Commendations for starting dialogue

To the Editors:

This letter responds to several articles and letters last week concerning advising at Oberlin. Obviously the issue is complex, and I commend Dean Goldsmith and the General Faculty for starting the formal dialogue. From my background in several jobs and my own personal journey at Oberlin as a double-degree transfer student, academic advising in particular has been central to my professional and personal life.

As a former student senator and in my second year as a Peer Liaison in the Office of Student Academic Services, I have been formally and informally exposed to student frustration with their assigned advisors. From first-years jumping into three or four writing-intensive courses with no advisor intervention, to students getting their RAC from their advisor's office door sans appointment, such anecdotes are neither unusual nor unexpected. As Dean Goldsmith mentioned, "the multiple demands on professors means that there are limits to what they can do on behalf of students facing critical crossroads." This is understandable and valid. Advising at present is something broad and vaguely-defined; can we honestly expect as students that our academic advisors will be there to figuratively hold our hands through such "critical crossroads" as choosing a major or taking a leave of absence? Such expectations seem to me irrelevant to the professor who leaves a RAC outside an office door.

In order to progress on advising, we need to break down our expectations to the absolute essentials of what ALL faculty can commit to providing for their advisees. My understanding is that advisors are there to make sure I get my degree in a reasonable amount of time, and that I am crystal-clear on which requirements I will need to receive my Oberlin degree(s). Once every Oberlin student is informed about these basics, then let's talk about a faculty advisor's role in a student's personal crises.

Pursuing a double degree as a transfer student has necessitated academic planning with pinpoint accuracy. Thank goodness I chose a major which is hyper-organized as a discipline, at least here in the Conservatory (Music Education). Advising appointments consist of my advisor and I checking off a grid of requirements for the major (which the department has created for all majors); already the "basics" of advising are covered in less then two minutes. I then present my academic plan, subject to revision (which I have been told to bring to my advising appontment); we check to see if I am on schedule, and if not, how to accomodate. Included in the discussion is a breakdown of exactly how many units I have "free" and how many units are taken by requirements.

My personal academic track is more or less cut-and-dry; still, there are aspects to this advising process which may apply to the student who has trouble choosing a major. In tandem with my own department's advising process, I propose a model in which every department has a grid of which requirements are needed to fulfill the major (thankfully, many such grids already exist in departments across campus). Secondly, I propose that each department has a systematic way of comparing the student's academic progress with these requirements, so we will know exactly how much "wiggling room" we have in our schedules. Third, I propose that the administration and faculty work together to develop a clear understanding of where to send students for resources they cannot provide individually. Fourth, I hope that faculty have enough advising experience so that they can gauge the intensity of a student's schedule, and will communicate to students (especially first-years) openly when there is cause for concern. If the knowledge to gauge the intensity of a schedule is not already present, it must be developed.

Such basic measures will empower students to reach what is technically our ultimate priority at Oberlin: To get a degree.

--Adriana Lopez-Young, Double-degree 5th year

Harkies have right attitude

To the Editors:

I wish to respond to Yahya Ibn Rabat's letter, "Wealthy Harkies appropriate poverty" - a very angry and misguided mini-manifesto from someone who must have other motivations for writing it outside of bringing about positive social change. With that aside, though, I'd like to point out that stereotyping others is just as great an evil (if not greater) than "appropriating poverty." As if "appropriating poverty" affects the struggle against poverty one bit. Actually, students who avoid material goods may be helping the plight of impoverished citizens by avoiding many of the corporations that exploit the poor!

I wonder if Rabat has any friends that live in Harkness; somehow I doubt it. I do, however, and I can confirm that the residents of Harkness (and other co-ops like Tank or Keep, for that matter) haven't "forgotten about soap and shampoo," as Rabat asserts. In fact, my numerous visits to Harkness have led me to come to the conclusion that it is one of the most friendly, pleasant dorms on campus. All the people I've met that live there are very kind and usually don't have a bad word to say about anybody. Too bad that Rabat can't return the favor....

Many people talk of the wealth of Harkness residents, and how they all must therefore be hypocrites, posing as hippies by day, and then pulling out their cellular phones at night when no one is looking. Does being born into privilege automatically mean a person has to act or dress a certain way? There isn't any good reason why that should be the case; wealthy students don't have any more control over their parents' income than low-income students do. Living simply and avoiding materialism can be a means to self-actualization and personal betterment. Instead of wishing for the "simplicity of the lower classes," as Rabat claims, perhaps these students are wishing for the simplicity of a balanced life. Maybe it's also necessary to point out the difference between "trying to look poor," and being a hippie/angry vegan/(insert other lame stereotype here). Do you see most of low-income America wearing dreadlocks and patchwork dresses?? Give me a break! Harkness residents aren't appropriating poverty, and they certainly aren't trivializing the struggle against poverty.

