The Justice

Originally posted by

Adam Kissel

I posted this reply at http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/10216.html, with links:

My op-ed in the Brandeis Justice this week outlines the outrage at Brandeis over the Hindley affair (a professor punished after he critiqued the term "wetbacks" in a relevant course), the Rose Art Museum fiasco, and the implications of these controversies for the viability of the Reinharz administration going forward. The op-ed also outlines the widespread response at Brandeis among faculty members and students asserting their rights in the face of a stiff-necked administration.

Brandeis sophomore Nathan Hakimi has commented on the op-ed, largely agreeing with me:

>>I have to commend you, for making legitimately powerful points about the lack of transparency on this campus and calling out the administration for its obvious dishonest treatment of Hindley.

>>Truly, I wish the Hindley thing hadn't happened and I am ashamed of what happened....

>>Yes, they should take back the Hindley verdict.

But Hakimi also states:

>>But at this point it's hardly relevant. They've just shelled out 20 grand on PR over the Rose Art crap, and now you'll have them remind everyone of a mistake made last year? Forgive me for siding with the university in wanting to move on. I believe that the backlash over that, from students and faculty alike, has more than vindicated him.

In reply, I disagree. The backlash most likely has vindicated Hindley among most people who know the story, but as my op-ed points out, this is not a case that the Brandeis community has forgotten. The Faculty Senate is still dealing with the issues raised by Hindley's case, and the new student groups interested in protecting students' rights frequently cite Hindley's case as part of their reason for being. The rest of the campus has not moved on and probably will not move on while the finding against Hindley remains, but removing the finding truly would help Brandeis move on.

Hakimi also has not been at Brandeis long enough to remember the case of Gravity Magazine, which Brandeis' student government effectively shut down because of the magazine's "generally offensive" content. I encourage him to read about it. One of the huge problems with sweeping free-speech violations under the rug is that students are ultimately taught that censorship and official punishment are acceptable ways of shutting down words and opinions they don't like. Although Hakimi does not believe that his speech "is even actually threatened, never mind censored," just let him read the near-unanimous resolution of the Student Union Senate against the magazine, and I think that he might change his mind. He might also come to believe that it is a good thing that we are warning students to be jealous of their rights if they choose to enroll at Brandeis.

Hakimi's main bone of contention is that FIRE is still fighting the Hindley case. He tells us: "Don't worry, we've got it under control." But while the faculty members, students, and journalists who are speaking out should be commended, the sad truth is that they have not changed the campus culture at Brandeis to one where the administration respects individual rights. FIRE has been working cooperatively with many of these constituencies, supporting them and sharing information. It would be wonderful if Brandeis could resolve its own free-speech problems, but so far, it has not, and Brandeis today is far from under control.

I believe that sustained efforts by FIRE and these constituencies will eventually result in a full victory for Hindley, whether it is accomplished under the Reinharz administration or the next one. "Moving on" without actually achieving a satisfactory resolution for Professor Hindley not only ignores the substantive wrong Hindley has suffered--it also sends an implicit signal to would-be censors at Brandeis that they may silence students and faculty with impunity.

Originally posted by

Eric Alterman

Lisa, I don't want to go back and forth on this, but I was in the room as this unfolded. I am not sure who you are exactly or what your observational position in all this was. "Generally offensive content" may have appeared in the resolution, but it was certainly not the focus...at least for most in the room. While you dismiss this ad as some sort of parody of racism, it was clearly not perceived that way by many. What, so all those people that we talked to at the meeting just didn't get the joke?

And really, it is a stretch to say Gravity was censored. They deserved a harshly worded resolution, and since when has condemnation equaled censorship? The chief editor also deserved to be pushed out for running that issue, at least if Gravity wanted to keep using Student Union funds (editors are asked to step down for exercising bad judgment all the time, usually by their funding source). The funding issue is really the key. Gravity was free to publish independently if they wanted. But why should the Student Union have continued to fund Gravity if they didn't make changes? As far as burnings go, that is the first I've heard of that; but students are just as free to do that on their own time and money as they are to publish a low quality humor magazine. That wasn't organized by the Student Union though.

Here's the short version. Gravity screwed up big-time, the Union condemned it and pressured the editor to step down, and the magazine is still funded by SAF. This is not some shockingly radical series of events that warrants the misuse of the word censorship and reference in full page attack ads in US News & World.