@Gator88NE I believe it was Kenyon that used the Trump sign excuse. Not sure what route most people visiting Oberlin would take (though I have driven past in hundreds of times) so I am not sure if there were be a lot of Trump signs on the way. That Ohio went for Trump may have been enough to scare some people away. Though I haven’t seen their application numbers. If those dropped that could make sense. If not, it would be more a matter of yield.
My point is that after the incident, there were varying accounts of what happened and the administrators had to make the best decision of what to do. What if the people at Gibson’s were at fault? Also, the potential for violence certainly is a consideration, as we have seen with certain parades of white supremacists being cancelled or moved. If the college could have cancelled all deliveries from Gibson’s because it wanted slimmer wastelines, what is wrong with suspending deliveries until the facts are known? If was clear from day #1 that the store was innocent, the college would never have cancelled deliveries.
The state of Michigan voted for Trump and U of M has record applications.
I would expect the election of Trump to be more troubling to your average Oberlin student than your average UofM student.
Sorry, but as a faculty member I must say that Roger Copeland’s letter does not represent the full case. Just because the majority of shoplifters arrested have been white does not prove that Gibson’s does not racially profile. Many of us in town believe that it has for decades. In my view, the administration made the correct decision in a very troubled time, which let us hope has now been put behind us.
Washington Times article - Enrollment drops at schools known for ‘social justice warfare’
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/14/enrollment-drops-at-schools-known-for-social-justi/
“Universities known for being hotbeds of campus protest and liberal activism are struggling with declining enrollments and budget shortfalls, and higher education analysts say that’s no coincidence.”
“William A. Jacobson, a professor at Cornell Law School who runs the Legal Insurrection blog, said the “most obvious culprit” in Oberlin’s dwindling admissions is “relentless social justice warfare.””
Yet you are unable to prove it.
Not only is there a drop in incoming freshman enrollment, but also in retention. In 2013, the freshman retention rate was 93%, in 2016 (the latest CDS info and represent students that were freshman from 2015-2016) it was 88.6%. Graduation rates (a lagging indicator) will be dropping in a few years as a result (can’t keep a 88+% graduation rate, if that’s your freshman retention rate…).
Kenyon College also had close to a 5% drop in freshman retention over the same time period, from 96% to 91.5%.
For Fall 2016 (Oberlin):
Number of applicants: 8,518
Percent admitted: 28%
Percent admitted who enrolled: 32%
I would think they could increase the admit rate by a few percentage points and solve the enrollment problem, but I guess enrollment is much more complicated than simply accepting more students. Note that they also accepted 151 students off the waiting list, per the latest CDS.
To Tom Sr. of Boston,
I know who Dave 72 is, and he started as a student at Oberlin in 1968, has been a faculty member for most of the time since, and has lived in Oberlin for more than 40 years. The town is only 8000-8500 people, and the downtown where Gibson’s is located is only a couple of blocks. We all know in our towns where blacks are unwelcome and where whites are unwelcome, and so does he. If he was African-American and discriminated against by Gibson’s, he would have standing to commence, at his cost, a civil rights action against Gibson’s. Or, the US or Ohio civil rights divisions might start actions on their own. These are the only ways it could be “proven”, unless Gibson’s would allow Dave 72 or someone else to do a study. With Sessions in control, I fear the US will have a hiatus in civil rights enforcement at the national level.
The fact that the majority arrested were white proves at least this: that Gibson’s closely scrutinizes its white clientele for potential shoplifting. Perhaps it also closely scrutinizes black customers. But, that’s not profiling if the store carefully watches all of its customers to protect its livelihood - despite what one may believe.
As Oberlin examines the reasons why a large number of potential students said “no” to the Oberlin brand this year, the Gibson’s event could provide a “teachable moment.” Some of these responses, which double-down on vilifying Gibson’s (the now undisputed victim of theft, assault, and an unjustified boycott), show that the lesson is unlikely to be learned.
I’ll say it again. The Gibson’s incident might have been a big issue in the Oberlin community, but it didn’t receive nearly the same national press as the petition and BLM protests. I’m a CC regular with a close relative at Oberlin and I didn’t know anything about the Gibson’s matter until reading about it in this thread. Google “Oberlin, Gibson’s” and the majority of the press you’ll see is from within Oberlin, with a few stories in smaller media outlets. Google “Oberlin, petition” and you’ll find dozens of links to stories in places like the New Yorker, PBS, Fox and the LA Times. Those stories largely mock the students involved, and by extension the college.
