(09/15/09 4:00am)
In response to your article "Cherish Brandeis' excellent environment" (Forum, Sept. 8): The book was a lengthy ramble about how if a company empathizes with its customers, it can do a more effective job of marketing to and creating products for those customers. One of the examples that the author gave was a consulting project that his own design firm worked on. Target asked its design firm to come up with ways to more effectively market to 17-year-olds shopping for their freshman year of college.The point that an Olin student brought up was a very valid one: The last thing the world needs is more stuff. His point was that it is slightly unethical for Target to prey on the fears of nervous teenagers to hawk more stuff to them, when what they really need are people telling them, "Yes, you'll do great in college, don't worry." But it isn't Target's job to reassure college freshmen. Target is the business of selling goods to you. Convincing you to buy less stuff is perhaps a more ethical thing to do from an environmental standpoint, but it is not in the best interest of Target to do so, so they won't do it. It seems that you interpreted this counter-argument of "Target is in the business of selling household goods, not counseling" as "Olin students are corporate shills." It is hard to discuss a nuanced argument in an auditorium of 300 students. I hope that the impression of Olin that you take away will come from your classes rather than an awkward convocation Q-and-A. Also, I was the person who asked the question about laying off people. What I was trying to ask was, "Is an empathetic corporate culture always the best for the greater good of the company? What if it hurts the company's bottom line, resulting in less pocket change for the employees?" I was trying to emphasize that caring for people on an individual level may not be the best for the greater good of the collective. Nuance is key here. It is unwise to assume that a large room of sentient human beings are all mindless tools. -Katherine ElliottThe writer is a student at Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering.
(09/15/09 4:00am)
If someone were to pick up a copy of Prof. Jytte Klausen's (POL) new book, The Cartoons That Shook the World, he might expect to see the said cartoons that supposedly shook the world. However, these cartoons, as well as any sort of supplementary images, are conspicuously absent.The Cartoons That Shook the World, which was published in October, chronicles the influence of cartoons from an article from the Danish newspaper The Jutland Post titled "The face of Muhammad." Images from "The face of Muhammad" include cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad dressed in a bomb-shaped turban as well as several caricatures' of the Muslim holy figure. The cartoons, which were published in September 2005, prompted violent demonstrations led by various Islamic groups across Europe, Asia and Africa several months later. These protests led to the deaths of over 100 people and caused Danish embassies in Lebanon, Iran and Syria to be set on fire. "There's a big difference between saying that the cartoons caused all these things to happen and that the cartoons were used in the context in which all these horrible things happened," Klausen said. "One hundred seventy five people died in Nigeria in which the cartoons were mentioned, but it was really a civil war that was going on. . There were more important issues."Klausen, who is Danish and knew many of the Danish actors involved in the cartoons, wrote the book as part of an investigative project. She said that she started the book in early 2006, right when the protests against the cartoons peaked. Klausen also knew several of the Muslim leaders involved in the protest from working on her previous book, The Islamic Challenge: Politics and Religion in Western Europe."I wanted to find out what happened in between [the publication of the cartoons and the protests], ... what were the sources of the protest and how could we trace those sources," said Klausen, who has been a professor of comparative politics at Brandeis for 17 years.However, when Klausen brought her book to Yale University Press to be published, Yale decided to have the images of the 12 cartoons, as well as other images of Muhammad in the book, reviewed by experts. In the end, Yale decided not to publish the images. John Donatich, director of Yale University Press, discussed including the cartoons in the book with counterterrorism officials, diplomats and Muslim United Nations officials. Donatich told the New York Times that the Press's decision regarding the publication of the cartoons was "overwhelming and unanimous." Yale was afraid that republishing the images might cause further protests and violence from the Islamic world.However, according to Klausen, the decision was not unanimous. "John Donatich used the term unanimous, and he realized he had misspoken afterward and sent me a message. The book was also reviewed by four expert reviewers who were asked if the cartoons should be in book, and