Letters to the Editor – April 24

41

Author: 

Dear Editor,

Henry Dickmeyer wrote that at Oxy, tolerance is “the principle we preach and the paradox we practice.” In reply, Nick Dodani dismissed the “tolerance paradox” as “a game in semantics.” Acknowledging that by not tolerating the intolerant, he is therefore also intolerant, Dodani wrote, “So be it.” I don’t think, however, that he is rejecting tolerance as the appropriate social ethic on campus (or in any secular, liberal atmosphere) since he goes on to ask, “How can we in good conscience not address intolerance in our community?” To Dodani, addressing the intolerance of others is critically important, but the intolerance worth addressing is apparently only those “intolerances” not in response to others’ intolerance (which, of course, would not include his own). It gets quite circular with all sorts of double and triple negatives—it truly is a paradox after all. Dodani needs to acknowledge this.

Dickmeyer’s solution, however, is classically pie-in-the-sky moderation where no one, “yell[s] to get attention.” But moderation in the face of the tolerance paradox is not really a solution. This moderation is merely quietness so that a flawed worldview doesn’t buckle underneath the weight of its own contradictions. Furthermore, as Dodani points out, the world and the injustice in it are not moderate, but extremely evil. Faced with the suffering of our neighbors, we do not have time to moderate ourselves and wait for a pleasant, amiable compromise where no one raises their voice or gets their feelings hurt.

The liberal ethic of toleration is a bankrupt philosophy, theoretically flawed (self-contradictory) and morally indefensible (not sufficient in the face of great injustice). To what do we turn?

While opposing his enemies because of their injustice, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. simultaneously sought reconciliation with them. After the court order that enforced desegregation of Montgomery’s buses, he said in a speech, “the end is reconciliation; the end is redemption; the end is the creation of the Beloved Community. It is this type of spirit and this type of love that can transform opponents into friends.” The point of nonviolent resistance was not actually justice, but something closely related: mutual love between people. The end goal here was the also the means. Dr. King’s overarching social ethic and the point towards which he strove was love.

The source for my understanding of love as a social ethic is not, in fact, Dr. King. Instead I look to the same source he did, past Gandhi, past Tolstoy, to a Jewish prophet from Palestine who lived in the first century of the Common Era. In what is best described as his political-ethical manifesto, Jesus of Nazareth placed at the rhetorical center of the manifesto this declaration: “But I say to you that listen, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.” Some have interpreted Jesus to be advocating quiet passivity. Far from it! Instead he is offering to his followers a third way to respond to violence: it is neither submission nor violence, but the choice to actively confront an oppressor with love, reminding the oppressor of the sacred humanity both oppressor and oppressed share. On this point I recommend, as an introduction, Claiborne and Haw’s exegesis in “Jesus for President”.

Faced with Jim Crow, Dr. King knew that tolerance was not a social ethic that could drive a revolution. His choice was between violence and enemy-love. I hesitate to use the word, “nonviolence,” because Dr. King’s use of nonviolent tactics required violence. He waited for his white enemies to be violent, and responding with the love that betrayed no lost dignity, sought to, “awaken a sense of shame within the oppressor and challenge his false sense of superiority.” Only then could black and white US Americans be united in mutual love.

What this means at Oxy I can hazard only abstract guesses. One of Jesus’ early followers, Theophilus of Antioch, said, “Say to those that hate and curse you, ‘You are our brothers!’” In the wake of a divisive debate about sexual assault policy, perhaps we can first turn to our enemies and exclaim: “You are my sisters! You are my brothers!”

Ryan Hammill

(Sophomore, History)

****************************************

Dear Editor,

On April 20th, 2013, over 600 students, faculty, board members, trustees, alumni, and donors attended the Annual Founders Day Trustee Dinner. The dinner itself featured a confetti cannon that rained down streamers for over a minute and a half. Outside of the Greek Bowl, the location of the dinner, over 100 students and faculty held a candlelight vigil to honor the survivors of rape and sexual assault on campus. In the lines of people stood survivors, allies, and friends from Occidental’s Sexual Assault Coalition (OSAC) and Oxy Men Against Rape (OMAR). But where was President Veitch, a self-proclaimed ally? In his March 5th, 2013 letter to the college entitled “Sexual Assault Policy at Occidental,” Veitch proclaimed his allyship, saying: “I believe it is incumbent on Occidental to do everything it can to respond swiftly and effectively to incidents of sexual assault and to be honest and forthright about the number and nature of sexual assaults on our campus. We will find the appropriate vehicle. No hiding.”

