Friendly financial advice to College

To the Editors:

It's no real secret that Oberlin College is in dire financial trouble. Our endowment is pocket change compared to most competitive colleges and universities. We must somehow find a way for Oberlin to continue its tradition of academic excellence despite this problem, not forgetting that we strive to attract a wide range of students with independent minds driven to make a difference. My object here is not to cast blame on the College for its monetary situation, but to offer some friendly advice at how the College can be more thrifty and save money here and there.

Students consistently throw away food and sit inside the dining halls while Oberlin-paid employees wait for them to leave. Admittedly, it is difficult to change student behavior. If offered, meal time is one of the few opportunities during the day for many to relax with their friends. Policy must be changed, therefore, to eradicate this. Right now Stevenson is open from 5:45 to 7:15 for dinner. What can the college expect of young adults but to linger and eat abundantly if given the chance! But, if we change that time to between 5:45 to 5:50, surely students will hurry their eating, take less food since they will only have five minutes in which to eat, and the employees will only be required for perhaps fifteen minutes for the entire night. Choosing an unpopular time can also help. Why not offer dinner at 3:45 to 3:50 in the morning? This way Oberlin can take the money we pay for our board and then use it for whatever purpose their hearts desire. Oberlin has already tried this approach Winter and Spring Break by offering breakfast from 8:00 to 8:30 in the morning. Not surprisingly the largest number of students to ever attend last year was seventeen. I talked to Res Life, and they were modest in the assessment of their success, but I still hope it will be a springboard for more of the same cost-efficient schemes.

There was a big controversy among some of the faculty about Oberlin's decision to lower the heat in buildings over winter break last year. While I sympathize with their plight, again I must emphasize the need to save money, even if it means slight discomfort for some. Now think of all that heat being wasted by students. I know the thought of a room at forty degrees is gruesome, but we must imagine the cost for Oberlin to heat every dorm room and building on the campus. Compare that to your petty shivering! Imagine all the environmentally friendly buildings we can erect with that money, all the fences we can put and the trees we can cut down.

While I don't have exact figures, a non-tenured professor makes roughly $6.50 an hour plus one free CDS meal, and a tenured around $11 plus two meals. Once again, Oberlin has already begun the process of hiring more non-tenured faculty and cutting down on costs, but the process can certainly be accelerated. It wasn't until the German Majors were smashing their steins in disgust that Oberlin provided them with enough professors for their courses, and the college should be commended for holding out for so long. While tenured professors may have more interest in Oberlin because of their long-term commitment, and perhaps are able to develop a reputation with students and in their field once permanently settled, the enormous cost of maintaining their salaries makes any advantage they have for the Oberlin experience insignificant.

Some might argue that I am being somewhat extreme in my ideas. I can imagine one arguing that by being thrifty now, we run the serious risk of sending students away from Oberlin with a bad feeling of how the administration treated them, no matter if their overall experience was good. These types of students, one could argue, would then probably scoff at the notion of donating money to the college when they were asked to do so, the losses of which would eventually cost the college a lot more money than turning on the heat or opening up dining halls at reasonable times. But surely the College has thought their cost-efficiency plan through and considered the effects it will have on students and their opinion of the college. I am confident in my belief that whether food or no food, meagerly paid professor or more meagerly paid professors, the school will find ways to keep spending down while keeping students unaware of how their money is being used.

--Joe Sulman, College senior

CDS worker bites back

To the Editors:

To the student who wrote last week's editorial column ranting against CDS, I offer my most humble apologies on behalf of student CDS workers across campus. As a Junior who has worked in CDS since my first year, I have seen many changes in the dining system, some good, some bad. Having worked in the Snack Bar of old, and working now in the DeCafe, I find myself in the unique position of agreeing with you, the writer of last week's essay, that this year's quality of service leaves much to be desired.

For example, service in the Rat and DeCafe is horribly inefficient at times. There are times when people have had to wait in line for dinner at the Rat for upwards of 10 whole minutes! This, in my humble opinion, illustrates a growing problem in CDS: the student workers just don't give a damn. I mean, I have worked dinner shifts in which the waiters didn't wait nearly as patiently as they could have, and in which the line runners (those who ensure the buffet is full at all times) just didn't run with nearly as much gusto as they might have, forcing hungry students to wait for their dinners that much longer. It is a sorry state, but one that cannot be helped, I am afraid.

