Media image of professor distorts taxing nature of her work

To the Editors:

I am writing in response to the recent media attention given to Professor Heidi Thomann Tewarson's trial. Benjamin Holt's article is possibly as deplorable and biased as other media sources in the Cleveland area, who have disrespectfully slandered Professor Tewarson without any knowledge of who she is as an individual. However, my intention in this letter is not to tear apart Mr. Holt's article; rather, it is to expose the side of this story which has been largely ignored. As a student of Professor Tewarson, I resent this false portrayal of a woman I hold in high esteem, not only as a highly respected scholar but also as one of the most honest and compassionate individuals I have ever encountered.

In the coverage of Professor Tewarson's trial, the media has successfully created an image of a deceitful and greedy woman, an image

which could not be further from the truth. No one has honestly made an

attempt to reveal her story, not only from the legal standpoint, but from the scholarly and emotional as well. Professor Tewarson immersed herself in this project with the intention of helping the victim's story be known, making a contribution to Holocaust research of utmost importance. I believe that the media was adamant to make it seem as though this was an issue of money and personal greed, demonstrating just how warped people's minds are today. Is it really that difficult to believe that Professor Tewarson wanted to translate these diaries with intellectual enrichment of herself and of others being the sole result she hoped for? Anyone at Oberlin who knows her would not find this so difficult to believe, as well as any student or professor who is extremely passionate about his/her own studies. Unfortunately, the general U.S. public and media are convinced that everyone is greedy and an individual would engage in such a project purely for monetary gain and prestige.

I suppose what angers me the most about this situation is that no one has taken into consideration how emotionally taxing the nature of Professor Tewarson's work has been. If you have studied the Holocaust, especially the writing that has come out of it, you know quite well what my point is. Professor Tewarson had worked on this material since 1996, and she should at least be commended for that. I personally have not been able to deal well with studying this material for half a semester, and I cannot even fathom what researching this topic in depth for two and one-half years must do to a person. In my opinion, the most tragic aspect of this case does not necessarily deal with the length of time and amount of effort spent on it, but instead it deals with what Holocaust material does to a person emotionally, which the media has virtually disregarded. Instead of being depicted as a villain, Heidi Thomann Tewarson should be regarded as an extraordinary human being for her honest intentions and her sincere attempt to make a major contribution to the study of what is perhaps the greatest tragedy in the history of humanity.

--Sabrina K. Rahman, College junior

Senators object to GF meeting date

To the Editors:

We are troubled by the decision to hold the General Faculty meeting Dec. 21st. While the 21st does fit within the general format of holding the meeting on the third Tuesday of the month, it is a date which is highly detrimental to student participation. By having the meeting on the last day of finals, it is extremely problematic for senators to attend.

We ask you to consider rescheduling the meeting for the 14th. According to the information included in Fussers, the last day of the first semester is the 21st. This presents a significant challenge to many senators whose flight plans and other travel arrangements were made well in advance of this meeting. Since senators are required to attend GF meetings as mandated by our Constitution, the time of this meeting greatly hinders our ability to fulfill those functions and responsibilities with which we are charged as senators. Paradoxically, our Constitution also prohibits mandatory meetings during reading period and the week of finals. The meeting's date also conflicts with our responsibilities as on-campus residents: we are required to leave the dorms within two hours of the end of the last final.

With the cancellation of the previous GF, the December GF carries even greater weight; by having the meeting on the 21st, it effectively shuts out students' voices. We feel this sets a dangerous precedent. We remind you that student senators are full voting members of the General Faculty. Holding the meeting after the last final (and therefore after the end of the academic semester) and having the meeting scheduled to end only half an hour before mandatory residence hall check-outs works to silence the student body.

We are concerned that having the General Faculty meeting on December 21st will effectively reduce student input into the decisions made during that session. We ask that you move the meeting to the 14th of December. If it is impossible to change the date, it is imperative that such scheduling consequences be addressed in the future.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

-Aaron Benjamin Leavy

-Jane Glynn

-Nikhil Majumdar

-David Jessop

-Katherine E. Roberts

-Erika Hansen

-Miesha McClure

-John Byrne

-Micah Thorner

-Danielle Tyler

--Student Senators

Think about safe space

To the Editors:

I am writing to respond to Mr. Sener's letter regarding multiculturalism at Oberlin, published in last week's Review. Mr. Sener's letter, undoubtedly producing much controversy, will find many letters in response highly more contentious than this one. I do not write to critique Mr. Sener's point of view directly (though I fervently disagree with many of his positions), but to ask him to try to think more analytically about the problem that he perceives. At Oberlin we have a tendency to react strongly and forcefully to the injustices we perceive around us. Sometimes this reaction comes in the form of a "knee-jerk response." Though we have been (supposedly) trained in the liberal arts tradition of constructive analysis, oftentimes our emotions get in the way of our reasoning. No one side of the issue is more or less guilty of this, but Mr. Sener's letter demonstrates in a particularly acute fashion the way that this sort of response can be completely unhelpful.

