The Oberlin Review October 27, 2017
established 1874
Volume 146, Number 7
General Faculty Approves Honor Code Changes Lila Michaels
College first-year Ben Diener talks at the Student-Trustee forum on Oct. 12. The Board of Trustees recently rejected the Student Trustee Task Force’s proposal to add a student trustee to the board. Photo by Daniel Firebanks
Trustees Reject Proposal for Student Representative Sydney Allen News Editor Former Student Senate Liaison and fifth-year double-degree student Jeremy Poe submitted a letter to the Review 18 months ago calling for student representation on the Board of Trustees. After months of follow-up activism and mobilization from students and Oberlin community members, the board officially rejected a resolution proposing student representatives during their quarterly meetings Oct. 5–7. The proposal requested that the board allow students to sit in on its meetings to improve transparency and communication between the board and student body. The board’s Student Trustee Task Force — formed after March’s TrusteeSenate retreat to investigate the potential benefits of adding student representation — drafted the proposal. The task force was created due to outspoken student demand after a petition was submitted to the board with over 150 signatures and a protest outside the retreat. The task force was composed of two students — Student Senate chair Thobeka Mnisi and Student Senator Josh Koller, both College seniors; and three board members — Jacob Gayle, OC ’79, Anne Chege, OC ’16, and Ed Helms, OC ’96. The Board of Trustees Chair Chris Cananvan, OC ’84, also attended some of the meetings. Students received word of the rejection through an Oct. 9 Student
Senate email after the weekend of board meetings. “This is not the outcome we were hoping for and working towards for the last two years,” wrote Senate in an email. “We want to extend our heartfelt thanks to all of the students who came to the trustee fora on Thursday night.” Canavan released a report Tuesday detailing the board’s discussions during the weekend, including their decision to reject the proposal. “A healthy board is one on which every trustee feels absolutely comfortable thinking out loud,” Canavan wrote in the statement. “Trustees are no less human than students: when we think out loud, we take note of who’s in the room, consciously or subconsciously. Most trustees, including those who might otherwise support the resolution, worry that some of us would think out loud less candidly if students were in the room. As chair, that’s unacceptable to me.” For some students who have worked for greater representation during their time at Oberlin, the rejection was a major blow. “It more or less baffles me that these couple dozen highly-qualified adults who care so much about Oberlin — they’ve all worked in professions where they have had to deal with some uncomfortable situations, where they’ve had to navigate that — it seems are just so frightened by students that they don’t think they can speak their mind in front of students,” Koller said. Koller emphasized the importance of
student voices on campus, particularly in crucial decisions that affect the longterm viability of the College. “I think [the stated reasoning] says something kind of scary about the board,” he said. “Students are not nearly the only important constituents of the school, but we are more or less the lifeblood of the College and Conservatory.” Canavan said that although the board won’t be accepting a student representative, it is still actively discussing ways to better engage students. “There will be an ongoing commitment to thinking about board governance and thinking about how the board works,” he said. “That should include thinking about how we engage with students. We view this as an evolution, and I don’t think anyone suggests that that evolution should stop where it is. We just need to find out what that next step looks like.” President Carmen Ambar said that given this closed avenue, students should seek other channels to voice their thoughts within the current confines of representation. “One of the things I would encourage students to do is to also think about the ways [they] can engage with the board and have [their] views heard,” Ambar said. “That may not result in student participation on the board in the way that students perceive it now. At the end of the day the board has made a decision. That doesn’t mean the board is not thinking about other options.”
The General Faculty Council and Student Senate voted on proposed revisions to the Honor Code and the Campus Code of Conduct during the General Faculty meeting Oct. 4. The Honor Code amendments passed thanks to overwhelming support from faculty, though Student Senate voted unanimously against the changes. Revisions to the Campus Code of Conduct were tabled and will be revisited at the General Faculty meeting in November. With the Honor Code amendments, students will now receive communications regarding Honor Code violations and updates via email rather than through their OCMR mailboxes. The language within the Honor Code has also been changed, replacing the phrase “judicial system” with “student conduct system.” Additionally, there will no longer be an option for a secondary appeal to the President’s Office. The period that a student may remain on campus after being suspended for an Honor Code violation has been extended from two to five days. The window for appeal has also been reduced from ten business days to five business days. These changes have been effective since the Oct. 4 meeting. “Overall, the goal for the revisions is to provide an update to policies to reflect changes in, for example, best practices, state and federal laws, and technology,” said Thom Julian, assistant dean of students and director of the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards. “Oberlin community members should know that there was a very long process to recommend the changes that were presented at the October General Faculty meeting.” Student Senate Vice Chair and College junior Kameron Dunbar said that Senate voted against the Honor Code revisions but did not strongly reject them. “Part of why we objected to it was that it was the first time we were seeing it, so it almost felt as though these changes were being railroaded in, and we weren’t sure where they were coming from,” Dunbar said. Julian said the process was meant to “make policies more accessible.” However, Dunbar questions if the changes will cause problems for some students, pointing to the shortened window for appeal. “By shortening that timeframe, I think we reduce students’ abilities to make those decisions with the sort of conscientious thought processes that they need,” Dunbar said. With no official communication to students regarding the changes, many don’t understand the General Faculty or administration’s intentions behind the amendments. “It doesn’t seem like a super huge deal to me, but I also don’t understand why it’d be necessary,” said College first-year Kate Fishman. The changes were the result of a 10-month See Code, page 4,
CONTENTS NEWS
OPINIONS
Election Brings Opportunity 05 Editorial: Policy of Silence Threatens Students for Change in School District 02
ResEd Undergoes Structural Changes 03
06 Letters to the Editors: 2017 Candidates and Issues
The Oberlin Review | October 27, 2017
07 Athletics Encourages Toxic Belief Systems THIS WEEK
The Buckland Museum of Witchcraft and Magick 08
ARTS & CULTURE
SPORTS
11
On the Record with Nikita Makarenko
15
Oberlin Professor Unveils Critically Acclaimed Novel
16 Forum Mediates Sports
12
Lords Eliminate Yeomen From Playoff Contention Dialogue
oberlinreview.org facebook.com/oberlinreview TWITTER @oberlinreview INSTAGRAM @ocreview
1