Bill of Rights will protect what race does not

To the Editors:

While in London on Tuesday afternoon I was checking my e-mail and afterwards I decided to read the Review on-line. I was shocked and happily surprised to be told that since leaving the States, all white people have been given the rights that we are guaranteed. It's nice to know that when I come back next month I won't be discriminated against because of my age or religion. My sister won't be discriminated against because of her sexual orientation, and my female friends are finally going to be treated as equals to men. It's great that some things really do change. Power to the People.

Of course it would be an understatement to say that blacks are discriminated against more than whites, but in a culture that is controlled by rich, white Prostestant men, the color of one's skin is not the only determining factor.

[On Nov. 12 1999] Mr. Sanchez wrote, "In this American society, you, as whites, are privileged enough to have all the rights guaranteed. How can you sing or dance to those songs of political oppression and honestly know what they mean?" Does he truly believe that all whites are treated equally? I might have agreed with the second part of the quote if he had exchanged the words 'political oppression' with 'racial oppression.' But you see Mr. Sanchez, my family has been politically oppressed; they know what it feels like. The FBI used to follow my grandfather around, harass him in his own home, and tell him where, when, and with whom he could and could not meet. He was a Communist. My mother was beaten up by the police when she protested against segregation in the 1960s. My father was arrested doing the same thing.

I for one do know what it's like to be followed around stores, I know what it's like to be harassed by police, although I'm certain that being white does make the harassment less severe.

The civil and human rights movements that have succeeded have been about inclusion. Mr. Sanchez is seemingly denying almost all white people from the struggles that affect all of us - the struggle for equality.

It is cliched, but to begin the long road to equality we need everyone to work together regardless of race or ethnicity.

--Noah Kirshbaum, College junior

Enjoy the freedom of Second Amendment, but respect the tool

To the Editors:

I am writing in response to the backlash of letters that appeared last week in response to the article written by Daniel Romano. The fear, horror, appall and other negative feelings felt by these responders makes me contemplate the mindset of some fellow students.

Mr. Romano enjoyed an evening of a new activity. He shared his experience, which may be different from the general population's of Oberlin Students, perhaps in an attempt to open a few minds. But against such blind and unforgiving views as those of last week's responders, his sharing was taken by those who chose to reply as some sort of evil.

As a woman of rather small stature, I am very well aware of how possible assailants view me, which is as an easy target. I have done much up to this point in my life to try to strengthen my odds against an attacker, such as studying martial arts for approximately nine years. However, due to an injury, I have not been able to do so in the past four months. This places me at a risk factor that I am uncomfortable with. Do I want the right to bear arms in light of this? Hell yes.

Am I a gun fanatic? I would say not. I have been taught some basics by a friend who is an avid gun owner and a lawyer for our government. I am grateful that he was able to take the time out of his busy schedule to take me down to the NRA range in Virginia a couple of times to teach me the basics of gun safety and use. Understanding of a tool does not make one a fanatic.

I agree with Mr. Romano on several points: shooting a handgun does give one a sense of freedom, guns can be dangerous, and before I actually went to the range, I never thought shooting a gun was something I wanted to or could do.

However, I also disagree with a few of Mr. Romano's points, though I still support him. Other things mattered to me while I was at the range, such as the safety of my friends who were with me, the connection I was building with them and the ice cream we planned on eating afterwards. I also see no reason why guns do not have any place in the home. If a person is trained to respect something from the moment they are able, such as a gun or matches (for what is a gun other than a tool?), there will be little chance they will disrespect the object later. Keeping the gun in a proper location, as you would with any tool, such as in a locked safe (they are rather expensive, and you would not want a potential assailant to have access to them before you do), also keeps the risk of accidental shooting down.

I want to fully enjoy my rights given to me under the Second Amendment. Those of you who do not agree with me do not have to, nor do I respect you any less as fellow citizens for not wanting to take advantage of these rights. But I ask the same courtesy of you: don't take away my rights because you are not willing to defend yourselves against an assailant.

And besides, as another friend recently said to me, "Mary, take heart. Even if we are wrong on the Second Amendment issue (and we are not), it is always best to be BOTH armed AND wrong. It keeps them from gloating too loudly."

