Wednesday, Feb. 10, 2010, our campus was graced with the presence of widely acclaimed Professor of Literature Valerie Smith. She spoke to a full room of English professors and students about her recent projects, most of which revolve around the Civil Rights movement and cold cases from the era. Her work and interest in the ethics of spectatorship inspired a concern amongst a few of my peers and myself. How do we measure the morality of television shows such as ìCold Case,” a show that explores fictional unsolved crimes based on typical cold cases?
In a specific episode, entitled ìStrange Fruit,” the unsolved case is the brutal beating and hanging of a black man on his way to the March on Washington. In a country that has begun to question its own post-racial potential, I wonder if the majority of modern society has become desensitized to the horrific injustices African-Americans were subject to, since it could be argued that shows like this ìStrange Fruit” episode re-enact them essentially for entertainment purposes.
Even the documentary ìHome of the Brave,” a film based on an actual cold case that is naturally more informative and less about entertainment, seems to dig up unsettled disputes and unrighted wrongs that unsurprisingly bring about feelings of disconcertment in its viewers. It is the opinion of several educated folk that stories, fictional and non-fictional alike, should be abandoned if we truly aim to become a post-racial nation.† Itís a very solid argument and it reads as very patriotic and Utopian.
Call me a pessimist, but every dystopian novel Iíve ever read (ìAnthem,” by Ayn Rand, and ìThe Giver,” by Lois Lowry) lead me to strongly believe, that if we aim to make America into Utopia, weíre planning to flush our souls down the drain.
I completely understand that rehashing matters that leave one party without reimbursement, and the other without retribution, is a dangerous business. But how much more dangerous would it be to let these negative truths get swept under the rug? How can we expect not to repeat history, if we do not remind ourselves where weíve come from? Years go by, and those who have experienced the cruelty of Nazi Soldiers, Jim Crow laws or Apartheid laws, are slowly less and less present among us. It must be someoneís duty to keep their stories alive, or we will without a doubt rewrite them for our children.
This applies not only to national affairs, but to statewide affairs, countywide affairs ó and to campus-wide affairs as well. In 1995, approximately 100 students held signs and wore purple armbands during the convocation of Woosterís 70th year of excellence in education, in response to the rumored possibility that an excellent candidate for President of the College had been subject to discrimination based on sexual orientation. But how many students are even aware of the incident now?
Susanne Woods was, according to the Board of Trustees, ìthe best president for the College.” She was hired in April 1995, and John C. Dowd, a trustee and chairman of the search committee, said of the hiring, ìour goal was to find the best president for The College of Wooster Ö and we have achieved that goal.” Apparently, the board didnít understand the inconsequential meaning behind Ms. Woodsí claim to be ìunmarried by choice.” Her long-term partner at the time, Anne Shaver, was a professor at Denison University. Shaver, who openly identified herself as a lesbian, listed Woods as her partner. After Woodsí appointment as president, the Denison phone directory supposedly began to mysteriously appear on our campus, among professors. Then, Ren Edwards, another lesbian professor at Kenyon College wrote a letter in Kenyonís literary journal that referred to Woods as ìWoosterís newly appointed, lesbian Susanne Woods.”
According to ìThe Chronicle of Higher Educationís” unnamed sources, a few trustees also received an anonymous letter related to Woods sexual orientation. Those trustees met with her to discuss their newfound knowledge, and the details of that meeting are unclear. Both parties have signed legal agreements that bind them to silence. All that we know is that the day before she was to take office, Susanne Woods withdrew instead.
Dowd, when contacted for information, did not return phone calls. Stanly C. Gault, whose powerful monetary influence is evident on our beautiful campus, said, ìI am convinced that this decision has been made in the best interests of both Dr. Woods and the College.” Both Woods and the College maintain that ìsignificant differences concerning the role of the president had become apparent between her and Woosterís Board of Trustees, and that these issues could not be mutually resolved.”
Carolyn A. Durham, a professor of French, said, ìItís difficult for me to understand how there could have been ëdisagreements about the role of presidentí that would not have been discussed prior to her appointment by the board.” Still, a large amount of this story is based on speculations ó albeit heavily supported ones. Perhaps Woods was discriminated against, and perhaps nothing can be done about it now. But we can be educated and we can remember. We, as students at Wooster, as populace of the United States of America, as inhabitants of the earth, have a responsibility to know what is going on in our world.
Fifteen years was not long ago, and even greater distances in time cannot be allowed to blur the sharpness with which we see transgression. If uneasiness is all that can be guaranteed to keep us from ethical digression then let us not take the easy route! Iíve no pressing desire to live in a topian nation- Iíd rather keep my soul and furthermore, define it, by understanding and appreciating my history. Cold cases have a place and a purpose in our society ó subsequently so does discomfort.