Student
Attendance Nil at Trustee Events
by Jacob Kramer-Duffield
Over
300 protestors demonstrated against Oberlins $25 million stock
in corporations that do business with South Africa as the Board
of Trustees met in Mudd Library yesterday afternoon. So said
the Saturday, December 1, 1984 issue of the Review. Last Saturday
morning, the Oberlin College Board of Trustees held an open session
at the Goodrich Room in Mudd, and one student this Review
reporter attended. Among other things, attendees learned
that Bon Appetit has been acquired by Chartwells (one of the other
finalists for the original CDS bid); that total student fees will
increase 5.25 percent, to $34,800, for the Fall; that access to
Drag Ball will be further restricted this year for non-College individuals;
that Dean of Students Peter Goldsmith is initiating a campus dialogue
on restricting student dorm access; and that a search is beginning
to find a replacement for the Colleges current auditor, Arthur
Andersen.
The open session attended by nearly the full complement of
trustees, in addition to Oberlins upper administration
came on the heels of an only slightly better attended Class Trustee
Open Forum on Thursday, March 7 in Wilder 115. The Class Trustee
forum where class trustees Amie Ely (99) and Maame
Stephens (01), and member of the Board George Bent attended
saw fewer than a dozen students, not even filling a corner
of Wilder 115.
As to the low student turnout, Amy Levin-Epstein, co-vice president
of the senior class said, The low attendance numbers at the
meeting could be a combination of both inadequate publicity by those
in charge and low interest among students. Other students
placed the blame for the poor turnout at both events on the administration.
The College releases information when it is in their interest,
junior and Muckraker co-editor in chief John Byrne said. When
it is not, they will not release information of their own accord.
Were it not for student campus media a great deal of material relevant
to students would never be made public,
senior Jen Katz said. Its my opinion that Oberlin doesnt
really want us to know what all is going on, at least not until
after its been decided. Indeed, the announcements made
at the Trustee Open Session were of decisions already made by the
Board and Executive Committee in closed session.
The endemic problem is that the College often makes decisions
by fiat without discussion from students, Byrne said. When
student voices are heard, often in the context of faculty committees
(and they are faculty committees, for on none of them is there student/faculty
equity numerically, and a large number of the committees do not
even have their student seats filled) it often appears that the
Colleges administrators are using the committees as a way
to say, See, students agree, when students fail to constitute
a significant voting bloc on these committees. Katz agreed
that committees are positive, but ultimately fall short in terms
of actually incorporating student views into policy.
Oberlin at least pretends that the input of students is important
to them, Katz said. [But] its my opinion that,
all politics to the contrary, the overwhelming majority of the Board
lacks interest in the concerns of students. I think its problematic
that the trustees are so thoroughly unaccountable to the student
body. I recognize that the trustees exist not to fulfill the desires
of the students, but rather to serve the inteests of the institution
at large, a goal which often seems to be thoroughly removed from
those which the students might otherwise support.
From my experience at the last Board open session, and other
experiences I have had with the Board, it is largely an organization
of older white men controlled by wealthy heavy hitters, Katz
said.
Speaking at the open session about the dorm access issue, Dean of
Students Peter Goldsmith said [Students] desire for
safety necessarily carries a heightened level of inconvenience.
However, both Goldsmith and ResLife feel that a campus dialogue
is necessary before policy changes occur. Further, both propose
a policy that would limit dorm access only during hours of heightened
risk. I am committed to engaging the campus community in a
dialogue about limiting access to halls during specific, though
unspecified, hours, probably of the night, Goldsmith said.
Limiting dorm access on campus is not a new suggestion. Security
experts have long advised the school that giving dorm residents
card access to only their own buildings would significantly increase
safety on campus. When we look at our peer institutions, this
kind of broad access is relatively rare, Goldsmith said.
A trial period of restricted dorm access of Winter Term this year
was fraught with problems and did not show increases in safety.
In a Feb. 15 article of the Review, Director of Safety and Security
Robert Jones stated that he didnt see any red flags or change
in crime rates during the Winter Term trial period. Following this
inconclusive trial period, many students thought that discussion
of restricting dorm access was over.
I am concerned because [Associate Director of Residential
Life and Dining Services] Tracy Murry assured students that this
kind of thing could not happen for several years and without experimental
data to support it. I find it extremely concerning that Peter Goldsmith
would make any comment that contradicts this. Especially considering
that the experiment from Winter Term did not seem to support that
the benefit would be worth the difficulties, senior Alicia
DAddario said.
Research by Tobias Smith.
|