Trustees of donated academic funds allege University misuse
(11/26/13 5:00am)
Correction appended.
Search Results
Use the field below to perform an advanced search of The Justice archives. This will return articles, images, and multimedia relevant to your query.
Petition circulates after Reinharz pay publicized
(11/26/13 5:00am)
In the week after the Boston Globe published its Nov. 17 article examining the "golden parachute" phenomenon in higher education, focusing on President Emeritus Jehuda Reinharz's compensation, many members of the Brandeis community reacted with skepticism and even outrage. As of press time, a "Petition for Fair Executive Pay" at Brandeis on the website actionnetwork.org had attracted over 1,400 signatures from students, alumni, faculty, staff and others. The student representatives to the Board of Trustees also sent a letter to the chair of the board, Perry Traquina '78, with student concerns, according to a member of the Student Union executive board. On Friday, Traquina issued a statement via BrandeisNOW in response to the Globe article and the public reaction to it. "As Board Chair, one of my highest priorities will be to ensure that all current and future executive pay packages at Brandeis are fair, motivational and consistent with best practices," read the statement, in which Traquina also pledged to ensure that the Board's actions were consistent with "our namesake, Justice Louis D. Brandeis." Jonathan Sussman '11, who was involved with drafting and promoting the petition, said that he was glad to see this response from the Board, but still hoped to see more action taken. "I'm glad that the Board of Trustees understand[s] that they need to address these issues, that there is a strong concern from the student body and from alumni," he said in an interview with the Justice. "But until we see concrete change, I don't think that there's really going to be any satisfaction with those answers." The organizers of the petition will present it to Traquina and the Board of Trustees, according to Sahar Massachi '11 MA '12, one of the drafters. The text of the petition, which was spearheaded by Massachi and Sussman along with Lev Hirschhorn '11 and Mariel Gruszko '10, stated that "Reinharz's excessive compensation is part and parcel of a national trend of universities shifting resources away from the classroom and toward administration. Brandeis undermines its own values when it prioritizes donor relationships and institutional prestige over student access to scholarship and good stewardship of our communal resources." The petition also made two demands: that the Board of Trustees "[i]nstitute a policy of transparency" surrounding executive compensation, and that "[t]he complete annual compensation of the highest-paid employees of the University should be no more than fifteen times the complete annual compensation of the lowest-paid full-time employee of the University." In data Massachi collected from about 1,400 signatories, approximately 449 said they had donated to Brandeis in the past, 372 said they had volunteered for Brandeis in the past and 76 said they would help the creators of the petition "take [it] to the next level." "It's an astounding number of signatures," said Massachi. "Consider that the way this spread was ... posting a link to the petition on Facebook. And just from those humble beginnings, we got, I think 500 or 600 signers in the first day." On campus, Alina Pokhrel '15 and Benjamin Hill '14 are leading an effort to organize students, faculty and staff and "create a safe space" in which to share thoughts on the issues surrounding Reinharz's compensation. Whiler there are no concrete plans as of yet, they are planning to host an open forum on campus early next semester to address this issue and "foster trust" between the various parties, Pokhrel said in an interview with the Justice. Of the signers of the petition, 310 were current undergraduate students and 15 were current graduate students. Seventeen signatories said they were faculty members, nine were staff, 34 were parents and a combined 98 had "other" or "blank" affiliation to the University. Alumni, however, made up by far the largest group, with a combined total of approximately 891 alumni of either graduate or undergraduate programs at Brandeis. Massachi said that his statistics were rough because the method by which he gathered information left open the possibility of double counting people. According to this self-reported information, 37 of the 449 who said they had donated to Brandeis graduated before 2000, with some graduating as early as 1958. Nine donors were still undergraduates, and 403 graduated between 2000 and 2013, according to the data. Those who signed the petition were also given the option of writing a comment. Many addressed the topic of rising tuition and considered the amount of financial aid for which Reinharz's salary could be used, while others pointed out the disparity between Reinharz's compensation and faculty and staff pay. Still others simply quoted the University's motto, "truth: even unto its innermost parts." A few signatories wrote that "Justice Brandeis is rolling in his grave," and pointed to the University's mission of social justice as their motivation to sign. Several commenters stated that they would not donate to the University after learning of Reinharz's compensation package, or were discouraged from making a contribution. When asked about the involvement of recent alumni in the petition, Massachi said that "people of that generation just saw it really clearly," referring to the students who were here during the financial crisis. "Jehuda was the same guy who told us we had no choice but to, you know, admit a lot more students, be more cramped, have ... less professors and just change as a university." "We think this is really significant because ... if [Brandeis is] going to survive, it needs to have a strong base among students who have graduated very recently to contribute to the University both monetarily and just socially and culturally to keep the University alive," said Sussman when asked about the involvement of young alumni. "So we think it shows a real crisis for the University that the most recent generation of alumni are very concerned about its direction." *
Sodexo and University look to change meal plan options
(11/19/13 5:00am)
On Nov. 8, members of the Student Union, University administrators and representatives from Sodexo met to discuss a proposal for meal plan reform to be implemented at the start of the next academic year. According to Jay DeGioia, Brandeis' resident district manager for Dining Services, he called the meeting in response to student feedback that was garnered during the request for proposal process that took place last year. At the meeting, Sodexo proposed several ideas for new types of meal plans, according to the Senate chair of the Dining Committee, Class of 2017 Senator David Heaton. In an email to the Justice, DeGioia said that "the meal plans proposed are a direct result of what [Sodexo was] asked to deliver from the direction in the sales proposal" which the University gave out during the request for proposal process. Instead of meals, the potential new system would introduce the use of "swipes" that students would use at Sherman Dining Hall or Usdan Caf?(c), which will be converted over the summer into a resident dining hall facility comparable to Sherman, DeGioia said in an interview with the Justice. The name "swipes" denotes how they differ from meals: these "swipes" would not be limited by meal periods such as lunch and dinner, or disappear at the end of the week, but would be available for unrestricted use throughout the semester, Heaton said in an interview with the Justice. Proposed meal plans would provide students with options similar to those currently in place, with suggested plans that allow for the purchase of many swipes with a limited number of points, or fewer swipes but a larger amount of points, according to Heaton. One proposed plan would vary vastly from any existing plans, according to DeGioia, who mentioned the implementation of an "all-access" plan that would give students an unlimited number of swipes for the entire semester, but very few points to use at retail locations such as Dunkin' Donuts or Starbucks. The University very likely will not decide to allow the use of meals at retail locations such as the Hoot Market due to the added expense and reduced control that DeGioia predicts will result when students have the ability to use unlimited meals at locations with regulated prices. Senior Vice President for Students and Enrollment Andrew Flagel said in an interview with the Justice that the request for proposal catalyzed the Nov. 8 discussion over reforming meal plans at Brandeis. Students expressed dissatisfaction with their meal plans in focus groups during the request for proposal process, according to Flagel, with one major point being frustration over a perceived loss of value through meal equivalency at the University's retail dining locations. Student dissatisfaction regarding meal plans has been ongoing however, according to Flagel, who said that negative student feedback regarding dining began before his arrival at the University. Student Union President Ricky Rosen '14 said in an interview with the Justice that this change would ease some of this financial loss students experience with their current meal plans by eliminating the current system of equivocating meals to a dollar value for use at retail dining locations. Rosen said The Stein acts as a good example of this loss. At The Stein students can use a meal to pay for only five dollars worth of food, whereas a meal at Sherman Dining Hall buys a dinner worth of over 10 dollars retail. "At the end of the day, because the ratio [of money spent on meal plans to value purchased by meals and points] is unbalanced, students aren't getting the most for their money. So we're looking at removing those components and just having meal swipes at Sherman and Usdan," instead of the current system where students use roughly equivocated meals at retail dining locations," said Rosen. Sodexo, the Student Union and University administrators aim to implement new meal plans by the beginning of the fall 2014 semester, according to Rosen. The introduction of swipes to replace meals made up only part of the proposal Sodexo brought to its meeting with University representatives. "Something [the University is] considering right now is having all on-campus housing students be on a meal plan," Rosen told the Justice. This proposal change would require all residential students to purchase some sort of meal plan, regardless of where on campus they live, said Rosen. According to Flagel, this idea also came about during the RFP process last year, during which the University hired consultant Ray E. Petit, president and founder of Petit Consulting, LLC, a company that, according to its website, provides "planning advice to foodservice and hospitality clients." According to Flagel, in Petit's analysis of the University, he called Brandeis "an outlier compared to other institutions" in having "only portions of the residential population on meal plans." DeGioia said that such a change could only benefit students in regard to on-campus dining: "the more participants, the better the quality, the better the offerings, the more offerings." Flagel also said that he felt such a change would have a positive effect, telling the Justice that his "perception [is] that this was a direction that would really heighten the student experience." Student feedback will largely impact the decision of whether all residential students will need to purchase meal plans, according to Rosen, who said that such an option might make on-campus housing less desirable. By increasing the quality of the food and the pricing, however, Rosen opined that "students will be more willing to have some sort of uniform requirement for a meal plan." In any case, Rosen said that such a drastic change in whom the University requires to purchase a meal plan would not be implemented until 2015 or 2016. Another idea that the University wishes to consider would require all enrolled, undergraduate students to purchase some sort of meal plan, regardless of whether or not they live on campus. However, Rosen said that such a requirement has a "very small chance" of being enacted. "Increasingly, other institutions are including some level of plan requirement even for off-campus students. That wasn't met with as much enthusiasm by our students who were involved in discussing at the different forums [during the RFP process], so that hasn't been envisioned [as of yet]," said Flagel. Instead, the University has a goal to make the food on campus so good that off-campus students will be more interested in being on meal plans, according to Rosen. "Something we're considering is having a much cheaper option for off campus students which would include a limited amount of dining dollars and meal swipes so that way they're able to eat [on campus] a few times a week, but they're not bound to eating on campus every day" Rosen said. Flagel, Rosen and DeGioia all said that student feedback will make up an important part of the decision-making process moving forward. Decisions regarding major changes to meal plans considered student feedback from past years, some even from students who have since graduated, according to Flagel. The meal plan ideas proposed at the Nov. 8 meeting did not consider any feedback received since Sodexo became Brandeis' food service provider, according to DeGioia, but only feedback received by Sodexo during the RFP process last year. Since the University Board of Trustees must approve a final proposal for meal plan options before students sign up for housing and pick their meal plans for the upcoming academic year, "time begins to work against [new] feedback inclusion for decisions this year," said Flagel in an email to the Justice. Therefore updated feedback in reaction to Sodexo's proposals will necessarily take a back seat to older student feedback, "but can be revisited as we move into the next [annual] cycle of meal plan development." "We need to, as we move forward, be looking at our student satisfaction levels and be looking at our perception of value levels and make sure that this is creating positive progress on all of those fronts for our students," Flagel wrote. According to Rosen, the Student Union will be sending out a survey to students in the next few weeks to ask students how they feel about meal equivalency and unlimited swipes, how many meal plan options they want to have and how they would feel about requiring all students to have meal plans. After receiving that data, the Student Union, University administrators and Sodexo plan to meet again to discuss what changes, if any, will be made before submitting the proposals to the University Board of Trustees. They likely will not enact any significant changes to the current proposal, however; in an email to the Justice, DeGioia said that though Sodexo retains interest in the results of the upcoming survey, the feedback "may only affect minor changes for next fall, but will definitely be considered for the future." The ultimate goals of the University and Sodexo, according to Flagel and DeGioia, respectively, are to cater to students' needs and involve them in the decision-making process to come up with a system that pleases the majority, providing more flexibility and a more positive dining experience. "There's lots of other pieces of student input that we want to try to collect. I think it's always a challenge but at some point decisions have to get made and not everyone's going to be 100 percent satisfied with any decision. It's not possible," Flagel said, adding, "It's Brandeis. I'm sure there's always going to be a countervailent [sic] position somewhere."
