Writer Says Review, College Incompetent on WRC

To the Editors:

According to an article in the last edition of the Review, written by someone claiming to be Shahana Siddiqui, the Women’s Resource Center problems have been resolved. As the real Shahana Siddiqui who actually wrote a long and thoroughly researched article about the entire possible closing and then confirmed opening of the WRC last week, I disclaim the article that was printed last week, and remove myself completely from the Review because of its unprofessional behavior of rewriting my article without my consent.
This is the second time in a row my editors have completely ruined my articles. But this time, not only severe journalistic ethics were broken but also trust as a whole was shattered. I was handpicked by Ariella Cohen in the beginning of the semester to write for the paper because of my openly critical outlook of Oberlin College. Meaning I was a token alternative voice to the Review. I am one of the two women of color writing for the Review and the only one covering minority issues on this campus. This means I was covering major conferences like East of California, the state of this year’s Hip Hop Conference, the state of Comparative American Studies, Indigenous People's Weekend, and the list goes on. It is no secret that People of Color organizations on this campus have a long history of battling against the administration who over and over again refused the institutionalization of Ethnic Studies but use such events as Colors of Rhythm, SASA Cultural Show, OKSA and APA Conferences to give a falsified multicultural outlook of Oberlin College, creating a very complicated web of power dynamics. It takes a lot of tact and trust from both administration and especially the students to write about these issues. For my editors to rip my article apart and then add sentences and quotes without my consent is a violation of journalistic conduct. This also makes me liable for public statements because my name appears with the articles.
Focusing on the WRC article of last week, I feel that certain facts need to be clarified. Since morally I cannot use any additional information from the two tapes full of interviews, I can certainly re-write the quotes and information I had in my original article.
The Woodland Street house was given to the WRC about 5 years ago. No records exist as to who lived there prior to the center. No actual records were kept about the building and no one knew for a fact which part of the zoning regulation the College was breaking. For five years the administration has kept that space knowing proper zoning regulations have not been met. The week Rachel Beverly, the acting Director of the WRC was out of town, a letter would appear at the Dean of Students’ office, forwarded by the Service Building. During my first interview, Dean Goldsmith specifically said, “a letter from the town” was forwarded to the College. If the letter is from the town, it is public record by nature. Interestingly enough, I was not given the permission to read that forwarded letter. Out of this curiosity, I inquired with the City of Oberlin, where it was confirmed that no such letter was filed and that by the zoning regulation of the city, the WRC is in full compliance with the regulation. After this discovery, later that night, Dean Goldsmith would change his original comment on the source of the letter to the following: “The letter came from a resident of the town to the town government calling the town's attention to what the letter writer regarded as a possible violation of code on the part of the college. It appears that this person was mistaken and the use of the building is appropriate.”
There is more to this story than just why I was lied to by the Dean of Students. The edited version of the article portrayed students involved with the WRC board as emotional and irrational individuals who should not have been informed about their space being closed. The edited article erased the part on the failure of the administration to keep records of one of their own office branches. Or how the WRC needs a structured administrative staff to take care of its business. I also presented questions the students of this college seriously need to ask about their administration who did not feel it was important enough to resolve the zoning confusion earlier for a space that appeals to over 60 percent of the student body.
The Review is just as much to blame as the administration for this entire fiasco. It seems like that the Review just does not learn from its past history of misinforming the Oberlin community and mostly breaking journalistic ethics. If the Review wants to gain student respect and be viewed as a proper journalistic attempt, the paper needs to get its act together. Who knows which part of this letter will the Review massacre by the time it goes out on Friday afternoon? Perhaps they will just decide not print it at all.
At this point, I am disillusioned with almost everything with this school and its politics. I seriously believed that my contribution to the Review would somehow inform the greater community on all the actual activism that makes Oberlin, Oberlin. But I am also tired of being the one of the very few specks of color in campus wide events and organizations, constantly calling people out on their abuse of privilege and lack of information about communities that are marginalized not only in the world, but especially in Oberlin College in the name of liberalism.
–Shahana Siddiqui
College sophomore

