Goldilocks is Loose

Has South Hall's safety become more uncertain with the rash of thefts, mystery closet repairs and roaming reptiles the dorm experienced during the past week? Probably not any more so than any other dorm.

In the rush to calm jangled nerves within the dorm, chide students about not locking their rooms and catch AWOL animals, nothing seems to have been done to actually figure out who has been slithering in and out of peoples' rooms. At a hall meeting on the third floor of the building, where much of the chaos has been concentrated, the theme of the discussion appeared to be wariness of strangers. Yet if one looks at what actually happened, it should become clear that whoever was responsible for many of last week's transgressions is lying upon the same hot-rock as their victim.

Obviously, if someone had the time to stop and make overdue repairs to a closet door or to chow down on some peanut butter, Goldilocks-style, and not steal many valuables, the intent of these actions is to harass. Therefore, whoever is responsible was probably at least somewhat familiar with the victims and their patterns, and therefore is not likely to come from outside of the dorm. Furthermore, although some of these events seem amusing at first glance, that does not justify Safety and Security in not taking these incidents seriously. Every individual on campus has the right to expect a prompt and thorough response to any sincere concern for safety.

So, while the advice to keep doors locked is timely (and common-sensical), the air of suspicion encouraged is unnecessary, while a serious approach on the part of Security is.

It would seem that those responsible for ensuring student safety want to pass that job on to students. The poor response time of Security to a student's call seems to show that they felt the task was not a high priority.

Lock your doors, keep a wary eye on that friend of your roommate's, make sure there are no yummy insects on your window sill where our scaly cousins can find them and you will hopefully not have to find yourself waiting hours for Security after discovering that someone else has been sleeping in your bed.

Dining Exemptions

Oberlin is experiencing an unprecedented number of requests for domestic partnerships. Really, it is unsurprising to see students trying to get around the system to declare these.

Whether or not false exemptions are problematic should not be the concern. If we consider the issue of exemptions for domestic partners (and for married couples as well), we can see how these exemptions can be considered prejudiced. Should single people be denied the opportunity that couples have to choose for themselves how to best budget their money when it comes to food?

One has to wonder why those students who choose not to enter any sort of life partnership ‹ whether it is because they cannot find a partner, are not looking for one, or have decided with their partners that this commitment is too heavy to take at the moment ‹ are given limited options in comparison to those who do. Congratulations are definitely in order for those who do make this choice. Surely they have many concerns that single people do not, and, because of these concerns, should not be required to eat on campus.

Conversely, single people have concerns of their own, and also should not be required to eat on campus. Of course, these concerns may be unique to each student and difficult for Res Life to address. Nevertheless, to deny single students the choice to eat off board and allow it to domestic partners is a clear double standard. If it is difficult to deal with the volume of students seeking exemptions, perhaps Res Life should start to realize that students are validly frustrated with the current dining system and accommodate their wishes.

Res Life argues that the $3000 which goes out with each exempted student will not be available to cover such costs as food, labor and utilities. However, one has to wonder why these costs don't go down when a student is exempted, as that student is no longer a drain on the system. Perhaps it is because the costs aren't proportional to the number of students, but this still doesn't validate forcing students to take part in the dining system.

Both single and partnered students should have the opportunity to make their own financial choices. No student should be required to spend more money than others simply because of the personal choices he or she makes, such as the choice to commit to another individual. To continue to operate in a manner in which students have to take that into account when considering whether or not they want an education here will continue to limit the diversity of students coming to Oberlin.

Editorials in this box are the responsibility of the editor-in-chief, managing editor and commentary editor, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff of the Review.

Back // Commentary Contents \\ Next

T H E O B E R L I N R E V I E W