Play brings life to Shakespearean classic
(11/12/13 5:00am)
On Thursday night, Hold Thy Peace, Brandeis' Shakespeare theater group, premiered their production of Hamlet to a small but enthusiastic audience in the Shapiro Campus Center theater. Directed by Samantha LeVangie '15, the play stuck close to its original version, with some cuts to reduce the running time, which was already close to three hours with the cuts. There was also one major change: Horatio is a ghost. The play opened with Hamlet's best friend, Horatio (Aaron Fischer '15), seeing the ghost of Hamlet's father. In this version, however, since Horatio was also a ghost, this scene seemed redundant. In the playbill, LeVangie explained that she wanted to enhance the supernatural already found in Hamlet. Fischer sported ghastly makeup to lighten his pallor and a bloody gash on his cheek, but the change is confusing at first. Once I realized what Horatio was supposed to be, Fischer's performance as Hamlet's voice of reason was convincing, even if his new ghostly identity was not. Hamlet was volatile and his emotion did not seem forced, even in the over-the-top soliloquies that he had to recite while bounding around the stage. When Hamlet talked to himself, he didn't address the audience. Instead, he focused on a point on the stage to address at random, highlighting his alleged madness, which worked brilliantly. The music played in between scenes was appropriately ominous, and the prop as well as furniture changes in between scenes went smoothly. The set, designed and put together by Ryan Kacani '15, who also plays Claudius, was a dark medieval-style castle with colorful stained glass windows that offset the gray and black of the rest of the scenery. This set presented an odd contrast to the costume choices. At the start of the play, Hamlet (Alex Davis '15) wears jeans, a tuxedo-printed t-shirt and sneakers. The rest of the cast wore modern formal clothing, and in one scene Hamlet wore a suit and top hat, but other than that he was dressed casually. Hamlet is supposed to be a rebel, but the jeans were off-putting and out of place. In the scene where Hamlet and his family views the players' performance, Hamlet's costume was given the addition of a cane, which he wielded comically and effectively, adding personality to the otherwise unstable character. Another odd costuming element was the single leather glove, worn Michael Jackson-style throughout most of the play by Claudius. This could be seen as symbolic, since it is worn on the hand that presumably killed Hamlet's father, but came across as an out of place fashion choice for the murderous king. Ophelia, portrayed by Barbara Spidle '16, was a convincing Shakespearean maiden, even in her J. Crew-style pencil skirt and heels. She started out overly bubbly but progressed into a wailing state of madness by the end of the play. Spidle's talents were especially showcased in the scenes before Ophelia's death, wallowing around the stage, singing to herself and handing out flowers. Her portrayal of the grieving Ophelia lent sympathy to the character, who has gone mad but is also mourning the loss of her father. The other actors were spot-on as well, no matter the size of their parts. The small cast meant that many actors played multiple roles, which was only confusing in one scene. Rosencrantz and Gildenstern, played by Connor Wahrman '17 and Zack Kennedy '16, are pronounced dead, and shortly after the actors come back as two gravediggers at Ophelia's grave. It took me a minute to realize that Rosencrantz and Gildenstern did not come back from their graves to dig their own graves. Wahrman and Kennedy's performances are comical and they work well together as the inseparable pair. Max Moran's '17 performance as the eccentric, babbling Polonius, Ophelia and Laertes' father, warrants a special mention. Wandering around the stage and gesturing comically, he delivered Polonius's nonsensical ramblings with gusto and humor. The production went smoothly, and there were only a few minor slip-ups of the complicated Shakespearean dialogue. Overall, despite the odd choice of making Horatio a ghost and some unusual costuming, the play was an earnest rendition of Shakespeare's tragedy. Editor's note: Max Moran '17 is an Editorial Assistant for the Justice's Forum section.
Vine creates platform for racial stereotypes to perpetuate
(11/05/13 5:00am)
Whether you're an active participant or simply a curious follower, it's becoming increasingly difficult to go a full 24 hours without checking up on some form of social media. The new app Vine has earned a spot at the social media "cool kid's table" alongside Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat and Instagram. Owned and operated by the same folks who created Twitter, Vine is "a mobile service that lets you capture and share short looping videos. Like Tweets, the brevity of videos on Vine (6 seconds or less) inspires creativity," according to the Vine website. Vine allows individuals to share personal experiences whenever they want for free and aims to highlight the universality of these common events. The result is usually a hilariously relatable six-second clip with a built-in repeat button-operating on the assumption that you'll want to re- watch the clip again and again ...and again. Popular Vines range from cats jumping into toilets to videos of friends slapping each other in surprising ways. However, mixed into this world of funny pet videos and public humiliation is a genre of videos that is totally founded on racial stereotypes. I'm all for inspiring creativity, but I have a hard time ignoring the resurgence of racism that the Vine community seems to be fostering. Some of the most popular Vines harp on common stereotypes, such as Asians being good at math, African-Americans preferring fried chicken and Kool-Aid to other snacks and ethnic minorities running away any time they hear a police siren. In fact, there's an entire channel of Vines devoted to "Black People vs. White People," and these videos often rank in the most viewed Vines on the app. Monthly compilations of the "Best Vines" highlight Vines entitled, "White Moms vs. Black Moms" and "How Asian kids wake up" as well as "white girlfriends be like.." It's also true that these popular videos capitalize on sexist tropes, but I'll focus on racism here. Vine provides a forum for viewers to post, comment, like, "re-vine" and popularize negative stereotypes along racial lines. This new platform, coupled with modern Internet culture, blurs the line between Internet success and traditional celebrity. People will do whatever it takes to acquire followers and "likes." And apparently, easy-to-recognize stereotypes are the key to instant Vine popularity. Some people might argue that Vine is the perfect platform to laugh at harmless stereotypes. Vine users might protest that these short clips aren't hurting anyone and that individuals who take offense are just overly politically correct. It's true that these Vines can be funny-because many of the creators are talented, or at least enthusiastic. But something more complicated is at play here. As a white, American and middle-class woman, do I have the right to laugh at a Vine displaying African-American stereotypes? Furthermore, does anyone have the right to laugh at these controversial depictions of ethnic identity? My gut reaction is no. In my mind, laughing at this category of Vines perpetuates age-old stereotypes. It's also worth noting that Vine isn't a novel example of racism penetrating the Internet. But there's something about the nature of these looping videos that sets Vine apart from racist memes, derogatory Facebook pages, hateful YouTube videos and other examples of racially charged social media. Vine is different because its format is especially created for sharing short bursts of creativity-some are improvised and casual, others clearly painstakingly planned. No matter how much thought went into them, as soon as Vines enter the world, they repeat endlessly for anyone to see. This is the Internet at the height of its creative potential-an infinite number of people can get an endless six seconds of fame. Part of Vine's mass appeal is this accessibility. Anyone can post a video to Vine, regardless of race, ethnicity or socioeconomic status. But the democratic nature of the medium makes it hard to differentiate between individual representations of identity and racialized generalizations about entire groups of people designed to solicit "re-vines." Are these old stereotypes so popular on Vine because they resonate as somehow truthful for people in their own lives? Or are these short reminders of racist boundaries popular because people can instantly recognize them, laugh and move on in the narrow time frame? Scholars suggest that the definition of ethnic identity reinvents itself in response to different eras of American history. Negative stereotypes thrust upon African-Americans correspond historically with a complete disregard for the development of African-American identity. Modern ethnic and racial identity is no longer confined to historically assigned stereotypes. For the most part, individuals have the opportunity to pick and choose which aspects of their ethnicity they wish to flaunt or hide. However, this reinvention of ethnic identity as a voluntary self-representation does not correspond with the continued use of inflammatory racial tropes showcased on Vine. Wouldn't it be great if Americans took advantage of Vine and used it as a tool to push past age-old stereotypes and produce Vines that don't revolve around reductive conversations on race? Vine offers individuals the chance to share personal and accurate representations of culture in an easy-to-digest way. And most of all, Vine is fun. But just because it's fun doesn't mean it has to be lazy and ignorant. Americans should take a closer look at Vine if they ever think that racism in this country has disappeared. In this sea of looping videos, we can all see an endless repetition of old racist ideas. Instead of just adding to the chorus of reinforced stereotypes, some of us should add different voices to the mix. Maybe our voices can shift the conversation on race to something that deserves repeating. Editor's note: This article was originally written for "AMST 55: Race, Ethnicity and Immigration in American Culture."
