Assorted Letters to the

AAUP Faculty Respond to Bylaws Revision

To the Oberlin Board of Trustees:

The following statement has been approved unanimously by the Oberlin Chapter of the American Association of University Professors and is sent on behalf of the more than 80 Oberlin faculty who make up that chapter.

The Oberlin Chapter of the American Association of University Professors unequivocally opposes the Board of Trustees’ proposed changes to the bylaws of Oberlin College and Conservatory.

Our objections include (but are not limited to) the following:

The re-writing of Article XV, Section 2 severely limits the role of the faculty in initiating, debating, or approving strategic and operational directions of the College. This marks a sharp break from the bylaws as they have stood since significant modifications in 1946 and 1949 and explicitly places the responsibility for any non-curricular changes in the hands of the president and board. This is nothing less than a denial of the central principle of Oberlin’s system of shared governance: that the faculty are regularly and necessarily engaged in changes to the operations and strategic directions of the college.

The re-writing of Article XIII, Section 3 significantly diminishes the role of the faculty in appointing a dean. The president is given wide latitude to ignore the recommendation of the faculty search committee — whose members have up until now been elected by the faculty. As the role of the dean is primarily to lead the faculty, we believe that full faculty involvement and buy-in is necessary for a dean to be successful.

The removal of Article XV, Section 3 takes away the faculty’s ability to make or approve legislation regulating student conduct and wellbeing. We are concerned about this change as we believe that student wellbeing cannot be artificially separated from student learning. While the proposed changes allow a role for faculty in defining “those aspects of student life that relate to students’ academic experience,” we feel that the new bylaws interpret “academic experience” so narrowly that it isn’t clear if we would be allowed to weigh in on issues beyond our divisional concerns (as Article XV, Section 2 takes away the place for General Faculty to come together and discuss with students and administrators those policies that affect the whole campus beyond our academic and musical divisions).

In brief, if passed, this set of amendments would revoke Oberlin’s long tradition of a strong faculty role in shared governance.

Although the proposed changes to the bylaws use the term “shared governance,” they do not meet the standards of meaningful faculty participation outside of the curriculum. They give us no real say over the conditions in which we work and our students learn. It puts the people in charge of managing the College’s finances in charge of holding the institution to its core values and determining, with minimal input from the faculty, its strategic directions. The faculty is not just an employee group in a corporation, but the primary reservoir of teaching skill, research expertise, professional integrity, and institutional memory.

We stand with our elected committee members and other employee groups at Oberlin College in unequivocally rejecting these proposed amendments as they currently stand and demanding a process of meaningful research, deliberation, and debate before enacting these sweeping and permanent changes.

Signed, Executive Committee of Oberlin’s AAUP: Kirk Ormand, Nathan A. Greenberg professor of Classics DeSales Harrison, professor of English Stephen Checkoway, associate professor of Computer Science Marta Laskowski, Robert S. Danforth professor of Biology Matthew Senior, Ruberta T. McCandless professor of French Claire Solomon, associate professor of Hispanic Studies and Comparative Literature

Finney Compact Integral to Oberlin’s Future

Dear Chris Canavan and Oberlin’s Board of Trustees:

When — in 1964 — I accepted a position to teach at Oberlin, I was reluctant to do so because I knew that I had been awarded a Fulbright grant to carry out research in Rome. My mentor at Princeton, in hindsight, wisely advised me to accept the job and to try to take an early leave because, he said, there aren’t many positions like the one at Oberlin.

Once on campus and proud to be part of what I regarded to be the top liberal arts college in the country, I gradually understood why Oberlin enjoyed its distinguished reputation — not only because of its historically liberal activism, its outstanding Conservatory and Allen Memorial Art Museum, and its solid endowment, but also, above all, its excellent, dedicated faculty and exceptional students. What I might call the ethos in which all of that thrived was the sense that Oberlin — whose very purpose is, after all, education — was to an unusual degree steered by its educators; that is, by its faculty who obviously know more and care more about the College’s educational success than anyone else. This, I knew, was the result of the Finney Compact.

During my 35 years at Oberlin, I sadly watched from the inside the College’s fall in national standing, first due to the unpreventable loss of its unique position as a top coed liberal arts college and, in conjunction with that loss, the impact of its adverse geographical location when compared with many of the other co-ed colleges.

Concurrently, Oberlin’s endowment suffered greatly due to its poor management at a time when the endowments of many of the colleges that Oberlin liked to compare itself with grew greatly.