they said they should," explained Klausen. Charles Radin, director of global operations and communications at Brandeis, who has been handling all the media requests that Klausen has been receiving, also confirmed that "at least one of the people who gave an opinion said that she did not agree.""After Yale sought some opinions of these cartoons and [Klausen] demanded to see what the people who [Yale] sought opinions from had to say, they said they wouldn't show them to her unless she promised not to reveal who the people were," said Radin. The result has been described as a "gag order."Klausen said that she believes Yale University Press wanted all images of Muhammad removed, not just the cartoons, because "[they have] become very politicized. [They've] become a lens in the West for speaking about what Muslims want or do not want-regard we should pay to not just Islam but all religious prohibitions," said Klausen.Additionally, Yale sent the cartoons out to be reviewed without sending the book along with them. In this way, Klausen believes Yale did not provide proper context for the book. "I think it's a mistake to send out illustrations about an academic book without sending the book. I would say the experts were not fully informed about a book they were asked to have an opinion about. It's as if we're in the Cold War, but we're not in a war," Klausen said. Yale University Press officially refused to print the controversial Danish Muhammad cartoons because "[they] are freely available on the Internet and can be accurately described in words, so reprinting them could be interpreted easily as gratuitous," saidDonatich.Klausen contends that republishing the cartoons now would be harmless, since the goal of the book is to explain why the cartoons were controversial. However, Klausen also said she knew that the images would be controversial but thought that the book would be a forum to discuss their implications in a neutral and calm way. Radin also said the book has been getting attention and coverage from not only American papers but also United Arab Emirates papers, the London Times and even journalist and religious skeptic Christopher Hitchens, all centered around the cartoon debates. Some members of Brandeis' faculty agreed that the images in Klausen's book should have been published. Chair of the Politics department Prof. Steven Burg said, "Suppressing the publication of the cartoons was an act of self-censorship under pressure of fear of acts of relation."Radin explained that fear: "The impression that comes out of much of the media accounts is that they were security consultants who [did not] read the book but just looked at the cartoons. To consider it that way doesn't look at the context or the academic mission."Donatich confirmed to the Boston Globe that "it became a security issue and not a censorship issue."Burg believes that the information that the book provides should be of greater importance than the consequences the cartoons may cause."While judgments about the probable consequences of publication may reasonably differ, the work itself is serious scholarship intended for a serious audience," Burg said.Politics student Nathan Koskella '13 also believes that the decision to remove the images from the book is an act of censorship."I think that there need to be pictures in the text to refer to," Koskella said. While Radin contends that Klausen's book is still effective in its message, he worries that it is not as effective as it could have been."It's a good, strong, solid piece of scholarship, but I don't see how anyone could argue that it could be as effective without the images," Radin said. "Part of the reason of the book [was written was to see what the] controversy really was about. [Klausen] basically says [that] if [she were] was teaching a course on sex education [she] would expect people to be able to look in a straightforward and educated motivated way at how [things] look. ... It would be silly to teach a course like that without having illustrations." -Rebecca Klein contributed reporting.
(09/08/09 4:00am)
The headline of an AP Brief in Sports last week incorrectly spelled the name of a New York Mets pitcher. The pitcher's name is Nelson Figueroa, not Nelson Figuerora. (Sept. 1, p. 11)A photo caption in Arts last week incorrectly identified the sponsor of an event on campus. Girl Talk's 2008 performance was sponsored by Student Events, not Punk, Rock n' Roll Club. (Sept. 1, p. 14)An article in News last week incorrectly implied that both the original Rose Art Museum archives and Robert D. Farber Special Collections and Archives pertaining to the Rose were removed from their original locations. In fact, only the Robert D. Farber archives were removed; the Rose Art Museum archives still reside in the museum. (Sept. 1, p. 1)The Quote of the Week in Forum last week directed the reader to the wrong page and section. The quote was taken from Features, page 7, not Arts, page 21. (Sept. 1, p. 8)The Justice welcomes submissions for errors that warrant correction or clarification. E-mail justeditor@brandeis.edu.