Reader Commentary
(10/29/13 4:00am)
Healthy and civil discussion needed In response to your article "Concept of social justice actually perpetuates societal injustice" (Oct. 22): In his 2010 commencement address at the University of Michigan, President [Barack] Obama noted the need for, "a basic level of civility in our public debate." He went on to say, "We can't expect to solve our problems if all we do is tear each other down. ... You can disagree with a certain policy without demonizing the person who espouses it. You can question somebody's views and their judgment without questioning their motives." At Brandeis, we take particular pride in fostering an atmosphere that supports discourse and debate. There will always be topics, how- ever, that we find particularly sensitive, especially when the views espoused challenge our community values or practices. These challenges are, perhaps, even more difficult to con- front with civility in an online environment. Both student newspapers recently published opinion columns that highlight such challenges. It's important to bear in mind that these sections of the paper are not considered areas of "reporting," they are meant to foster discussion. Editorial boards often select pieces for publication precisely because they raise questions, and give weight to opinions that may be in the extreme minority. This is one of the strengths of freedom of the press-that minority views can be reviewed and debated, even when they are not accepted, or possibly even acceptable, to large portions of a community. There is, of course, a careful balance that must be struck between protecting the expression of minority opinion and establishing guidelines for communication that is unacceptable to a community in any forum. I will leave the debate of the drawing of such lines to another day and focus instead on the response to columns that, while challenging our values, are clearly not crossing these boundaries. In reviewing responses, online and else- where, to the recent columns, I was dismayed to see our community seeming to stray from what most would consider civil discourse. Comments became unfortunately personal regarding the authors. I was saddened to read comments on both sides of discussions on each topic about not feeling safe and felt I needed to share how much those concerns trouble me. Brandeis first and foremost is a community of scholars. Please be respectful of one another, and remember that whatever our disagreements, we should strive to maintain civility in our discourse. I am proud to be part of this amazing family, and hope that we will all continue to work together to ensure that no one at Brandeis, student, faculty or staff member, should ever feel unsafe. -Andrew Flagel Andrew Flagel is the senior vice president for students and enrollment. Evaluate what should be published In response to your article "Concept of social justice actually perpetuates societal injustice" (Oct. 22): Twice this semester articles were written challenging the idea of diversity and the concept of social justice in attempts to advocate for the false rhetoric of "reverse racism" in which white people feel as though they are being discriminated against as people of color slowly begin to obtain basic human rights. Not only am I highly offended, but these articles had no facts to support their absurd claims and seemed more like students who are threatened by the implications made by "diversity" and "social justice," uplifting disadvantaged communities and making sure all humans have basic rights. I am appalled and disappointed that the Justice would allow these things to be published, and as an African-American female at Brandeis, I feel very uncomfortable existing here. I can't help but to think I am somehow a threat to privileged, cisgendered white males here. I have also felt very ashamed to be here and I cannot understand why. I am beginning to question the credibility of the Justice as a whole and wondering if the publishing of such absurdities is an attempt to fire up the student body and create drama. Either way, it is rather disgusting, and the Justice should review and refuse to publish such poorly crafted material, and also re-evaluate the content before distributing it. This newspaper represents all of us, and some are feeling left out. This is highly problematic and certainly tarnishes Brandeis' reputation. There is obviously a lack of diversity on the Justice editorial team, because, if there wasn't, such ludicrous and offensive material would not be printed. It's disgusting. -Khadijah Lynch '16
Bridging social barriers
(10/29/13 4:00am)
A new program has arrived on campus this semester that is certainly unique to the Brandeis campus. While most students have heard of the Birthright program, in which eligible Jewish youth have the opportunity to visit Israel, this new program offers an opportunity for other Brandeis Bridges is the collaborative effort of the Brandeis Israel Public Affairs Committee, the Brandeis Black Student Organization and Martin Luther King and Friends. Brandeis Bridges was created in an attempt to "cross cultural boundaries" and give the students involved an opportunity to "bond over what brings [them] together, rather than what separates [them]." According to its press release, the club includes "a diverse group of Brandeis University undergraduates," five Black students and five Jewish students, who will travel together on a ten-day trip to Israel, January 2 to January 12, in an attempt to "bridge divisions between the Jewish and Black communities." The ten students going on the trip include the four coordinators: Ryan Yuffe '15 and Alex Thomson '15, former Co-Presidents of the Brandeis Israel Public Affairs Committee, Cynthia Jackson '16, president of MLK and Friends and Amaris Brown '16, Co-President of The Women of Color Alliance, along with six other students. The six other students went through an application process and were officially selected last week. The six other students are Naomi DePina '16, Dahlia Kushinsky '17, Mokalani Mack '16, Mira Kessler '16, Amanda Anderson '17, and Gabby Hersch '17. The bridges website explains how the program relates to the founding principles of Brandeis University. The University was originally founded because during the time it was created, elite universities were placing quotas on the Jewish admitted students. Because of the meaning behind its creation, Brandeis has always been dedicated to equality and has been striving to "bridge the gap between diverse communities and peoples." The Brandeis Bridges Program has the opportunity to do just that between the Black and Jewish communities on campus. The group, selected by the Dean of Students Jamele Adams and the Director of Hillel Larry Sternberg, plan to host a variety of events through the semester both before and after their trip. Coordinator Ryan Yuffe '15 noted in an email to the Justice that "one of the first events that is planned to take place once we return is a forum where the Bridges fellows can present their experiences to the Brandeis community." In addition, he explained that there will be opportunities for the fellows to use their skills in theater, arts, and speaking to "show the Brandeis campus ... how this can change the environment on campus." All the events would be open to anyone who is interested. Cynthia Jackson, '16, one of the founding fellows of the program, was first approached last spring. The former president of the MLK and Friends club approached her and asked if she would be interested in taking part in the leadership aspect to the program. The previous MLK and Friends president as well as the leaders of the other clubs involved in the creation of the Bridges program "looked around campus and saw that there was disparity between the Jewish and black groups ... they don't really interact," Jackson said. They were inspired to create this club as a result of this realization. According to the program's website, the founding members of the program, "saw that the black and Jewish communities at Brandeis have been for the most part distant, disengaged, and uninformed about each other's respective passions and cultures." The founders felt that the non-Jewish students do not fully understand Brandeis' Jewish roots and felt that there has been little interaction "with Black students, and therefore has not been exposed to the community's passions, ideas, and culture." Some of the program's destinations include Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, as well as Christian, Muslim and Jewish holy sites. Many of the sites they visit will also try to be areas with diverse communities so they can see how groups of different backgrounds can live together in "harmony." In an email to the Justice, Ryan Yuffe explained, "the majority of the time is spent visiting sites that hold a special theme, such as the Ethiopian community, interfaith dialogue centers, Arab-Israeli communities, centers for civil-rights, refugee communities, and areas of great immigration absorption." Dahlia Kushinsky '17 is one of the fellows who were recently selected to go on the trip. After seeing signs around campus, Kushinsky decided to apply because the socially divided atmosphere of her high school disappointed her. "My high school was really extreme in its segregation. It was weird if you were sitting with someone that wasn't the same race as you," Kushinsky said. Kushinsky has high hopes for the program. "I hope to gain a better understanding...of ways different groups of people can interact in positive ways," she said. Kushinsky said she feels very strongly that "every person has something to teach us and if you're staying away from certain people, you're missing out. You're being detrimental to yourself because you're not learning from them and you're not learning from their experiences" and because of these reasons, "you're just not going to experience as much," she said. Naomi DePina '16 was another student selected to go on the trip. In addition to looking forward to bridging a gap between the African American and Jewish communities on campus, she said that she is excited to gain "insight on Jewish culture." DePina hopes that the trip will provide her with a clearer understanding of Jewish traditions. When she returns from the trip and after actually experiencing her time in Israel, DePina wants to be able to "show my peers and my community, the African American community, that you can be friends with Jewish people; they do have things in common with you; its not just black people you have to talk to, " she said The recently formed group of ten has not had much bonding time yet. However, all of the students are confident that they will become great friends by the time of their trip and look forward to helping to bridge the gap between the two communities on campus. "We are all very different but we get along very well," Kushinsky said. Although they are not necessarily close with each other yet, Kushinsky added, "the potential is there and I think we will work together really well."
