Appreciate Diversity

Multiculturalism is quite the buzz word these days, at least judging from the Perspectives letters in the Review over the past few months. It is crucial, however, to consider the actual people and situations affected by race, culture and ethnicity, while arguing theoretical implications. The recent fiasco in the Theater and Dance Department illustrates many of these important effects. While it is only normal for people to think of all worldly occurrences in the context of their own experiences and lives, it is also imperative to recognize the positions of others, especially of those whose experiences are different from our own. Many institutions of higher learning have come under fire for being too Eurocentric. As our country's demographics undergo drastic changes in this millennium, we must actively seek to incorporate elements of all cultures into our education.

It has been predicted that by the end of this century, race as the social construct we know today will no longer be recognizable. Whites will no longer hold a majority position in the United States, which poses a dilemma today - even with this imminent shift, all of our presidents and most of our Congressmen have been and still are white men. The frightening question here is whether the power dynamics are going to change along with the population. In order to retain any semblance of fairness, justice or equality, they absolutely must. Change only happens when applied across all aspects of life, however, and our little Oberlin College campus is definitely one such aspect. Our own lives are greatly, possibly even necessarily, enhanced by the knowledge of things outside our comfortable domain. This knowledge forces us to be more understanding of other individuals, and understanding is quite possibly the number one undervalued condition necessary for a healthy society.

This abstract rambling affects us in the following way - here at Oberlin we have the opportunity to meet and interact with possibly more cultures than are imaginable. If we do not recognize and take advantage of this, we are seriously impeding our own educations, and hence our lives. The diversity our administration is so proud of really does exist; judging by the numbers of people who came to support the Colors of Rhythm, at least most of us realize this. The more we are able to value the experiences of those around us, the more our own experiences are enhanced.

Review Integrity

This past Tuesday, a professor approached me before class with a question about the Review, its standards and its journalistic integrity. "I saw the cartoon you ran last week," he said. "It led me to wonder whether or not the Review actually wants to receive letters from its readers."

The answer to his question was yes, of course. The Review welcomes - nay, encourages - correspondence from its readers, just as any democratic publication should. If anything, letters to the editor serve as a validation of our efforts, proof that someone took the time not simply to read our articles, our cartoons and our editorials, but also to respond to them. Whether those letters offer praise, constructive criticism or absurdist commentary is hardly the issue. Whatever the nature of their content may be, they have a place in the Review, a newspaper that is supposed to function as a forum not only for its staff writers, but for all members of the Oberlin community.

The cartoon he was referring to was Nate Cavalieri's "Black and White World," a savagely satirical comic that frequently pokes fun at administrators and students without the same degree of politically-correct conservatism that an Oberlin education has trained us to expect. In the March 3 edition of the Review, the cartoon featured an eight-cell response to a reader who had denounced the previous week's "Black and White World" as "cowardly" and "pointlessly vicious." It was a brutal response, to be sure, and it may or may not have crossed that invisible line of good taste. It may even have held the reader up to public ridicule. But the content of the "Black and White World" should not be the issue, either.

Why? Because the Review does not endorse any form of censorship, even if the opinions of its writers sometimes come across as outrageous or controversial. After all, unpopular speech is just as important as popular speech, and if the Review is truly going to provide a forum for all members of the Oberlin community, it had better include both. For that matter, why should the Review shy away from controversy? More often than not, controversy leads to debate, and debate leads us not only to a heightened understanding of our own beliefs, but also the beliefs of others.

That said, the Review was wrong to publish the cartoon in the same issue as the related letter. Working for the Review grants staff members early access to all letters to the editor; for those staff members to exploit that access by formulating instant rebuttals to any criticism is both disrespectful and unfair. Thus, the Review apologizes to its readers for its indiscreet lack of judgment.