As the Class of 1952 marched with this year's graduates, it seemed only appropriate to reflect upon the University's shifting roles in a changing political sphere. More specifically, the current situation in the Middle East has highlighted Brandeis's Jewish identity and that of many of its community members. Given recent events, Zionism has come to the forefront of campus discussion and has made the ideal of coexistence more challenging. The University claims to champion coexistence, a subject in which it will soon offer a master's degree. At the same time, however, the University's ability to provide a tolerant atmosphere to the student body has been questioned from many directions. On May 17, the Boston Globe ran a front page article titled "Teaching coexistence." While the new degree was the news peg, the piece also focused on coexistence at Brandeis and on Brandeis's role regarding the situation in the Middle East. Complicating the situation, events on campus during this past academic year have demonstrated the discomfort and anger that many students say they feel: Some minority students feel alienated and argue that the University is not living up to its goals of fostering diversity; other students say they feel stifled and unheard.

Acting chair of the Peace and Coexistence Studies (PAX) Professor Cynthia Cohen aptly acknowledged the isolation and tension that exists. Furthermore, she recognized that there is a lack of awareness of other students' beliefs, practices and values. Indeed, a largely homogeneous community can intimidate students who do not identify with the mainstream -- in the case of Brandeis, a white, Jewish majority. We need to take the initiative to self-educate, to ask questions and answer them. And, we need to understand that our time at Brandeis is an educational experience, and mistakes will be made. Coexistence does not mean one should abandon any component of one's identity or one's convictions thereof. Moreover, it underlines individuality, while augmenting understanding of and communication among cultures.

However, it is unclear to whom the responsibility for this struggle belongs. Many argue that it is the obligation of the undergraduate community, and not the administration. We feel, though, that it is also imperative to recognize that racism and feelings of alienation are not unique to Brandeis; rather, they are endemic to our society. That, however, does not deny the responsibility of the individual nor the collective obligation of the undergraduate body. By choosing to attend Brandeis, we also chose to be under a microscope. And, if we are going to claim to subscribe to ideals of acceptance, we must do our best to make this campus a welcoming place.

On the other hand, while forums for communication are often available, a large portion of the student body feels they cannot speak, for fear of being berated for their opinions. Consequently, a tone of "political correctness" becomes the expected norm and the standard to which students are uniformly held. It is important to treat other students with respect, and, paradoxically, respect entails both the absence of racial slurs like those aired on WBRS last semester and tolerance for difference of opinions other than one's own. However, a blanket of "political correctness" can prevent the discussion necessary for true enlightenment. Indeed the line between political correctness and peaceful coexistence is a fine one, the limits of which must be brought to the forefront of public discourse. But, discussion without active participation is unfruitful.

Following the open forums in November and December, the ICC held a meeting in which students attending -- mostly activists and leaders of ICC clubs -- generated ideas on how to form a coalition of tolerance at Brandeis. This action demonstrates the passion of a select few, but the overall apathy of most students makes change difficult. To build an all-inclusive community, everyone needs to seek inclusion and participate on campus.
For the University to be the accepting place it aims to be, it is absolutely necessary for real conversation to take place. This dialogue cannot occur unless everyone feels comfortable enough to honestly express their right to speak freely and unless students use respectful, constructive, language to represent their viewpoints. At the same time, students must exercise their individuality and demand to be heard.