Discussion covers the appointment of judges
(10/28/13 4:00am)
A discussion with Law Professor Christoffer Wong of Sweden's Lund University last Tuesday brought together a small group of Brandeis students and faculty interested in discussing ethics of the appointment of judges to the International Criminal Court. Many attendees mentioned their involvement with the University's Brandeis in the Hague program, a program in the Netherlands that introduces students to international courts. The International Criminal Court, apart from the United Nations system, is an "[i]ndependent, permanent court that tries persons accused of the most serious crimes of international concern, namely genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes," according to the ICC website. The court has 18 judges distributed between the appeals, pre-trial and trial chambers. According to the website, it is governed by the Rome Statute, which is the treaty that established the ICC and was written in 1998. The statute was ratified by 60 countries in 2002 including the United Kingdom, France and Germany. As of July 2012, 122 countries are States Parties to the Rome Statute, according to the website. The United States, however, has not yet ratified the statute. Wong's presentation focused on the role of academics in the ICC courtroom, demonstrating their faults and merits as ICC judges. He also discussed how ICC requirements could better reflect increasing variation among academics studying law. At a recent conference on humanitarian law at Lund University, participants raised concerns regarding the qualifications of current ICC judges. According to Wong, the issue is raised at many forums. Objections to the judges' qualifications included claims that they were too old and that too many were diplomats without formal criminal law backgrounds. Wong said the objections "actually [sparked] my own existential crisis ... because if you can criticize the diplomats, how about the academics?" Both academics and diplomats appear to be eligible to be appointed as ICC judges according to Article 36 of the Rome Statute, said Wong. "It doesn't actually set any common standard for the ICC," he said, other than requiring candidates to be, quoting from the statute text, "persons of high moral character, impartiality and integrity, who possess the qualification required in the their respective states for appointment to the highest judicial offices." Wong explained that qualifications vary from state to state. While some states would appoint judges on a merit basis, the appointment of others may be "dictated by political elites." Special ICC requirements decide the legal background of appointed judges. They require a minimum of nine judges who have criminal law experience and a minimum of five who have international law experience, explained Wong. Diplomats and scholars of international humanitarian law and human rights law are therefore eligible to be appointed as ICC judges within the smaller, international law category. It is important to note, however, that this ratio based on experience is subsidiary to gender and geographical requirements, according to Wong. Leigh Swigart, director of Programs in International Justice and Society at the International Center for Ethics, Justice and Public Life, recalled that the first Japanese judge on the ICC bench was a non-lawyer diplomat. According to an article written in 2010 for The Guardian, Japanese judge Fumiko Saiga is regarded by experts as an example of an unqualified judge, without "a law degree or any legal qualifications." "They wanted so much to have Japan to be a member of the court that they took that nomination," Swigart said. Neither Swigart nor Wong, however, suggested such radical displacement of experiential requirements was common. Scholars appear to be disadvantaged in several ways by the ICC qualifications for judge appointment. Wong found that cases brought to the ICC in recent years have revealed the need for greater participation of academics on the bench. The requirement of fewer judges with international law experience than criminal law experience reflects an outdated assumption that only the appeals chamber, one of the three chambers of the ICC, would require academic, as opposed to administrative, skills, he explained. Major issues of jurisdiction and permissibility entering a second chamber, the pre-trial chamber, have required extensive reasoning of laws and attention to detail that befits academics more so than criminal law-trained judges, said Wong. Despite the benefits that academics could provide, Wong admitted several weaknesses of scholars on the bench. First, legal academics sitting as judges may face ethical issues surrounding their independent work because in international courts, scholarship may be used as law, said Wong. Unlike national law, he explained, which depends heavily on interpretations and precedents, "[i]nternational law is really law of the states. It really has no permanent court or legislature that actually defines what international law is." A further weakness Wong said he observed was a tendency some academics may feel to ask irrelevant questions in pursuit of answering their research topics. He suggested such behavior was at the expense of a case. The field of law in academics is evolving in ways that make the 1998 Rome Statute outdated, according to Wong and Director of the International Center for Ethics, Justice and Public Life Daniel Terris, who participated in the discussion. Current international criminal law scholars would be placed in the criminal law department and would not count toward the ICC's "international law" quota that allows international humanitarian and human rights scholars to become judges, explained Wong. This was not acknowledged in the 1998 statute, explained Terris, because the court was "too young." "Nobody had a deep knowledge of international criminal law when that statute was drawn up," he said. Wong, for these reasons, declared that it was necessary to revise the ICC's statute in regard to its requirements for judges.
Validation online represents problem in society
(10/22/13 4:00am)
What was I doing in 2004? YouTube would not be created until 2005. MySpace had been created in 2003, but I would not make my own page until sometime around 2007. Facebook was created in 2004 but was only open to select college students until sometime in 2006-I did not end up creating my own account until 2009, anyway. So what was I doing? It's strange to imagine not opening my laptop every time I step into my room, not pulling out my smartphone every time I'm waiting in a line, and not feeling the short-lived excitement of receiving a Facebook notification, and then realizing that its just someone posting in the Brandeis class page. I was 10 or 11 years old, so I was probably biking around with my good friends from the time. Jason, Jonathan, Devante, Asa-I could count them all on one hand. As of writing this article I have 1052 friends on Facebook, but it only feels equally, if not less, reassuring than my four close childhood friends. I was initially surprised by this observation, because more is better, right? But the connections I have made and maintained over Facebook and the persona I've created for myself feel artificial in comparison with real life. I cannot even imagine how content I'd feel if I had 1052 friends in real life and four Facebook friends. It is always gratifying to see the red number on the corner of our screens-John liked my status, maybe my opinions are valid; Mark accepted my friend request, maybe I am popular; Max liked my profile picture, maybe I am attractive. But those feelings and gratifications are shallow and defined extrinsically. We get them through other people and consequently depend on those other people to feel that same way. It is true that I felt similarly gratified through my close childhood friends, but it was not overburdening and overstimulating. It was always nice to see my friends, and I appreciated the sense of belonging that came along with them, but I did not feel that presence literally every second of my life. I was not reminded that those feelings were or weren't there, the way I am now as I check my phone in a line at the Hoot Market. It's very much like we've been conditioned. We see a red number and feel like we're being noticed before we even check what that notification is about. We are conditioned to feel accepted by these notifications and consequently at a loss without them. As I anxiously wait for the page to load-will I be accepted? If not, I feel restless, compelled to go and like someone else's stuff, hoping they'll reciprocate the "love" and fill the newfound void. But imagine how sad it would be if they're liking my stuff for the same reason. Aside from seemingly defining our self-worth, Facebook creates new personas for us. Individuals who I've known in person to be quiet and generally held back are often the most vocal on Facebook. It's similar to the power that people find in anonymous online Internet forums, but that key difference is that Facebook associates a name with your words. Usually the will to make bold statements comes from not having your name associated with your words, but on Facebook, there's actually a matter of pride with claiming those words. Some people will chirp into huge debates with a safe (not new or interesting, but favorable) opinion to reap the benefits of social acceptance without the associated risks. Some people will disagree with just about anything to boast their intelligence and non-conformity. And some people actually provide thought-provoking, interesting and unique opinions-though this last group has always seemed the minority in my experience. The large majority of users I've observed fall into the first two groups, and this is problematic because they don't develop the necessary social skills. We live in a society where our natural human impulses are artificially stimulated and are consequently improperly developed. We feel conditioned belonging through our notifications. We feel contrived bravery through the constant presence of our peers. We belong online and are alone in person. I do not know how to solve this problem, but I can safely say that Googling it won't help. *
Making a Roman miniature
(10/21/13 4:00am)
Have you ever walked through the mezzanine of the Goldfarb Library and wondered what that giant display in the center is? That huge item is a model of the Roman Forum, and it was given as a gift to the students in 1993 to stand as a treasure unique to Brandeis. The Roman Forum was the cultural, political, commercial and religious center of Rome. The model is extremely detailed and a scaled representation of the Forum, the heart of ancient Rome. The model was created by Robert Garbisch. Garbisch was a fireman from Northern California who spent 10 years (1973 to 1983) making this model. Garbisch became connected with the University when he was passing by the ruins of the Roman Forum in Italy when former Brandeis Prof. Jean D'Amato was giving a lecture on the Forum. He insisted that D'Amato come to his garage in California to observe the model he was creating. She eventually agreed and went one summer, and after seeing what he had built, she tried to get Garbisch to bring it to Brandeis so that she could show her students. The model arrived at Brandeis on March 15, 1983, an event covered even by the Boston Globe and the Waltham News Tribune. The model was at Brandeis on loan for about 10 years until Prof. Ann Olga Koloski-Ostrow (CLAS) was able to get Garbisch to officially give it to Brandeis. She urged Garbisch to give it to the students of Brandeis because she had been using the model for teaching. "It's great to bring my class to the library and turn on the little lights and see it. I wanted to give this gift to [Brandeis students]. I feel like it is easier to connect to it by owning it," said Koloski-Ostrow. It did not matter if one was a patrician (aristocrat) or a plebeian (commoner); all were welcome in the Forum. It was a common space for political speeches, a site for shops, temples and buildings, such as the Senate house. "The Roman Forum is the Times Square and the Washington Mall combined," said Prof. Charles McClendon (FA). McClendon also said it is likely that Garbisch set the time of the model of the Forum around 160 CE because this time period is considered to be the Golden Age of the Roman Empire. This was during the reign of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, who were co-emperors from 161 CE until Verus' death in 169, when Aurelius continued to rule until 180. This is known because the model contains two figures representing Aurelius and Lucius Verus. As described by Koloski-Ostrow they are "the two men riding on horseback down the Sacred Way on their way to the Capitoline Hill." Aurelius and Verus are but two of the figures out of 700 that are scattered throughout the model. All of them were hand painted and dressed, and they are each placed to bring the Roman Forum to life. The attention Garbisch gave to the historical detail is seen as he includes one teenage boy carving graffiti on a column while another boy is looking out for guards, and there is actual graffiti on that column in the actual Roman Forum. Others figures include teenage lovers holding hands, slaves carrying a wealthy Roman, a Vestal Virgin waving at a Roman soldier (which would have been unacceptable), and Garbisch himself on the top of the Capitoline steps in a green toga looking at his model. In addition to the figures, there are 400 marble statues on the buildings, all made of papier mache, and tiny ceiling lights that turn on and show activity behind the windows of some of the buildings. Garbisch chose to construct parts of the forum out of common household items, such as uncooked spaghetti for the roofs of some buildings, chicken wire for the windows and spools of thread for the columns. it is believed that Garbisch used these items because they were more economical for him and still satisfied his vision for the model. Koloski-Ostrow has been very involved with this model since she arrived at Brandeis in the fall of 1985. She said in an interview with the Justice, "as a Classics professor, I found it as such an accurate presentation of the heart beat of the Roman city. Look how history can come alive!" According to Koloski-Ostrow, it is the only model in the world that depicts what the Roman Forum looked like during the reign of Marcus Aurelius with such a high level of detail and accuracy. Students themselves were also impressed by the presentation that Koloski-Ostrow and McClendon gave on it on Wednesday, Oct. 2. Describing the model, Classical Studies major Matthew Chernick '16 said that, "It was a very informative presentation. I knew [the model] was there but I didn't realize how unique it was."
