Affirmative Action Must Be

OPINIONSOPINIONS

March 11, 2022 Established 1874 Volume 151, Number 14

LETTER TO THE EDITORS

Anti-Mahallati Protests Lack Context

My thanks to the Review for its most recent story about the controversy involving Professor of Religion Mohammad Jafar Mahallati, as reported by Managing Editor Gigi Ewing (“Continued College Inaction Provokes Second Demonstration Against Mahallati,” The Oberlin Review, March 4, 2022). As the story noted, I have done extensive research on the controversy. I would like to emphasize some additional points that I think the Oberlin community should think about in considering the issues involved.

In general, there is no statute of limitations on human rights violations of the kinds involved in the 1988 state-sanctioned executions in Iran. Anyone who participated in — or supported either directly or indirectly — those human rights violations can still be and should be held to account. That should be done according to fair judicial proceedings or investigations that weigh evidence in an objective manner.

A key question in this is whether Professor Mahallati had direct knowledge of the executions at the time he made various statements before the U.N. that questioned reports originating with Amnesty International. So far, I have found no evidence that he would have had either direct or indirect knowledge of the executions from sources inside Iran. The executions were carried out in extreme secrecy. They did not become public knowledge in Iran until shortly after Mahallati was dismissed from his position as the U.N. ambassador to Iran.

It is well-documented that Mahallati played a key role in gaining Iran’s acceptance of the U.N. resolution that ended the Iran-Iraq war. He did that despite significant opposition from inside Iran to his efforts. His arrest and imprisonment in Iran after he was dismissed from his U.N. position are indicative of the risks he took to bring an end to a war that by best estimates killed 500,000 people on each side and produced in excess of 1,000,000 casualties.

The issues involved in this controversy are complex. My research into these issues is ongoing, and there are several questions I am still examining. As a result of conversations with an Oberlin alum, I have written a 5000-word assessment of the controversy that I have labeled “tentative.” It covers not only questions involving former U.N. Ambassador Mahallati, but also concerns I have regarding the actions of the protest group and its allies.

Ray English

Director of Libraries Emeritus, Oberlin College

SUBMISSIONS POLICY

The Editorial Board encourgages anyone interested in submitting an Opinions piece to email the Opinions editors at opinions@oberlinreview.org to request a copy of the Opinions primer. Opinions expressed in editorials, letters, op-eds, columns, cartoons, and other Opinions pieces do not necessarily reflect those of The Oberlin Review staff. Submission of content to the Review constitutes an understanding of this publication policy. Any content published by The Oberlin Review forever becomes the property of The Oberlin Review and its administrators. Content creators retain rights to their content upon publication, but the Review reserves the right to republish and/or refuse to alter or remove any content published by the Review. It is up to Senior Staff’s discretion whether to alter content that has already been published. The Oberlin Review appreciates and welcomes letters to the editors and oped submissions. All submissions are printed at the discretion of the Editorial Board. All submissions must be received by Wednesday at 4:30 p.m. in the Opinions email for inclusion in that week’s issue. Full-length pieces should be between 600 and 900 words; letters to the editor should be less than 600 words. All submissions must include contact information, with full names and any relevant titles, for all signatories; we do not publish pieces anonymously. All letters from multiple writers should be carbon-copied to all signatories to confirm authorship. The Review reserves the right to edit all submissions for clarity, length, grammar, accuracy, and strength of argument, and in consultation with Review style. Editors work to preserve the voice of the writers and will clear any major edits with authors prior to publication. Headlines are printed at the discretion of the Editorial Board. The Review will not print advertisements on its Opinions pages. The Review defines an advertisement as any submission that has the main intent of bringing direct monetary gain to a contributor or otherwise promoting an event, organization, or other entity to which the author has direct ties.

EdItOrIal BOard

EdItOrS-IN-ChIEf Anisa Curry Vietze Kushagra Kar

MaNagINg EdItOr Gigi Ewing

OPINIONS EdItOrS Angel Aduwo Emma Benardete Affirmative Action Must Be Upheld

Photo courtesy of KCRG On Jan. 24, the Supreme Court announced that it would hear a challenge to affirmative action with regard to two cases involving Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. These cases could determine the fate of affirmative action not only at these two institutions, but across the nation, especially considering the Supreme Court’s current conservative supermajority.

The reemergence of debate around the constitutionality of affirmative action raises the question: why is the practice still necessary for ensuring students of color have access to higher education? Moreover, these cases gives us the opportunity to reframe how we think about not only affirmative action, but also about the continuing, broader issue of diversity — or lack thereof — in higher education.

A common and intensely bigoted misconception is that affirmative action allows underqualified students of color to get into prestigious institutions on the basis of their race alone. This belief, while obviously untrue, also discredits the accomplishments of students of color and perpetuates the harmful notion that being a person of color gives you an easier chance at getting into universities. In reality, affirmative action simply seeks to give traditionally disadvantaged students a more equitable opportunity at accessing higher education.