To the Editors:
According to an article in the last edition of The Oberlin Review, written by someone who claims to be Shahana Siddiqui, the Women’s Resource Center problems have been resolved. As the real Shahana Siddiqui who actually wrote a long and thoroughly researched article about the entire possible closing and then confirmed opening of the WRC last week, I disclaim the article that was printed last week, and remove myself completely from the Oberlin Review because of its unprofessional behavior of rewriting my article without my consent.
This is the second time in a row my editors have completely ruined my articles. But this time, not only severe journalistic ethics were broken but also trust as a whole was shattered. I was handpicked by Ariella Cohen in the beginning of the semester to write for the paper because of my openly critical outlook of Oberlin College. Meaning, I was a token alternative voice to the Review. I am one of the two women of color writing for the Review and the only one covering minority issues on this campus, especially People of Color issues. This means I was covering major conferences like East of California, the state of this year’s Hip Hop Conference, the state of Comparative American Studies, Indigenous People’s Weekend, and the list goes on. It is no secret that People of Color organizations on this campus have a long history of battling against the administration who over and over again refused the institutionalization of Ethnic Studies but use such events as Colors of Rhythm, SASA Cultural Show, OKSA and APA Conferences to give a falsified multicultural outlook of Oberlin College, creating a very complicated web of power dynamics. It takes a lot of tact and trust from both administration and especially the students to write about these issues. For my editors to rip my article apart and then add sentences and quotes without my consent is a violation of journalistic conduct. This also makes me liable for public statements because my name appears with the articles.
Focusing on the Women’s Resource Center article of last week, I feel that certain facts need to be clarified. Since morally I cannot use any additional information from the two tapes full of interviews, I can certainly re-write the quotes and information I had in my original article.
The Woodland Street house was given to the WRC about 5 years ago. No records exist as to who lived there prior to the center. No actual records were kept about the building and no one knew for a fact which part of the zoning regulation the college was breaking. For 5 years the administration has kept that space knowing proper zoning regulations have not been met. The week Rachel Beverly, the acting Director of the WRC was out of town, a letter would appear at the Dean of Students’ office, forwarded by the Service Building. During my first interview, Dean Goldsmith specifically said, “a letter from the town” was forwarded to the College. If the letter is from the town, it is public record by nature. Interestingly enough, I was not given the permission to read that forwarded letter. Out of this curiosity, I inquired with the City of Oberlin, where it was confirmed that no such letter was filed and that by the zoning regulation of the city, the WRC is in full compliance with the regulation. After this discovery, later that night, Dean Goldsmith would change his original comment on the source of the letter to the following: “The letter came from a resident of the town to the town government calling the town’s attention to what the letter writer regarded as a possible violation of code on the part of the college. It appears that this person was mistaken and the use of the building is appropriate.”
There is more to this story than just why I was lied to by the Dean of Students. The edited version of the article portrayed students involved with the WRC board as emotional and irrational individuals who should not have been informed about their space being closed. The edited article erased the part on the failure of the administration to keep records of one of their own office branches. Or how the WRC needs a structured administrative staff to take care of its business. I also presented questions the students of this college seriously need to ask about their administration who did not feel it was important enough to resolve the zoning confusion earlier for a space that appeals to over 60 percent of the student body.
Who is accountable for such mishandling of administration papers? Why did the college not clarify the situation in terms of exact code of the zoning chapter in those 10 days after receiving the letter? Why did the administration first claim it to be a letter from the city and then change the statement to a letter from an individual from the city? Who knows about all these laws and regulations on this campus? How did other off-campus office houses such as Daub House receive pen-nission to be an office while cost prohibition was a factor to make the 124 Woodland Street compatible with the zoning regulations? Why was the Women’s Resource Center asked to close down when the authorities had not even made proper verification?
The Review is just as much to blame as the administration for this entire fiasco. It seems like that the Review just does not learn from its past history of misinforming the Oberlin community and mostly breaking journalistic ethics. If the Review wants to gain student respect and be viewed as a proper journalistic attempt, the paper needs to get its act together. Who knows which part of this letter will the Review massacre by the time it goes out on Friday afternoon? Perhaps they will just decide not print it at all.
At this point, I am disillusioned with almost everything with this school and its politics. I seriously believed that my contribution to the Review would somehow inform the greater community on all the actual activism that makes Oberlin, Oberlin. But I am also tired of being the one of the very few specks of color in campus wide event and organization, constantly calling people out on their abuse of privilege and lack of information about communities that are marginalized not only in the world, but especially in Oberlin College in the name of liberalism.

