New Yorker Article about Oberlin

Colleges and Universities A-Z Oberlin College
21

marvin100, I agree with much of what you wrote on your post. Confronting racism, sexism, classism and other forms of discrimination is extremely important. I do think we are only now as a culture beginning to really take on many conversations about inclusion and society. Both my college student kids are in opportunity programs at their respective schools. They are in the thick of it there and I listen closely when they talk about this stuff.

My questions (again, I am hoping to hear from Oberlin students, parents and alums) are more related to campus relationships and students’ perceptions of Oberlin, specifically. Is campus culture that exhausting and divisive? Are students so afraid to commit micro aggressions that they self-segregate? Do groups engage in “public shaming” when a student expresses an unpopular belief? Do professors feel they are losing ground as mentors?

22

The “change” would be to live in a world that meets the needs of everyone, not just a select few. My question was what is the alternative path to getting there, really wasn’t interested in how to shut this movement down. I’d like to think the grownups at colleges would be welcoming these conversations, as should we all. The grownups should recognize that since the business at hand is, as you said, learning something useful, maybe we all need to ask ourselves “useful for who?”

23

Wait till these self-absorbed crybabies get a job in the real world and start demanding “trigger warnings” on company memos, or protesting the “cultural appropriation” of inauthentic ingredients making a mockery of their cultural cuisine, in the company cafeteria.

24

“Welcoming these conversations…?” The whole point is that their can be no conversation. Others must choke down their hypersensitivity without debate (i.e. hate speech). They routinely demand, and often succeed at, the firing of university teachers or administrators that even question their views. They protest and disrupt events that discuss opposing views. They intimidate attendees at those events. University administrators go limp in their presence and are unwilling to say anything that might be construed as unsupportive (not an “ally”) because of a mix of philosophical fecklessness and fear of their jobs.

Just dare a college president to state emphatically that she believes in freedom of speech and freedom of the press even if the expression of those freedoms makes students uncomfortable. Lately a few have said as much but they are a rare breed nowadays.

25

“I remember reading some time ago a rant written by a Latino student who was deeply offended that a white student had dared to use the word “futbol” instead of soccer, as though his culture was being appropriated by white supremacists. The offending student attempted to explain and offered a civil apology, which was received with additional scorn and contempt.”

Perhaps the “offended” student was unaware that Spanish comes from Spain, a predominantly white country?

26

Why can’t there be conversations? Let’s take a look at some of the university teachers or administrators who have been fired. Where are they, what have they been fired for? This is reminding me a little of the argument against “Black Lives Matter” protests, where worry is expressed that police officers can’t do their jobs without fear of being accused of inappropriate aggression. In my mind, this completely misses the point, which is that for too long, too many police officers have been inappropriately aggressive, and too many people, mostly people of color, have ended up DEAD. On universities, we may not have dead students, but for too long, too many students have been marginalized, their voices not heard, their needs not met. Maybe this is whining to you, but I think that just proves the need valid indeed.

27

I doubt it.

I am more of the position that other students were afraid to speak up about how stupid it all was and how ridiculous the claim of being offended was. If they spoke up, just think what they would have been charged with - creating an unsafe space and not checking their privilege.

28

Both my DSs experienced the exact same at their schools with males (minorities) specifically, who later joined affinity groups. They said it was like dealing with two different people - one set at orientation and totally different people a month later - even though they were the exact same people.

29

There cannot be conversations because the new leftist culture of the aggrieved students silences debate. The debate itself is considered an aggression and often shouted down. Did you read the article? These students are not flocking to debate clubs.

30

Self-segregation is not especially new either, so it is not like such problems are being created, as opposed to being maintained.

31

I find myself in tons of these “conversations,” so the idea that discourse is being stifled doesn’t ring true to me.

32

My DSs take the “traumatizing” route.

They completely ignore the irrationality and continue to respond with rational arguments, regardless of how silly the other student(s) become. And guess what happens - once the students realize that my DSs will not be bullied into talking their way or discussing solely on their terms, they leave my DSs alone and stop talking to them. Literally, they actively avoid my DSs, Problem solved. Never have to talk to them again. Life is much more peaceful then.

One thing with these types of supposed activist students is they are not as bright as they think they are; they confuse loud, blowhard rhetoric for intelligent argument and when one asks them to delve deeper into what they actually mean, they cannot. All they do is rinse and repeat. And if one does not acknowledge the blowhard stuff and stick to real points, they do give up because their tactic is really bullying, not debating. And a bully leaves once his bully tactic is exposed as useless.

Yes, they call you names etc. but who cares, as they do not matter in the scheme of things re my DSs’ lives. They are just screaming students who will need a job some day, and my DSs will happily not hire them. Problem of a bad hire solved in advance.

33

Your view is overly simplistic. Specifically, you are conflating structure with purpose, strategy, and operational tactics.

Of course, self-segregating groups always existed as structural entities. However, in my experience back in the 80s, the groups’ purpose was exposure of that group’s culture on campus. And the strategy used were often “celebrations” where they had events where all students of all cultures and races could attend and have fun and learn something in the process. Any activism was wider in scope and reach. For example, Divest from South Africa and support for the Eastern Block trying to free itself from the then Soviet Union. The operational tactics were pretty standard with teach-ins and speakers to campus and a few peaceful demonstrations, such as walking through the dining hall with signs etc.