And if it is any consolation to Rabat, people who live in Harkness do own material goods such as CD players, televisions, etc ... one of my friends who lives there even owns a pair of jeans from Abercrombie & Fitch! If all the students in question took Rabat's advice and became strict materialists, then everyone would criticize them for doing that. Perhaps Rabat and other like-minded students should follow the example of the Harkness residents I know and put aside their bitterness, angst, and tendencies to judge others so quickly. I'm sure that the atmosphere of the whole campus would become more harmonious as a result.

--David Hughes, Conservatory sophomore

Instead of promoting materialism, promote living more with less

To the Editors,

This letter is in response to Yahya Ibn Rabat's letter about wealthy students "appropriating poverty." When I read the last paragraph, which mockingly encourages students to flaunt their wealth, I hoped that maybe the whole letter was a satire, and I had just been too dense to pick up on it. Alas, I don't think that's the case. The letter really is suggesting that people who can afford to be materialistic should do so.

As someone who is classified by the College as "low-income," I agree that it's kind of amusing to picture someone who strives for frugality driving home for Fall Break in a BMW. As someone who spent years mastering the art of looking well-dressed in clothes bought from thrift stores (as opposed to going for the thrift-store-chic look,) I agree that it's kind of amusing to picture someone pulling a fat wallet out of the pocket of tattered, ill-fitting jeans. But I'm honestly happy to know that people choose to live below their means. Rabat joked about a "visit from Captain Planet," but this is a serious concern. The planet cannot continue to support the consumption habits of wealthy people who do as Rabat suggests and flaunt their wealth. Do any of us really want the rich (mostly Americans) to continue consuming a ridiculously disproportionate percentage of the world's natural resources, making the environmental situation worse for the rest of the world, especially the poor? Considering that most of us here at Oberlin (whether our tuition is almost completely covered by financial aid or whether our tuition is making financial aid possible for others) have the means to use a lot more fossil fuels than billions of poor people on earth, I really don't think we need encouragement - to use more.

Anyway, back to Rabat's letter. Sure, nice clothes are nice to have, but they and other "nice" possessions make it easy for your stuff to own you instead of you owning your stuff. (Guy on a cell phone: "I can't go to the party 'cause I can't pump gas for my BMW while I'm wearing this suit. Why not? It's an Armani!") Why try to force people to be materialists when (to appropriate a slogan from the "voluntary simplicity" philosophy) it's so much better to "live more with less?"

I'm also glad that people "appropriate poverty" because usually the students who reduce and reuse are also the students who take advantage of the fact that they don't need to make money while school's not in session. Instead of working a construction job all summer, they're able to volunteer their time doing constructive things, like working with various organizations fighting environmental destruction or fighting poverty.

I'm sorry that some people feel other students trivialize their struggle against poverty, and I hope that no one thinks living in poverty is novel or easy. However, I encourage all students (including myself) to choose to live more simply. Living more, with less, benefits all people, rich and poor.

Of course, I wholeheartedly agree with Yahya Ibn Rabat on one issue: the modern amenities on our campus give all of us the privilege of warm, clean water. Bathing is good!

--Hans Peterson, College sophomore

Alternative for students

To the Editors:

Yahya Ibu Rabat had some good points in his editorial last week. He addressed often unheard issues that face low income students and families.

Unfortunately it criticizes wealthy students on campus for fashion instead of calling for the respectful and responsible use of money.

There are certain stigmas our clothes and appearance carries. A lot of poor people try very hard to look good, because they can't afford to look sloppy. If they don't make it in school or their job, there is nothing to fall back on. For that reason it might be offensive if wealthier students appropriate poverty because the repercussions are not something they have to worry about.

As Rabat said, "Poverty carries many stigmas," i.e. if you're poor, you don't work hard enough, you're lazy, and a welfare leech... Poverty connotes personal failure." There are a lot of constraints to overcome coming in a low-income family. For this reason it is not always a choice for low-income students whether they can skip class or dress down. They have to spend four years working hard here, because their parents may not be helping to pay for school. They can't slack off because their scholarship only covers four consecutive years of good grades. And they have to look good at their job(s) because they can't afford to lose it and not pay their own (or their family's) bills.

Rabat brought up some of these issues, but there is more to what goes on here then a need for credit card hippies to stop appropriating poverty.

He suggests (sarcastically), that if students can afford it, they should "cruise to the mall in your parents' Beemer [and] enjoy your parents' nice2-story house in suburbia."

I want to offer an alternative to this for students. I feel that accumulated wealth is owed to the community as past dues. It is not as important to me how people like to dress, as long as they accept a responsibility of giving wealth back to those who have yet to be paid a living wage. Whether you consider yourself middle or upper class, there needs to be respect given to those who bear the burden and don't see the return. Having money is neither something to reject nor something to flaunt and take advantage of. It is something to responsibly invest for the rest of community. That responsibility is to not spend excessively, not degrade and exploit our world further, and to invest wealth in creating a healthier and more equitable society.

--David Lewis, College junior

Oberlin protects us from such goofs as dating Republicans

To the Editors:

Here's the scenario: You're out with a girl on a first date, having a lovely time, you've just watched a movie and are now sharing a romantic dinner together, when suddenly, out of nowhere, she remarks about her hopes to see George Bush Junior in the White House next year. This may never happen in our peaceful Eldorado, but believe me, it's different in the real world. There are girls and guys who think like this, and one thing I'm afraid Oberlin fails to prepare us for is how to deal with this, what you can only call, lunacy. Luckily, you have me.

