I am a senior at Brandeis University, grateful for the privilege to study in Waltham for three and a half years to date. At first, I was hesitant to join the Brandeis community—I never visited before arriving (late) for orientation my first year and did not bother attending most of the “mandatory” orientation programming. 

Yet, since then, I have learned from world class faculty, studied with a diverse and sophisticated student body and immersed myself in the unique environment that is this campus. I am politically conservative, an Orthodox Jew and consider “academic hard leftists” like Prof. Harry Mairson (COSI) to be valuable professors and friends. I have lived with the notorious Daniel Mael and have had many cups of coffee with presidents of J Street U at Brandeis. I have met with numerous members of our Board of Trustees, both formally as Managing Editor of this paper and merely as a concerned student. In short, I may have limited knowledge pertaining to the “real world,” but I have accrued immense time, relationships and insight into the politics of Brandeis. I also know that Brandeis now has a real problem with its current presidential predicament. 

Before Frederick Lawrence became the eighth president of Brandeis, he was known by the Boston Globe as a “civil rights scholar,” with research “focused on civil rights crimes and free expression.” Lawrence’s seminal work is titled Punishing Hate: Bias Crimes Under American Law (Harvard University Press, 1999). To quote his Brandeis biography, Lawrence “has authored and edited numerous books and articles examining bias-motivated crimes, free expression, and constitutional law and has written, lectured, and testified widely on civil rights crimes.” Today, people such as Lawrence J. Haas, former communications director and press secretary for Vice President Al Gore, have lambasted Lawrence’s decision making on free speech matters, labeling it “particularly appalling.” Haas continues, “A campus is precisely the place to encourage free discussion even on controversial matters,” and the Brandeis Administration has somehow doctored that discussion. What happened to the prolific First Amendment lawyer? 

Over the course of Lawrence’s tenure as president, the University has seen a multitude of scandals affect its public image. The argument can be made, and has been made repeatedly by the Editorial Board of this paper, that not a single one of these media storms was handled properly by the school. I agree with that sentiment. In fact, I wrote the majority of the linked editorial from this past semester outlining the many public relations failures. But losing Frederick Lawrence as president—though whether the Board of Trustees chose to move on or Lawrence simply had enough is, shockingly, under wraps—is most certainly not the answer. A deeper analysis of the major scandals of Lawrence’s tenure will highlight why. 

When the University faced criticism for the seemingly exorbitant retirement package of President Emeritus Jehuda Reinharz, criticism was implicitly placed on the current administration. The Change.org petition at the time called for a reformation of current executive salaries, despite the fact that the salary was the erstwhile president’s. Regardless of the fact that Frederick Lawrence wasn’t even the highest paid executive of the school from the most recently released year—that title belongs to Senior Vice President for Institutional Advancement Nancy Winship—1,730 people agreed that Lawrence’s salary needed reformation. 

The Board surprisingly agreed, and they overhauled the executive pay practices, concomitantly throwing the current administration under the proverbial bus. The civil rights lawyer who made his name fighting for the common man needed his salary reformed, yet the actual former president’s salary that was in question remained unchanged.

When the inflammatory statement of former Al Quds University President Sari Nusseibeh followed a Jihadist style rally on their East Jerusalem campus, Frederick Lawrence took action and suspended the longtime relationship between the two schools. At the time, many academic purists, students and professors alike, cried foul; academic freedom was being hindered. Eli Phillip ’15, who has since co-led an effort to restart the formal relationship, said at the time, “Engaging with narratives different than our own is often difficult,” but is necessary to “empower productive voices who are interested in peace and understanding.” A joint statement by Dr. Daniel Terris, director of the International Center for Ethics, and the two professors managing the partnership, Prof. Susan Lanser (ENG) and Prof. Daniel Kryder (POL), read, “everything that we have learned on this trip so far has affirmed our conviction ... that the leadership of Al-Quds University is genuinely and courageously dedicated to the causes of peace and mutual respect.” The free speech lawyer was violating academic freedom; never mind the second rally with a similar sentiment that occurred on Al Quds campus shortly thereafter.   