What I have outlined is, to be sure, a simplistic explanation of Oberlin’s decline in national standing, but it nonetheless points to some fundamental reasons that, from its position in the 1960s as the best liberal arts college in the country Oberlin has fallen to, according to the latest U.S. News & World Report’s ranking, an embarrassing 39th place. One might question the basis of such rankings, as I do, yet I do not think we can dismiss the accuracy of the general trend it tracks regarding Oberlin. This leads me to Oberlin today, which suffers from the Gibson’s affair. Thankfully it is over, although its short or longterm fiscal fallout, the extent of which is yet to be seen, is not, nor is its impact on the College’s relationship with donors.

Certainly, the last thing the College needs at this critical time is more negative publicity and further acceleration of its decline. That, I fear, is exactly what the board is inviting by proposing bylaw changes that eviscerate the Finney Compact and the General Faculty’s authority as stated in Article XV, Section 2. The change, to no small degree, will destroy the Oberlin that it has long been.

I will leave it to Oberlin’s active faculty to spell out in detail the consequences of the board’s rewriting of this section. But speaking from the position of an emeritus professor who has loved and supported the College, I am deeply disturbed by the board’s planned action, fearing the damage to Oberlin that surely will ensue.

Sincerely, Richard Spear Mildred Jay Professor of Art History, Emeritus, Oberlin College Affiliate Research Professor, University of Maryland, College Park

GOP Letter Highlights Failures of College’s Mahallati Investigation

On Sept. 28, Republican Representatives Jim Banks and Virginia Foxx sent a letter to Oberlin College and President Carmen Twillie Ambar announcing an investigation into Professor of Religion Mohammad Jafar Mahallati for his “well-documented involvement in human rights abuses while part of the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and his continued support for Iran’s tyrannical regime while under [the College’s] employment.”

As skeptical as the Oberlin community might be of this investigation, I caution us not to dismiss it out of hand.

Congress has the ability to uncover evidence that has eluded international bodies, families and activists, and part-time student journalists. For my own part, despite contributing to the Review’s Nov. 5 editorial “Evidence Against Mahallati Irrefutable,” I was unaware of Mahallati’s involvement with Iran-based journal Sepehr-e-Siasat or his 2018 letter to the Speaker of the Islamic Consultative Assembly asking to censor a critic of the regime, both of which are detailed in the Representatives’ letter.

The end of the letter questions the College’s hiring process for faculty. This seems to be a legitimate area of inquiry — after all, faculty who were involved in Mahallati’s hiring process now hold senior administrative positions at the College. A potential conflict of interest casts doubt upon the College’s own investigative processes. After hiring an anonymous third party to investigate Mahallati, the College never revealed the findings, which emboldened them to declare his innocence. What court of law or institution of common sense would accept such a standard?

This controversy is not only a concern for other countries or outside parties. During my time at the Review, I discussed the Mahallati case with four professors, often on more than one occasion. In each instance, my professors were the first to broach the topic, eager to hear a student’s perspective and share their own thoughts. Several of them were concerned about Mahallati’s potential involvement in covering up the 1988 massacres. None of them outright condemned Mahallati or proclaimed his innocence. Common among my professors, however, remained hope for a proper investigation and doubt of the College’s ability to conduct one. Faculty is possibly wary of speaking publicly about a colleague and confronting a College already keen on stripping their institutional role to its bare bones. Their silence cannot be taken as proof of apathy.

Some may believe that even if Mahallati did cover up the massacres, it was an error of many decades ago. But this is not history. The government that stole so many Iranians from their families in 1988 is the same oppressive regime besieged by protest at this very moment. The longevity of despotism relies upon many averted eyes and shut mouths.

It is true that the letter treads well beyond the current allegations against Professor Mahallati, inquiring if Oberlin College has received funding from the Islamic Republic of Iran and detailing the stabbing of Salman Rushdie, a recent tragedy that holds no bearing on Mahallati’s culpability for Iran’s cover-up of the 1988 executions. At times the letter is hyperbolic, with obvious political underpinnings. Reading these words, I can only imagine Representatives Banks and Foxx salivating at the opportunity to mire Oberlin — an institution they disdain — in further ignominy.

Yet the investigation led by Representatives Banks and Foxx, however flawed in its intent, may be the best chance for the families of those killed by the Iranian regime, and for the Oberlin community, to learn the truth of Mahallati’s involvement in the massacre. For this, I am ashamed. I am ashamed that truth arrives at our doorstep embossed in animosity, rather than hand-delivered by those with love in their hearts, a love for Oberlin as conditional as it is unbounded, as I have.

I remind myself that I must only care about the political alignment of Jim Banks and Virginia Foxx insofar that it may impact the veracity of their findings. If we are disappointed in the messengers, we have only ourselves to blame. The Oberlin community has outsourced this controversy, content to stride past protesting families in Tappan Square or argue in Facebook comments sections under attention-grabbing headlines rather than dutifully read the body of news at their fingertips. And so, our truth deferred has become the tool of another’s malice.

