Dean's new system of advising should be based on race, income

To the Editors:

We are writing to address Dean Goldsmith's plan of action regarding the implementation of a new dean advising system. Many are the fallacies being tossed around on this campus; certain communities seem to think that the dean is "out to get them," that his intentions are somehow less than honorable. We would like to offer a more accurate view of the dean's proposals, in addition to offering the dean one of our own.

Dean Goldsmith was transplanted to this midwestern campus from the prestigious halls of his former institution in order that he might bring a semblance of sanity to an out-of-control administrative system. It is clear that the current advising system doesn't work. While many professors are caring and excellent advisers, many more students are unable to receive sufficient support in coping with the many trials and tribulations of an Oberlin career.

This difficulty is precisely the one that Dean Goldsmith was hired to fix. He has spoken very well, in public forums such as the Review, about the need to reform the advising system, that formerly marginalized students might at last have access to the support they deserve. This is the impetus behind his desire to reform the dean system, implementing in its stead an administrative structure which answers to the steadily growing variety of student difficulties; a system composed of deans specifically designed to work inter-departmentally and thus provide students with the support they need. In Goldsmith's own words, "I believe we are beginning to see the strain that has resulted from a lack of coordinated, individual support." (Review: Commentary, 10/29/99)

Recognizing, as have others before us (Review Editorial, 10/29/99), that only the best interest of the students is at issue here, we have developed a possible solution. In response to Mr. Goldsmith's vision that the new deans "respond to crises in ways that pay heed to the particularities of a student's circumstances," we propose that the administration create the system of deans based upon that obvious particularity which every Oberlin student presents: race.

We realize that there are several issues with this concept. The most obvious is that there are far too many white students to fall under the jurisdiction of a single dean. To alleviate this particular problem, we think that white students should be divided up and assigned to deans based on their income class. That way, the dean assigned to the lowest income brackets can double as a specialist on financial aid, which of course some students do not need to know about. Another difficulty is that many students are not of a single racial or ethnic heritage. To address this quandry, similar to that of double-degree students, we suggest that these students be assigned to two separate deans for split jurisdiction. This would also apply to people that are both students of color and low-income; they would be assigned to both the low income bracket dean, and the dean of their specific race. This would provide every student on campus with a support system clearly based on her/his individual needs.

We hope that Mr. Goldsmith will take these suggestions to heart. As he stated in his letter to the Review: "I hope that the Oberlin community will enter into a discussion with me about this possibility, that the prospect of constructive change might be embraced, and that I will be the beneficiary of everyone's best thinking on the subject." (Review: Commentary, 10/29/99) Well, Dean Goldsmith, this is our best thinking on the subject and, like you, we have only the best interests of this fine institution in mind.

--Alita Pierson, College junior, and Adam Franklin-Lyons, Double-degree 5th Yearecutive Board

Unnecessary war waged on harkies

To the Editors:

"He who sows the wind reaps the whirlwind*."

It is becoming harder and harder for me to forgive Oberlin students their willful bigotry. A group of people is discussed in print, collectively given a name and then slandered and abused through accusations and allegations. Recognize this for the travesty that it is: intellectual persecution; and like all forms of persecution, one that is steeped in ignorance, built on fear, and sustained with miscommunication. Recognize the politics of identity at work on this campus, the politics of hate and division working to sow seeds of discontent by playing off age-old prejudices with the ultimate aim of keeping people apart and reinforcing cancerous perspectives. People will always be afraid of what they are not willing to explore, of places they are not willing to enter, and of people whose convictions and lifestyles undermine what they believe in. It is a forgivable offence to be uninformed, but when the fear of being shown an uncomfortable truth causes the self-righteous to violently lash out against the bearers of that truth, it becomes necessary to address the violence and identify the ignorance that lies at the heart of the conflict. For those of you too stupid to realize that statistics can lie, that appearances are deceptive, and that inherited opinions paint strikingly incomplete pictures, I feel indignant that you have chosen to wage an unnecessary war on the most open community on campus, out of guilt, anger, and frustration with what that community represents to you. I'm speaking of the recent phenomenon of 'harkies' vs. the world.

