Price, motivation, co-ops misunderstood

To the Editors:

What your editorial staff considers "pure economic theory" is strikingly simplistic, as is its understanding of the cooperative enterprise. In your Nov. 19th commentary you claimed that "pure" theory is used to support the opinion that "price [is] the prime concern of students" which it obviously is. I take issue with your opinion that price is the only factor. Also, entering into a cooperative venture, says your commentator, is an "idealistic" one; one that is almost certain to be incapable of providing a product at a lower price than traditional corporations, and is an outright "happy denial of self-interest." This statement is at odds with much of the economic research of the last 40 years.

First, price. Price is the determining factor of a person's decision to buy one good or another, all other things equal. However, all other things are not equal. Considerations of whether the business operates according to notions of fairness and equity, whether one has a particular affinity for the design of the packaging, whether the good is needed immediately or later, whether one's culture approves of some purchases over others all of these things will affect decision-making. Price is the main concern, but for many Oberlin students, all of whom are acting "economical creatures," it is not the only rational concern.

Second, the cooperative. Perhaps the only acquaintance your commentator has with cooperative firms is his or her attendance at the annual Keep Halloween party, or perhaps he or she has even attended a Saturday special meal, but there is much more to a cooperative than FORC chips, lentils, and things called "Hobart." Jaroslav Vanek, an economist from Cornell University, used neoclassical economic theory and models to analyze the "labor-managed firm," or the cooperative. Economically, a labor managed firm is one in which all the workers, "after they have paid for all material and other costs of operation, share in the income of the enterprise. This sharing is to be equitable, equal for labor of equal intensity and quality, and governed by a democratically agreed-on income-distribution schedule assigning to each job its relative claim on total net income." In other words, in cooperatives, income is maximized by producing at the cheapest cost and selling at the highest possible price, given the price-reducing tendencies of market competition with other cooperative firms. But the resulting income is not profit for management; it is distributed to each worker equitably according to a democratic decision. Obviously, it is in the self-interest of the worker to participate in such a firm, to reduce costs, to work hard, and to make sure other people work hard. In fact, according to Robert C. Grady in the Journal of Politics, these rational and self-interested motivations, "possessive individualist values," actually work in favor of workplace democracy.

The cooperative is not a utopia. I would hope that John Dewey's ideal of a democracy as a "life of free and enriching communion," is something that members of a cooperative might seek; I know I hold it as my aim. But this is not all I am as a co-oper, nor is it all that OSCA or the Co-Op Bookstore's founder's were. Indeed, our self and community interest is not satisfied by a "corporate chain like Barnes and Noble," or a "for-profit upstart." The notion that they provide a lower price is not necessarily true by either empirical study or theory, and the notion that lower price is the only factor is just simple-mindedness.

--Jason Clark, College sophomore

Students most important

To the Editors:

This is in response to Sandra Sutak's letter detailing her experience at the Nov. 6 concert in Finney. Sadly, I was not particularly surprised.I have often heard of or personally sensed an arrogant attitude among so-called "senior officers" at Oberlin and seen it in their actions, such as the regrettable Dean of Students search fiasco. A faculty member whom I admire and respect once said. "students are at the bottom of the pecking order." This letter is addressed to those who subscribe to such a view, not the many exceedingly helpful and courteous faculty and staff I have dealt with at Oberlin.

Let me clarify this: students are the most important people here. They are the only reason this College exists and that faculty and staff are employed. The money to pay salaries and costs comes from student tuition, federal funds/loans and endowments or gifts. Federal funds/loans are dependent on there being students. The endowment and gifts are provided by people who wish to see Oberlin continue to provide a particular education for STUDENTS, not for the personal aggrandizement of staff or as a jobs program. I pay tuition to recieve an education, not be looked down on or treated casually. Ergo, your job is making damn sure you provide the best services and treatment possible. Perhaps the "hallowed halls of academia" have made us lose our perspective. This kind of behavior would have bankrupted a commercial organization.

I understand there are constraints specific to academia in the nature of the "consumers" of the educational product. Yes, we may be young, immature, conflicted and in hormonal crises, but you chose to take this responsibility in full knowledge of that. If anything, that knowledge should make you a little more understanding and careful when dealing with us. I'm not asking students be put on a pedestal or "pandered to." I'm asking that a little more civility, maturity, openness and perspective be used.

Finally, for those with the mindset of "Dr." Green-jacket, I will regrettably have to be exceedingly rude. There are students at Oberlin who come to school in private jets or who acquire them after graduating. There are students whose parents are social workers and who go on to do mind-numbingly difficult social work in appalling conditions. There are students whose parents are empowered to declare 24-hour curfews with shoot-to-kill orders, as they will be someday. Yet not one of them displays a whit of the arrogance and attitude seen here. You can argue that by educating and training them you are somehow superior. Forget it. All the esoteric committees, degrees and conversations in the world are useless if we don't have the basics of society (law & order, justice, commerce, social work and empowerment) which these people provide. They provide the essential prerequisites for education to be a necessity and not a luxury. Over time, this has become a mutually symbiotic relationship but since you can't learn when dead or foraging for berries I think it's pretty clear how the cycle started.