Another common misconception is that affirmative action involves a quota for a certain number of people of a certain racial group to be accepted. In reality, the 1978 Supreme Court decision deemed a quota-based system unconstitutional. Affirmative action isn’t a single concept or policy. It can take the form of outreach campaigns, targeted recruitment, and employee and management development. Its implementation can vary greatly depending on the institution or company.

Considering the benefits of affirmative action and the history of white supremacy in higher education, it is essential that we campaign for affirmative action to remain firmly within our legal framework. For most of history, colleges and universities were composed almost entirely of white men. Many schools like UNC did not accept any students of color until they were mandated to by the Supreme Court decision on Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. There were schools like Harvard and Oberlin, that did accept students of color — albeit in small numbers — prior to the overturn of segregation. Affirmative action works to combat the legacy of white supremacy by making admission into elite, historically white institutions more accessible to people of color who have grown up facing systemic barriers.

We do not need less affirmative action. If anything, we need more, especially here at Oberlin. Despite being one of the first colleges in the country to start accepting Black students back in 1835, Oberlin today falls short in terms of its Black student population. Currently only 5 percent of Oberlin students are Black, compared to an average of 15 percent across U.S. baccalaureate institutions.

Outlawing affirmative action would likely further diminish the small proportion of Black and Brown students at small, elite liberal arts colleges like Oberlin. In the event that affirmative action is found to be unconstitutional, Oberlin, and all colleges, must take steps to recruit Black students and provide adequate aid to those who apply. Adopting a need-blind admissions process, which Oberlin currently does not employ, would help counteract the effects of affirmative action being gutted by allowing the College to accept more low-income and Black students.

Overturning affirmative action would leave colleges — even private colleges like Oberlin — with their hands tied, limiting options to cultivate the type of equitable community we want on our campus. If the Supreme Court decides that affirmative action is unconstitutional, Oberlin and other schools like it must institute other policies to protect the Black and Brown students already on campus.

Demand for Creative Writing Courses Not Met by Department’s Size

Faculty Sponsors Should Be Lenient with Winter Term Projects

Aniella Day Columnist

During my first year at Oberlin, I was pretty sure that I wanted to double major in Creative Writing and Gender, Sexuality, and Feminist Studies. I signed up for Introduction to Writing Poetry and Introduction to GSFS my first semester. The professor who taught Intro to Poetry in fall 2018 no longer works at Oberlin, but the way they taught the class was incredibly frustrating and disheartening for me.

I heard over and over, “It’s so hard to be a Creative Writing major; it’s so competitive.” So in my second semester, I focused on other topics, trying out new subjects like Computer Science and Psychology, as well as delving into my love for feminist theory by taking two 200-level GSFS classes. Creative Writing ended up slipping to the back of my mind as I was certain that I wouldn’t get into a class even if I tried.

My second year, I decided to give Creative Writing another try and took a class called Strangeness and Surprise with Visiting Assistant Professor of Creative Writing Robin Beth Schaer. I loved this class. I got to experiment and try new, weird things with my writing. The prompts that Professor Schaer gave us introduced me to new ideas that I never would have thought of on my own. I spoke with Professor Schaer about how the class I took my first year had discouraged me from the subject and she told me to keep trying. She was a new faculty member that semester, but she was the most welcoming and encouraging member of the Creative Writing department I had met so far.

I took the spring semester of my second year off, but I had already declared GSFS as my major. I was scared that if I didn’t also apply for the Creative Writing major that semester, I would never get into the program. So I applied, even though I was away from Oberlin and had only taken one of two required 200-level courses. If I had been at Oberlin that semester, I would have taken a Creative Writing class and been on track to declare the major. When I got the email that I’d been rejected, I was overwhelmingly confused. I thought that the application process was merely a formality to weed out people who weren’t serious about the major. I had worked very hard on my application. I took it very personally at the time: Did they think I was a bad writer? Was my application not convincing enough?

A friend recently told me that a Creative Writing professor told them that the major application was simply a formality, and that everyone who applied got in. However, I have an email from the department chair of the Creative Writing department sitting in my inbox telling me otherwise, but that I should apply again next semester. The ethics of disseminating a promise that all people will get into the major seem questionable, especially when I know for a fact this promise is false.

Eventually, I came to realize that the reason I was not let into the major was because I most likely would not have been able to finish it with the condensed schedule my semester off forced me to take on. It would have been too difficult for me to get into the courses I needed for the major. The classes in the Creative Writing department are some of the most sought-after classes at Oberlin — and for good reason. The ones I have taken have given me some of the most healing, wonderful, silly, and fun experiences I’ve had at Oberlin. Thankfully, not being a major did not stop me from continuing to take Creative Writing classes and building a strong relationship with Assistant Professor of Creative Writing Lynn Powell during my third and fourth years.