First of all, don't panic. These people, Republicans I think they're called, can be reasoned with. Talk to her. I'm sure she's a sweet girl. Explain how George Bush Junior is a hypocrite, lied under oath in July of this year, and has probably been arrested for cocaine use. If that's not enough, order some more wine. After all, she's worth it. And most girls become more convincible when they're having a good time. Then you can bring up his earlier boozing habits, the insider trading scandal, and how he dodged the draft. But you should take her for an ice cream, to be sweet about it.

There you can work on her policy beliefs. She'll probably be in favor of corporate tax breaks. Try explaining to her how these tax breaks lend corporations more political power by giving them special treatment, and how we are losing valuable tax dollars. If she's not convinced then (and they usually aren't at that point I'm afraid, not on that point at least) you should take her to any abandoned shack you can find (you can use your own room if necessary). Once there, list the advantages of a federally funded health system which maintains private policies for those that can afford them, and how health, like education and free speech, should be guaranteed for every citizen. If she isn't putty in your hands yet, tie her to the bed and put on a Bradley or Gore video (your choice - I'm as open-minded as you), and leave for the night.

The date isn't a bust yet, though. Come back the next morning. You'll probably need to wake her. Leaving the straps on, see if she's convinced. If she's not, argue for the nuclear test ban by citing our role as global leader both in influence and military power while putting a wet sponge above her forehead and letting single drops slide down her nose. Usually this will save your date. Occasionally it takes a little more effort, and in that case I advise you take her back out to the car, tie her to the rear bumper, and while revving up the engine suggest that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment. Now I can just about guarantee that you will be able take your date home at this point, safely confident in your future together. However, I have to admit, there are some of these people so adamant and closed-minded that they will persist in their beliefs despite such clear-minded logic (though I have yet to meet any of this kind). In this extraordinary case, you may have to go after that most delicate of topics, and after gathering four horses around the girl and fastening one leg to a horse, one arm to a horse, another leg to a third horse and the last arm to the last horse, ask her to swear allegiance to the pro-choice movement. Try to have the horses grunting and eager with anticipation, which should aid your date's ability to reason. I promise at that point, when all of the pros and cons have been considered and measured against each other, she will realize just how low she has fallen and join you in enlightenment and a tender loyal relationship. If not, something tells me that your relationship is doomed to fail due to personal differences, and perhaps she is not ready for a serious relationship. My advice, then, is that you'd be better off simply forgetting about her and moving on. Every date isn't destined to end in love, after all.

We are blessed by being protected from these kinds of dating goofs at Oberlin. One day, though, you will all venture into the real world, where sadly most people aren't as open-minded as we are. Always keep in mind, though, that human integrity supersedes individual differences, and that no one is so close-minded at changing their beliefs when faced with reasonable arguments. I can only hope you remember my advice when you are laughing with your newfound love and she declares a startling and irrational belief in God.

Note: This essay does not in any way condone violence against women, which its author considers a serious crime. It merely condones violence against Republicans - and people who dissect rats, but I shouldn't get started about that group.

--Joe Sulman, College senior

Appropriate some common sense

To the Editors:

I am writing in response to Yahya Ibn Rabat's letter "Wealthy Harkies Appropriate Poverty," an ill-considered attack on, well, people who wear secondhand clothes, that they are insulting the poor by wearing whatever they choose. The author states that many students wear secondhand clothes, that many students have wealthy parents and that these groups of students are the same and mostly live in co-ops. I wonder where the author found this information about the relative wealth of co-ops and dorms. Harkness, for example, has a high concentration of Bonner Scholars.

The considerations about affluence pale next to the comments which make up the bulk of the letter, which operate on a bizarre assumption: That you should act and dress according to your social class. The author also assumes that people who wear "tore-up [sic] clothes and dread [their] hair" are "appropriating poverty," attempting to look poor, while in fact one's clothes and style of dress are not necessarily a badge of class, but of personal expression. Even if you happen to have wealthy parents, you need not wear dollar bills and shout how rich you are. The ending statement is inflammatory and ridiculous: "I'm sorry if you wish you were low class, but you're not, so cruise to the mall in your parents' Beemer, Benz or Volvo and buy something from Ambercrombie [sic] and Fitch." Evidently, wealthier students have no freedom of expression, but must conform to someone's twisted idea of elitism and privilege.

Does the author want to institute a dress code for Oberlin students: Affluent students must look preppie, so the disadvantaged students can know who to avoid'? Diversity at Oberlin means economic diversity as well, and a general diversity of ideology and personal style. The author seems to want the student body to be entirely homogeneous, and picks on Harkness specifically for not fitting some idea of how a person should act and dress. What if a student is economically disadvantaged and dresses in "tore-up [sic] clothes?" Are they "appropriating poverty?" Appropriate some common sense.

--Suzanne Fischer, College senior