So, please, get off your high horses, remember why you are here and treat us a little better.

--Jaya S. Bajpai, College junior

No excuse for Fox 8's behavior while covering attack at Noah

To the Editors:

I would like to begin by expressing my heart-felt concern regarding this past week's stabbing in Noah. I wish the victim a speedy recovery, and I hope not to see another incident like this during the remainder of my time here.

But having said this, I am still entirely comfortable saying that I feel totally and completely safe on the Oberlin College campus. This is one isolated incident, and contrary to what some students believe, two assaults in two years hardly equals a crime epidemic. This is where I take exception to the sensationalistic manner in which the media is handling this incident.

On Tuesday night it was the lead story on both the Fox 8 10 o'clock newscast and the CBS 19 11 o'clock newscast. NBC 3 also did a feature on the assault. All three features portrayed the campus as existing in a state of fear stemming from this and one or two previous incidents. The Cleveland stations seemed to take some sort of perverse pleasure in shattering the image of Oberlin College as a culturally elite, intellectual utopia. But the simple fact is, Oberlin's campus is safe, extremely so. Many students here come from major cities, in which, sadly, crime is interwoven into the fabric of the culture. The fact that every act of violence that occurs on this campus is greeted with genuine surprise is perhaps the greatest testament to the relative safety we all enjoy on this campus.

In a recent media study, Cleveland television news on a whole was rated the worst of any major market in the country. Their coverage of this incident is a prime example of why. Had a stabbing occurred in an East Cleveland apartment complex, it probably would not have even made the news. Had it occurred in Shaker Heights, it would most likely have gotten a brief mention during the second segment. But a student at Oberlin College, viewed in the region as a hotbed of upper-middle class pseudo-liberalism, gets attacked on campus and all of a sudden, it is a lead story.

To add insult to injury, none of the stations handled the coverage in a professional journalistic manner. Instead, each and every station fell prey to their most base tabloid instincts. One station showed footage from a 1998 story they had run on an assault in Fairchild. Another story made reference to "multiple assaults" that occurred on the campus within the last week. The only student interviews that were shown were those in which students, usually near tears, talked about how shaken up they were by the entire experience, and how they no longer feel safe. Is this truly an accurate representation of the feelings on campus? I dare say that the majority of students feel like I do, that if we take logical precautions, we will be fine.

But most alarming was the lack of professionalism shown by Fox 8 in dealing with the student body and residents of Noah. At approximately 10 p.m., a friend and I exited Noah through the front door. We approached a Fox 8 reporter and another employee prepared to do a live report. We simply wanted to hang around, and be on TV if needed. However, we were greeted by a barrage of profanity from the two channel 8 workers, visitors on our campus, telling us to get away. Soon after, a chubby man came running from the parking lot between Noah and Barrows, also spewing profanity, and telling us that he was going to have us arrested, seeing as it is against the law to interfere with a live broadcast. Never mind the fact that we were not "interfering," and as far as I know, no such law actually exists. He then went on to say that the news team was "trying to catch a suspect." Last I checked, that was the job of the police, not the press. Taken aback, we momentarily went back inside, and watched the news segment on TV.

When the story was completed, we approached the news crew again, with the intention of questioning them about what we considered to be questionable journalistic practices. I asked why a Cleveland television saw fit to open with a story from Oberlin, nearly an hour's drive from downtown Cleveland. Instead of answering my question, the television fell back on the tired refrain that "we have a permit and we were invited to be here." The chubby man then remarked flippantly to my friend that he fit the description of the suspect they were looking for. More profanities were sent in our direction by the channel 8 staff (the reporter in particular had a mouth that would make Redd Fox blush), so I pointed out that I am their audience and therefore deserve to be treated with some respect. The chubby guy responded that he didn't give a damn, so I explained precisely why he should: advertisers pay his station money to get me to buy their products. If the station alienates me, I am less likely to watch, thus I probably won't see their ads. The chubby, yet perceptive guy then proceeded to inform me that I didn't matter because the only thing I spent money on was beer. The exchange digressed from there, and needless to say I reported the incident to security.

Even if you are going to shamelessly exploit an unfortunate incident in order to cast a temporary pall on Oberlin College, there is still such a thing as professionalism. Quite simply, when your job is dealing with people, there is no excuse for the type of behavior that was exhibited by Fox 8 on Tuesday night.

--Jeff Harvey, College junior

Safe space or safe racism?

