F+L’s Owen Henry asked a few questions of the current candidates for Student Senate, allowing them to expand upon their candidate statements. We will be posting the answers here as we receive them. Continue reading
F+L’s Owen Henry asked a few questions of the current candidates for Student Senate, allowing them to expand upon their candidate statements. We will be posting the answers here as we receive them. Continue reading
By David Edward Clark
Adrian Fenty addresses the Oberlin College community at this year's first Convocation. Photo by David Roswell.
Adrian Fenty ’92 opened this year’s convocation series with a talk on his efforts to reform the Washington, D.C. school system during his term as mayor. Continue reading
By Angela Suico
Louise Melling inspires Obies with her September 14 Constitution Day talk. Photo by David Roswell.
Deputy Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union and Oberlin alumna Louise Melling ’82 addressed the alarmingly halted progress of reproductive freedom in a Constitution Day talk on Wednesday, September 14. Melling’s lecture addressed the stagnating reproductive rights movement and the crucial necessity that Americans continue to fight for greater abortion access. Continue reading
Fearless and Loathing reporter Angela Suico spoke with ACLU Legal Deputy Director Louise Melling shortly before she gave her Constitution Day lecture entitled, “I Have Sex: Why to Care About Reproductive Rights in the 21st Century.”
F+L: How would you describe the current state of reproductive rights, in comparison to one decade ago?
LM: Bad! (laughs) I think [that] forever there’s been a lot of activity in the States to try to restrict reproductive rights, and it used to be that we got everything struck down, and in 1992 the Supreme Court articulated a standard which has made it much harder to have restrictions struck. You also have our adversaries less often…seeking to do the bolder things like bans and instead really concentrating on the smaller things that are less likely to invite the ire of our activists, so more things are passing, and it’s harder to get them struck down. Continue reading
By David Edward Clark (Founder, Writer)
Welcome to Oberlin! For those of you seeking new content, for now…this is it. As I write this, we are out reporting and will have orientation coverage starting tomorrow. In addition, we’ll have boatloads of information up when The Guide launches and are currently working on a couple news stories that we’ll run when the rest of the student body return to campus.
by Aliza Rosenfeld
F+L caught up with Hannah Scharlin-Pettee ’13, an SIC staffer who directed the Oberlin Has Sex video as a protest against the threat of federal defunding for Planned Parenthood.
by David Edward Clark
Shayne Wells ’11 first met his councilmember Adrian Fenty ’92 when he was 16. Since then, he has volunteered for, interned with, and has acted as special assistant to the mayor of Washington, DC.
Adrian Fenty '92 with Shayne Wells '11 close behind (left).
By David Edward Clark
Patrick Doherty '11
Patrick Doherty ‘11 stepped down from his position as Student Senate Liaison on Sunday. Former Outreach Coordinator Marlo Barrera ’12 has taken his place as Liaison.
Doherty’s letter of resignation, which he posted on the Student Senate website, contained accusations against fellow senators and came as a surprise to many on Senate.
The letter contained critiques of Student Senate. “Once elected, many of you cease to put effort into accomplishing anything meaningful,” wrote Doherty. “Many of you are more concerned with superficial, pointless projects that would do nothing to benefit the student body as a whole. You whine, complain, and demonize the administration, yet you are unwilling to recognize that the most effective way to change Oberlin is to work with the administration.”
Senators commented on Doherty’s letter for 25 minutes during Sunday night’s plenary meeting. Barrera was the first to speak. “First off, I’d like to say that this email was like one of the shittiest things I’ve ever read in regards to anything any of us have worked on,” said Barrera. “I think Patrick was really off the mark in saying that we’re working on petty, petty things because he just didn’t really seem to be interested in any of the things we were working on–especially because the only thing I can think of that he did on Student Senate was revise the bylaws.”