Mr. Sener, in order to further develop your somewhat stunted analysis, I would encourage you to ask yourself an important question: What sort of intellectual reasoning or ideology has lead to this new way of thinking about multiculturalism? In other words, it might be useful to trace the evolution of ideas about race and culture in recent history. By doing this, your critique would not only be stronger but you would probably gain a much clearer insight into your own problems with the issue. You may realize that what you are concerned with is not simply "reverse racism" but a shift in the way that "identity" is conceived. You might notice that particularistic notions of race, culture and identity have supplanted more universalistic concerns with justice that once prevailed among activists in this society. The knowledge drawn from this critique could be helpful not only in understanding issues of safe space, but could also inform a deeper comprehension of some of the problems of "liberal" academia. The situations that you are taking issue with are not isolated phenomena easily chalked up to "crazy" Oberlin students; on the contrary, these problems are historically rooted (both in social and intellectual history), and have been developing for some time. By knowing this history you will be able to offer a well reasoned critique, instead of a knee-jerk spiteful reaction.

My only reservation in writing this letter is my slight suspicion that you really don't care about developing your analysis, and that you wrote the letter mainly to irritate and incite conflict. You probably did this well, and unfortunately you will most likely receive responses that are just as reactionary (and devoid of any analysis) as your original letter. I regret this. In the future I hope that the discussion of multiculturalism will be deeper on both sides; that it will go beyond the issue of program houses or academic departments and really try to question and understand these issues. It will be a supremely difficult task, and will have no place for simplistic responses like Mr. Sener's.

--Ursula Lawrence, College senior

Students effected by safe space letter

To the Editors:

By now I am sure that you have just been stormed and bombarded by letters in response to the articles written in the Oberlin Grape and the Oberlin Review on multiculturalism and safe space. I am not about to reiterate what has already been said in other letters, rather to express how these articles affected me on a personal level. I also ask you as a reader not to feel pity, but to understand my stand on safe space.

The day I first read these articles I felt scared, angry, confused and a whole cacophony of emotions that go along with issues regarding race that offend me. I have never experienced a situation where my place in American culture had been attacked and questioned as to whether or not they should even exist. I am Asian American and because I am yellow the people surrounding me assume that I am foreign. I rarely feel a sense of belonging in America.

A few years ago, my mother told me that we would be going off to Hong Kong for a month in the summer. My first reaction to this was that I would finally go to a country where I would never have to be looked upon as being foreign and I would finally be accepted. Hong Kong was not the way I had expected it to be. Sure, it was a great city with lots of things to do, but I didn't belong there. I expected to find people to relate to and feel an acceptance into society. Even there, when everyone looked at me, people saw me as foreign. They could somehow tell, just by looking at the way I dressed, the way I walked, the way I talked, that I was American. I did not feel that this was my home.

After I had returned from my journey into the Republic of China and Hong Kong, I felt disappointed. I did not belong there nor did I fit into America. There were people who sympathized with my experiences, but no one I knew was there to empathize with.

I remember the first time I met someone that felt the same way I did. He was also Asian American. We had the same experiences, thought on the same wavelength and understood each other. It was the first time I had experienced having a safe space.

When I came to Oberlin, the Asian American Alliance (AAA) was the first place I turned to in finding a safe space. I realize that it is illegal to make any organization exclusive. I am not saying that AAA is a safe space nor am I saying that it is not. AAA is an organization where I could meet people to create my personal space to grow, to heal and gain mutual understanding from others.

Contrary to popular belief, I do not spend all my time isolating myself from the entire community without associating with anyone besides Asians. In a place where everyone around me is white, I need somewhere where I can be with people who can identify with me and show that I am not alone. Everyone has a different place which he or she considers as his or her own personal sanctuary. Some people would consider their church as their sanctuary, others in a spot by a river and others with people they love. My sanctuaries are my personal safe spaces. This is how I would define "safe space" and not how some random dictionary would define it.

Because I am a first-year, AAA is my only safe space and therefore I have made it my personal space. For now, it is my only sanctuary. I ask the Oberlin community not to attack my needs or anyone else's needs for these spaces.

--Chester Poon, College first-year