Opinions
The Oberlin Review, September 27, 2013
Page 7
Sunny with a Chance of Cynicism: Keep Oberlin Pretty Libby Salemi Columnist When I first came to Oberlin, I was under the impression that I would be considered normal and maybe even slightly conservative when thrown into a population of super bizarre, politically correct, environmentalist hippies. What became evident after talking to an RA about the impact that our energy and garbage waste has on the world, is that I am the super bizarre, politically correct, environmentalist hippie my brain never fathomed I could be. And since I’ve accepted this identity, I’ve also accepted the duties and anxieties that come along with it. On good days, you may see me running around the dorms turning off the light switches at timed intervals. On slightly more stressful days, I’m in a state of panic, practically pulling my hair out from the anxiety that the dripping faucets and
shower heads are giving me. But as much as these little inefficiencies chip away at my armor, I can understand why students forget to turn off the lights or turn the faucets off all the way. Sometimes we forget. We’re all human; I do it, too. In a lot of the dorms, the faucets and showers are crap and I have to use all of my body’s strength to get them to turn off. It’s completely understandable that sometimes they’re left to drip for a little longer than they should. It’s totally OK. I’d prefer if it didn’t happen, but I can (kind of) let it slide. What I can’t understand is why the hell there’s so much garbage on North Quad all the time this year. Every weekend there’s an entire 30-rack of Black Label beer cans scattered around the Wisdom Tree. People dump piles of cigarette butts on the ground for reasons that I can’t even imagine. Seriously, how do you even manage that? And there are always some nasty food items and wrappers just chilling out all throughout
Curfew Laws Ignore U.S. Constitution Aaron Pressman Contributing Writer
With rates of violence involving teenagers on the rise, more and more U.S. cities have been proposing and implementing curfews, prohibiting minors from being on the streets during nighttime hours. I don’t know if local politicians have simultaneously lost their sense of logic and their trust in the United States Constitution, but these laws are some of the most ridiculous ones in the books. The most recent curfew proposition occurred Monday, when a city council member in Oakland, CA, one of the most crime-ridden cities in America, suggested that Oakland jump on the bandwagon and join hundreds of other U.S. cities by implementing its own teenage curfew. The proposed curfew would bar minors from being in any public place from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. and from being on the streets during school hours. The law would mean that minors could be hit with fines or even jail time just for being on the streets or in businesses at a prohibited hour. Current curfews in other cities are very similar, with each city holding slightly different laws regarding the prohibited hours and the maximum punishments. Each curfew does, however, have a few characteristics in common in all cities: They are ineffective, unconstitutional and they create unnecessary profiling. Although banning teenagers from roaming the streets at night would reduce crime in theory, the laws overlook a lot of societal complexities. In general, teens intending to commit crime do not have any problem breaking the curfew as well. The parents of these children are not effectively regulating their children’s behavior and no curfew law is going to stop them. The people the curfew laws keep off the streets are innocent teenagers who would otherwise be engaging in perfectly legal activity. These teenagers and their parents have a respect for law and society, and therefore are going to be the ones who obey the curfew regulations. Taking the good children off the streets and leaving the mischievous ones does nothing to lower the crime rates. Further, many children do not have a safe place to stay at night. This is particularly prevalent in lower-income cities, where many children deal with abusive or uninvolved parents. With these curfew
laws, these children can face legal repercussions for trying to escape their unsafe homes. The curfew laws also lead to a very poor use of police resources. The curfew laws are most necessary in cities with the highest crime rates, which are often also the cities which need productive use of police resources the most. Each minute an officer spends busting a 17-year-old for walking to the drugstore to get medicine for his sick grandparents is an extra minute for a mugger to get away. Furthermore, these laws are unconstitutional and go against the basic principles of this nation. The First Amendment provides the right to peaceful assembly and the Fifth Amendment provides the right to due process of law, both of which are completely undermined by curfew laws. Curfews have historically been a dictatorial tactic used by oppressive regimes or a rare regulation in states in dire emergency — not something that is implemented each night in a country founded on freedom and liberty. The law sets police up for further constitutional rights violations by allowing for profiling on account of age, race and many other factors. Police are not allowed to detain someone without reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed. However, by implemening curfew laws, police are allowed and encouraged to detain suspects merely on the basis that they think they are underage. This can be incredibly problematic, especially because most states do not require citizens to carry identification cards. Police can further use this law to pick and choose suspicious-looking teenagers during curfew hours. This gives free reign for police departments to detain minorities and those who they think look “sketchy.” It should be the responsibility of parents to tell their children when to be home — not the responsibility of the government. Parents know their children personally and can determine their maturity level when deciding whether or not to institute a curfew. Freedom and security are not mutually exclusive. In fact, society functions best when they coexist. Government, it’s time to stop overstepping your bounds because you think it will make society safer. This is the land of the free. Start acting like it.