Racial profiling could be this. If 95% of your customers are white, and only 1% of them are hassled for shoplifting, but
if 25% of the 5% black customers are hassled for shoplifting, and few of them are found to be shoplifting, this could amount to racial profiling. Or, if there is a formal or informal policy of treating black customers rudely, so they will not return, that could be racial profiling. So, the number of whites being prosecuted for shoplifting is not the determining factor.
LAC’s have been shrinking for a long time and this will only continue imo!! The appeal, the high cost, and the value just isn’t there unless a ton of aid is able to be given.
@hannuhylu, Since the mid 90’s applications to Oberlin have steadily risen and the school’s acceptance rate has steadily fallen. I do think this year’s results are an anomaly.
Any bad publicity and undeserved villifying of the college administration, in the press or elsewhere, does the college no good on the admissions front. People don’t seem to be bothered in applying to a school by the protests or bonfires when the students want to get rid of the losing football coach. It’s kids will be kids. What about the effects on the coach, the coach’s family, and the team? They got what they deserved. You will never see any protests about the football coach at Oberlin, unless he abused a player.
When the kids protest about bad food, alleged racism, or make ridiculous demands, it’s taken seriously and is widely condemned. Having been involved in some college demonstrations, I can attest that some of the rush to judgment is kids will be kids, letting loose some energy, and seeking some publicity, when the long-term effects for the college could be deleterious. But, this is not to say that the protests are meritless, and in many cases they turn out to be correct,
I too am concerned about the costs of liberal arts colleges, and the relevancy argument which has been made for time immemorial. In my own case, I seem to be to able to delve into projects better than my non-liberal arts colleagues, which is a direct result of my liberal arts training. It certainly was worth the money for me, and I had an excellent education at Oberlin.
I believe my son is receiving a good education at Oberlin as well, but I am somewhat concerned about the intellectual caliber of some of his peers, if they thought it was worth protesting a chicken dinner name and boycotting a store that had not be proven to be involved in wrongdoing. This shows a lack of critical thinking. I hope the school can educate them properly.
Yes, there are a few fools at the best schools, but the General Gau nonsense really goes a step beyond your run of the mill left wing protests.
I am unaware of the General Gau situation. Was it the case where the Chinese, Japanese, and Vietnamese Oberlin students were unhappy about how the dining service was preparing their dishes, and wanted them to be more authentic. The press had a field day accusing them of being spoiled students. What if you were a student in Mexico, the dining service kept putting ketchup in your spaghetti, and you complained? Same situation.
General Tso Chicken is American-Chinese, not some traditional chinese recipe.
I like this quote I found online: “When you’re defending the cultural authenticity of GENERAL TSO’S CHICKEN, you’re a living Portlandia sketch.”
Student time/efforts would have been better spent working and raising money and awareness to alleviate food insecurity in this country than whining about the cafeteria’s rendition of different dishes.
@gratefulalum , they were spoiled students. Their complaint was that the cafeteria called a dish General Gau/Tso’s chicken, when it was just a random dish with vaguely Asian flavors, just like those served by cafeterias all over the world. They accused the school of cultural appropriation for misnaming a dish. Yes, that’s right.
I am a foodie. I hate bad food as much as the next snob, but I think it’s ludicrous to complain about how authentic a dish is. Even native cooks don’t agree on how to prepare, say, congee or enchiladas or gumbo. There is no culturally “pure” way to make anything, and it’s absurd that these students (many of whom were white) would go after the kitchen staff, who cook and serve thousands of meals every single day, for such a silly “infraction.”
Years ago, when I lived with a family in France, they went out of their way to make a traditional American Thanksgiving dinner for me. Was it “authentic?” Well, if you consider raisins a substitute for cranberries, sure! But I was very touched.
Kids who gripe about uncultural chicken are the very definition of snowflakes, and they all need to follow @doschicos’ advice.
I think it’s pretty funny that as far as I can tell, the central complaint around the General Tso’s chicken was that the chicken used in the Oberlin cafeteria dish was steamed, not fried, when according to the originator of the dish, Peng Chang-kuei, the original dish was neither sweet nor fried. The extra sugar and battering were added when the dish was reinvented by a Chinese-American chef, Tsung Ting Wang, for his American restaurant. Even Peng gave in when he came to the US and changed his original recipe to suit what Americans thought of as General Tso’s. In other words, what the students were fighting for was a recipe that had already been culturally appropriated. The Oberlin kitchen, probably in an effort to make the dish more nutritious and simpler to produce served a perhaps more authentic dish than the one the students were advocating for!
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/general-tsos-chicken-got-its-start-fine-dining-180956795/
(Nerdy foodie rant over) 