LETTERS TO THE EDITORS

Current Trustees Demonstrate Poor Judgement in Revising Bylaws

Dear Editors,

As an Oberlin alum of the class of 1984 and a former visiting faculty member, I have always been proud of the democratic governance of the College as set forth in the Finney Compact, which places the faculty as the principal governing authority, both in matters relating to academic substance as well as in relation to broader matters affecting the day-to-day operations of the College. I was deeply disturbed to learn that this is about to change, with the Board of Trustees seizing much greater control as part of actions it plans to take on or around Oct. 6.

In my view, there is no less qualified nor capable body than the current Trustees, who have demonstrated poor judgment on a number of key matters relating to their fiduciary and moral responsibilities, including, but certainly not limited to, union busting of long-term employees, outsourcing of health services to a religiously-affiliated provider, and the recent litigation with Gibson’s.

Because of this contemplated action, which I presume to be a foregone conclusion under the current regime, I will no longer feel comfortable recommending that my students consider attending Oberlin, nor will I donate to a college that has so devalued its long tradition of meaningful faculty governance. Withdrawing my support for the College makes me deeply sad, but I cannot, in good conscience, do otherwise.

Sincerely, Howard Fredrics, DMA OC ’84

Conservatory Performance at Kendal Was Remarkable

This letter is in response to Nikki Keating’s “Students Self Promote Performances Outside Conservatory,” Sept. 23, 2022

Dear Editor,

As a new resident of Kendal at Oberlin, I was recently privileged to hear a concert by three Oberlin Conservatory students performing both solos and as a trio in the Heiser Auditorium. This experience offered a venue for students to perform before an attentive and receptive audience. What a wonderful way for students to give back after having studied for so many years. The professional and mature presentation was remarkable. Their energy and joy in playing their instruments were very evident, and the quality of music was exceptional. We residents are indeed honored to have this and so many other College performances here on our campus.

It is my hope that other local schools, churches, and other community organizations will reach out, offering new opportunities for these Conservatory students to play before other audiences. These young musicians will not disappoint, benefitting both the musicians and those in the public sector.

Sincerely, Sue Harper

many students live here, it’s almost impossible to get a moment alone or a quiet place to study by yourself after hours in Oberlin if you don’t have a single-occupancy room.

To put a relatively small number of students in an even smaller space makes for an interesting mix of all the worst aspects of urban and rural living. The way I see it, the benefit of living in an urban environment is that you have a million neighbors and don’t have to know any of them; the benefit of living in a rural environment is that you don’t have any neighbors in the first place.

At Oberlin, I would say that your average student (with the exception of those living in OSCA housing) does not know much about the person or people living on the other side of their drywall, save for what information they chose to write down on the little green slip taped to their door. Despite this, it seems as though we are all in a constant battle with each other for menial convenience. There’s a seemingly never-ending search for open desks, sofas, laundry machines, and practice rooms. There’s a constant scramble for the cleanest table in Stevenson Dining Hall, the best-working sink in the bathroom on your floor, the warmest and brightest spot in the library.

Of course, the unfortunate truth is that, like most “simple fix” problems in Oberlin, what it comes down to is cost. It costs money to have people working in campus buildings late at night while fewer people sit in them. Institutions like Oberlin don’t want to run the risk of illegal activity occurring inside their facilities when they don’t have people there to operate them. According to ZipRecruiter, a campus security guard makes an average of 14 dollars and 50 cents an hour in the state of Ohio — that’s 116 more dollars a day if the College were to keep a space like Wilder Hall open for 24 hours.

However, while the added cost would undeniably exist, it would not be unprecedented. I know from speaking with students who began their Oberlin careers before the pandemic that Mudd used to be open until 2 a.m. For a space designed to be used as an area to study, I don’t think that bringing back old hours would be unreasonable — nor would the extension of library hours on weekends. I know that I personally use weekends as an opportunity to wake up late (the day I find myself in an upright position at 8 a.m. on a Saturday will be a grim one) and get my work done for the week ahead. I hate to admit it, but I rarely have anywhere to be on a Saturday until about 10 at night, so where should I go when the library closes at 6?

I’m asking for this because I am a person who, for better or for worse, can not think of a time in the past four to five years when I have gone to bed before midnight for more than two nights in a row. I do all my work in the library under the harsh glare of an overhead LED light or the blue glow of a computer screen, and with my luck, I could accumulate over a hundred semesters in residence at this school and never be assigned a single-occupancy room. All I want is a little peace and quiet. Lying to security guards and cleaning staff about not noticing the time does not make me feel good — it’s embarrassing having to skulk out of a building into the cold night like a drunk seeking refuge when the pub finally closes. Not to be dramatic, but I really would just like one last drink.