the week. Why? Why can’t we just pick our stuff up? Is it just laziness or do we actually not understand that garbage belongs in a garbage can? Because if the second one is the problem, I think I might have to transfer out of here. My guess is that the cans and bottles are from underclassmen who don’t want to get caught drinking. This is understandable. But if you’re so worried about getting caught, then why are you drinking in a public space where pretty much everyone can see you? There’s absolutely no logic in that. Go drink in your rooms, children. You’re doing it wrong. I take a lot of pride in going to a school with such a gorgeous campus, so it baffles me when people are so willing to dump their crap all over the quad. We’re super privileged in the sense that we live in a funky little town that gives us plenty of green space to run around in being idiotic. But, instead of being the fun and loveable
kind of idiot, lately we’ve been abusing that privilege by being the kind that ruins everything for everyone else. If you leave garbage all over, you’re damaging the environment. If you’re leaving glass bottles all over, you’re probably damaging some Flying Horsecow’s feet. It really doesn’t take that much effort to throw the wrapper from your DeCafé bagel in the trash bin 30 feet away from you, or take that PBR can to the recycling bin in East. No one will know it was you. Just ask any athlete that’s ever lived there. I understand that we’re all busy and tired, but if you go here you probably want to be an instigator of change; this is something really small and easy that you can do to be a good person or to at least keep someone (i.e., me) from their next panic attack. It’s not that difficult. Bottom line: pick up your shit and keep North Quad — and every other part of this campus, for that matter — pretty.
OSCA: The Good, the Bad and the Gluten-Free Sean Para Columnist
This is my first semester eating in a co-op. I was quite miserable last year on a CDS meal plan and was overjoyed last spring when I got into my first choice co-op, Old Barrows. Now, twice a day, I saunter all the way across campus to enjoy a meal made by a peer instead of the detestable and questionable food I was forced to endure at that timeless bastion of mediocrity and flavorlessness, Stevenson Hall. OSCA is by and large a better system than Campus Dining Services. Simply put, it provides better food for a large part of the campus at a lower price. The time I invest each week, three hours cooking and an hour cleaning, is well worth it. However, now that I have been eating in Old Barrows for a month, I have noticed some flaws in the OSCA system, flaws that are not addressed and are shabbily explained when I bring them up, despite the importance of consensus in the OSCA manifesto. The extensive bureaucracy and attachment to procedure is, in my analysis, the main institutional flaw in OSCA. Interim, it seems, is interminable. This is now the fourth week I have eaten at Old Barrows and we are still electing positions. However, the real problem with interim is the lack of a regular schedule of cooking and crews (cleaning the co-op, for those of you not familiar with OSCA). Meals get canceled all the time due to this lack of regularity, a pretty big problem in an institution designed to feed people. Even having discussions/elections almost ev-
ery meal, we have yet to fill some major positions or discuss food policy. There must be some way to streamline this process and get the co-op fully functional more quickly. The election process itself is clunky, as first we discuss the position, then nominate candidates, have them make speeches, leave the room and then vote on them, even if there are exactly as many candidates as there are positions. Often, by the time a candidate is being voted on, half the people who came to the meal have already left. I have voiced my concerns on these issues, and in response been told that this is the best way to have everyone’s voice heard. Is it? What is the merit of a process that ostensibly has everyone’s voice heard but in fact prevents co-ops from effectively fulfilling their main function? The current membership of Old Barrows did not choose to have this administrative system — it was passed down over time. The predominance of vegetarian food is another concern I have with OSCA. I was told Old Barrows is meat-friendly and did sometimes serve meat, but I have yet to see any in the co-op. From what I have seen, 50–60 percent of the co-op is vegan or vegetarian, yet so are 100 percent of its meals. I have voiced my concerns about this as well, and in response I have been told it is the “lowest common denominator” to have vegetarian and vegan food. Yet, is this not an example of a significant part of the co-op simply not having its dining preferences attended to? Is this not ultimately a tyranny of the majority? I have talked to a lot of people who want meat
to be served, and yet none has been. Obviously, OSCA’s tight budget precludes having meat all the time, but it would be more representative of the preferences of the co-op membership to have meat sometimes, a fact that food buyers and much of the OSCA community choose to overlook. I love OSCA. I am very happy to be a member of it. It is a far superior way to eat on campus than through Campus Dining Services. But this does not mean it is without flaw. An organization theoretically built around consensus should be more aware of the weight that history, convention and custom place on it. The way discussions work, the way meals are served and the entire structure of OSCA have evolved through generations. While consensus is espoused as the fount of all decisions in OSCA, no one wants to point out how much of the way things work is predetermined before new members join each year. This is not a bad thing, but it must not be overlooked. The bureaucracy of the organization should be streamlined to create a more efficient system. Most importantly, however, the limits of consensus on decision-making, the weight of precedent and the marginalization of the membership on issues of food policy and administrative structure must be brought to light. These flaws do not invalidate the organization by any means; it is simply that OSCA as a whole and its members as individuals should critically appraise its multitudinous facets rather than accepting them outright.