Last Wednesday Rwandan president Paul Kagame visited for the Heller School for Social Policy and Management for a talk and roundtable discussion between faculty and select students. Kagame's appearance though went largely unpublicized, open only to specifically invited guests. Many were only informed of the presidential visit after noticing heightened security on campus. This event was yet another example of the University's current inept handling of communication issues this past academic year.

Repeatedly this year, communication was determined by the University in a closed-room, top-down manner. Only after each of these situations came to a relative close, did it become clear that communication was either disjointed or, in many cases, potentially nonexistent between decision-making parties within the University. Even more so, information disseminated to the broader Brandeis community was either remarkably vague or even nonexistent. 

Internal campus incidents like the staff early retirement plans offered earlier this year represent examples of miscommunication between parties on campus. Broader issues, such as the extended scandal surrounding executive compensation policies and the controversial suspension of the University's partnership with Al-Quds University, occurred entirely behind closed doors. Most recently, and perhaps most notably, the awarding and eventual rescinding of an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali occurred without an explanation of the decisions, sans a short, unattributed statement. 

The decision to offer staff over the age of 60 an incentive to leave the University-politely dubbed an "early retirement package"-was made known to the faculty only after the decision was made. This program was only brought to the broader campus community's attention after faculty dispersed the letter to students on their own accord. "I will take responsibility for a rollout that was less than optimal," said University President Frederick Lawrence at an April 3 faculty meeting.

The University's compensation to its current and former executives, which came under scrutiny after being publicized by this paper and subsequently by the mass media including the Boston Globe, further exposed this basic lack of communication. In a Dec. 10, 2013 Justice article, Prof. Sarah Mead (MUS), a member of the committee for Integrated Planning and Budget Committee stated that she had not previously known President Emeritus Jehuda Reinharz's salary. If the chair of the budget committee was not even aware of Reinharz's salary, then at best, inter-university communication was poor. At worst, transparency was intentionally ignored. 

The list goes on. This board has previously called into question the University's decision to suspend its relationship with Al-Quds University without consulting with the three faculty members the University sent to East Jerusalem to report on the situation. In poetic fashion, Profs. Daniel Kryder (POL), Susan Lanser (ENG) and Daniel Terris, director of the International center for Ethics, Justice and Public life, have been outspokenly against the decision and continue to be perplexed in its regard, as per a roundtable discussion with the three professors sponsored by J Street U Brandeis on March 17th. To date, no further information has been delineated and the relationship remains in a perpetual state of "suspension."

The most profound example of this closed-door decision making strategy comes with the recent Ayaan Hirsi Ali honorary degree scandal. After a Change.org petition initiated by students, as well as a multi-deparmental faculty letter, voiced concerns over extending a degree to Hirsi Ali, the University issued a press release on April 8 that stated it would rescind the degree. The release stated, "we cannot overlook certain of her past statements that are inconsistent with Brandeis University's core values."

The press release, constituting Brandeis' lone official response to the controversy, failed to elaborate specifically on why the decision to rescind her degree was made. The statement even failed to mention what her exact role in the greater commencement ceremonies was originally intended to be-solely a recipient of an honorary degree at commencement with a subsequent speech to the diploma ceremony of the International and Global Studies program. Directly due to this ambiguity, facts have been twisted and manipulated-to the point of erroneous information being disseminated by others on a massive scale. 

Hirsi Ali, for example, has published her supposed speech to the Brandeis Class of 2014. This board questions the lack of clarity and disclosure that would have misled Ms. Hirsi Ali to believe that she would potentially address the entire graduating class. This consequent misunderstanding has again influenced many publications' perception that Brandeis inhibited her ability to engage in free speech. There is a key distinction to be made between endorsing her opinions and preventing her ability to voice them. A film screening of her latest documentary is, in fact, set to air on campus tomorrow and she has even been invited to campus to speak about those viewpoints-both by the University in its statement and by Joshua Nass '14 on behalf of the the Brandeis Coalition for Liberty live on Fox News on April 10.

Besides accusations of censorship, the University has suffered significant blows to its reputation for no other reason than providing a lack of rationale. The Wall Street Journal editorialized that "[Brandeis] might also ask if its 'core values' now include intolerance and the illiberal suppression of ideas." The Jerusalem Post noted how "it is worrying that Brandeis is being held captive by repressive forces that dominate most Muslim-majority countries." The New York Times, Reuters and the Economist-along with an array of premier international publications-have also published stories that portray the controversy in this light. This board welcomes debate and dissent on the decision to rescind Hirsi Ali's degree-however only those based on the objective facts on hand. 

To date, there has been no public response from Brandeis since that initial press release, even as misguided and harmful assumptions are published. This board was able to articulate our opinion on the matter in the April 8 edition of the Justice; we wonder why the University has instead hid its head under the proverbial pillow. 

We as an editorial board, but even more so as Brandeis students, want to believe these decisions were made in the best interests of the University and its greater community; many of the decisions this board has suggested and agreed with. We are therefore perplexed as to why the University is choosing to remain silent on these issues. The University must display a concerted effort at transparency both within its own halls and to the greater world-after all, what do they have to hide?
*