College Should Increase Academic Commons Hours

Continued from page 5

College Acknowledges Need for Mailroom Renovation

Henry Larson Columnist

Although we are living in an increasingly digitized world, mail is still a vital part of most people’s lives. In fact, while the internet may be propelling physical letters toward extinction with email becoming faster and cheaper, the accessibility and convenience of websites like Amazon has had the opposite effect on package mail. According to data about the United States Postal Service’s deliveries (which is a fraction of America’s total package volume), the yearly package volume has more than doubled from 3.5 billion parcels in 2012 to 7.6 billion parcels in 2021.

Because of this trend, and because online shopping is especially ingrained in the lives of young Americans, Oberlin’s student mailroom still plays a very important role. It’s therefore extremely troubling that the mailroom staff have seemed to be consistently overwhelmed since the start of this semester. It’s normal for things to be slow and lines to be long at the beginning of the school year when every office on campus is getting back into the swing of things and students are ordering books and supplies en masse. However, classes have been in session for over a month and this problem is still ongoing. It’s not uncommon to wait in line for over 15 minutes to pick up a package, and the mailroom is often significantly delayed when it comes to sorting through deliveries. In some of my classes, students are unable to complete the required readings because their book has already arrived, but the mailroom hasn’t processed it yet.

From an outside view, the backlog in the mailroom may seem like a minor annoyance, but Oberlin students depend on this resource. The town of Oberlin does have quite a few shops that provide supplies students may need, but it’s still very limited. The mailroom becomes pivotal when it comes to getting last-minute winter clothes or buying necessary textbooks when the bookstore’s copies are too overpriced or it doesn’t have the exact book you require. Beyond that, there are many students who need to receive certain packages in a timely manner, such as medication or contact lenses. Without their orders, some people cannot go about their daily lives, which makes the creation of a more efficient mailroom even more critical.

This concern has not gone unnoticed. At the Wilder Hall renovation talks on Oct. 3, the administration provided information about a number of planned changes in the student mailroom, slated to begin over the upcoming Winter Term. Among these changes is the switch from individual mailboxes to larger lockers where letters and packages would be delivered. Apparently, these lockers would hold one piece of mail at a time but would be shared, and they would be grouped based on package size. Students receiving mail would get a notification with a locker number and combination and could pick up their delivery any time Wilder is open, potentially replacing the current OCMR system. It is important to note that these proposals have not yet been set into motion, and that the mailroom itself will announce anything official.

These modifications have the capacity to significantly reduce the strain that has been forced upon the mailroom. It would allow students to pick up packages at any time convenient for them, potentially preventing a buildup of packages. Additionally, with deliveries being sent straight to lockers, long lines would be avoided. The proposed locks would definitely be an improvement over the old, finicky combination locks currently in use, and it would be helpful to get a notification for letters and packages. However, there’s also a host of new complications created by this plan. The prospective phasing out of OCMR numbers is problematic because the number is part of every student’s address and could lead to some confusion regarding where packages, letters, and paychecks are sent. In the Wilder renovation talk, it was mentioned that whether or not OCMR numbers will disappear is up to the mailroom, and it likely won’t lead to rerouting errors. However, the ambiguity is still distressing.

It’s also unclear how packages that are too large to fit in the lockers will be dealt with and it seems that with each new package or letter getting its own locker, the lockers will be constantly full, which doesn’t solve the mailroom’s mail buildup problem. There was mention of the addition of lockers owned and operated by Amazon outside of the mailroom, but these additions may not be built in a time frame that would mitigate the complete fill-up of the new lockers in the short term. It appears that such upgrades don’t address the root of the problem — the mailroom doesn’t have the resources to sort through packages quickly. Unfortunately, a shiny new locker system isn’t going to solve that.

All of this is to say that despite any renovations that the College may proceed with, the number of people who rely on the mailroom isn’t going to decrease anytime soon. Workers will still have to receive and organize large numbers of packages, and students will still have questions about deliveries or need to collect certain packages directly from a staff member. With this in mind, while the mailroom is crafting their agenda moving forward, it should consider hiring more workers. It’s not the fault of those who work in the mailroom that this is happening — the issue at hand is likely an expected one with the massive influx of students this year. They’re overwhelmed, but with more hands on deck, things would likely be able to run more smoothly.

One final thing to bear in mind is that we, the students of Oberlin, have some responsibility in this matter. It’s all too common for students to wait to pick up their deliveries until they have several packages in the mailroom or to go on Amazon shopping sprees — actions which contribute to the deluge of packages that has challenged the mailroom this year. In addition to the mailroom changing things up, we need to change things up too, whether that means only purchasing what we feel is absolutely essential or shopping locally before turning to online resources. It is only through cooperation between the students and the administration that mail will consistently be available on time.