It seems that it has become accepted practice for students to be penalized because of a group of faculty members, or even one, who organizes a speaker in 13 days with ill-preparation and misinformation.This is the context of former President Jimmy Carter's January visit that Student Union President Alison Schwartzbaum '08 provided for us and which, we now understand, has become the backbone for a curious new policy the Union has adopted.

Apparently, Dean of Student Life Rick Sawyer recommended on Jan. 29 that Schwartzbaum establish a committee for "screening" (to use Schwartzbaum's word) Middle East speakers invited to Brandeis University.

It can be excused that at that stage, a precise definition and purpose have not been identified.

What is not excusable, and has become increasingly mysterious, is that over two weeks later, a clear goal, details or even a reason for the committee have not been defined.

We have contacted Sawyer, Schwartzbaum and Assistant Dean of Student Life Alwina Bennet, only of the last whom has responded to our messages. In meeting with all three, it became clear that each has placed him- or herself in a comfortable position of non-responsibility and muteness on the topic (Schwartzbaum followed all of her statements with "I don't know more than that," and Sawyer said "it is Alison's committee").

It comes as an especially frustrating development (or stagnation) as we have each been working toward coordinating unrelated speaker visits for this semester. The planning for the Daniel Pipes event began in October, before any thought was made about Carter's visit. The Norman Finkelstein event was planned twice to completion, only to be deferred to begin stage-one planning through this committee. It may be appropriate to mention here that despite the fact that we are inviting speakers from different perspectives and that among ourselves disagree with each other, we are all in complete agreement regarding this committee and its application.

And while we take Bennett's suggestion of "working within the system" to heart, it is unfortunate that all we could do in that respect is nothing. There seems to be no application process, no announcement yet of the week-old members of this committee, and no interactions with us (save for those we initiated) on the organization's progress.

So what precisely is the purpose of this committee?

One answer, which Schwartzbaum gave, was that following Carter's speech, students felt they had no comfortable forum to discuss Middle East matters. But is a committee possibly devoted to screening Middle East speakers the solution?

We offered to divide the tasks along two parallel and independent courses. We would be allowed to go ahead freely with inviting speakers (what is the harm?) and we would offer suggestions for a Union committee devoted precisely to the task of creating a safe space for discussing the issue-with a Middle East Awareness month, professor panels, information sessions following speakers and Middle East activities celebrating different aspects of regional culture. These in addition to the plethora of NEJS and IMES courses, the invited specialists, the Middle East dialogue groups and publications already available to students.

The answer given by Sawyer and Schwartzbaum was a nod and a quiet "maybe" with no follow-up and no evident interest in pursuing any of these options.

The next possible measure this committee would address, according to Schwartzbaum, was the centralization and better-management of speaker expenses.

Indeed, such a committee would centralize costs. However, does this ensure better management? What about the offer by certain speakers to visit for free? And what exactly does evaluation of the "appropriateness" of a speaker have to do with costs?

Regarding finances, it seems there is no precedent for such action. Students have been inviting speakers from all parts of the spectrum since the university's inception, including Meir Kahane, Walid Shoebat, the Weathermen and an endless list of other controversial figures.

It seems this committee will remain deliberately amorphous in form and ambiguous in objectives for the duration of its existence, functioning as a specter of bureaucracy, dare we say censorship, rather than as that noble medium of dialogue we wish to be its purpose. We only hope now that those responsible for it could prove us wrong.