Another point to ponder is the fact of understaffing. Obviously this is a huge problem. On one hand, it has benefited those of us in CDS by giving us raises (see my letter in last week's Review); on the other hand, it does make service to the average student increasingly inefficient. I mean, if there is only one of me flipping sandwiches at DeCafe, then of course students will have to wait in line. This, to me, is a tragedy; unfortunately I do not have the power to rectify it.

How careless of me to forget this! Ye gods, when I read the editorial column last week, I was reminded of my shortcomings, and the fact that yes, by God, sometimes I do take a water break when I might have slapped together yet another four-cheese-with-pesto. But thanks to last week's article, I will endeavor to slack no more, in the hopes that people will feel they are being tortured no longer. I hope that student CDS workers everywhere read this, and examine their hearts and minds, and conclude that they too must go the extra mile. I mean, when students have to wait, and wait, and wait for their food to be served, when they might have been spending that time more diligently - such as reading up on class for their sociology seminar - what IS this campus coming to?

Sincerely,

--Alita V. Pierson, College senior

Wright's essay irresponsible, embarrassment to liberalism

To the Editors:

This letter is in response to David Wright's letter "Con Presented Racism" in the last issue, from a few weeks ago. I find it tiresome and downright insulting to be told, as I often am, what's politically incorrect and why. Mr. Wright wrote an editorial about the Con's presentation of Ravel's "Scheherezade" that explained in detail why the piece is offensive. He went on to say that the Chamber Orchestra really shouldn't have played it, or been allowed to play it. He wonders what audience they could have intended it for. How about an intelligent audience, most of which attends Oberlin College or Conservatory, and is sophisticated enough to a) recognize racist/ sexist/ classist/ homophobic /xenophobic/ claustrophobic lyrics, b) recognize that a poet writing them a hundred years ago can't possibly be held to today's standards of enlightenment, and c) listen to and appreciate a beautiful piece of music without feeling obligated to decry its "Imperialist" bent?

Mr. Wright, I agree that the lyrics are essentially racist and that one can never fully separate art from politics. That's a real live issue that deserves a whole other essay (or book) analyzing Wagner, Shakespeare, and countless great musicals that contain blatantly racist dialogue and characterizations. What bothers me is that you are falling into the dangerous trap of glibly associating one politically incorrect idea with another and mentioning a lot of huge issues that it's fashionably fair-minded to mention, but not necessarily relevant. In doing that, you pay lip service to those issues and hurt the integrity of your argument.

Two major comments of yours both infuriated and amused me. First, you conclude from the antiquated lyrics of Tristan Klingsor, whose poems are set to this music, that he must see himself as "a colonizer, a dominator: his position of privilege allows him to imagine (construct) a fantasy of Œthe Orient' which perpetuates the reality of that privilege and of European imperialism." I have to call this pretty drastic. I think your hangups about privilege are clouding this interpretation, and allowing you to do a lot of constructing, for one, am tired of being an imperialist because of my whiteness, straightness, or ability to pay full tuition, and I'm sure my Irish and Jewish ancestors knew a lot more about imperialism than do you and I combined. Second, you take the line "eyes dark with love" and add, "Her mouth says no but her eyes say yes!" (No pronouns in Klingsor's text). Someone who sides with you reminded me about the heavy objectification of females in Orientalist art. That's fine, but are we talking about date rape or imperialism? Does it matter as long as what we say is politically correct?

You talk of the Con's irresponsibility, but your essay is irresponsible. You complain of Klingsor's constructions while constructing him. You also lament a lot of Arab stereotypes in an essay that's a stereotype of P.C. If I had seen it presented as a satire in some conservative magazine, I would have thought without batting an eye that William F. Buckley had written it. In short, the essay is an embarrassment to the liberal ideals I hold, and I resent it.

Now that you've seen my harangue, did you like the melody?

--David Meadow, College sophomore

Not the only piece to exoticise the East

To the Editors:

I would like to respond to David Wright's letter of 10/8/99 which appeared under the title -Con Presented Racism" and concerned the programming of Ravel's Scheherezade on a recent Oberlin Chamber Orchestra concert. He called our attention to the text of Tristan Klingsor's- poem Asie, which highlights exotic details of a foreign land in a way that values them only for their perceived differences from Western culture. The text shows a mixture of reverence and repulsion for a mysterious. exotic people, which we rightfully consider racist.