--Mary Capriotti, College Senior

Community responsibility and changing College bureaucracy

To the Editors:

Ideology only functions so well, and not at all without a very real and active participation from those who hold it to be accurate. The Oberlin community has, for many years now, complained about the developing formation, or reformation of the student body. Never in my time here has there been an older class that has not lamented the changes it perceives in the younger classes. Much of this discontent is aimed, in many ways unjustly, in others quite justly, at the Office of Admissions. Within a community there is only so much that a bureaucratic arm can achieve.

To begin, Admissions does, in fact, make several attempts to draw students into the recruitment process without great student participation. Faculty response to programs tends to be extraordinarily limited, and there is an overwhelming sense of apathy exuded from the campus community, a community that whines and protests endlessly against how the bureaucracy runs programs. There are ways for individuals to be involved, but they do not do it.

On the other side of the coin, it is time that Oberlin's bureaucracy redefine itself, especially Admissions. It is responsive rather than pro-active. For a college that is so traditionally at the forefront of thought, social development, and political ideology, our Admissions fell quite casually into the standard, inefficient muddling of standard bureaucracy. They refuse to be pro-active in their statements and refuse to push the student body to act because they are afraid of the possible response from above. In turn, they then kow-tow to the higher-ups who run the College: the upper eschelons of the bureaucracy and the trustees.

However, because no one will speak up, only the bureaucratic boards are heard. No one will simply speak up against the direction in which the trustees wish to take the College, those who in many cases have little student contact outside of formal, staged settings. It is about time that offices, particularly Admissions, start sounding like the students they are representing.

However, little is going to be changed by simply talking about it: they are too hung up on the power dynamics and lame politics of bureaucracy. Instead, it is necessary for the community to make its opinions, desires, goals clear early on. If the community refuses to take an active role early in the process of its own formation, those members of the community forfeit any right to complain about the outcome.

From this, I encourage those members of the community who do wish to play a significant part in gaining certain sorts of students, regardless of the students you yourself wish to see, to work your hardest to get inside the bureaucracy and subvert it. Do not simply do what they train you to do. Listen, decide what does or does not work, and change it. Force it in a direction that is positive and pro-active, and away from the politicking and anonymous propaganda spouting that so overwhelms this college. Speak clearly and affect a change from within and perhaps that structure can be forced in a better direction.

The problem of bureacracy is that it is not led by an individual who can be removed, but by a group of people and an amorphous governing tone. It can only be changed through a general subversion. Admissions is the most obvious target since they are to bring in the next classes, those who will define the future of the Oberlin community. If you are not content with your community, change it from within. If nothing else, hold the bureaucracy responsible to the community and make sure that the community governs the College.

--Jay Paul Gates, Fifth-year double-degree

People are actually really interesting and complex

To the Editors:

So after four years here, I have finally discovered what my "issue" is. A bit late, I know, but here it is: I think people are really interesting and complex. Okay, so it's not the most radical statement to appear on these pages, but I feel like it's a view that gets neglected a lot of the time. Lately there have been a lot of letters written to the Review about how people should either stay within, or venture beyond, the borders of their "group." I feel like there is a central flaw in these arguments, which is that very few people can be easily placed into one group or another. I will be the first to admit that I often look at a person and generalize as to what kind of person they might be, what sort of background they come from, what they would be interested in, etc. What I usually find when I actually get to know somebody is that nobody can be easily defined as one sort of person or another. Everybody comes from a complex background of experiences and ideas that make them uniquely themselves, and not just a member of a class, gender or race.

This probably sounds really naïve and idealistic to a lot of people, as it seems many people here put a lot of energy into figuring out which group they belong to and keeping other people out of it whom they feel don't belong.

My point is that figuring out who somebody is involves a lot more than looking at the kind of clothes they wear, what they look like, who their friends are or what organizations they belong to. I think everybody here has encountered this sort of judgement in their lives. In high school I was seen as the rich girl from up north by the people I showed sheep with during the summer, and as a poor hick who lives on a farm by the people in my affluent high school. I'm sure people here look at me and probably don't see either of these things, but makes some other sort of judgement about me. The truth is that I, like everybody else, do not fit neatly into a category and so any quick judgements you make about me without getting to know me, will not entirely apply. I guess all I'd like is if everybody here would calm down and, before making a judgement about how a person should act according to how they look to you, stopping to think about the fact that that person has a complex identity of their own, and a life story just as interesting as yours, and every right to be whomever they want to be.

--Sarah Knepp, College senior