For those of you who cannot observe a student casually smoking a cigarette outside of Harkness without immediately making a value judgement about that person's intrinsic worth, realize that what you are doing is projecting hastily mis-assembled constructions of race, creed, class and culture onto someone else in order to neatly label and categorize the people you see into boxes. Instead of understanding them as living, breathing human beings, you are treating them as effigies, ascribing sins to them that they have not committed and hating them for what they represent to you, not for who they actually are. No one has any right to judge another person's political convictions or the strength of their commitment to the struggle based solely on their appearance, color or the music they play. For everyone who has participated in this cruel display of prejudice, understand that you are using Harkness as the scapegoat for your anger against white corporate America, and that arbitrarily choosing one dorm as the whipping boy for generations of injustice is neither fair, reasonable nor productive to anyone or anything.

I am a second-generation, low-income international student of color who proudly proclaims the title of 'harkie.' Like many other 'harkies,' I don't fit the stereotype of the white, suburban, credit-card-wielding hippie, and I resent its existence as I resent any untruth perpetuated for the sake of convenience. For those of you too frightened by what that community represents to ever approach it without a chip on your shoulder, I feel sorry that you will never be able to appreciate the depths of raw, unadulterated beauty to be found in that building and its inhabitants, or to understand the commitment that building's history fosters in its inhabitants to change, revolutionize, and fight against what is unjust and unfair. I can only remind you of Bob Dylan's immortal admonition to a generation struggling to come to terms with its unsavory history as enemies and its uncertain future together as allies: please, "don't criticize what you can't understand*."

--Fuad Ahmad, College sophomore

Expect fulfillment of progressive legacy

To the Editors:

When I read the letter to the editor written by Mr. Booker Peek that you printed in the Oct. 8 issue concerning the failure of the College in attaining our goal of admitting 100 black students, my immediate reaction was shame and anger in response to his conciliatory tone. The letter was below my response. But upon reflection I've realized that changing the situation that Mr. Peek discusses requires a different approach than I originally took.

This past year Oberlin admitted 54 black students; after 28 years we have attained barely half of our goal. It is shameful that we have fallen so short. I do not doubt that if Oberlin honestly wanted to achieve this goal and was willing to pay the necessary coast, then we could have succeeded. This is especially serious considering that any current effort will be to stop a decline, not to increase enrollment (when Oberlin's overall enrollment has been increasing).

Mr. Peek wrote, "Compared to many other predominantly white colleges, Oberlin's success is definitely praiseworthy." We should not be comparing ourselves to other colleges but to our own history and ideals. Oberlin appeals to the public and prospective students through our legacy of social justice. I was impressed by the video I received, narrated by Bill Cosby, detailing Oberlin's history as a stop on the Underground Railroad and the early enrollment policies for women and blacks. Given this legacy, which Oberlin profits from, I expect full success, anything else being shameful.

Arguments, which profess our limits in recruiting that paltry number of students, are preposterous. They ignore the tens if not hundreds of thousands of successful black students who enter state schools every year. While not all of these students would meet Oberlin's standards, I am sure that we could find an extra 46 who could and would be thrilled to attend Oberlin. This requires the correct outreach and financial opportunities.

I hope the students, faculty and administrators feel nothing but shame and anger when considering our situation. The current policies have failed! Our only accomplishment has been to widen the opportunity gap between whites and blacks.

Shame and anger, however, only have use if they lead us to reexamine our efforts or provide motivation towards a goal. Too often, shame leads to defensiveness rather than examination and anger is directed at people rather than problems. When either of these occur, we lose a valuable tool with which to solve problems, listening. This does not merely include hearing words and ideas but also emptying our minds of preconceptions and being willing to look at problems from other viewpoints than our own. That is, attempting to understand those who we might thing are doing nothing or are in opposition, in order to better work together to solve our problems.

