The values that make up the Brandeis ethos are not just the foundation of our University; they're also crucial to the health of our democracy. As students who enjoy an environment of openness and tolerance at Brandeis, we need to seriously evaluate, beyond partisan preferences, whether or not John McCain's running mate Sarah Palin will conform to these values as vice president of the United States.One of our four pillars of Brandeis' identity, as laid out by University President Jehuda Reinharz in 1995, is "non-sectarianism." The word encapsulates our dedication to tolerance and our desire to embrace all manners of diversity in our student body. When Palin ran for mayor in rural, windswept Wasilla, Alaska, she centered her campaign on a platform focusing on abortion, religion and gun rights. She won by injecting ideology into the race, polarizing the town. This was something that had never been done before in Wasilla, where the outcome of elections usually depended on which candidate could better answer practical questions about highways and sewers. Palin claimed time and again, "We will have our first Christian mayor," as quoted in a New York Times article. Her opponent, John Stein, seemed flummoxed.

Said Stein in the same article: "I thought: 'Holy cow, what's happening here? Does that mean she thinks I'm Jewish or Islamic?'" Stein was actually raised Lutheran, but he isn't much of a churchgoer.

We would not expect any candidate to support the Brandeis pillar relating to "Jewish sponsorship." On the contrary, we expect our government to draw a clear distinction between church and state; it is not a private institution like Brandeis and cannot give more power to one religious group than to another. That's why it is troubling that Palin is in the habit of dropping comments that imply that some government policies are justified by a higher power.

In a recent speech, Palin said that "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God," as quoted by ABC News. She even went on to say, "There is a plan and it is God's plan." Such a tendency to cast partisan policy decisions in religious terms that brook no argument is contrary to the Brandeisian ethos.

Palin does not seem to share Brandeis' penchant for social justice either. According to a New York Times article referencing her stance on global warming, she asserted in a speech that she is not "an Al Gore doom-and-gloom environmentalist blaming the changes in our climate on human activity." Since becoming the vice presidential candidate, Palin has softened her position and acknowledged that humans may have had some hand in global warming. Nevertheless, this is an irresponsible and ignorant statement to make, especially considering that she's the governor of Alaska, land of melting snowcaps, disappearing polar bears and problematic oil-drilling projects.

The final Brandeis pillar is "dedication to academic excellence." The vice presidential candidate comes across as anti-intellectual, and, according to Anne Kilkenny, she even tried to censor books in Wasilla's public library during her stint as mayor. Kilkenny, a Democrat who attended all the city council meetings Palin presided over, explained to The New York Times that the books were "somehow morally or socially objectionable to [Palin]."

The librarian, Kilkenny added, said she would "resist all efforts at censorship" and was subsequently fired by Palin. She was only reinstated as librarian after Wasilla residents protested on her behalf.

During her recent interview with ABC reporter Charlie Gibson, Palin defended herself against criticism of her thin résumé by saying that Americans don't want "somebody's big fat résumé maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment where, yes, they've had opportunities to meet heads of state." Does she expect Americans to support her, not despite her lack of experience and knowledge, but because of it? Can we risk waking up one day-as is quite possible, considering McCain's age-with a president who only obtained a passport a year ago, who had no idea (until ABC's reporter explained it to her) what the Bush doctrine is and who furthermore appears to take pride in her cluelessness?