To the Editor:

When students of color on this campus express any sort of dissent that challenges mainstream social norms, including culture inherent to whiteness, they are systematically and violently silenced. As the publication of record, it is the role of the Review to present an unbiased perspective. Not only would this provide a space for marginalized groups to speak and be heard, but also it would promote greater understanding within the campus community while allowing readers to reach their own conclusions.

Unfortunately, the Review failed in its responsibility. Last week’s coverage of “A Response to Toxicity” had everything from the use of polarizing language in headlines, to the doctoring of quotations from the original document, to the publishing of two columns by Review staff that present the same viewpoint.

Of course, the Review is but a product of its surroundings, and its treatment of these issues echoes sentiments expressed both in person and online: 1) that there exists a “controversy” over the name of Solarity’s event and 2) that the concerns raised are invalid.

We believe the addendum to “A Response to Toxicity” (reproduced in part below) thoroughly addresses the first sentiment.

“The initial statement was intended to address Solarity’s use of of dystopic and toxic imagery in their advertisements, as well as how attendees’ interpretations of the theme may be reflected in their dress and mannerisms … [Solarity has] taken our concerns seriously from the start, and we are continuing this productive conversation.”

Though the Review published this addendum, it seems that the columnists who wrote about the issue did not read it. Despite the ongoing dialogue between members of the Asian American Alliance and Solarity (might we add that an AAA treasurer is a member of Solarity?), the Review chose to reduce productive engagement to “complaints” and “controversy.” A “divide” was not created by the authors of “A Response to Toxicity”; it was created by reactionary violence perpetuated by folks on online platforms and the Review.

Further, we believe that Solarity’s publicly available statement is an example of an appropriate response. Its compassion towards fellow Oberlin students and dedication to upholding its mission statement is something other organizations and students could stand to learn from.

Our concerns are not invalid. To center the response on the name of Solarity’s event — not the theme at large or the imagery conjured in event descriptions — further minimizes the issues raised. For the Review to publish headlines that say that the concerns are “flat-out ridiculous” and a “non-issue” does not acknowledge the lived experiences from which individuals speak. More than a lack of acknowledgement, this language actively silences, diminishes and rejects these lived experiences.

The cyberbullying we witnessed over the past week is more than just disheartening, it is harmful. It is one thing to critique our argument, but posting a photo of the author online, using ableist slurs against supporters, delegitimizing what is real trauma and relying on an anonymous platform to attack our concerns do not constitute critical engagement with the material. Where were critics when AAA hosted a discussion about the cost of glorifying toxicity and dystopian realities? Members of both AAA and Solarity were present, furthering the dialogue; most detractors were not.

We believe that all students, regardless of background, have a fundamental right to believe their existence in this particular space is valid. The people who contributed to, endorsed and supported “A Response to Toxicity” have different experiences from you, and these experiences do not invalidate your own. We hope that when concerns like these are raised in the future, members of this community will choose compassion over callousness, understanding over ignorance and respect over scorn.

– The Asian American Alliance