Making a Roman miniature
(10/21/13 4:00am)
Have you ever walked through the mezzanine of the Goldfarb Library and wondered what that giant display in the center is? That huge item is a model of the Roman Forum, and it was given as a gift to the students in 1993 to stand as a treasure unique to Brandeis. The Roman Forum was the cultural, political, commercial and religious center of Rome. The model is extremely detailed and a scaled representation of the Forum, the heart of ancient Rome. The model was created by Robert Garbisch. Garbisch was a fireman from Northern California who spent 10 years (1973 to 1983) making this model. Garbisch became connected with the University when he was passing by the ruins of the Roman Forum in Italy when former Brandeis Prof. Jean D'Amato was giving a lecture on the Forum. He insisted that D'Amato come to his garage in California to observe the model he was creating. She eventually agreed and went one summer, and after seeing what he had built, she tried to get Garbisch to bring it to Brandeis so that she could show her students. The model arrived at Brandeis on March 15, 1983, an event covered even by the Boston Globe and the Waltham News Tribune. The model was at Brandeis on loan for about 10 years until Prof. Ann Olga Koloski-Ostrow (CLAS) was able to get Garbisch to officially give it to Brandeis. She urged Garbisch to give it to the students of Brandeis because she had been using the model for teaching. "It's great to bring my class to the library and turn on the little lights and see it. I wanted to give this gift to [Brandeis students]. I feel like it is easier to connect to it by owning it," said Koloski-Ostrow. It did not matter if one was a patrician (aristocrat) or a plebeian (commoner); all were welcome in the Forum. It was a common space for political speeches, a site for shops, temples and buildings, such as the Senate house. "The Roman Forum is the Times Square and the Washington Mall combined," said Prof. Charles McClendon (FA). McClendon also said it is likely that Garbisch set the time of the model of the Forum around 160 CE because this time period is considered to be the Golden Age of the Roman Empire. This was during the reign of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, who were co-emperors from 161 CE until Verus' death in 169, when Aurelius continued to rule until 180. This is known because the model contains two figures representing Aurelius and Lucius Verus. As described by Koloski-Ostrow they are "the two men riding on horseback down the Sacred Way on their way to the Capitoline Hill." Aurelius and Verus are but two of the figures out of 700 that are scattered throughout the model. All of them were hand painted and dressed, and they are each placed to bring the Roman Forum to life. The attention Garbisch gave to the historical detail is seen as he includes one teenage boy carving graffiti on a column while another boy is looking out for guards, and there is actual graffiti on that column in the actual Roman Forum. Others figures include teenage lovers holding hands, slaves carrying a wealthy Roman, a Vestal Virgin waving at a Roman soldier (which would have been unacceptable), and Garbisch himself on the top of the Capitoline steps in a green toga looking at his model. In addition to the figures, there are 400 marble statues on the buildings, all made of papier mache, and tiny ceiling lights that turn on and show activity behind the windows of some of the buildings. Garbisch chose to construct parts of the forum out of common household items, such as uncooked spaghetti for the roofs of some buildings, chicken wire for the windows and spools of thread for the columns. it is believed that Garbisch used these items because they were more economical for him and still satisfied his vision for the model. Koloski-Ostrow has been very involved with this model since she arrived at Brandeis in the fall of 1985. She said in an interview with the Justice, "as a Classics professor, I found it as such an accurate presentation of the heart beat of the Roman city. Look how history can come alive!" According to Koloski-Ostrow, it is the only model in the world that depicts what the Roman Forum looked like during the reign of Marcus Aurelius with such a high level of detail and accuracy. Students themselves were also impressed by the presentation that Koloski-Ostrow and McClendon gave on it on Wednesday, Oct. 2. Describing the model, Classical Studies major Matthew Chernick '16 said that, "It was a very informative presentation. I knew [the model] was there but I didn't realize how unique it was."
Making a Roman miniature
(10/21/13 4:00am)
Have you ever walked through the mezzanine of the Goldfarb Library and wondered what that giant display in the center is? That huge item is a model of the Roman Forum, and it was given as a gift to the students in 1993 to stand as a treasure unique to Brandeis. The Roman Forum was the cultural, political, commercial and religious center of Rome. The model is extremely detailed and a scaled representation of the Forum, the heart of ancient Rome. The model was created by Robert Garbisch. Garbisch was a fireman from Northern California who spent 10 years (1973 to 1983) making this model. Garbisch became connected with the University when he was passing by the ruins of the Roman Forum in Italy when former Brandeis Prof. Jean D'Amato was giving a lecture on the Forum. He insisted that D'Amato come to his garage in California to observe the model he was creating. She eventually agreed and went one summer, and after seeing what he had built, she tried to get Garbisch to bring it to Brandeis so that she could show her students. The model arrived at Brandeis on March 15, 1983, an event covered even by the Boston Globe and the Waltham News Tribune. The model was at Brandeis on loan for about 10 years until Prof. Ann Olga Koloski-Ostrow (CLAS) was able to get Garbisch to officially give it to Brandeis. She urged Garbisch to give it to the students of Brandeis because she had been using the model for teaching. "It's great to bring my class to the library and turn on the little lights and see it. I wanted to give this gift to [Brandeis students]. I feel like it is easier to connect to it by owning it," said Koloski-Ostrow. It did not matter if one was a patrician (aristocrat) or a plebeian (commoner); all were welcome in the Forum. It was a common space for political speeches, a site for shops, temples and buildings, such as the Senate house. "The Roman Forum is the Times Square and the Washington Mall combined," said Prof. Charles McClendon (FA). McClendon also said it is likely that Garbisch set the time of the model of the Forum around 160 CE because this time period is considered to be the Golden Age of the Roman Empire. This was during the reign of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, who were co-emperors from 161 CE until Verus' death in 169, when Aurelius continued to rule until 180. This is known because the model contains two figures representing Aurelius and Lucius Verus. As described by Koloski-Ostrow they are "the two men riding on horseback down the Sacred Way on their way to the Capitoline Hill." Aurelius and Verus are but two of the figures out of 700 that are scattered throughout the model. All of them were hand painted and dressed, and they are each placed to bring the Roman Forum to life. The attention Garbisch gave to the historical detail is seen as he includes one teenage boy carving graffiti on a column while another boy is looking out for guards, and there is actual graffiti on that column in the actual Roman Forum. Others figures include teenage lovers holding hands, slaves carrying a wealthy Roman, a Vestal Virgin waving at a Roman soldier (which would have been unacceptable), and Garbisch himself on the top of the Capitoline steps in a green toga looking at his model. In addition to the figures, there are 400 marble statues on the buildings, all made of papier mache, and tiny ceiling lights that turn on and show activity behind the windows of some of the buildings. Garbisch chose to construct parts of the forum out of common household items, such as uncooked spaghetti for the roofs of some buildings, chicken wire for the windows and spools of thread for the columns. it is believed that Garbisch used these items because they were more economical for him and still satisfied his vision for the model. Koloski-Ostrow has been very involved with this model since she arrived at Brandeis in the fall of 1985. She said in an interview with the Justice, "as a Classics professor, I found it as such an accurate presentation of the heart beat of the Roman city. Look how history can come alive!" According to Koloski-Ostrow, it is the only model in the world that depicts what the Roman Forum looked like during the reign of Marcus Aurelius with such a high level of detail and accuracy. Students themselves were also impressed by the presentation that Koloski-Ostrow and McClendon gave on it on Wednesday, Oct. 2. Describing the model, Classical Studies major Matthew Chernick '16 said that, "It was a very informative presentation. I knew [the model] was there but I didn't realize how unique it was."
