Oberlin Review, September 10, 1968
Oberlin Review, April 22, 1966
The entire process of socialization is directed towards the training of woman as subservient entities whose primary purpose in life is to appeal to, attract, and ultimately to catch a man, after which they devote their lives to the care and feeding of said men. Obviously while women are busy fulfilling the positions laid out for them since time immemorial by the male sex, the men themselves sit back and reap the benefits.
Letter to the Editor, Oberlin Review, May 9, 1969
Oberlin Review, November 4, 1966
“I wish to publicly inform the student body that 1,268 birth control kits have been available since Thanksgiving and are just lying around my office collecting dust. I don’t understand why you girls don’t come to me for things like this. All I ever get are mono cases.
These kits have a peculiar history behind them. Donated to the College by the Planned Parenthood Association as part of the Ford Challenge Grant two year sago, they were quickly and secretly buried in the basement of Noah by the Administration. This was the year of the Saturday Night Calling Hour. When discussing the pregnancy problem at the faculty meeting in May, 1964, I recommended that the kits be released for general campus consumption. Of course, both the General Faculty and the Administration vetoed such a rational suggestion…
…No examination or appointment is necessary though both are advised. Just appear at the window and ask for ‘a white carton.’”
—Letter to the Editor from Dr. Axe Burphey of College Health Services, Oberlin Review, April 22, 1966
The editorial calling streaking a ‘manifestation of boredom’ must have been written out of boredom…Why doesn’t the Review stop its own streaking, showing up twice a week bare from front to back?
Letter to the Editor in response to anti-streaking editorial, Oberlin Review, March 15, 1974
To the Editor: The fact that housing and dining can make an arbitrary determination to discontinue to women’s collective is offensive in terms of a seeming attempt by the administration to inhibit the development of the women’s movement at a time when affirmative action and declared institutional support require a responsive and even encouraging attitude. Apart from the larger issue of whether students ought at least to be able to determine their own living arrangements, I think we are due an explanation of this unfortunate decision.
Letter to the Editor from Brenda Way, Associate Professor of Modern Dance, Oberlin Review, January 25, 1974
Almost everyone on this campus must now be aware of the fact that varsity sports for men at Oberlin has a budget of $67,000 while the women get only $1,000 for the same activities.
Letter to the Editor, Oberlin Review, December 5, 1972
Well, we did it again! No one would have guessed from the representation on the speakers’ platform in Finney Chapel during Monday’s Day of Discussion that Oberlin has been a COEDUCATIONAL college from its beginning…Perhaps in the midst of the sessions which pervaded the campus at the time, it temporarily slipped the minds of of those responsible for organizing Monday’s morning sessions that the women of Oberlin College have had, for almost 100 years, the right to engage in oratory and debate on timely issues.
Letter to the Editor, Oberlin Review, November 7, 1967
To the Editor:
From motives no less amused than indignant, I would like to point out that the proposal so gratifyingly supported by all three party platforms in the Review of March 14 to hire a college gynecologist was originally proposed by me in the dining room of May Cottage, was resoundingly mocked and ridiculed, and, furthermore, was treated with slightly bemused condescension when brought before the Appropriations Committee of the Senate in connection with the Student Health Committee only last month.
Letter to the Editor, Oberlin Review, March 21, 1967
Oberlin Review, November 11, 1960