Doherty’s use of the Senate website was quickly called into question. Outreach Coordinator Pete Sabo ’11 called for a vote, which never materialized, to take it off the website. Chartering Liaison Jin Wong ’12 asked whether Doherty broke the Senate bylaws by posting the letter on the website. “I think he’s misusing his access to the website,” said Wong.
Committee Appointments Coordinator Savi Sedlacek ’12 responded to Sabo and Wong. “First of all, I’m glad it’s on the website; it’s public information and people should know why he resigned.”
Sedlacek expressed regret over Doherty’s resignation and pointed out that, although criticizing some senators, he retained that some members are doing good work. Sedlacek then suggested that the discussion over Doherty’s resignation be tabled for a later date. “I think we should keep this open. I think it’s our responsibility to respond to the press,” said Operations Manager Alex Posa ’11.
Posa largely disagreed with what Doherty wrote in the letter. “I’ve actually seen this semester’s Senate do a lot more than I’ve seen in the past.”
Wong expressed many senators’ feelings when he discussed his shock over the resignation. “I feel like this really came as a surprise to us. I feel like we never had any discussions about this before. He didn’t tell us his opinions, he didn’t tell us how he felt, and it’s just like a sudden outbreak,” said Wong.
Some senators could see the position Doherty was coming from. “I agree with what he’s arguing in principle, that it’s better to work with the administration instead of having this ‘us vs. them’ mentality, but I do think it could have been phrased a little bit better,” said Associate Liaison Gavin Palmer ’12.
Committee Appointments Coordinator Alex Hohauser ’13 was also disappointed with Doherty’s tone although she saw his resignation as a chance rally. “I think this is a tremendous opportunity for us, not that we necessarily needed to step it up, but maybe we do a little bit and really get things done and just take this and let it reenergize us and just really make a huge push and do so many great things for the rest of the semester,” said Hohauser.
Sabo disagreed with the allegation that the current Senate alienates the administration and builds an “us vs. them” mentality. He asked Associate Dean of Community Life Shozo Kawaguchi his thoughts on Doherty’s claims. Kawaguchi declined to comment directly on Doherty’s resignation, but he said that he felt no alienation from Senate.
Sabo then expressed his feelings toward the letter. “I pretty much refute a lot of his statements and his little whiney letter,” said Sabo. “I felt that his email was a lot of kiss assery. I thought it was really unnecessary a number of times, and, what is he, asking for a recommendation letter from them or something?”
Student Finance Committee elected Co-Chair Ted Waddelow ’11 recognized merit in some aspects of Doherty’s letter. “I think it does speak in a lot of ways to the core of the concerns that a lot of students have about Student Senate and how they proceed,” said Waddelow. “People don’t see Senate acting as a united body to pursue common goals. They see people using this position to pursue stuff they are already interested in.”
“How Senate picks the things that it discusses and pursues them very often seems to be reactive. Some sort of situation arises and another working group pops up—they proliferate like mushrooms—rather than Senate setting out two or three objectives that it has for itself as an institution to pursue over the course of the semester or year. I think maybe if Senate took that sort of approach, it might lead to better, clearer results that you could communicate to the student body. The tradeoff there is that some people may have to sacrifice their interests,” said Waddelow.
Green Liaison Mary-Clare Erskine ’13 responded to Waddelow. “I think it’s really worthwhile to have people working on all of these small issues that they’re passionate about. If I cut what I’m passionate about then I’d leave Senate like that,” Erskine said, snapping her finger. “I’m on Senate so that I can change things that I think need to be changed.”
Though stepping down, Doherty wrote in his resignation letter that he will “continue to act as a resource for anyone who has questions about Senate.”