What can we do? Being overworked students, we can easily fall into a routine of hard work and hard play. A safe and comfortable schedule. We can get riled up, hold demonstrations against the administration and burn Nancy Dye in effigy. Great ways to relieve tension and prove how politically active we are. Or, we can present our grievances to the faculty and staff and talk. This of course is a slow, monotonous course of actions that would require patience, compromise and the above-mentioned, listening.

--Jonah Schmiechen, College sophomore

Alum's blissful advice

To the Editors:

I know that none of the senior class have asked for my advice, but I hope that they will bear with me for a moment to think about very long-range plans.

Joseph Campbell advises you to "follow your bliss." Other experts tell you to expect to make several significant career changes in your life. Mutually exclusive pieces of advice? Not necessarily.

I graduated from both the College and the Con with the intent of being a public school music teacher. I began my teaching career in a rural school system on an island in Puget Sound. Although I loved the schools and the students, I realized that there were weaknesses in my musical abilities (through no fault of my Oberlin training!) which would eventually hold me back professionally. I shifted my interest to Education, earned a Ph.D. from Yale, taught in the Education Department at Oberlin, and spent the last 17 years as the dean of the College of Education at a state university in Michigan.

What happened to my "bliss?" I played in a municipal symphony orchestra and in an early music collegium at the university, directed a church choir for 23 years, severed on the governing board of a month-long festival (now over 20 years old). After I retired and moved to the mountains of West Virginia, I revived a second bliss, landscape gardening. I now have 45 acres of beautiful woods and streams (which I have named "Waldbach" after John Frederick Oberlin's village in Alsace). There is always something to do (no possibility of boredom), but very seldom anything that must be done today (no stress!). And, I have found an excellent community chorale to feed my first bliss.

As Oberlin students you are espe cially fortunate in the wide variety of interests which can be nurtured during your years on campus. Hang on to those interests! Even though the incredible talent of some of your classmates may convince you to turn to another profession, you may find (as I did) that your Oberlin training and experience will make you a very welcome and valuable addition to the amateur ranks in your community.

So - don't discard your poetry books, or sell your flute, or hang up your dancing shoes. Remember where you put those dreams. The time will come when you can follow your bliss. And - one more thing - you will find the most interesting people waiting to welcome you and become your friends.

--Hal Peterson, Class of 1944 Alumni Association Executive Board

Mass lack of etiquette fueled by ignorance and pomposity

To the Editors:

Being a performer, I understand the importance of a quiet hall. Noise is distracting and disruptive. For the audience, silence is needed for concentration. This is why the main job of an usher is to keep late concert-goers from entering a music-filled hall.

On Saturday, Nov. 6, the Oberlin College Choir, in conjunction with the Oberlin Youth Chorale and Wind Ensemble, performed at Finney. I was the only usher in the lobby during the concert. Five minutes into the second piece, people started streaming into the lobby. Recognizing them as alumni and college officials, I was momentarily relieved, expecting these people to have a decent concept of concert etiquette due to their age and standing.

Eventually I learned that a dinner party caused them to be late (now in the middle of a piece, they weren't allowed in). Not all, but many alumni glared at me. Others climbed the balcony stairs and walked into the main hall after directly being asked not to. The general sentiment expressed was, "Why didn't they wait for us?"

One green-jacketed woman was enraged. She commanded, "You must let these people in now. Do you see all the people waiting?" It was true, there were about 50 alumni pacing about. This woman was repeatedly confrontational, asking for my employers, and how could I permit a situation like this. I repeated calmly who I worked for and that no one could enter. The situation progressed until once, as I was passing by, she grabbed my elbow and spun me around, to yell in my face. Finally, she indignantly walked up to the balcony, glaring at me while I stood below telling her that her actions would be noisy and rude to the performers.

After the show, I spotted her. I approached and asked her if she wanted to talk to my supervisor, who was in back. She was calmer, but sour and angry. She remarked that she would deal with the situation "in another way." She glowered that the late-comers were donors who contributed money. Hissing, she spat, "We might not get any money from them now." When I asked her name, she responded with a righteous accent on "Dr."