(09/01/09 4:00am)
In response to your article "University should not begin to consider online education"?(Forum, Aug. 25): I had my doubts about higher education online-until I became involved in it professionally. I have taught online graduate courses for three years, and I find that my students, spread over North America and beyond, work hard, learn a great deal and consistently meet and exceed my rather demanding expectations. Comparison to the for-profit University of Phoenix is a classic straw man argument. No one is proposing that Brandeis become a diploma mill. The opportunity to offer a limited number of courses taught by Brandeis faculty members to students who cannot attend a full-time residential program for four years can enhance the University's reputation, broaden the student body (online students are often older and more experienced, and they are likely to live far from Waltham) and perhaps provide needed revenue. All of that is consistent with the University's mission. In a world in which "if you are not virtual, you are not real," an online teaching component might even be a necessary expansion of the University's activities.Peretz Rodman '75, M.A. '83
(08/25/09 4:00am)
Author of 1996 short story collection Drown and 2007 novel The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao, Junot Diaz has garnered considerable critical fame for his work, including a Pulitzer Prize for Oscar Wao. He currently teaches creative writing at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. On Wednesday, Aug. 26, he will address the 2009 Helen and Philip Brecher New Student Forum, a Brandeis orientation tradition. Oscar Wao was chosen as summer reading for incoming first-years. JustArts: Your first book, Drown, was a collection of short stories published to wide acclaim. Was there a sense of expectation afterwards as to what your next work would be? Did that contribute to the subsequent writer's block?Junot Diaz: I wanted to write a novel. What it was about wasn't clear, but I wanted to write a novel for sure. It just happened to take 11 years. I'm sure the expectations didn't help but that wasn't the real problem. The problem was that I was too hard on myself and on my book.JA: In the 11-year span between the publication of Drown and The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao, you've mentioned that you wrote a lot of unsuccessful material. Is all of that related to what would become Oscar Wao or your upcoming novel? What other kinds of ideas did you pursue?JD: All of it was for versions of Oscar. All of it terrible.JA: Were the stories about Oscar and Trujillo always intertwined in your mind from the very beginning? Did Yunior always narrate the tale?JD: Yes, Oscar in some ways was the anti-Trujillo. And Yunior was always the narrator for reasons that are in my opinion essential to the book.JA: Part of Oscar's loneliness stems from his total isolation as this Dominican ghetto-nerd. If he had grown up with the Internet, do you think meeting and interacting with other fanboys would have made him less lonely? Could he have found some of the intimacy or connection he so craved?JD: Oscar's loneliness runs deeper than the non-networked '80s. Oscar is a victim of a society, a culture that has losers and winners and his love for a "useless" art form and his atypical masculinity all helped to marginalize him as well.JA: I was delighted when you referred to A Wrinkle in Time during your talk for Google. What other children's books have influenced or stayed with you? What is it about reading books or comics or imbibing other kinds of culture as a child or adolescent that causes them to leave such lasting impressions?JD: Well, I don't consider all comics to be children- or adolescent-specific, though some are. As a kid I adored Watership Down and a lot of John Christopher's adventure books. At that age I suspect we're simply more open to fall in love with a narrative. As adults our sense of wonder is dulled, our willingness "to go along" is sometimes reduced. In the end books that touch us in childhood touch us forever and the why of it is still a mystery.JA: Which other artists have influenced you as a writer? What are you currently reading or watching?JD: So many artists made me. From Stephen King to Maxine Hong Kingston. Right now I'm reading novels for the National Book Awards. I'm a judge. I can't wait to get back to my own reading, though!JA: The book is filled with allusions and footnotes, particularly in the beginning. What's your advice for people who might not know as much about comic books, science fiction and fantasy as Oscar does? Does not understanding all his references dilute the experience or somehow improve it?JD: My advice is that you should seek someone out who can help you understand the terms! It's a nice way to build community, to meet new people. And this book can be [understood on] so many different levels. It's ok not to understand whole chunks of it; the book still functions, as strange as that might sound.JA: You've lamented the unidirectionality of genre writers before-how they'll never become legitimate literary presences the way, for instance, Michael Chabon can when borrowing from a specific genre. Do you think this will ever change? And, if so, how? Does the success of your own novel-by no means a typical, high-handed, ponderous affair-improve these chances?JD: Hard to predict. I want it to change but I doubt it will any time soon. One book can't change a culture. But these conversations, if they happen enough, might.JA: Ethnic writers, as you've mentioned before, are sometimes forced into the role of an ambassador for their culture. For some people, myself included, Oscar Wao was indeed an introduction to a previously unfamiliar aspect of Dominican culture and history. Do you consider that a kind of success? Or do you feel limited by the title of being a "Latino author"?JD: I'm not an ambassador of any kind. I'm an artist. But a book has a mind