By Alice Beecher
Norman Finkelstein does not pretend to be unbiased. Nor should he try to be, according to some enthusiastic attendees of Wednesday night’s lecture “This Time We Went Too Far” (sponsored by Students for a Free Palestine, OPAL, the Politics Department, the Prison Justice Institute and Third World House). Centered on the human rights violations committed by Israel during the Gaza War and other middle-eastern conflicts, Finkelstein’s talk presented a convincing argument against the innocence of Israel and cast light on the suffering of Palestinians.
www.indypendant.com
Beginning his presentation with a variably cute and horrifying video montage of images of Palestinians/Israelis on the West Bank, Finkelstein presented himself as more of a charming old professor than a radical activist. But his even monotone and humorous analogies belied the intensity of his central message, which was to call Israel to task for what he viewed as a tyrannical defiance of international law. After analyzing Hezbollah’s defeat of Israel in May 2000, Finkelstein presented his central thesis that the basis of Israel’s international policy is to restore “fear of Israel” in the Arab world.
Israel’s economic and weapons blockade on Gaza after the election of Hamas incited little international response besides ignored UN warnings, even after the brutal “22 days of death” Israelites term the “war” against Gaza. Finkelstein condemns the use of the word ‘war’ for these this conflict, claiming the attacks were more of a bloodbath, with 400 Palestinians dying for every one Israeli. Using the testimony of Israeli soldiers to back up his argument, Finkelstein pointed out that the Israeli army met almost no resistance from Palestinians in Gaza and that Gaza had no anti-aircraft missiles to combat them. Explaining the humanitarian flotilla crisis, Finkelstein argued that Israel’s use of force was illegal because of international statutes restricting Israel’s use of weapons. “You can’t derive a right from a wrong,” he declared, decrying the war crimes committed by the Jewish nation-state.
Later, Finkelstein argued that Israel was planning to attack Lebanon in a similar, bloodthirsty fashion, in a war that Hezbollah believes will “change the face of the region.” Speculating that Iran would not accept an attack on Hezbollah, Finkelstein predicted that the US might interfere on behalf of Israel if such a conflict were to occur.
Presenting these horrific facts in a gentle, measured tone, Finkelstein invited Oberlin students to question him and research his facts, but claimed we would only find accounts that supported his argument. “Referring to the Gaza massacre as a war makes us agents of Israeli occupation,” said Finkelstein, implicitly attacking all those who later critiqued his ideology in the question and answer session. Though many of the violations Finkelstein reported were indisputably deplorable, such as the deaths of innocent children in Gaza, his assumption that most of the audience would be sympathetic to the Palestinians was ill founded.
Although all political analysts must manipulate information slightly in order to prove their point–and Finkelstein clearly has evidence to support the cause he’s arguing for–at certain points in the lecture, he went too far in dismissing the other side. Explaining the dysfunctional peace process in Israel, Finkelstein proclaimed that anyone who disagreed with his analysis of the West Bank settlements was “irrational” and that the facts he presented “weren’t partisan.” While most would agree that the settlements are illegal under international law and that Israel should not demand to be recognized as a Jewish state before engaging in negotiations with Palestine, it is not fair to disregard the emotional and religious claim the Jewish people have to the land of Israel.
This emotional claim became a point of contention in the question and answer session, when an ex-Israeli soldier called Finkelstein an anti-Semite for disregarding the death of his Israeli relative in the Gaza war. In response, Finkelstein smartly pointed out that you can’t use an individual’s story to argue for the Israelites without considering the thousands of individual Palestinians with similarly wrenching tales. Poorly researched or incendiary questions inspired passionate responses from Finkelstein that contrasted with his somewhat dry speech, such as when a student misquoted one of his books or an audience member accused him of promoting violence.
In the end, Finkelstein made his purpose and bias obvious and had no trouble defending his somewhat radical viewpoints. He summed up his argument with three critical principles: that Palestinians shouldn’t have to give up their rights, that giving up rights shouldn’t be a precondition for conflict and that the Palestinians should be allowed to inhabit homes in settlement territory. He urged the audience to turn public opinion of Palestine into a political force, combating US aid to Israeli violence. Whether Oberlin students were galvanized to fight for the Palestinian cause or offended by his anti-Zionist rhetoric remains uncertain. But his courageous stance inspired a debate that is sure to permeate the campus in the coming weeks.