I agree that, as you said, "the author [of Asie] luxuriates in his role as a colonizer ... his position of privilege allows him to imagine (construct) a fantasy of Œthe Orient' which perpetuates the reality of that privilege and of European imperialism." So did the culture in which Western art music or "classical music" emerged. There is a long history of this sort of exoticizing in Western music and art.

So, David, I wonder why, out of the many works which subscribe to this culturally superior mindset, it was Scheherezade that roused your wrath. I suspect the text, but we have performed others with culturally biased programs: Bartok's Miraculous Mandarin, Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition (with the unflattering movement we know as "Two Jews: One Rich, the other Poor"), and Bizet's Carmen (as a gypsy, she is typed as promiscuous and manipulative). They received no uproar! Neither do other works such as Puccini's Madam Butterfly, and Stravinsky's Rite of Spring (caricaturing primitive cultures). Such unimpeachables as Haydn's "Military" Symphony #100, Mozart's Abduction from the Seraglio, and Beethoven's Ninth Symphony employ parodic imitations of Turkish court music. Scheherezade is a textbook example of the twentieth century Exoticism movement, which includes most of Ravel's and Debussy's output. Cultural bias is a theme which is implicit in Western music, even when it is only in the musical material. or the cultural agenda (e. g. the Nazis' appropriation of Wagner and Beethoven.)

What I'm challenging here is your criticism of the orchestra's programmers for presenting Ravel's Scheherezade. Suppression is one solution, but Ravel certainly isn't the most egregious offender. Because of the text, we are tempted to take the easy solution and simply avoid the work. But the text only makes clear what the music is already saying through its use of exotic elements. If we simply purge these works, then we never have to consider this deeper musical tradition of cultural appropriation, one which you and I, as musicians, are complicit.

I didn't write this to discourage you from your battle but to let you know how pervasive it will have to be. It's true that many musicians think that "great art" can transcend the ideological baggage of its time. That's like the line we used to hand our parents when they'd call us down for listening to music with nasty lyrics: "But I don't listen to the words. I just like the music..." That is an attitude which thoughtful consumers of art should not take. Still, it seems too easy to censor this one, marginal work when so many kingpins of the canon are tarred with the same brush. We need to realize that Beethoven's Ninth is no less culpable than Scheherezade in this sort of racism, as you termed it. These works belong not to us, but to a time when it was considered coot - and not disrespectful - to borrow from other cultures for one's own ends. I'd like to think the programmers trusted us to be responsible listeners, rather than taking all the responsibility for shaping our experiences on themselves.

--Sarah Clemmens, Double-degree fifth-year

Doctor urges care plan

To the Editors:

This letter is to inform all Oberlin College employees who have the J.P. Farley Select Plan for their health insurance that Podiatry is not a covered service unless you are a diabetic. The office of Dr. Arnold G. Milner, O.P.M. wanted to make you aware of this since this month only (October,) you can switch your health insurance to the Preferred Plan, which does cover podiatry services.

--Dr. Arnold G. Miller, Oberlin Podiatrist

Ban flourescent paper

Dear Editors:

We write this letter to remind you that in the Spring of 1998 a proposal passed through the Student Senate to stop purchasing fluorescent paper and to ban its use by campus offices and departments. This proposal was subsequently adopted by the College. Recently, several campus offices and departments have been in violation of this policy and have issued campus-wide documents printed on oil fluorescent paper.

Fluorescent paper produces toxic waste, contaminates the waste stream, and requires more energy to recycle. In addition to the negative environmental impact produced by the use of fluorescent paper, the contamination of our waste stream means reduced cash reward. The purer the waste stream, the greater the cash reward. Moreover, our recycling system is not currently setup to recycle fluorescent paper. Thus, discarded fluorescent paper is simply not recycled.

If colored paper is necessary for your office's productivity, pastel colored paper should be substituted because it may be recycled with normal office paper. We ask you to join us in preserving our natural environment, reducing costs, and upholding College policy. We hope that you will contact one of the undersigned with any questions or concerns you have about this matter.

Sincerely,

--Nancy S. Dye, President; Cheryle Wolfe, Director of Environmental Health and Services; and David Jessop, Student Senator