of its own and if you learned a lot about Dominican culture and history that's cool, but it's not anything that I'm aiming for in my process. I'm trying to address in largest terms the human condition through a Dominican lens, but native informant I am not. As for being a Dominican writer-it doesn't limit me at all, because people are not one thing and I am not one thing. I'm a Dominican writer but I'm also a writer from New Jersey, an immigrant writer, a writer of African descent. I'm many things and I embrace each of them as long as I'm not limited to any of them.JA: For you, what is the American Dream? How do some of your favorite characters define it?JD: The American Dream is the dream of civil rights, of a more just, more equitable society. It is the dream of all the Latin American young people who got disappeared and tortured in the '70s and '80s for desiring a more just society.JA: When you include the offspring of immigrants like Oscar and Lola, who simultaneously understand so little about their parents' lives and are yet doomed to relive parts of it, are you trying to indicate something representative of the immigrant experience? How much can the second generation manage to straddle two cultures successfully?JD: Oscar and Lola are not doomed to repeat anything specifically because they are immigrants. It's the silence in their family that invites the repetition; it just happens that some immigrant families have become geniuses at silences. JA: I noticed you were scheduled for a lot of college visits in 2009. Have you enjoyed the experience? How have the student audiences compared to your usual students at MIT?JD: I love meeting readers from all over the country, from all over the world. Something I could only dream about when I was a young boy stuck in a nowhere town in Central New Jersey. MIT students are one of a kind. They are intense in ways that few students are, and they have to work in ways that few students have to work. Such a different culture. But young people share so much in this culture that the institutional differences don't really loom as large as one would think.JA: Any more hints about your upcoming novel, Dark America?JD: It's just coming slow. I'm trying to blow up the planet. So it's taking a while to get going.-Joyce Wang
(05/19/09 4:00am)
For this last issue of the academic year, we'd like to use this space to recognize and thank the graduating editors at the Justice for all they've brought to the paper.Mike Prada started out as a Sports writer and, after his tenure as Sports editor, became editor in chief during a very challenging semester. He rose to the occasion, working through to the end with enthusiasm and energy. Mike's passion for the Justice and journalism will carry him far.Daniel D. Snyder is a former Arts editor whose writing was a wonderful asset to the Justice, as his column, "Made of Metal," rained quip-filled death and destruction in the form of metal music reviews. As associate editor, he helped lead the Forum section temporarily between changes in leadership, picking up the slack when the Justice needed it.Associate editor Joel Herzfeld got his start as Copy editor, and he helped to develop a fledgling Copy section and to write the Justice's own style guide. He joined Dan Snyder in taking over the Forum section, and we know from experience that he would be homeless for a day in Boston so he could write a Features story about it.Mike, Dan and Joel have been invaluable contributors and colleagues at the Justice. We thank them and all the other graduating Justice staff members for their time with the newspaper. They will be missed, and we wish them the best for their lives after Brandeis.
(05/19/09 4:00am)
The great-nephew of a donor whose bequest funded the Kalman Science Building filed an injunction in Suffolk Probate Court May 7 to prevent Brandeis from tearing down the building due to disrepair, saying that such a move would violate his great-uncle's will. According to the will quoted in a copy of the injunction provided to the Justice by Sumner Kalman, the great-nephew of Julius Kalman, Julius made a bequest of approximately $1.8 million to Brandeis "to be used by the trustees of said University for the purpose of erecting a building, buildings or a portion of a building, to be known as the 'Julius Kalman Memorial'" in 1956. The injunction goes on to state that "the testamentary intent of Julius Kalman, as with most donors to Brandeis, was that his gift to the school would carry on in perpetuity." If the building were destroyed, according to the injunction, "there no longer will be a 'building, buildings, or portion of a building' named after Julius Kalman, as is required in his Last Will and Testament." The Kalman building is scheduled to be razed by this winter as part of Phase 1 of the Science Complex Renewal Project, which also includes the completion of the Carl J. Shapiro Science Center, according to the Web site of the Office of Capital Projects. In a May 2007 memo to the Brandeis community, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Peter French wrote that Phase 2 "will involve the creation of a new building more or less on the footprint of Kalman." According to a PowerPoint presentation from a 2006 community forum on the project, Phases 1 and 2 were scheduled to be completed by late 2010 or early 2011. Vice President of Capital Projects Dan Feldman told the Justice this February that Phase 2 had been indefinitely postponed."It's one thing to say that the building has got to be torn down because they need the space for a new building, [but it's] a little different when they don't have any money to build a new building, but they're going to tear down the [Kalman] building anyway," Kalman said. "Brandeis' position was that they weren't going to really recognize my uncle in the way we felt the testamentary intent was reflected in the will; ... that's what brought us to court."University General Council Judith Sizer wrote in an