Delighted about computers

To the Editors:

As a fifth-year senior College student, I have had considerable experience with the Computer Center - most of it bad! In the past, labs were open for limited hours and exceedingly crowded. There were 101 student consultants, of whom few seemed genuinely helpful and knowledgeable. Printing was slow and expensive, often necessitating standing outside the Operations Room until the over-burdened operator saw you. To top it all off, if something went wrong, the computing center staff were often too busy to help in a polite manner.

This is why I've been delighted by and am extremely appreciative of the changes in the Center over the past year. The new 24-hour labs in

Biggs and Harvey are a real boon for students. (I see students in there at all hours, confirming demand for such facilities.) Network hard disk

space for students is next in terms of utility - at last, a place to store papers while moving from machine to machine! Printing, while slightly wasteful now, is free and relatively quick and easy. The establishment of a Help Desk and the (seeming) reduction in the number of consultants has actually translated into higher-quality assistance. Finally, computing center staff themselves seem far more helpful and polite.

Credit for this undoubtedly goes to John Bucher and the rest of the Center staff. I hope we continue to see such positive changes - they can only increase the meaningful use of IT resources and truly integrate technology into our lives. Thank you.

--Jaya S. Bajpai, College senior

Con presented racism

To the Editors:

At their concert last Sunday, the Oberlin Chamber Orchestra presented Ravel's early 20th-century song cycle Scheherezade, settings of three poems by Tristan Klingsor. I would like to call the attention of the college community to the curious text of one of these, entitled "Asie" ("Asia"). Some typical excerpts (from the translation given in the program): "Asia, Asia, Asia/ancient, marvellous country of fairy tales/where fantasy sleeps like an empress/in her forest full of mystery."

This denies Asia its existence in the real world and the contemporary moment. (And Asia's a continent, not a country.) "I would like to see beautiful, silken turbans/above black faces with shining teeth." "I would like to see eyes dark with love..." (Her mouth says no, but her eyes say yes!) "I would like to see avaricious merchants with shifty glances..." (Those Asians are treacherous devils; you can't trust them for a second they won't look you in the eye.) "I would like to see assassins smiling/at the executioner who cuts off an innocent head/with his great curved oriental sabre." (Don't let all that fairy tale stuff fool you; Asians are really bloodthirsty barbarians.) And so forth.

I think that the author of this text luxuriates in his role as a colonizer, a dominator: his position of privilege allows him to imagine (construct) a fantasy of "the Orient" which perpetuates the reality of that privilege and of European imperialism. However, the point of this letter is not to deconstruct the text, but to ask of the Conservatory members who programmed it: how can you present us with such blatant racism?

Whether from thoughtlessness or from arrogance, they act as if they are above questioning and criticizing the hurtful stereotypes that are still very much a part of our culture, and they do so from the same position of privilege that created that text in the first place - they reproduce and perpetuate that privilege. I think it is irresponsible and offensive of them to think that they are so unaccountable, that their music is depoliticized, that aesthetics can transcend the social context and history in which this music/text was created and is presented. And did they expect their audience (who might they have thought the audience for this piece would be?) to be as irresponsible as they were?

--David Wright, Conservatory senior

First-year speeches provide headaches

To the Editors:

In the wake of the controversial Student Senate elections, I felt myself a bit jaded. I was expecting a breath of fresh air when the first-year ballots were handed out, yet all I found in the campaign speeches were more headaches.

Take, for example, Steffon Thomas' paragraph. "As First-Year President I plan to make some interesting things happen. Along with promoting unity among all First-Years, I will work to give the class [sic] of 2003 a voice."

Nowhere in his paragraph does Mr. Thomas mention any details of his plan of "attack." If he had mentioned concrete ideas rather than vague sound bytes, he would have been a more respectable candidate. Mr. Thomas then proceeds to turn the election into a game of favorites by saying "... if you don't agree with me consider my partner Caleb Miller." This shameless lack of professionalism turns the election into a grammar school popularity contest. Mr. Thomas also seems to be grasping at straws, for he includes among his leadership accomplishments the fact that he was "president of my middle school class." There is a tremendous gap between middle school dance organizing and collegiate red tape; I hope that the candidate understands the distinction.

Mr. Miller, on the other hand, fails to recognize the fine line between stating one's credentials and bragging. He writes that "I was President of Student Council, vice-president of the Junior Class and the Art Club, Captain of the Tennis Team, a peer mediator, and a member of just about every other organization in my school." While Mr. Miller is proud of all his numerous accomplishments, they came across to the reader as egotistical at best and self-righteous at worst. The candidate wanted to put his best foot forward, and doubtless did not intend to come across as "tooting his own horn," yet his speech did not have that effect. Additionally, the candidate's grammar is sketchy. While describing why we should elect him, he writes, "Second, because I think that we are a powerful class, and have the potential to be the most powerful class on campus." While not an English major, I can recognize a sentence fragment. When looking for a suitable class representative, I look for one who is eloquent rather than one who struggles with the concept of dependent and independent clauses.

