Let me tell you about my older brother. He has been married for a little over a year now, and currently lives happily in a cozy apartment in Israel with his wife. They really love the neighborhood—it has been growing rapidly for almost 30 years, which is quite old in a country whose modern state sovereignty was only established 66 short years ago. They were both a bit nervous about moving to a new country, coming from the United States, so they were thrilled to find out that their landlord—who has lived in the community for approximately 25 years—is actually a distant cousin with whom our family has since reconnected. The community also boasts nine synagogues, five kindergartens, a community bomb shelter, basketball courts, a nationally regarded youth baseball team and a vast library. In 2007, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz wrote a feature story on this community titled, “The Best Place to Raise Kids.” One little caveat though: the community is technically labeled an illegal settlement as it is geographically located over the 1967 green line. 

Countless media outlets, interest groups and even noted scholars including many on staff here at Brandeis have labeled continued Israeli settlement expansion as a major impediment to peace. The United States “does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements,” said President Barack Obama in June 2009. To quote the “pro-Israel, pro-peace” lobby group J Street’s national website, “Israel’s settlements in the occupied territories have, for over forty years, been an obstacle to peace.” 

Apparently, my American raised, top college graduate, hi-tech marketing employed brother is acting as the roadblock to peace in the Middle East by living in this 30-year-old settlement called Chashmonaim. He is not in any army, he doesn’t fire rockets, nor does he does care if the falafel cart down the street is owned by a Jew or an Arab; he just posts technology articles on Twitter for a living. And here I thought I was the rebellious child. 

But don’t fret, this is not another article about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is about the binary language we so regularly use when discussing contentious issues that unequivocally will result in conflict. Almost every single student on this campus—including the Brandeis Israel Public Affairs Committee in this section last year—views the “illegal settlements” as impediment to peace. 

Never mind the fact that such a binary label—legal or illegal—must include settlements like Chashmonaim which are mutually agreed upon by both sides of the negotiating table as part of Israel in any future deal. So much so that the Israeli security fence guarding Israel proper already includes the area. Never mind the fact that, even in a court of law, there are surely levels of conviction when discussing legality. Because we need to see things in black and white, there is no room for the inevitable grey. Rarely though are issues of sensitivity so rudimentary. 

This issue of labeling or judging entities on the premise of either good or bad, or right or wrong, is pervasive in our modern vernacular, even of sensitive issues that deserve a less than shallow analysis.  In today’s world of 140 characters or less, the long analytic road to a certain and complex opinion is merely replaced by the impulsive snapshot good-or-bad blanket statement. We form opinions based on elevator pitches yet don’t provide concrete analysis as to why such an opinion is logically justified. Take a look at our most recent presidential campaign: according to Advertising Age, 75 percent of campaign dollars raised in 2012 went to TV advertising—about $953 million throughout the campaign season. What true analysis on presidential platforms can possibly be made in a 30-second commercial? TV spots solely portray a candidate’s view on any of the infinitely complex issues throughout the election as either moral or immoral, right or wrong, just or unjust. The binary allows one side of a conversation to point to the other, label the opposition as obviously wrong, which only leaves the proposed choice: take our side because “they” are clearly wrong; don’t worry so much if we are right—and surely don’t consider a combination or compromise of the two. 

Consider an issue that is close to home for us on campus, the executive compensation of our administration. In the Brandeis Labor Coalition’s recently released platform, the group calls for the highest paid employee of the University to have no more than 15 times the salary of the lowest paid employee. A hard count on a salary again creates this binary of choices: more than this number is too much, and less is the right amount. Philosophically speaking, a policy like this sounds tenable—on the surface we all know which side of the binary we would choose, the one “promoting our values,” the one we all can stand behind, the one where people get paid their respective socially just amount. But practically speaking, the two choices of either ‘the right amount’ versus “the wrong amount” can’t properly express the entirety of opinion. 

Based on the recently released 990s of the University for the fiscal year 2012, the highest paid executive at Brandeis that year was Senior Vice President for Institutional Advancement Nancy Winship. Considering Winship’s primary responsibility is raising money, it is reasonable for her salary to be somewhat based on incentive; whatever amount her office raises over the course of the fiscal year should be reflected in her salary. If the BLC policy was enacted at the time, the lowest paid employee of Brandeis in theory should have been paid $79,705, based on Winship’s 2012 salary of $1,195,589. According to a September 2013 article in this paper, the average instructor—lowest qualification of professor on campus—made $59,000. Clearly a number of $79,705 would be unsustainable for the average employee on campus, even if we cut Winship’s salary in half. Should Winship stop raising money for the school at a certain point, simply to make sure she doesn’t get paid more than 15 times the lowest paid employee on campus? Are we advocating she work for free? Maybe we are arguing against incentive pay. Regardless though, it is not so simple to say that above this arbitrary amount is good, and below is bad. Doing so in fact prohibits the necessary conversation from occurring. 

Is it easier to win an argument to force your opposition to label something right or wrong? Absolutely. But forcing a binary answer does not lead to productive conversation about resolving the issue  at hand. Rarely is it that simple; rarely are the issues so clear cut that such a conversation would be appropriate. We need to give issues the deep and grounded analysis they deserve, and only then can they be resolved.