of the various details of the legal butchery which passed for Mumia's 'trial' could fill this newspaper cover to cover. Those looking for more information should feel free to ask one of the many students on this campus who have devoted significant time to the study of this case. Or conduct your own investigation.

The Review urges us to ask why Mumia in particular "has engendered so much support." Good question. Mumia would be the first to argue that his personal experience is inseparable from the experiences of the millions in this country who daily confront the realities of police brutality, the racist prison system and death penalty, and the impossibility of receiving fair treatment in the courts without being rich. Far from the "death-row celebrity" image which the mainstream media so desperately attempts to paint, Mumia and the defense campaign on his behalf have become rallying points for a movement which takes a stand on all of these issues.

But there is one striking way in which this case is unique: Mumia is the only political prisoner on death-row in the United States. The argument that Mumia was framed for the killing of a police officer does not come from nowhere. Prior to his conviction, he was consistently targeted by the Philadelphia Police for his radical journalism, his defense of the MOVE organization, and his earlier participation in the Black Panther Party. The FBI amassed over 700 pages of records detailing his political activity. It is a proven fact that through programs like the FBI's COINTELPRO, the US government systematically attempted to destroy the Black Panthers and the radical wing of the Civil Rights movement. The list of those targeted and framed on bogus charges throughout US history has included everyone from labor leaders to American Indian activists.

The Review concludes with the absurd claim that "this bantering [referring to the public debate over Mumia's case] only prolongs and intensifies the conflict making it much harder to come to the equitable conclusion". The exact opposite is true. Given the fact that the Fraternal Order of Police and their media hacks are waging a multi-million dollar smear campaign against Mumia, the only way to ensure that justice is served is to wage an-all out war of popular mobilization and grassroots education around this case.

--Peter Olson, College senior

Black student enrollment less than 1971's goal of 100 per year

To the Editors:

Oberlin College set a goal in 1971 to enroll 100 black students in

each entering class. This fall some 44 blacks entered the College of Arts &

Sciences, while under 10 entered the Conservatory. That is a total of about 54 black students.

Although we at the College have never come close to enrolling 100

black students, we have always been in pursuit of the goal. Our efforts remain most laudable today. Compared to many other predominantly white colleges, Oberlin's success is definitely more praiseworthy.

A home, a town, a country has no greater and more important business than that of educating its children well. White children in our country are not generally well educated, but black children's education, overall, is shockingly much worse in our nation, in our state, and in our town.

Surely, if we at Oberlin College had been since 1971 only about fifty-five or sixty percent successful in meeting our enrollment targets for the College of Arts and Sciences and for the Conservatory as we have been in meeting the enrollment goal for black students, there would have been a crisis of monumental and staggering proportion. Indeed, Oberlin College might well have gone out of existence. At the very least, we might have had to reduce the student body from about 2800 to 1400 and cut the faculty in half as well.

Fortunately, the College as a whole is very strong today. This overall strength can only increase the odds that our progress toward one day

meeting that goal set in 1971 will continue with much renewed effort, determation, and commitment.

Because our success in enrolling 100 blacks is so dependent upon

important factors quite beyond our control in our nation, it will require a special focus and energy on our part to remain ahead of so many other colleges and universities. Based on our current level of dedication to this challenge, I myself am confident that we will see the numbers rise higher rather than drop farther. Somewhere in the 21st century we can and we must meet our 1971 goal of enrolling AND graduating 100 black students each year.

All of us have a role to play in furthering the attainment of this goal. Indeed, each of us, along with succeeding generations, stands to reap huge profits and benefits because of this investment of time, commitment, energy, etc. in the education of black

students. Only if we think of what we surely will GAIN rather than only of what we must invest can we continue to be one of this nation's truly

outstanding and leading colleges for the education of black students in

the 21st century. Although there will be some hard decisions to make and much discussioon and debate will occur, all the evidence argues that we will make, in the end, the right decision to invest whatever is needed to

remain at the top.

--Booker Peek, Associate Professor of African-American Studies

Holiday ritual clarified

To the Editors:

Last week I opened up the Review to the Security Notebook as usual. I was shocked to read that some materials were stolen from "a structure on the west side of Talcott used for the observation of Yom Kippur." I was not surprised because of the theft, but because that "structure," called a Sukkah, is not used for the observance of Yom Kippur. Rather, it is used in the celebration of Sukkot, the "festival of booths." Yom Kippur is the "Day of Atonement" when Jews atone for their past sins. Sukkot is a festival celebrating the fall harvest. These two holidays are very different. In the future, you should check the facts in your most-read section (as illustrated by the Quantitative Corner).

--Erica Seager, College senior

Yanked "Bootyphones" show mourned

To the Editors:

I regret to announce what a few of you may already have noticed: after a strong start last semester, BootyPhones has been taken off the air. When I saw that my name was printed nowhere on the programming list, I nearly cried. BootyPhones was like a child to me and I had spent all summer thinking about how much it would grow over the course of the coming year.

Why was it trashed? Because the WOBC staff hates me and everything I did on BootyPhones. Last year I had the lone support of then station manager Zach Cutler, who quickly recognized how much work I put into my show even though he did not support what I was doing on the air, and I am forever in debt to him for it. Unfortunately and to my surprise, it turned out this year that there was nobody like that to stand up for me at the staff's private meetings, and so my show was pulled.

Despite the inner pains I went through over losing BootyPhones, I kept my cool and did not protest because in the back of my head I knew that this is exactly how the real world operates. If the general manager or the program director decide that they hate what you do, they will yank you off the air. If any of you listen to Howard Stern a tenth as much as I do, you know that this is an iron law of radio broadcasting. I always imagined that working at a station bent on diversity at a college bent on freedom of speech would immunize me to silly obstacles like this. But I made a big mistake and now I'm paying for it.

BootyPhones was not created to appeal to everyone, and especially not program directors. Furthermore, it was not designed with Oberlin students in mind. It was designed to appeal most to the people outside of Oberlin, the people who have real jobs and real problems. Some students heard humor, some didn't.

Actually, from what I could tell most students who listened did not hear humor. I heard a rumor that someone in Fairchild was passing around a petition to get me off the air. In April the hosts of "I Know What You Did Last Winter Term" spent their entire show talking about me and my co-host and the horrible things we said. There was even a letter to the Review about my insensitive use of the word "Jap."

Not everyone was against me, though. One guy waited outside Wilder after my very first night on the air to tell me I was the funniest person he'd ever heard. It's not possible to be told that and not be affected by it. I love all this attention, the good and the bad. Ever since I was a child I've been trying to get noticed, and I soon found that making people laugh was one way to do just that. Radio has given me a source of attention and a way to make lots of people laugh. If someday someone wants to pay me a living wage for that, I will be in heaven.

Even with BootyPhones off the air, I'm still constantly working to improve it. Until the day I make my triumphant return to radio, look for some of my comic strips here in the Oberlin Review, and stop by my slowly-growing website at {welcome.to/bootyweb}. Thanks for your support.

--Christopher Wilson, College junior