Use the field below to perform an advanced search of The Justice archives. This will return articles, images, and multimedia relevant to your query.
As a Brandeis alum whose career began in 2005 thanks to the rigorous journalism scene on campus, I was profoundly disappointed in the Justice's lukewarm editorial regarding the Student Union's recent proposal to decommission The Brandeis Hoot (Letter From the Editor: Proposal to de-charter The Hoot, April 8, 2019).
On behalf of the Office of Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (ODEI), we write to share our apologies to students, faculty and staff negatively impacted by the ‘deis IMPACT! Immigration Court: An Experiential Program proposal process. This program was originally included in the schedule of events for the week-long Social Justice Festival. The program was canceled by the host organization, the Harry Potter Alliance (HPA), before it was delivered, as it was clear that this event, as written, did not reflect the devastating realities of the migration crisis adequately. As this was the first year that the ODEI has managed ‘deis IMPACT!, we plan on engaging in a systematic review and evaluation of all ‘deis IMPACT! processes, including program and Impacter selection, development and support, this summer. Additional plans include a possible collaboration with the Student Union to develop a coalition-building workshop for student organizational leaders from across campus, which has the potential to offer an important development opportunity for many student groups. We are looking forward to including Brandeis community members as we engage in this process. Please contact us at diversity@brandeis.edu if you wish to be involved.
At today’s Senate meeting, Class of 2019 Senator Kent Dinlenc introduced a proposal that would decharter The Brandeis Hoot, citing duality of purpose and sustainability concerns with having two newspapers on campus.
Yesterday, Kent Dinlenc ’19, an Arts senior staff writer who also wrote for Forum section, resigned from the Justice. Dinlenc also serves as the Class of 2019 senator and as chair of the Union’s Sustainability committee. A few days ago Dinlenc circulated a survey on social media regarding the two newspapers on campus. His involvement in such matters poses a significant conflict of interest. Aware of this conflict, the Justice requested a meeting with Dinlenc to ask him for his resignation, which Dinlenc began the meeting by voluntarily offering. The Justice appreciates all the work Dinlenc has done, as well as his choice to address the conflict of interest his memberships created.
I spent last weekend in Washington, D.C. at the much-maligned and mostly-misunderstood American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) policy conference, an annual convention in which legions of citizen lobbyists descend on the nation’s capital to hear from policy makers, discuss developments in Middle Eastern politics and meet with representatives to make the case for “pro-Israel” legislation. It was my first time at the policy conference — I was raised in a theoretically, but not aggressively, Zionist home, and the year I spent in Israel before transferring to Brandeis from my small liberal arts college in Minnesota involved more protesting of the current Israeli government than lobbying in support of its American policy agenda. But then, controversy ensued when my old object of admiration in Minnesota, now-Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, called out AIPAC by name as buying American politicians. This triggered a collective heart attack in the Jewish community, as well as a spate of purportedly philo-semitic Islamophobia from Omar’s political opponents, and then a problematic conflation of that bile with the good-faith criticism that preceded it. Obsessed with this story to the point of being unable to talk about much else, I felt compelled this year to see for myself what this “Israel lobby” thing was all about.
On Sunday, Robert Mueller, the Special Counsel of the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential elections, released his final report stating that no collusion between President Trump’s campaign and the Russian government had occurred, but did not reach a conclusion on the issue of obstruction of justice, instead allowing Attorney General William Barr to do so. Barr concluded that the President did not obstruct justice, and Democrats are calling for Muller’s full report to be released to the public. What do you think this means for the country, and how should the Democrats handle this situation?