It was refreshing that later, two small kids apologized when I caught them climbing the stairs. They came tiptoeing down.

This woman, on her pedestal of mightiness, looked down at the working student with the arrogance of a rotten adult. She was out of line and an apology should have been made. Not only did she humiliate and frustrate me in a crowded lobby, but felt justified in physically harassing me. This woman has lost sight of any/all community ideals. She feels privileged enough to threaten someone for the contributions of the donors. She thinks her cause is important enough to not only the musical experiences of the College community, but those families of the greater Oberlin community too.

Don't force your ugly ignorance on me. Don't treat me like dirt because I am enforcing rules as part of my job and a courtesy to all involved in this performance. If you're blatantly late, you wait. What if I worked at Carnegie Hall. Would I receive the same horrible treatment then?

Why didn't you wait for us? We didn't wait because a concert scheduled at eight starts at eight. This particular concert featured younger members of the community who wouldn't want to swing an 11 p.m. concert to accommodate your dinner party.

I was shocked and disgusted by the manners exhibited by some of these alumni and officials, especially this nasty woman. Never have I seen such a mass lack of etiquette fueled by ignorance and pomposity.

"Dr.," I suggest that you brush up on your concert etiquette and basic manners toward people who are just doing their jobs. I'm paying $30,000 tuition a year. That's a pretty big donation after four years, lady, and I deserve some respect too.

Realize that your goal doesn't supersede everyone else's - the title "Dr." doesn't entitle you to rule this function.

Oh, the next time you want to physically grab and verbally assault someone who cannot retaliate, go to the gym, yell at and hit a punching bag.

--Sandra Sutak, Conservatory junior

Corporate Frankenstein walks planet

To the Editors:

Would you be scared if a secretive organization, un-elected and unaccountable, could overturn laws of your community or country?

Halloween may be over, but a corporate Frankenstein walks the planet. The World Trade Organization is making enforceable global laws, giving corporations ultimate control over the world economy, our lives and the planet. The WTO was created by the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs in 1995 to enforce international trade regulations. 134 member countries, including the U.S., can challenge each other's laws as violations of WTO rules. Cases are decided in secret by a panel of three professional trade bureaucrats.

Every single environmental and public health law brought before the WTO courts so far has been ruled illegal. Member countries must then change their law, pay compensation to the winner or face non-negotiated trade sanctions.

When signing on, member nations grant the WTO absolute authority to supersede local, state and national laws if a corporation pressures its government to challenge a particular mandate.

The main goal of the WTO is to create a fully-integrated global capitalist economy "free" of any "discriminatory" barriers to trade or "lost market opportunities." Case studies show that it is corporations who win and democracy that loses.

On behalf of its oil industry, Venezuela challenged the U.S. Clean Air Act regulation that required gas refiners to produce cleaner gas. A WTO panel ruled against the U.S. law. Foreign oil refiners now have the option to sell dirtier gasoline in the U.S. as a result.

Japan is challenging a Massachusetts state law which requires companies to sever ties with the military dictatorship of the Southeast Asian country of Burma before getting government contracts. If ruled WTO-illegal, we will lose a major tool that helped bring down Apartheid in South Africa.

Using WTO's logic, other barriers to free trade could include minimum wage laws, toxic emissions controls or bans on lead in plumbing. Lost market opportunities, as defined by corporations, could include Canada's national health care, our public universities or limits on logging in national forests.

The WTO meets in Seattle, Washington this Nov. 29-Dec. 3. They will be met by tens of thousands of citizens from around the world who disagree with the free trade robbery. On Nov. 30, people all over the world will organize human billboards, school walk-outs, teach-ins, lobby trips, and workplace actions to send a message that the WTO has got to go. Visit www.internationalistbooks.com for links to fair trade activism across the world.

--Andrew Pearson, National Council Coordinator, Student Environmental Action Coalition