–Shahana Siddiqui
College Sophomore

To the Editors:
According to an article in the last edition of The Oberlin Review, written by someone who claims to be Shahana Siddiqui, the Women's Resource Center problems have been resolved. As the real Shahana Siddiqui who actually wrote a long and thoroughly researched article about the entire possible closing and then confirmed opening of the WRC last week, I disclaim the article that was printed last week, and remove myself completely from the Oberlin Review because of its unprofessional behavior of rewriting my article without my consent.
This is the second time in a row my editors have completely ruined my articles. But this time, not only severe journalistic ethics were broken but also trust as a whole was shattered. I was handpicked by Ariella Cohen in the beginning of the semester to write for the paper because of my openly critical outlook of Oberlin College. Meaning, I was a token alternative voice to the Review. I am one of the two women of color writing for the Review and the only one covering minority issues on this campus, especially People of Color issues. This means I was covering major conferences like East of California, the state of this year's Hip Hop Conference, the state of Comparative American Studies, Indigenous People's Weekend, and the list goes on. It is no secret that People of Color organizations on this campus have a long history of battling against the administration who over and over again refused the institutionalization of Ethnic Studies but use such events as Colors of Rhythm, SASA Cultural Show, OKSA and APA Conferences to give a falsified multicultural outlook of Oberlin College, creating a very complicated web of power dynamics. It takes a lot of tact and trust from both administration and especially the students to write about these issues. For my editors to rip my article apart and then add sentences and quotes without my consent is a violation of journalistic conduct. This also makes me liable for public statements because my name appears with the articles.
Focusing on the Women's Resource Center article of last week, I feel that certain facts need to be clarified. Since morally I cannot use any additional information from the two tapes full of interviews, I can certainly re-write the quotes and information I had in my original article.
The Woodland Street house was given to the WRC about 5 years ago. No records exist as to who lived there prior to the center. No actual records were kept about the building and no one knew for a fact which part of the zoning regulation the college was breaking. For 5 years the administration has kept that space knowing proper zoning regulations have not been met. The week Rachel Beverly, the acting Director of the WRC was out of town, a letter would appear at the Dean of Students' office, forwarded by the Service Building. During my first interview, Dean Goldsmith specifically said, "a letter from the town" was forwarded to the College. If the letter is from the town, it is public record by nature. Interestingly enough, I was not given the permission to read that forwarded letter. Out of this curiosity, I inquired with the City of Oberlin, where it was confirmed that no such letter was filed and that by the zoning regulation of the city, the WRC is in full compliance with the regulation. After this discovery, later that night, Dean Goldsmith would change his original comment on the source of the letter to the following: "The letter came from a resident of the town to the town government calling the town's attention to what the letter writer regarded as a possible violation of code on the part of the college. It appears that this person was mistaken and the use of the building is appropriate."
There is more to this story than just why I was lied to by the Dean of Students. The edited version of the article portrayed students involved with the WRC board as emotional and irrational individuals who should not have been informed about their space being closed. The edited article erased the part on the failure of the administration to keep records of one of their own office branches. Or how the WRC needs a structured administrative staff to take care of its business. I also presented questions the students of this college seriously need to ask about their administration who did not feel it was important enough to resolve the zoning confusion earlier for a space that appeals to over 60 percent of the student body.
Who is accountable for such mishandling of administration papers? Why did the college not clarify the situation in terms of exact code of the zoning chapter in those 10 days after receiving the letter? Why did the administration first claim it to be a letter from the city and then change the statement to a letter from an individual from the city? Who knows about all these laws and regulations on this campus? How did other off-campus office houses such as Daub House receive pen-nission to be an office while cost prohibition was a factor to make the 124 Woodland Street compatible with the zoning regulations? Why was the Women's Resource Center asked to close down when the authorities had not even made proper verification?
The Review is just as much to blame as the administration for this entire fiasco. It seems like that the Review just does not learn from its past history of misinforming the Oberlin community and mostly breaking journalistic ethics. If the Review wants to gain student respect and be viewed as a proper journalistic attempt, the paper needs to get its act together. Who knows which part of this letter will the Review massacre by the time it goes out on Friday afternoon? Perhaps they will just decide not print it at all.
At this point, I am disillusioned with almost everything with this school and its politics. I seriously believed that my contribution to the Review would somehow inform the greater community on all the actual activism that makes Oberlin, Oberlin. But I am also tired of being the one of the very few specks of color in campus wide event and organization, constantly calling people out on their abuse of privilege and lack of information about communities that are marginalized not only in the world, but especially in Oberlin College in the name of liberalism.