Ms. Jessica Rosenberg's grammar was slightly better than Mr. Miller's, yet some of her commentary is irrelevant. She states that "...I'm troubled by how little communication there is among campus groups with similar political/cultural goals." Regardless of the truth of this statement, it has precious little to do with the question burning in our minds: "How will you help the class of 2003?" The cohesiveness of activist groups is not an intra-class unity concern; rather, it is an inter-class unity issue. While the candidate started off strong, the latter half of her paragraph reveals her inability to stay focused on the topic at hand. I will, however, concede that Ms. Rosenberg would likely be very effective at using filibusters to her advantage.

The three candidates are likely wonderful human beings who all believe that they would serve the class of 2003 very well. My dissatisfaction, as evidenced above, stems from lack of professionalism in both their treatment of the election and the proofreading of their speeches.

I hope that none of the three individuals involved will see this as a personal attack on them; rather, I hope that, upon reading this commentary, they will understand a little bit better how to come across as professional rather than as lackadaisical.

--Neil Broadley, College first-year

Israel 2000, a Jewish utopia? Rabat argues that Israel is anything but

To the Editors:

This letter is in response to the recent ads in the Review for Birthright Israel. I find the many aspects of the ad and what it symbolizes particularly problematic. Israel as a modern state is the gift of imperialism, specifically British imperialism.

The League of Nations vested Britain with a trust to administer its assigned mandates in the interests of their inhabitants. The British betrayed that trust using their authority in Transjordan to allow Jewish settlement in Palestine against the best interests of its inhabitants, i.e. Palestinians. After World War II, Europeans and Americans felt sorry for the Jews because of the Holocaust and felt responsible for allowing such a horrendous event to happen. Consequently, they supported Jewish calls for the creation of Israel, their own state where they could be safe, on humanitarian grounds. However, the British were eager to leave because they tired of the administrative burden the mandate posed and continuing Jewish Taoist and Palestinian terrorism. Hence, Palestinian land and cattle were given to Jews to form Israel.

Israel became a racially divided state where Jews are fifth-class citizens while Palestinians come in second and are perennially suspected of being a terrorist or a supporter of terrorism. A state where it is okay to seize land abandoned by refugees during a war regardless if their departure was only temporary or even if it was forced. Where any Jew the world over has the right to move to Israel from New Jersey and obtain immediate Israeli citizenship. Whereas no Palestinian resident within Israeli-occupied boundaries after the '48 War was entitled to citizenship regardless of whether his family estate and all his belongings where within those boundaries. Is this the kind of state that you want to visit? Is it beyond reproach? Do we owe it our undying support?

If you answered yes to any of those questions, then it is a shame that some racist idiot did not offer free trips to apartheid South Africa to all white college students while they had the chance. For that matter, why didn't Henry Ford make a similar offer to all Nazi-supporting Americans before World War II? Maybe because such an offer would be inherently problematic as it would tend to skirt the serious issues and injustices in those states. This does not imply a one-to-one comparison between the above examples and Israel; however, it is possible to draw some unpleasant similarities.

As a preemptive response to expected criticisms, I will say that this essay is not very interesting, nor is its writer anti-Semitic, a problematic term per se, but anti-Zionist. I oppose Zionism as the current form of Jewish nationalism not because I oppose Jewish nationalism, but because I oppose the imposition of suffering upon one people for the relief of suffering on another people, especially when the suffering of the former had little or nothing to do with the suffering of the latter. Anti-Zionist is not synonymous with anti-Semitic just as opposition to American policies is not unpatriotic or un-American. To oppose a country's public and foreign policies need not indicate prejudiced feelings toward the ruling group.

To be fair and happy with life on planet earth, I must acknowledge that Jews have a right to visit Israel and that such a visit does not connote unquestioning support for Israeli policies. This essay does not question that fundamental fact; however, it does seek to provoke thought and debate about Israeli policies and society.

--Yahya Ibn Rabat, College senior

Senate accepts applications

To the Editors:

Student Senate is conducting interviews to fill two student seats on the Search Committee for a permanent Director of Residential Life and Services. This is an important venue for student input regarding the choice of the next Director of Residential Life and Services, and we ask that all interested students e-mail OSENATE for more information or for an interview time. The deadline for interview requests is October 15.

--Student Senate