EDITORIAL: Thank you seniors
(05/20/13 4:00am)
On May 19, the Justice officially said goodbye to 10 graduating editors and many beloved staff members as they departed campus after Commencement. This board extends its sincerest gratitude to the graduating editors and staff who have contributed to this paper in so many ways over the past four years. Marielle Temkin lightened the mood in the Justice office with her exuberant personality and beaming presence. After serving as Copy editor, Marielle spent her senior year as Managing editor. She showed her dedication to the paper for many years, having written for News, Arts and Features. Eitan Cooper, who served as Forum editor, Production editor and Associate editor, brought his selfless nature and wisdom to the paper. Eitan was always willing to lend a helping hand, and he served as an intellectual and ethical role model to all editors. Jeffrey Boxer made his mark on the paper as Sports editor, Associate editor, Forum columnist and Deputy editor. He also showed his versatility by contributing to many important News stories and was a trusted resource for all. Fiona Lockyer's enthusiasm for journalism was more than evident during her term as News editor. She was smart and passionate about the paper and a good friend to every staff member. Fiona went on to serve as Associate editor and Deputy editor, where she continued to display her dedication to the Justice. Robyn Spector's impressive term as Photography editor began only months after she stepped onto the Brandeis campus. She went on to serve as Associate editor and Deputy editor and organized the first ever Justice Alumni Reunion and Media Conference. Robyn was fearlessly outspoken and committed to improving all aspects of the paper. Nan Pang served as both Layout and Associate editor for the Justice. His most visible contributions to the Justice were his smart, sleek infographics, cartoons and overall design skills. Nan also brought generosity, an energetic spirit and a contagious sense of humor. Yosef Schaffel exhibited his commitment to the Justice through his time as Photography editor and Associate editor. He maintained the high quality of the newspaper's photos and brought new perspectives to the editorial committee. Tali Smookler served as Photography editor and came back to the paper as an Associate editor. She was a reliable and friendly presence in the office during several busy production nights. Josh Asen's dedication and tenacity were clear when he took on the role of Sports editor just months into his college career. Afterword, he became a senior writer, a position he held for two-and-a-half years. His presence and his kindness always made the office a better place to work. Dafna Fine, who served as Features editor, carried the Features section's legacy of quality writing and had good relationships with her staff. Her kind demeanor shone in the office on late Monday nights. Debra Friedmann served as Layout editor for the Justice early in her Brandeis career. She created beautiful layouts, which displayed her artistic abilities. Her sweet personality was a great addition to the office. Emily Salloway served as Arts editor and successfully navigated the section during her term. She was dedicated to improving the quality of writing, constantly communicating with her staff members. We also congratulate Senior Writers, Photographers and Columnists: Allyson Cartter, Erica Cooperberg, Jon Edelstein, Alex Margolis, Liz Posner, Leah Smith and Avi Snyder. We thank them for their tireless devotion to the Justice. *
On-campus speech and actions have influenced University
(05/20/13 4:00am)
"Writing wall, writing wall, to you we do all speak. Shouldn't we be studying? Alas, our wills are weak." Anybody who studies in the carrels of Goldfarb Library knows that the oak-wood desks are havens for self-expression. Each year, they are scattered with messages of hope and of hate, obscenities and art, love notes, doodles, shout-outs and debates. No, they don't often relay the most earth-shattering ideas. And I certainly hope that their contents are not indicative of the intellectual quality at Brandeis. Nevertheless, there are some that reflect the greatness of Brandeis, like one note that reads, "Never give up, you can do it!" At commencement last Sunday, University President Frederick Lawrence noted that places do not belong to people; people belong to places. Graduates would always belong to Brandeis, even though we would no longer be present on its campus after graduating. But if we inherently belong here, why is it that we feel the need to leave our mark, both physically on the desks and figuratively, by immersing ourselves in an endless list of activities and initiatives? Graduation gives you the opportunity to better understand how you and your peers utilized your college experiences differently. Some may be graduating with the highest academic degrees, some in Phi Beta Kappa, and others with medals for community service. But just because you may not have adornments on your gown also does not mean you have not affected Brandeis in a positive light. Last year, Daniel Leibman '12 gave the senior commencement speech and he spoke about the "butterfly effect," which prescribes that simply by being at Brandeis you have changed it. You may have started the Quidditch team, the Eco-Reps Rooms for Recovery, the Experiential Learning fellows program, or maybe you revolutionized the inner workings of an already established club. Perhaps the changes will be there 10, 20, 30 years down the line. Possibly, however, the times will call for funding and resources to be channeled somewhere else. The reality is that changes are difficult, but they are inevitable. While our marks as students are part of the University's history, they are not everlasting in the revolving door of college graduates. Recently, the Justice held its first alumni reunion, in which several generations of the newspaper's editors and contributors returned to campus and spoke about what the newspaper was like at the time. In the early 1950s, for example, the newspaper had a copy editor; somehow by 2003, the position no longer existed. Over the course of this past semester, we have had several debates of unfettered speech instigate controversy on campus-cases where actions or words have changed campus. The Facebook page "Brandeis Hookups" reflects the new freedom, and concern, for anonymity in the digital age. Student initiatives like Take Back the Night were allegedly countered by hurtful comments shouted out across the quad. Free speech in a small, close-knit community like Brandeis has never been an easy topic, and working on this newspaper, we have learned that all too well. Campus newspapers, especially posted online, undermine the security and isolation that is our intellectual utopia on a hill. Sometimes it feels like Brandeis is not the real world. We have community advisors looking over our shoulders, academic advisors ensuring that we finish what we are supposed to do, and constant access to an ever-expanding web of friends. Furthermore, we do not have to worry about our clubs' "selling values"-after all, unlike the mainstream American media, student journalists can grapple with different ethical standards and reporting techniques without worrying about ad revenues or subscriptions. In my four years as an editor on the Justice, we exposed financial student mishaps, covered clashes between police and inebriated students and reviewed theater productions in highly critical ways. Each of these instances led to students mentioned in articles requesting that their names be removed from the Justice website. After all, these trials of young adulthood can often reflect badly on future Google searches by employers. But in the digital age, the impetus is not solely on reporters. At a recent panel held by WGBH in April on "embedded journalism," the reporters agreed that journalists pose less of a threat to national security covering the war effort than the soldiers posting YouTube videos of torture online. In today's world, actions, whether in person or in online forums, speak just as loud as on the record reporting It seems that the expansion of public access to media has magnified the problems journalists have faced all along. No longer do the Justice and the other campus publications define the history of Brandeis by recording the marks we've left on campus. The responsibility to think about one's actions is placed into the hands of all students. People make mistakes; they experiment, learn and grow. The Internet requires, both in college and out, that we recognize these human shortcomings, because at some point in our lives we will all inevitably want to hide from something we did or posted. If there is something inevitable about free speech, we must ask ourselves "how do we respond, especially in the small close-knit community that is Brandeis?" How we do this as a community, as an institution, is what will define us in history. "I feel lonely at Brandeis," one note writes scribbled in the crevice of the desk before me. Next to it in a fine black print one person writes back, "The counseling center is really helpful." Another chimes in, "I agree, they're really nice." The last note added, "I'll be your friend." Justice Louis Brandeis advocated for free speech in the Supreme Court because there is an inherent value in public discourse. History is not defined by the erroneous opinions of the people who have lived through it but the places that still stand in contrast to them. *
University faculty advocates for socially responsible investing for retirement funds
(05/20/13 4:00am)
As of Saturday, almost 60 faculty members had signed a letter intended to be mailed to the University's Pension Committee, advocating for more options in socially responsible investments for retirement funds. The signers argued for a minimum of one socially responsible mutual fund option and one socially responsible bond option. Other options, besides the currently offered College Retirement Equities Fund, should be offered to Brandeis employees, they said. "Many of us at Brandeis are committed to socially responsible investing (SRI)," the letter read, "which we see as in line with Brandeis's teaching, research, and public programming on human rights, climate change, women's rights, promotion of peace, and so forth." As mentioned in the letter, the CREF fund screens broadly, but imperfectly. Another fund, the Neuberger Berman Socially Responsive Fund, does not screen for issues such as clean technology, pollution and toxins, community development, board issues and executive pay, according to The Forum for Sustainable and Responsible Investment. It also does not screen for human rights or community investment, according to SocialFunds.com. In an email interview with the Justice, Prof. Bernadette Brooten (NEJS) wrote that she and other faculty members were working to resolve the issue internally. "I am confident we will find a solution that accords with Brandeis' commitment to social justice," wrote Brooten. Brooten and others spoke about the issue at the April 11 faculty meeting, during which Chief Operations Officer Steven Manos fielded questions and concerns about changes in retirement fund options. "I would like to ask that we have an additional fund be added that is more stringent on screens," Brooten said at the meeting. "We have 40 options. I think that at least two of them should be socially responsible." As Manos and University President Frederick Lawrence explained, the investment options had been reduced to 40, down from 190, due to legal changes that obligated such a restriction. "None of this involves any change in contributions that are being made to retirement plans," said Lawrence. "This is not about reallocation of costs away from retirement plans. ... The entire effort ... was to focus and restrict to a certain extent our options so our fiduciary obligations can be fulfilled in an appropriate way." However, Lawrence admitted, communication with employees about the issue has been lacking. "It is clear to me that the best efforts of communicating this aside, that we did not do a great job of getting information out in a way that was useful to everybody in the community," he said. "We will continue to try to do better." *
Reader Commentary
(04/30/13 4:00am)
Let committee fulfill its purpose In response to the article "Campus aesthetics should reflect top-notch status" (Forum, April 23, 2013): While it is clear that there are areas around the campus that need to be repaired and maintained better, the way in which you cite the shortcomings of campus upkeep seems to me to be against the fundamental principles of Brandeis; it would be more appropriate to voice your opinions in a constructive manner as to better the community. As a Student Union, specifically the Senate Campus Operations Work Group Committee, it is our job to be in contact with these administrators and be the eyes and ears of the student body. COWG has enjoyed a very positive relationship with the administration that has led to our seeing vast improvements across campus including renovations in residence halls, academic buildings, road pavement, our campus grounds and other areas on campus. The issues that you talked about within your article are ones that could have been easily resolved through the COWG committee. In addition, we would like to point out that Mark Collins, the senior vice president for administration, is responsible for campus operations and the facilities department. Anyone who has ever worked with Collins knows that he is an ally of the students and is always willing to listen to and resolve student concerns regarding facilities and many other aspects of this campus. The COWG committee would like to make it known to all students that your voices are heard when you have concerns regarding facilities. During the next academic year, we will continue our efforts to bring student issues to the attention of the administration and to work toward resolving them and make sure that our committee has a known presence on campus. I would encourage all my fellow students to chip in and contribute to making our campus look top notch: When you see trash on the ground, pick it up; when you smoke your cigarette, put the butt in a cigarette post; when there are small facilities issues, fill in a work order (http://www.brandeis.edu/facilities/); and when there are larger issues, reach out to us. It takes a community of proactive members to work together to make our campus and home the place we want it to be. -Theodore Choi '13 -Charlotte Franco '15 Theodore Choi is a Senator at Large and chair of the Campus Operations Work Group Committee for the Student Union. Charlotte Franco is a Senator at Large and Vice President elect of the Student Union.
