College’s Concerns Around Liability Stifle Progressive Values

in torture and sex trafficking.

One of his contemporaries, Bartolome de las Casas, wrote in his diary, “Such inhumanities and barbarisms were committed in my sight as no age can parallel. My eyes have seen these acts so foreign to human nature that now I tremble as I write.” Our committee seeks to tell the truth about our history. We wanted to stop the celebration of Columbus as some kind of hero who should be revered. He did not discover our country and never set foot upon the soil that would later become the United States.

We think it is better to recognize the true people of our land. By recognizing that this land was inhabited by people before colonization and celebrating them instead, we take steps toward restorative justice. We need to acknowledge the lies and myths that have infiltrated our history and allow the truth to rise.

After months of research and meetings, the committee asked to be added to the agenda at City Council. The process requires a reading of the proposal three times. For three months, we answered calls from supporters and reacted to critics, most of whom were Italians who looked at Columbus Day as a kind of Italian heritage celebration. We tried, hopefully successfully, to convince people that we meant no dishonor to Italians; we only object to this one man’s cruelty.

On Aug 21, 2017, Oberlin City Council voted unanimously to enact Indigenous Peoples’ Day and abolish Columbus Day.

As we celebrated, the Indigenous Peoples’ Day Committee acknowledged that this was only the first step. Our goal is to continue to educate about and advocate for Indigenous issues. We hold events in the community throughout the year, and each October, we have a celebration.

Aside from being a mother, this activism has been the most important work I’ve ever done.

I am immensely proud of what we have been able to accomplish and the connections that I have made. My great-great-grandmother lived in a time when

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 the Editors-in-Chief whether to alter content that has already been published. The Oberlin Review appreciates and welcomes letters to the editors and op-ed submissions. All submissions are printed at the discretion of the Editors-in-Chief. All submissions must be received by Wednesday at 4 p.m. in the Opinions email for inclusion in that week’s issue. Full-length pieces should be between 800 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.

Last September marked the conclusion of the Oberlin College v. Gibsons Bros., Inc. lawsuit, with the institution paying out $36.59 million to the local business. Following the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision to not hear Oberlin’s appeal to the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas’ ruling, the Review published an editorial titled “Court Decision on Gibson’s Suit Threatens Student Speech,” The Oberlin Review, Sept. 16, 2022.

The editorial considered the possibility of increased conservatism toward student protest across higher education. Now, all these months later, the signs of anxiety toward possible litigation are turning up a dime a dozen.

As of last July, the College employs an associate vice president of risk Management & Operations, currently Kalinda Watson, a new role on Oberlin’s campus. While roles like Watson’s aren’t altogether new to higher education, the introduction of the position to Oberlin is indicative of tightening attitudes among administrators toward the potential liability student protests present. One crucial way in which the administration, though not necessarily Watson herself, has changed aspects of student life deemed capable of risk is by prohibiting classes or activities, such as Barefoot Dialogue, from taking place in faculty or off campus households.

This may seem innocuous at first glance, but consider the bigger picture of risk management: last October, the Board of Trustees voted to change language in the institution’s bylaws to erase any delegation of authority to faculty councils in matters outside curriculum. When asked about the reason for this revision by the Review, Trustee Chuck Birenbaum, OC ’79, outlined the sta te of abundant litigation concerning the College and the necessity of risk aversion.

“The board recognized our claims history was a lot greater than it should be for an institution of Oberlin’s size,” Birenbaum said. “The number of lawsuits, employment cases, Title IX claims, personal injury cases, the

Gibson’s case — which we can call a torts case — all these claims demonstrated that Oberlin needed to take a hard look at itself in some ways that it hasn’t before. One of the things that [Oberlin] did was it sought professional advice on risk management.”