In person, however, President Veitch was singing a different tune, as he was seen leaving through a side exit after the end of the Trustee Dinner to his house, so as not to have to interact with the vigil. As other guests of the dinner exited, they walked through the vigil, some of them showing their support by wearing blue ribbons for Sexual Assault Awareness Month. Veitch, however, was not among them. In this same email, Veitch shamed a survivor for speaking out, calling her an embarrassment to the college. I wonder why an ally would shame a survivor, and continue to call himself an ally. Maybe his guilt drove him away from attending or visiting the vigil.

This is not the first time that the President has escaped and hidden behind other quick fixes to get out of claiming responsibility of a situation. In an email sent out by Jim Tranquada on the 20th, he said that “Gina Smith and Leslie Gomez, the consultants working on an independent assessment of Oxy’s sexual assault policies and procedures, will be on campus beginning tomorrow, Sunday, April 21, through Tuesday, April 23, to meet with our community and to continue their work.” These are the same representatives who have been on campus previously, and will be holding meetings for any and all people to come and speak to the consultants. Some people are thankful for these consultants, but their presence is taking a financial toll on the college. “According to Dirks and Heldman, who met with the consultants, Gomez is paid $515 per hour while Smith is paid $585 per hour. Over the course of two eight-hour work days, this amounts to a bill of approximately $17,600,” said Arielle Laub in a recent Occidental Weekly article on April 9th.

It is clear that President Veitch is not being the ally that he claims to be. As many wonder why he was not at the vigil on Saturday night, whether he felt guilt, or fear of facing his failed allyship in person, the student body who attended the vigil that night said that Veitch should feel ashamed if this is what he believes it means to be an ally.

Lonnie McGown
(Senior, ECLS)

****************************************

Dear Editor,

As students attending one of California’s private colleges, we don’t have to tell you how expensive it can be to attain your bachelor’s degree.

That’s why the state Cal Grant program was established – to help students like you at both private and public colleges better afford the costs of a college education.

But a recent provision included in last year’s majority vote budget will significantly reduce Cal Grant awards for students at this campus and at similar schools across the state. Soon, Cal Grant awards will be reduced for students at accredited, non-profit colleges like this one by almost $2,000 per year.

Without a full Cal Grant award, many private college students will be forced to leave school, transfer to an overcrowded public college, or may have to give up on their dream of a college degree altogether. This is wrong.

Rising tuition costs especially impact low-income and minority students attending private colleges. Consider that among Cal Grant recipients who are still dependents of their parents, 67 percent came from families earning $36,000 per year or less. Additionally, 60 percent of Cal Grant recipients attending private colleges are minorities.

Without question, we believe that helping students like you better afford a college education should be one of the Legislature’s most important priorities. That’s why we have introduced Assembly Bill 1085, which will restore full Cal Grant awards for thousands of students attending qualified private colleges and trade schools around the state.

At a recent event at the State Capitol, one young woman who is a student at William Jessup University spoke about her struggles affording college tuition costs. She comes from an immigrant family and said they were barely getting by financially. Without a full Cal Grant award, she would never be able to afford to attend a private college. It’s unconscionable that the Legislature could make this nightmare come true.

We believe that helping college students graduate is one of the best things that we can do to help our economy recover. Consider that a bachelor’s degree is the minimum requirement for employment these days. Ensuring that you have the strong academic foundation and skills to meet the demands of California employers will help you get a job and get our economy back on track.

Assembly Bill 1085 was recently passed by the Assembly Higher Education Committee on a bipartisan vote. But there are still many hurdles that remain before our legislation hits the Governor’s desk, and that’s where you come in.

If you agree that Cal Grant awards should be restored for private college students, we invite you to make your voices heard. Write or call your local state Assembly Member and Senator and let them know that you want them to support Assembly Bill 1085 to restore full Cal Grant awards for students like you. Visit www.legislature.ca.gov to find your legislator.

Together, we can make a difference in passing our legislation and keeping college affordable for thousands of students.

Assembly Member Beth Gaines, R-Rocklin, represents the 6th Assembly District. Assembly Member Mike Morrell, R-Rancho Cucamonga, represents the 40th Assembly District.

This article has been archived, for more requests please contact us via the support system.

Loading

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here