New leaders elected to Union
(04/30/13 4:00am)
Round two of Student Union spring elections took place last Thursday from midnight to midnight, leaving three of the 14 available positions vacant by the end of the day. The Associate Justice of the Union Judiciary, Senator-at-Large and Racial Minority Senator positions remain unfilled. One of the two seats for Senator at Large was filled by Daniel Schwab '14, while the other remains vacant. The second seat was not filled due to the fact that 33 percent of voters chose abstain, making abstain the second most popular choice. Schwab was unable to comment by press time. Andre Ve Tran and Annie Chen filled the Class of 2014 Senator positions. According to both Ve Tran and Chen, the two are looking forward to working together next year and already have plans for new initiatives. "I will continue to sit down with all our graduating Student Union members and discuss the work they have done this past year," wrote Ve Tran in an email to the Justice. "I would like to not only work on my own initiatives but continue and complete projects my predecessors started." Chen said she plans to get acclimated as quickly as possible. "The first thing I'll probably do is go around and collect knowledge, information, and tips from all our current senators to compile a scrapbook/'cheat sheet' as a resource for future senators," she wrote in an email to the Justice. Anna Bessendorf and Alison Zheng filled the Class of 2015 Senator positions. Bessendorf said she looks forward to increasing sustainability on campus. "When the administration announces their choice for our dining services provider, the first thing I'd like to do is to meet with them to discuss tangible improvements that can be made to the quality and sustainability of the food we eat," Bessendorf wrote in an email to the Justice. Zheng said she looks forward to working closely with the student body as a member of the Union. "The first thing is definitely to do some research on what people want and need so I can better voice their opinions," she wrote in an email to the Justice. Jon Jacob and Andrew Chang filled the Class of 2016 Senator positions. Neither commented by press time. Four out of five available seats for Associate Justice of the Student Union Judiciary were filled. Claire Sinai '15, Sarah Park '14, Maris Ryger-Wasserman '16 and Michael Abrams '15 were elected to the Union Judiciary. The seats were not all filled due to the fact that 33 percent of voters chose abstain, making abstain the second most popular choice for Judiciary. Abrams told the Justice that he looks forward to helping to ensure that Brandeis remains a just community. "I want students to view the Union Judiciary as a forum where they can voice concerns about clubs, the Student Union, and the system that organizes all of this," wrote Abrams in an email to the Justice. "We as Justices are there to defend the Constitution and the Student Body, but we need student engagement and support to best achieve that end," he added. The Racial Minority Senator position remains unfilled due to the fact that 31 percent of voters chose to abstain. Special elections will be held in the fall for seats that remain unfilled following this round of elections. Editor's note: Micahael Abrams '15 is a staff writer on Forum. -Tate Herbert contributed reporting
New examiner reviews alleged sexual assault
(04/30/13 4:00am)
On Jan. 29, a Brandeis first-year filed a Community Standards Report indicating that she had been raped about a week earlier at an off-campus party. She said that her CSR launched a University investigation of the incident by way of the special examiner's process, the first known utilization of the highly confidential practice since it was adopted in the 2012-2013 issue of the Rights and Responsibilities handbook. This first-year told the Justice that on April 10, she was informed that the accused, another Brandeis first-year, had been found responsible and would be expelled. As of April 29, the Office of the Registrar declined to give the Justice any enrollment information. As of April 24, the accused was still listed as enrolled in the University, scheduled to graduate in spring 2016, according to a staff member at the Office of the Registrar. University Registrar Mark Hewitt wrote in an email to the Justice that when a student is expelled, it usually takes a few weeks until that individual is no longer officially enrolled, due to formalities and paperwork. The alleged victim said that the rape in question took place at a party thrown by the Zeta Beta Tau fraternity on Dartmouth Street in Waltham, and was committed by another first-year who was a member of the fraternity at the time. The Justice confirmed that a ZBT member had been suspended in a Feb. 5 article, but no connection could be made with the allegations of an assault taking place two weeks prior. Dean Gendron, director of student rights and community standards, told the Justice that he could not confirm or deny any of the above information. The special examiner's process governs the University's handling of sexual assault cases. According to Section 22.6 of the handbook, which outlines the process, any alleged violation of sections regarding "sexual responsibility" or "Equal Opportunity, Non-Discrimination and Harassment," will not be heard by the Student Conduct Board, but instead will be investigated by a "special examiner." The examiner presents his or her findings to the Dean of Student Life, and the dean makes a final decision regarding the outcome of the case. Dean of Student Life Rick Sawyer declined to comment on whether or not the special examiner's process was used this year. He also would not comment on the results of any such use of the process. However, according to accounts provided to the Justice by both parties in this particular case, the process they experienced was in line with what Rights and Responsibilities describes. Although Section 22.6 does not describe the special examiner position in detail, both the accused and the accuser told the Justice that the examiner in their case was a third-party attorney. The accuser said that the University hired this attorney after she filed the CSR. She then was able to talk to the examiner and present her story, providing information in the form of "text messages, witnesses, so on and so forth." The accused also was able to provide witnesses and other evidence, she said. "The third party attorney heard both sides of the story. There are only two people who know what happened." The accused would speak to the Justice only on condition of anonymity. He agreed to answer a limited set of questions in an email to the Justice. He wrote that he felt the investigation and the special examiner were "biased" and that he was "automatically accused." "The process on paper is fair, but in practice it was not. I was not even allowed to eat in Sherman," he wrote, referring to the University efforts to keep the two parties separate. He declined to say whether or not he was represented in the special examiner's process by anyone other than himself. The process After the initial shock wore off, the first thing she did was call the police. It was the urging of her friends that convinced her to take action, she said. "Had they not told me to call the police, I wouldn't have. I would have stayed in the dorm, I would have had to deal with that," she said. "I knew I had said I didn't want it, I knew I told him I didn't want to, but I was just so shocked with what had happened that I didn't know how to deal with it," she added. In the morning, she got in touch with her Community Advisor, who promptly helped move her to another dorm, she said. A couple of days later, she completed what is commonly referred to as a "rape kit.," undergoing an examination to collect forensic evidence that may have been left behind from sexual contact. The special examiner's process formally began soon after. According to the Rights and Responsibilities handbook, the process starts with the statements phase, which lasts five to 10 days. In this step, the accuser and accused compose written statements and present any textual evidence, such as emails or text messages, to the special examiner. The examiner discusses the process and the choice of an adviser with the accused, who has the option of accepting or denying responsibility at this stage. The process then continues to the fact-finding phase, in which the examiner interviews witnesses, the accused and the accuser, in addition to examining other physical and textual evidence. Rights and Responsibilities describes this phase as lasting about 30 days. After the examiner compiles his or her final report, the accuser and the accused both have the opportunity to meet with the dean of Student Life and discuss the examiner's findings. In light of their discussions, the accused can accept responsibility or the accuser can withdraw allegations before the Dean submits his final decision. Either party can appeal the outcome to the University Appeals Board on Student Conduct. According to the victim, a member of the Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance served as her adviser throughout the process. "The goal of the adviser is just to listen and take notes and support," she said. She described her adviser as "a very strong, intelligent woman ... I wanted to surround myself by strong, intelligent women." Aside from the special examiner, herself, and her adviser, she said that no one else was involved in the hearings. "I never had to look at him, I never had to be near him. The school did their best to keep us away from each other, because I didn't feel safe with him, I didn't want to be near him," she said. Gendron confirmed this aspect of the special examiner's process, although not specifically in regards to this case. "During the actual Special Examiner's Process, that is, as the steps in the process are being engaged the parties are never in the same room or engaged with the Special Examiner at the same time," Gendron wrote in an email to the Justice . The outcome "For what happened, the best outcome came from it," the victim said, referring to the expulsion of the accused."I've heard so many awful things about Brandeis and how they've dealt with [sexual assault], but they have been nothing but helpful and wonderful, and their main priority was making sure I was taken care of." While the University took measures to protect the involved parties' identities, the alleged victim was more vocal about the case, often writing about her experience on public forums such as Facebook. "I was not quiet about it," she said. "I made sure everybody knew, because I didn't know if the school was going to get rid of him." The alleged victim said that she withdrew from Brandeis about a month ago, and plans to come back to campus in the fall or spring. She said that she expects a negative reaction or retribution when she returns. "I'm afraid. I was really vocal about it, and I know a lot of people did not like that," she said. "I know there's going to be some person who's going to say something rude, because there is rape culture at Brandeis." She declined to comment on the possibility of pursuing legal charges. Still, she said, "I'm not going to let this happen again, especially at a frat party or a sorority party. I want people to report it; I want people to know that they're not alone in that something can be done." -Robyn Spector, Jeffrey Boxer, Marissa Ditkowsky and Sam Mintz contributed reporting