Despite joint student, staff, and faculty protests against this decision last October, the Board elected to add language to the amended bylaws that specified faculty should be consulted on long term institutional planning — a symbolic gesture of collaboration in an otherwise unilateral decision. Symbolic gesturing unfortunately cuts both ways, as is apparent in the amendment to visiting assistant professor contracts that now explicitly state their employment can be terminated at the College’s will. While Ohio is an at-will employment state, the choice to introduce that language to contracts is conspicuous within the present reality of the College redoubling efforts to implement legal safeguards against potential liabilities. Last week, the Review published a statement by the Oberlin American Association of University Professors Executive Committee that considered the risks to academic freedom this shift in contract language enables (“AAUP Asks Oberlin to Value Faculty,” The Oberlin Review, April 21, 2023).

This emphasis on litigation is visible from student and faculty affairs to pedagogical opportunities like the Conversations with Counsel that the Office of the Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary have hosted all year. For yesterday’s session of the discussion series, the event description read, “We will explore a variety of topics, such as specific actions that could be attributable to the College (including social media and other speech), implications of actions taken pursuant to one’s employment, and the creation of obligations on behalf of the College.” None of this is happening with any malicious intent, rather efforts like Conversations with Counsel seem like a unique op- portunity to understand the inner workings of the College. At the same time, the institution’s obsession with finding and sealing these gaps in its operation can come at the expense of the wants and needs of our collegiate community.

So where does this meet the current reality of activism on campus? It seems unlikely that a college living in fear of litigation, and one that has used legal technicalities to dismiss concerns expressed in protest, will behave favorably toward activist efforts in the years to come. Further, several of these decisions were made unilaterally or without disclosure to the broader public. The room to have an effectively informed conversation is shrinking, which makes it tougher for students to know the stakes of what’s happening on our campus. This has the potential to limit students’ ability to organize and engage in discourse with administrators. In fact, since spring 2022, the highest student turnouts have been at protests surrounding faculty issues, organized by faculty and staff. It isn’t that the state of discourse in College issues is shrinking, but rather that certain kinds of decisions have become less visible and the likelihood of being heard has become more distant.

Oberlin’s student body has historically been defined by its involvement in nationwide movements and activism in general. These tightening restrictions and a larger focus on risk management and liability within our administration threaten to curb the progressive nature of Oberlin and, to a certain extent, limit what makes Oberlin the institution that drew many of us here in the first place. As we near the end of the year, as seniors graduate to go on to involve themselves in the outside world, as Oberlin prepares itself to welcome another first-year class, we must ask the school and the students what kind of institution we want to be and what kind of institution we want to be a part of. Student activism in Oberlin is integral to the culture. Without it, what do we stand for?

Editorials are the responsibility of the Review Editorial Board — the Editors-in-Chief, Managing Editor, and Opinions Editors — and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff of the Review

Take Back the Night Promotes

Intersectional Allyship

Avery Russell

This year, I organized Take Back the Night, a Survivors of Sexual Harm and Allies event that was intended to support and uplift sexual harm survivors and raise awareness about gender-based violence. My experience planning and speaking at Take Back the Night was emotional, exhausting, joyful, saddening, and incredibly rewarding.

Take Back the Night, a worldwide protest to combat sexual and gender-based violence, was first held in 1877 in London, England. Today, college campuses around the United States continue to hold Take Back the Night in support of sexual harm survivors.

Whenever I tell people I’m involved in SOSHA, there is a moment of silence. I can sense others’ discomfort with the simple acknowledgement that I am a survivor of sexual harm. I understand this. Sexual harm and gender-based violence is challenging to reckon with, and many people have not processed their own experiences of sexual violence.

However, approximately one in three women worldwide experience some sort of physical or sexual violence in their lifetime, and women in college between the ages of 18–24 are three times more likely to experience sexual violence than women in general.

It is clear that sexual violence is a massive issue, especially on college campuses. I joined SOSHA’s advocacy team to bring these issues of sexual violence to light.

After my experience with assault on Oberlin’s campus in

See Establishment, page 7 See Organizers, page 6