Just a few months later, the cable news-drama series titled “the war on academic freedom” decided to air an episode about Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Brandeis. The controversial human rights activist was being barred from contributing to the collegiate free exchange of ideas! “To go ahead and rescind its invitation to Ms. Hirsi Ali is despicable!” cried Josh Nass ’14 on national television. “Perhaps our administration at Brandeis doesn’t seem to care aboout or respect the First Amendment.” We’re still talking about the nationally renowned First Amendment lawyer, right? Attacking Fred Lawrence on civil rights issues is like accusing a United States senator of contradicting his voting record, only after he has retired from the Hill. 

The list goes on. The sexual assault activists of earlier this year protested Frederick Lawrence for not saying anything on this issue—as opposed to protesting the assaulters who are polluting the campus environment across the country. The “I Stand With Khadijah” Change.org petition called on the administration to protect Khadijah, as opposed to calling on TruthRevolt or its followers to stop the harassment Ms. Lynch was facing. Ironically, the change.org petition in support of Daniel Mael also called on the administration to act and protect Mael. Even better, the latter petition again noted “the climate of intimidation and hostility to free speech on the Brandeis campus.” Most recently, when the Wall Street Journal decided to cover a he-was-mean-to-me spat between Daniel Mael and Eli Phillip, somehow the University administration was at fault for...processing the paperwork? As Lawrence wrote in response, the University has never filed a claim against a student on the matter of free expression or speech, and the standard for conviction on harassment is extremely high. Claims of the suit itself being damaging to one’s reputation also fall short: the case would never have been made public had Mael not publicized it himself. 

And yet despite all this, our University endowment is at an all-time high, applications are up 35 percent from when Lawrence started, over $220 million in gifts have been donated to the school during Lawrence’s tenure, and the University budget is once again balanced. Brandeis was recently ranked as a top-10 program in both Economics and Sociology, and we feature science professors who have been appointed by President Obama to work on national projects. We have hosted world leaders like Rwandan President Paul Kagame to contribute to our marketplace of ideas and started unique programming like bView and Brandeis Bridges. The New York Times even ranked Brandeis as the eighth most economically diverse school, moving up 9 spots from the previous year. Even with all that substantial progress, a Jewish, social justice-invested civil liberties lawyer could not last more than five years as our president. 

The presidential problem lies in how we view our own problems. In all of these examples, bad things happen, and we look toward the current president to fix them, for us. Why? Understandably, the president is responsible for his institution, but are we not responsible as well for the fixing of our predicaments? Despite my limited “real world” exposure, where or when else do we get to exclusively turn to others to clean up our mess? 

Why didn’t we demand that Reinharz’s salary be renegotiated instead of the terms of Lawrence’s? Why did we not demand a more substantial dedication from Al-Quds to prevent these Jihadist rallies instead of lampooning Lawrence for suspending the relationship until that commitment is made? Why did we not fight back against those who polluted the facts of Ms. Hirsi Ali’s degree (not speech) and allow them to lob censorship claims against us, despite the University offering her a full-fledged speaking platform that she turned down? Why are we mad at Lawrence instead of the morally bankrupt perpetrators of sexual assault? How could Lawrence possibly be held responsible for a student promoting an American Jihad on twitter and for another student disseminating that tweet to the potentially dangerous corners of the internet? And why is Lawrence responsible for one student filing a Community Standards Report against another? 

Where is our personal responsibility to fight our own battles instead of throwing a fit that someone else should? If a nationally renowned Jewish civil rights lawyer could not fit this bill of supreme adjudicator and problem solver, then who possibly could?

Late last year at a Brandeis Orthodox Organization sabbatical function, the crowd, including myself, anxiously awaited the blessing on the wine to be made so the food can be consumed, as per custom. President Lawrence was set to recite that blessing but was caught in small talk with some students. I made a joke out loud nudging Lawrence to proceed, and Lawrence immediately fired back with a joke of his own. 

The language of either joke slips my mind, nor is it particularly noteworthy. What is relevant, and what I will not soon forget, is what he said as he pulled me to the side of the room after his blessing on the wine: “Glen, you know I only poke fun because I care and I know you can take it, too.” I guess President Lawrence spoke too early: we know he cares; we just couldn’t take it ourselves.