Campus aesthetics should reflect top-notch status
(04/23/13 4:00am)
* Brandeis has an ugly campus. * There, I said it. No 'ifs,' 'ands' or 'buts.' No soft-pedaling or apologetic qualifications. Brandeis has an ugly campus. * I'm not talking about the eclectic architectural style of our campus. Some people may like it, others may not yet, either way, that's not exactly something the university can change. * What I'm talking about is basic, routine campus maintenance. For reasons I do not understand, Brandeis has the money and resources to build beautiful new buildings all over campus and buy new furniture for the Shapiro Campus Center and Olin-Sang, but we can't seem to concern ourselves with the simple campus upkeep that would make Brandeis a more attractive place to live and learn. Let me offer you a catalogue of the kind of thing I'm talking about. Multiple signs on campus are missing letters and have been missing them for years. When students head to Sherman Dining Hall to eat, they are greeted with a sign welcoming them to the "Sherman Student Cent r." After the arduous trek up the Rabb steps, students find themselves staring at a sign for the "Olin-Sang Civil zat on Center." * The brick fa?ssade on each of the chapels is literally crumbling. The front of Harlan Chapel looks as if the building has been abandoned for years. * For my entire four years at Brandeis, several bricks have been missing from a corner of the Usdan Student Center. Broken glass windows in the castle have been carelessly replaced with blocks of wood. * Buildings all over campus have missing or broken ceiling tiles for months at a time. It seems as if it takes weeks to replace light bulbs that have burnt out in the SCC library. Paint has been ripped off part of the wall in the Mandel Humanities Center. Our campus is littered with trash. * I could go on and on. * "So what?" you ask. These are mostly small imperfections on a large campus, the kinds of things you barely notice day-to-day. Besides, who cares about aesthetics? After all, Brandeis certainly has plenty of things going for it other than the campus aesthetics. There are, however, a great many reasons this unwillingness to maintain the beauty of our campus should concern both administrators and students alike. * First of all, we students spend a lot of time here. The vast majority of us live on campus. And you know what, it's nice to live somewhere that looks nice. Given the vast sum of money we all pay to spend four years at Brandeis, it seems living on an aesthetically pleasing campus is the least we can expect. * But there is an even more important reason we should care about how our campus looks. It's simply embarrassing to present the Brandeis campus to prospective students and their families. No matter how much we touch up the campus' appearance in our brochures and on the website, people come here and they take tours. And it would be near impossible for them not to notice how little Brandeis seems to care about how we present ourselves. Don't believe me? Take a look at some comments from online forums discussing college admissions I found. "My husband took my daughter to visit. They called it 'the projects.' My husband wanted to leave as soon as they got there." "I have heard negatives regarding Brandeis' 'ugly' campus." "I applied to Brandeis before I visited. If I knew how sad looking the campus was, I would have never applied." * Again, this is just a small sampling. * For prospective students, should their college choice come down to a decision between Brandeis and one of our peer universities (e.g. Tufts University, Wesleyan University, Boston College), campus appearance could be a deciding factor. If the Brandeis administration does not seem to care about the University's dumpy appearance, it signals to a prospective student that the administration is unwilling to put in minimal effort to maintain a beautiful environment in which students can spend their time. It makes Brandeis look lazy and unserious. * These maintenance issues are small and easy to fix. It would take minutes to replace the few missing bricks in Usdan. I can't imagine that replacing the missing letters all over campus would be so expensive. How hard would it be to be a little more prompt at fixing leaking pipes and replacing old ceiling tiles? * The administration should make sure that members of our maintenance staff are consistently monitoring wear and tear all throughout the campus. Repairs should happen as quickly as possible and not wait until breaks or Admitted Students Day. In fact, if there is no one on the maintenance staff who can do this competently, I'll volunteer to personally take Vice President Andrew Flagel or Dean Rick Sawyer around the campus, pointing out exactly what ought to have been repaired years ago. * Brandeis is a wonderful university. The students here are friendly, outgoing and ambitious. Our academics are top-notch. A school as wonderful as Brandeis deserves to be housed on a campus with a physical beauty that reflects Brandeis' greatness. *
Vote Clements for President
(04/16/13 4:00am)
With Student Union elections approaching, students will have to choose representatives who can lead the student body, initiate change in the Union and best advocate on our behalf to administrators and the Board of Trustees. This board had the privilege of meeting with all three candidates for president: David Clements '14, Ricky Rosen '14 and Daniel Schwab '14. Schwab raised many concrete points, including suggestions for necessary improvements in the arts and athletics. However, we feel Clements and Rosen have proven, both in our interactions with them and throughout the election process, to be remarkably professional and presidential. Clements and Rosen exemplify characteristics that we strongly feel a Student Union president should have, and for that reason, both deserve our accolades. Yet, after much deliberation, this editorial board believes that Mr. Clements has the ideal combination of experience, diligence and responsiveness to be our next Student Union president. We offer Mr. Clements this board's endorsement for the position of Student Union president. Over the past few weeks, Mr. Clements has unveiled a new plan to restructure clubs at Brandeis. While this board harbored reservations about the plan at first, Mr. Clements took the suggestions in stride and worked tirelessly to reform the plan. He incorporated student feedback through a survey to the student body and an open forum for all students to attend. Clements combined all aspects of feedback-both those he agreed with and those he may not have-and incorporated them into the plan. It is this responsiveness to the student body, combined with his ability to look at big-picture issues that affect all students, which makes Mr. Clements a formidable candidate. Moreover, Mr. Clements' experience as Union treasurer underscores his responsibility and diligence. Club leaders respect Mr. Clements for having brought a level of previously nonexistent efficiency to the treasury. Additionally, Mr. Clements has proven his ability to delegate efficiently by re-organizing the treasury under the domains of different assistant treasurers. The ability to delegate is a key component of any leader and it is clear Mr. Clements holds that skill. We hope Mr. Clements will bring a similar level of efficiency and reorganization to the Union as a whole, so that it ultimately runs smoothly and effectively to benefit the student body. Through his role as treasurer and his club restructuring initiative, Mr. Clements has had occasion to interact and build a rapport with all sectors of the University. We think these skills will certainly prove to be beneficial to a Union president. Mr. Clements' attitude towards working with the administration and the Board of Trustees is refreshing. He promises to work with them as a partner rather than a subordinate, and we are confident he will not be afraid to advocate on behalf of students. Mr. Clements' platform features a wide array of specific-yet-broad ideas. Mr. Clements intends on demanding fiscal transparency from the University, specifically in regard to the consistent tuition raises. He expressed the need to expand BEMCo and Brandeis Police service to off-campus students, while also affirming his intent to pressure the Board of Trustees for more campus renovations. His desire to remake the Stein as an on-campus social destination is just one of the highly beneficial measures he has proposed for the student body. Although this board endorses Mr. Clements as the strongest candidate for president, we applaud Mr. Rosen for his strong ideas and evident passion for the Union. Mr. Rosen's track record as executive senator is strong, displaying many accomplishments of his own. His work in reforming the senate committees as well as in advocating for extended hours at both the P.O.D. Market and Einstein's Bros. Bagels deserves praise. We agree with Mr. Rosen that this is a crucial time for the University in terms of its dining contract, especially as the current contract with Aramark will soon expire. We hope that the next president will use this opportunity to pressure the administration, Board of Trustees and dining service provider to tailor the meal plans to students' needs. A student voice in this process is crucial. The Brandeis student body is fortunate to have well qualified candidates for Student Union President, and yet, only one can win. Ultimately, we hope that the president-elect will seriously consider incorporating the best aspects of the other candidates' platforms into his own plans. Additionally, we hope that all candidates will continue their involvement in the Student Union to enact this necessary change. *