Now, fast forward to today. The self-segregating groups are not about celebrating their culture in as much as they are about denigrating any other culture they deem offensive - that is a totally different purpose than in the 80s. Today, one cannot even do stuff from their culture because that is appropriating according these new activist. In contrast, in the 80s, affinity group students were just fine, often proud too, when they saw someone else doing something from “their culture.” Not today. And the current strategy is to make other non-affinity students feel uncomfortable and the chosen tactic is to directly attack students who are different and who practice a culture that they view as one with privilege. And privilege means whatever the affinity groups say it means. Therefore, nothing is off limits as to being offensive and to complain about. And the larger causes I recall in the 80s are replaced by comparatively smaller, self-centered goals. Such as activists at Oberlin wanting more money for affinity groups, more self-segregating professors, and demanding Oberlin to bring in felons as students - note this is all about “me” and my culture - a much more limited scope.

In the simplest terms, in the 80s, even when I disagreed with affinity groups goals, I understood what they were doing and could see the larger picture of what they were trying to better. Today, what I see is activists dumbing down the system and requesting that the short-comings they think they faced be imported into the college environment. And to them the only way to take away privilege, as they see it, is to lower the bar, lifestyle, goals and the like of colleges today - in short, it is about taking something away from the supposed “privileged” students. It really comes off as misery like company and forcing misery on other students - a rather low-life approach.

In contrast, I had no indication or thought that the affinity groups in the 80s were trying to dumb down the environment or to take things away from other students. Much less I do not recall the affinity groups trying to make other students feel bad about just being who they are, which may be simply a smart kid from Omaha.

Therefore, it is not the maintaining of the affinity groups that is the problem; it is the affinity groups’ goals and objectives are totally different, and not in a good way.

34

LinkedIn shows that 18 of the top 20 employers of Oberlin grads are nonprofits. What a waste of precious education funds.

35

Ummm, no.

My observation of a few decades ago (not at Oberlin) was that there were some noisy activists who were similar to what is described now for these activists at Oberlin (including those who said then that “only a white person can be racist”). Of course, there were also other (though often less noisy) affinity groups (then and presumably now) that did not have such attitudes.

Of course, self-segregation is not limited to minorities either. Historically, a significant subset of white people in some places enacted laws so that they could self-segregate from black and other non-white people in various contexts like schools, buses, etc… There was also the “white flight” phenomenon in some areas.

36

So now nonprofits are a waste? You do realize the best colleges and universities, not to mention hospitals, are nonprofits, right?

37

This is a nice example of one of those “conversations” with the microscopically aggrieved, at Yale no less. So these are the best and brightest. A professor having a pleasant chat with a student:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZLQ1F3FBvE

38

Not sure if everyone can view this article, but it is an interesting take:

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/blogs/history-psychiatry/did-freud-ever-do-reflection-epidemic-crazy?GUID=4BE5C18F-C855-4567-8599-15E2C98165A9&rememberme=1&ts=26052016

39

Not all non-profits are the same, and most are not what you imply. There are two different models of non-profits.

Interesting that you choose non-profits that have a product that people willingly purchase in that the non-profit actually charges people for that product, i.e., these are non-profits with sustained revenue from what they produce.

Hospitals and colleges are non-profits because of the established societal good that people place on their services and what they produce. Their services are deemed so vital and useful that consumers PAY for what these non-profits’ produce. And consumers often pay above market rates for the best ones. In this case, the nonprofit status allows others to donate and for the entity to keep the money in order to insure the continuation of said good in terms of research and advancement etc.

In contrast, 80%+ of non-profits live off of for-profit companies and individuals who donate to them. These non-proftis live to raise money and to spend same money AND there is little to no cost charged for what they do. In fact, the vast majority of non-profts, such as Teach For America pay people to do work for them as teachers and the like. The consumer in this model usually pays nothing for the service. Not so for hospitals and colleges, as there are no free hospitals and colleges. These donation-based of non-profts, which is 80%+ of non-profits, would die out tomorrow if people stop donating money as these non-proftis have nothing that consumers would voluntarily pay for.

I am not saying that the “donation-only” non-profits are not helpful, as they do provide a service to their target groups, but their equivalency to hospitals and colleges is in their non-profit status only. After that, they are world’s apart, as no one would spend a personal dime buying their services. In short, they could not survive on what they actually produce.

40

My point was not about noisy or not or about what some groups said; I stated that the purposes and objectives are very different.

I have no recollection of any speaker being told they could not speak and being shouted down. And, for sure. I cannot remember one speaker who was told by admin he/she could not come to campus because it would make students upset. This is a closed-minded activist today. Very different animal.

The “black” house at my college (not Oberlin) threw a rap music party every year where everyone could go and dance away to rap music - students of all races went and the black students had no issue there. They were very welcoming, and it was by far the biggest party each year. Try that today? No way. Students of others races would not even be welcomed at the party to dance to rap music because this would be pretending and seen as cultural appropriation. The activists today are not about sharing culture or teaching about culture; they are about making sure people segregate their cultures and respect some weird imaginary lines that they make up.

The LGBT club also threw a party in October. Attracted everyone and the person who put in on when I was there used to get a kick out of the fact that the party was so much fun that there were often more straight people there than LGBT people. The best sign I saw in 1981 advertising the party was “Come get your gay on.” I thought it was great advertising and, lucky for me, met my first girlfriend there - we were both straight. I could not see such a party happening today without gay students wondering why so many straight students were there taking up their "space’ and “culture.”

One Hispanic group (there were a couple) did something cool one year - it gave out winter shawls with beautiful prints of the native countries of South America. So there you had a bunch of non-hispanic students walking around with these shawls in the winter (damn warm too) with no activists screaming cultural appropriation and the like - well, that would have been dumb since it was was the activists who gave the shawls to us. They shared their culture.

My point is that the activist today are made of wholly different cloth and many have made it so that one cannot even talk to them in a constructive way. I talked to many a activists back in the 80s and they talked back and engaged in serious debate. And I do know they did not called me names when I disagreed with them.

My DSs are having the opposite experience at the same schools. Ergo, different activists with vastly different purposes and objectives.