Rewind for a moment to your days in junior high. In your efforts to decipher George Orwell's tumultuous Animal Farm, likely a component of your reading list, you undoubtedly grew suspicious of Napoleon the pig's hypocritical and corrupt actions during his tyrannical rule over the farm. Gradually, you came to understand that the real situation Orwell recounts, Stalin's regime in Soviet Russia, was capable of causing immense harm in Russia.Metaphors this extreme can be very effective. And since Orwell's animals relayed his point successfully, why not apply them to Brandeis? In particular, an aspect of Brandeis that has recently been the focus of much dissent: the University Seminar requirement.

Return to the same context. The characters are the same, but the situation is a little different; it's not Soviet Russia in the mid-20th century. Napoleon is now in a classroom. Needless to say, he's an authoritative teacher in a classroom full of innocent, obedient animals.

First-years.

These animals have never been to a university classroom before, especially one taught by such a distinguished figure in their community. They tremble at the sight of him, anxious of what his expectations might be and unsure of how to behave.

Napoleon's class is titled "The Glorification of the Pig in Modern Society." Squealer, a pretentious student who is eager to please his professor, is particularly fascinated by the prospect of learning how to better justify the pigs' pursuit of power on the farm. Snowball, a studious, rational student, seems intrigued by Napoleon's apparent wealth of knowledge but is prepared to challenge his professor.

Others, Boxer the horse among them, seem rather confused. Boxer trusts his teacher but doesn't really understand the relevance of pigs to his life. He would have much preferred to take the class "The Construction of Windmills."

Moses the raven was more interested in a class called "The Afterlife," though he would have much preferred not being forced to take a small seminar class at all.

The class titled "Ribbons and Your Mane" initially grabbed Mollie the mare's attention, but the class was already filled with younger mares who were clearly prettier than she. Finding it difficult to hide her envy, she declared she would refuse to give the assignments the proper attention in protest of the injustice of the whole thing.

Upon encountering the diversity of interests presented by the students in his class, Napoleon immediately grew frustrated that not all of his students were interested in his subject. Napoleon was really looking forward to animated discussion, but such was not the case. His students simply seemed bewildered, restless and engrossed in their higher priorities.

Napoleon was severely disappointed. As the semester progressed, his students just seemed to be getting more and more stressed. However much he demanded more research on the various battles pigs fought throughout history, his students remained disinterested.

Oh, the injustice of it all! The class had such potential. Napoleon knew that each of these students would benefit from the cozy barn atmosphere of his seminar-style classroom. But if they didn't want to be there, like Moses, there was no good reason for them to be forced to attend, spoiling the atmosphere of the class.

Exasperated, Napoleon realized that a perfect "Glorification of Pigs" seminar would never be possible. In his anger and despair, he made one final change to the principles of Animalism, upheld by all animals of the farm:

"All animal seminars are equal, but some animal seminars are more equal than others."

And there you have it. With the USEM, the University created a system wherein students were forced to fulfill a requirement with classes of wildly uneven quality, despite the intention of a unifying first year experience.

An exaggeration? Absolutely. But the underlying overall problem of the USEM situation is precisely the theme that Orwell presents in his allegory. Whereas Napoleon corrupted the socialist ideals of equality in Orwell's original novella, the "professor" Napoleon ultimately corrupted the ideal classroom by altering his perception of his students' intelligence based only on how much they appreciated his own interest.

In effect, both societies severly disadvantage their subjects. If one is willing to contribute to his environment, he should then be able to take pride in his contribution. A lack thereof will ensure a miserable and fruitless classroom experience.