However, I still wonder about the reasoning behind requiring students to apply for the major. Creative Writing is the only department on campus that has this requirement. I understand the desire to keep class sizes small, but I think there is something very important about allowing Oberlin students to experiment with the classes from different disciplines. It seems to me that if someone wants to declare a major, they should be able to.

This is not to say that the Creative Writing department is purposefully making things difficult and excluding interested students. I love all the faculty members that I have taken classes with and still feel very connected to the department, despite not being a major. I have been able to take all the classes that I have wanted to as a minor in the department, and I definitely think that things have moved in a positive direction since my first year. I appreciate all the hard work that Creative Writing professors put into their classes and the attention they give to each of their students.

My main plea to the Creative Writing department is to let more non majors take Creative Writing classes. I understand that the reason space is limited is because it is best to keep class sizes small. However, shouldn’t the solution to that problem be to hire more faculty? It seems to me that the Creative Writing department is one of the biggest pulls for many prospective students. Shouldn’t such a popular program be given more resources so more people can take part in it?

Emma Benardete Opinions Editor

One of Oberlin’s most unique selling points is our Winter Term program. Students must complete three Winter Term projects to graduate, and the time is supposed to be an opportunity for students to delve into something they would not otherwise have the time to do.

One crucial aspect of the Winter Term program is that all projects are graded pass/fail, which, in theory, provides students with an opportunity to leave their comfort zones with minimal consequence, allowing them to set ambitious goals and experiment with new activities that they may not be particularly experienced with. However, it seems as though there are at least a few professors on campus who focus too much on the student’s final product, and not enough on the time, effort, and learning that went into the project. Winter Term is supposed to be about learning. Project goals should be flexible, and students should not be penalized for having to change their project if the original goal is too lofty. Receiving credit for a Winter Term project should be contingent upon putting in the work and hours required to have a valuable educational experience, not on doing exactly what you thought you would do when you applied for your project in November. For the most part, faculty members respect this. Plenty of students have had to change their Winter Term goals over the course of the month-long session and have done so without consequence. Nonetheless, I have heard about multiple instances of students failing Winter Term projects, and their professors do not always have good reasons to fail them.

One friend of mine spent their Winter Term writing a full-length play, only to fail their project because they were unable to produce a complete, polished script. Even though they wrote more than 40 pages worth of material, they had not done exactly what they had expected to do vis-à-vis writing a finished script. It is conceivable that, had they set a less ambitious goal for themself, they would have passed handily. Instead, the professor was so set on the original projwhen she sponsored a student who set out to build a mandolin.

“Ultimately, I don’t think the mandolin got built, or it didn’t work … but, to me, that’s okay,” Romano said.

Given this year’s unusual schedule and the extra stress students have had to endure because of it, it was more important than ever that faculty took into account the circumstances surrounding each student’s experience with the program. Unlike most years, where students come into Winter Term from a restful couple weeks of break, this year, students didn’t even have a day to unwind after a stressful and draining finals

Given this year’s unusual schedule and the extra stress students have had to endure because of it, it was more important than ever that faculty took into account the circumstances surrounding each student’s experience with the program.

ect goal that they neglected to take into account the importance of the learning that came from the experience. If a sponsor is considering failing a student, it is critical that they take into account not only the end product but also the experience the student had. I spoke to Robert S. Danforth Professor of History and former Chair of the Winter Term Committee Renee Romano about how she determines whether a student has successfully completed a Winter Term.

“It’s really, ‘Did the student spend the time and show that they spent some time and gave it some thought?’” Romano said. “I’ve had Winter Terms where a student sets out to do something and it doesn’t work. That’s still a Winter Term and it’s still a good Winter Term. … To me, the only time someone doesn’t pass Winter Term is if they just don’t do the work.”

She recounted an instance years ago period.

“There was no downtime, there was no time for reboot, and it was just hard,” Romano said.

Romano sponsored a group research course for Winter Term this year, and she worked to ensure that the students were able to have some time to recover from finals. She wanted to make sure she knew how students were doing so she could plan accordingly.

“I told my students in my group Winter Term if they ever felt stressed, they had to come talk to me,” she said.

I asked Romano what advice she would give to faculty sponsors in the event that we have to follow this bizarre Winter Term schedule again, and she emphasized the importance of understanding how the schedule would impact students.

“Like all good pedagogy, be aware as much as you can of what your students are experiencing so that you can try to meet them where they are with what they need,” she said.

For group projects, she said, “If your class is exhausted and you can tell, you may want to throw out your lesson plan and think about, ‘What can we do to make this a learning space even when everybody looks like they just want to crawl under the table?’”

For individual projects, this year’s schedule meant understanding that students have never experienced the back-to-back sequence of school, Winter Term, and school again, and that we may have been more drained than we originally thought when we submitted our project outlines in November.