To the Editors:

It is ironic that Oberlin College had a multiculturalism forum last week while members of certain student organizations are promoting racism under the pretense of "safe space," which is causing unnecessary division in the Oberlin community. As an example I can give an incident: Last year a person was asked to leave an Asian American Alliance (AAA) meeting solely because of that his/her race. However, there were only a few complaints and that was it. Where was the BRAVE activist Oberlin community? In some Mumia Abu Jamal's meeting complaining about segregation in society?

A week ago, I had an argument with an AAA member and our discussion increased my concerns about the issue. I told this person that I wanted to go to an AAA meeting to see how they would react to my presence. I added that if they asked me to leave, I would complain and make the school shut the organization down. I was not completely serious, but this person took it very seriously and started arguing that AAA is the place where his/her culture is preserved and that he/she would feel uncomfortable with the presence of non-Asians. I told his/her that it was illegal under the current US higher educational law to exclude anybody from any school-sponsored organization because of that person's race. No student organization is a safe space. So even if you are the biggest capitalist in the world you have a right to go to every International Socialist Organization (ISO) meeting and they have no right to ask you leave, unless it is based on inappropriateness. Because it is not a safe space for socialists - it is just an organization, which is sponsored with all of our tuitions, and it is supposed to add something to the community.

These groups, such as AAA, La Alianza Latina, have been created by people who suffered from segregation and have some understanding of the horrors of segregation. However, they themselves are exercising segregation on other groups. This is like the Jews who suffered under the Nazi regime now killing the Arabs. This is a social phenomenon. These groups are not only segregating the people from different races from their community, but also segregating themselves from the greater community. What are they trying to do? I do not think any rational person can understand! People fighting for their freedom restricting other people's freedom.

I am really angry with the Oberlin community for their pretentiousness and fake liberalism. If I had a white straight male club and I asked a black lesbian girl to leave a meeting, I cannot even imagine the reaction that I would get. The organization would be closed immediately. I do not know if they allow me to open such an organization.

White straight males are the minority in this school but they do not have a safe space. Yet most of the students would think this is all right - but it is not! If you have any intelligence you would know that racism is racism - who is exercising it has no relevance whatsoever. And racism is WRONG. A safe space is only a tool that is used to promote racism by giving people right to deny people joining and participating certain activities because they are not Asian, black, Muslim, etc. All the organizations that are based on race and have negative attitude to the other members of society should be closed or should be protested. Also none of the members of these groups can EMPIRICALLY prove the fact that these organizations add anything positive to the community. How can you argue that the Abusua is more important than a chess club? These clubs only promote more segregation and racism. True multiculturalism is all races and ethnicities working together to create a safe space for every member of the community - not for a small minority.

--Yakup Mete Sener, College junior

Fascism masked as legitimate criticism

To the Editors:

I am a middle-class white male. This is my place in life. Evidently, this is also something I must forever apologize for: the color of my skin, the shape of my genitalia and the amount of money that enters my household each year are grave sins in the eyes of many.

I also keep a somewhat unkempt appearance and wear old, cheap clothing. I am now beginning to take some care in my appearance, but that is beside the point. Two of my four pairs of jeans have holes in them, as do most of my socks. This is not the result of fashion consciousness on my part, but it merely due to the age of the clothing in question.

According to certain parties on this campus, I am guilty of an additional sin: that of appropriating poverty. I am privileged in every way which leftists disdain, and yet I dare allow myself to appear otherwise to passersby. This, evidently, is a crime against humanity on the level of genocide and public urination, and I should certainly be soundly whipped in Wilder Bowl for it, with a few live electric wires in various bodily orifices for good measure.

This, at least, seems to be the perspective of recent writers of letters-to-the-editors on this issue. According to them, I am stepping outside of the boundaries of my caste: a Brahmin sitting down for a meal with Untouchables. Suppose, for a moment, that the circumstances were different. Suppose that I was a black man living in Alabama in the 1920s, and that I associate with people of considerably lighter complexion than myself, on equal terms. Enter the Ku Klux Klan: these paramilitary slugs disliking what they see as a black man trying to act like a white man. They see me as having a certain place in society, and great woe will befall me if I should attempt to remove myself from that place. Of course, the Klansmen see themselves as saviors of white society, which they attempt to accomplish by robbing me of my freedoms and right of association.

Perhaps these contemporary whistle-blowers on the abduction of poverty can be validly compared to the Ku Klux Klan. The roles of the players are reversed, of course, but I am still being pigeonholed into a niche in society based on circumstances beyond my control, and being criticized, in a somewhat less brutal fashion, for not confining myself to this niche. Of course, given the political circumstances of this campus, these self-appointed defenders of the materially poor behave more like Communists than right-wing extremists, but I don't really see any difference between the two. Nor do I see any reason to allow my opinions and actions to be swayed by this Fascism masked as legitimate criticism. I am white, I am male, and I am middle-class, but these factors should not be the final determinants of my behavior.

--S. Andrew Smith, Conservatory junior