The University has received a total of $9 million from the federal government as part of the controversial American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the stimulus bill passed by Congress in February of last year. The money will be spent on various research projects, which have or will create a handful of jobs. The money has thus far been spent on projects like one intended to support Ph.D. students at American universities studying data collection methods to contribute to a research project focused on a native Amazonian population in Bolivia. I can't help but wonder if sponsoring research at Brandeis is really what the federal government ought to be doing during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.In the interest of full disclosure: I'm a registered Republican, and I am naturally suspicious of big government spending projects. And while I am considering a major in Economics, as of now the bulk of my economic expertise comes from Introduction to Economics with Prof. Harry Michael Coiner (ECON). But I can't resist the thought that the $9 million of government stimulus money received by Brandeis could have been better spent and that the University should not have sought, and should in fact have turned down, the government funding.

I'll tackle this issue on two levels: first, whether or not the money could have been better spent, and second, whether the University had a responsibility to turn down the money.

Regarding the question of whether the money could have been better spent: The theory underlying the stimulus bill is classic Keynesian economics. The late British economist Alfred Maynard Keynes argued that during periods of economic downturn, governments can avert some of the recession by pumping money into the economy. This can be achieved by cutting taxes and increasing government spending, which is exactly what the stimulus bill did. According to Keynes, government spending on anything would be better for the economy than no spending at all. Since government demand for goods and services inevitably produces or saves jobs, there is always some benefit gained from any stimulus package.

However, governments can more effectively alleviate the effects of recessions by spending money in the most efficient ways. A report just last November on the nonprofit Independent Media Institute's www.alternet.org reported that it was blue-collar workers who suffered most from the recession. According to the AlterNet article, "There are 25 unemployed construction workers for every job opening in their field, and more than a dozen for every opening in the durable goods industries, according to the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston." With so many industries employing blue-collar workers suffering so terribly, it seems that sponsoring university research might not have been the best use of government money during the recession.

My gripe at this level is primarily with the government. After all, the stimulus bill itself states that one of the bill's goals was "to provide investments needed to increase economic efficiency by spurring technological advances in science and health." Although I'm all in favor of the government sponsoring important research, I can't accept that such sponsorship ought to have been part of an emergency economic relief package. That money has created or retained a mere 15 jobs in a sector of the economy suffering far less than the industries employing blue-collar workers.

But, you may ask, regardless of whether the stimulus bill's distribution of funds was ill-conceived, shouldn't the University accept research grants from whatever source is available? After all, $9 million is not that big a chunk of a $787 billion stimulus package, and why should it be the University's job to ensure responsible government spending?

I think the answer to this question lies in that oft-repeated phrase about our University: We are committed to social justice. Brandeis advertises its commitment to social action and social justice as one of the "four pillars" of the University. This commitment to social justice is inherently a political commitment. It means that Brandeis isn't solely in the business of education and research; it is in the business of improving the condition of the national and global communities. If the University takes this commitment seriously, then it most certainly has an obligation not to seek, and even to turn down government money if, during a time of economic emergency, that money could have been more wisely spent and directly relieve the burden of those who suffered most from the recession.

I know that $9 million is not all that much when it comes to government spending and massive recessions, and I know that the money would have likely gone to another university had we not taken it. But I think Brandeis ought to have considered its civic responsibility during this latest recession to ensure a just allocation of government funds a bit more before accepting that stimulus money.