–Shahana Siddiqui
College Sophomore

To the Editors:
According to an article in the last edition of The Oberlin Review, written by someone who claims to be Shahana Siddiqui, the Women’s Resource Center problems have been resolved. As the real Shahana Siddiqui who actually wrote a long and thoroughly researched article about the entire possible closing and then confirmed opening of the WRC last week, I disclaim the article that was printed last week, and remove myself completely from the Oberlin Review because of its unprofessional behavior of rewriting my article without my consent.
This is the second time in a row my editors have completely ruined my articles. But this time, not only severe journalistic ethics were broken but also trust as a whole was shattered. I was handpicked by Ariella Cohen in the beginning of the semester to write for the paper because of my openly critical outlook of Oberlin College. Meaning, I was a token alternative voice to the Review. I am one of the two women of color writing for the Review and the only one covering minority issues on this campus, especially People of Color issues. This means I was covering major conferences like East of California, the state of this year’s Hip Hop Conference, the state of Comparative American Studies, Indigenous People’s Weekend, and the list goes on. It is no secret that People of Color organizations on this campus have a long history of battling against the administration who over and over again refused the institutionalization of Ethnic Studies but use such events as Colors of Rhythm, SASA Cultural Show, OKSA and APA Conferences to give a falsified multicultural outlook of Oberlin College, creating a very complicated web of power dynamics. It takes a lot of tact and trust from both administration and especially the students to write about these issues. For my editors to rip my article apart and then add sentences and quotes without my consent is a violation of journalistic conduct. This also makes me liable for public statements because my name appears with the articles.
Focusing on the Women’s Resource Center article of last week, I feel that certain facts need to be clarified. Since morally I cannot use any additional information from the two tapes full of interviews, I can certainly re-write the quotes and information I had in my original article.
The Woodland Street house was given to the WRC about 5 years ago. No records exist as to who lived there prior to the center. No actual records were kept about the building and no one knew for a fact which part of the zoning regulation the college was breaking. For 5 years the administration has kept that space knowing proper zoning regulations have not been met. The week Rachel Beverly, the acting Director of the WRC was out of town, a letter would appear at the Dean of Students’ office, forwarded by the Service Building. During my first interview, Dean Goldsmith specifically said, “a letter from the town” was forwarded to the College. If the letter is from the town, it is public record by nature. Interestingly enough, I was not given the permission to read that forwarded letter. Out of this curiosity, I inquired with the City of Oberlin, where it was confirmed that no such letter was filed and that by the zoning regulation of the city, the WRC is in full compliance with the regulation. After this discovery, later that night, Dean Goldsmith would change his original comment on the source of the letter to the following: “The letter came from a resident of the town to the town government calling the town’s attention to what the letter writer regarded as a possible violation of code on the part of the college. It appears that this person was mistaken and the use of the building is appropriate.”
There is more to this story than just why I was lied to by the Dean of Students. The edited version of the article portrayed students involved with the WRC board as emotional and irrational individuals who should not have been informed about their space being closed. The edited article erased the part on the failure of the administration to keep records of one of their own office branches. Or how the WRC needs a structured administrative staff to take care of its business. I also presented questions the students of this college seriously need to ask about their administration who did not feel it was important enough to resolve the zoning confusion earlier for a space that appeals to over 60 percent of the student body.
Who is accountable for such mishandling of administration papers? Why did the college not clarify the situation in terms of exact code of the zoning chapter in those 10 days after receiving the letter? Why did the administration first claim it to be a letter from the city and then change the statement to a letter from an individual from the city? Who knows about all these laws and regulations on this campus? How did other off-campus office houses such as Daub House receive pen-nission to be an office while cost prohibition was a factor to make the 124 Woodland Street compatible with the zoning regulations? Why was the Women’s Resource Center asked to close down when the authorities had not even made proper verification?
The Review is just as much to blame as the administration for this entire fiasco. It seems like that the Review just does not learn from its past history of misinforming the Oberlin community and mostly breaking journalistic ethics. If the Review wants to gain student respect and be viewed as a proper journalistic attempt, the paper needs to get its act together. Who knows which part of this letter will the Review massacre by the time it goes out on Friday afternoon? Perhaps they will just decide not print it at all.
At this point, I am disillusioned with almost everything with this school and its politics. I seriously believed that my contribution to the Review would somehow inform the greater community on all the actual activism that makes Oberlin, Oberlin. But I am also tired of being the one of the very few specks of color in campus wide event and organization, constantly calling people out on their abuse of privilege and lack of information about communities that are marginalized not only in the world, but especially in Oberlin College in the name of liberalism.

–Shahana Siddiqui
College Sophomore