e-mail to the Justice that the "Kalman Science Center is one of the oldest, most heavily used buildings on campus, and needs to be replaced." Sizer also wrote that "the Kalman family was assured, over a year ago, that the University has every intention of continuing its memorial to Julius Kalman, a generous early donor to Brandeis." Sizer wrote that the University received notice of the lawsuit May 11, 2009 and intends to work with the family to resolve the matter.The motion for the injunction states that Brandeis gave its assurance of a future commemoration "without providing specifics." Kalman said he began raising concerns about the building last year by getting in touch with Brandeis and the Massachusetts Attorney General's office when he heard about the plans on the Internet. According to the complaint, Kalman received a response letter from Reinharz about the matter.Emily La Grassa, director of communications for the Massachusetts attorney general's office, wrote in an e-mail to the Justice that after receiving a complaint in May 2008, "after carefully reviewing the will of Julius Kalman, we determined that nothing contained in the will imposed on Brandeis an obligation to maintain a building, or a portion thereof, in the name of Julius Kalman beyond the building's useful life." She wrote, "Moreover, the University has pledged that when and if it elects to demolish and replace the building, it will commemorate, with a plaque and a ceremony in his honor, Kalman's contribution." She wrote that the attorney general's office saw no reason to take any action. Kalman said that discussions about the case were underway but he could not comment on specifics as the case was ongoing. When asked how the University should respond to concerns that the building is technologically outdated, he said, "They've got to talk to the Kalman family, just like they're talking to the Rose family." He said he was not pleased with the University's reaction so far. Kalman told the Justice last Friday that he was awaiting the scheduling of a hearing on the motion for the preliminary injunction. "If we're successful in the probate court, then that's as far as we need to go," he said. "Now how [the intent is] honored, whether it's by this building or some proposal that satisfies the terms of his will, that is a question.
(04/28/09 4:00am)
Cheers can be heard from almost any point on campus. "Yes, we can!"Students embrace with a sense of urgency. "Yes, we can!"Blue state. Red state. Electoral votes. CNN projections. "Yes, we can!"It is 11 p.m. on November 4, 2008, and Barack Obama has just been elected the 44th president of the United States of America. Contained chaos has erupted.At Brandeis, a consistently left-leaning university, Barack Obama's election swept the campus with a feverish frenzy. One hundred days after Inauguration Day, most of the emotions surrounding Obama's election have cooled, and students have begun speaking more rationally of his presidency. The April 19 event hosted by Gen Ed Now, "Obama's 100 Days: A Progress Report," featured a distinguished panel of experts who evaluated the Obama administration's conduct in three key areas: the economy, foreign policy and health care.Speakers at the event included Greg Mankiw, a Harvard professor of economics and former chairman of President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers; Stuart Altman, professor of national health policy (Heller) and former deputy assistant secretary for Health Policy; and Charles Dunbar, professor of international relations at Boston University and former ambassador to Qatar and Yemen. Prof. Peniel Joseph (AAAS) moderated the panel.The calm, bespectacled Mankiw, gave his insight into the current financial crisis and how well he thinks Obama's economic policy has dealt with it. He started off by describing what makes the United States' current financial situation unique and said it was caused by a "lack of imagination." He said that in order to fix the situation, the administration has to fix the bank system because it goes to the "heart of the problem." He said that Timothy Geithner "rolled out a plan . that is quite reasonable." However, he went on to criticize Obama's proposed fiscal stimulus package."The biggest long-term problem has to do with the [proposed] budget. [It's] unsustainable," Mankiw said. "We set up a social safety net for the elderly that is going to cause government spending to rise above tax revenues."Still, Mankiw was optimistic about Obama's environmental reform policy. Describing himself as a "fan of global climate change," he said, "What [Obama's administration] is proposing basically makes sense" by putting limits on the amount of carbon we can emit, among other things.Despite his general doubts regarding the Obama administration, Mankiw said he was "not forecasting another Great Depression."Still, Mankiw also expressed concern about Obama's health care reform plans. "I am personally skeptical that we are going to save a lot of money through health care reform. Health information technology may be a good thing, [but it] may be a bad thing. What's driving health care [costs are] advances in technology-which are not going to be changing," he said. Altman, who had reddish hair and a warm smile, also talked about his views on Obama's health policy. Although he said the "stars are aligned for significant health reform," he also described some of Obama's major obstacles. Firstly, he said, Obama needs to create universal health care coverage. Secondly, America needs to reduce the rate of the growth in health care spending."We spend 50 percent more than any other country in the world, and we really don't get the [benefits]," he said. Altman said Obama has adopted a philosophy that is working toward universal health care coverage and shared responsibility among the government, the individual and the employer. He also said Obama put off debate on controlled health care spending. Charles Dunbar said that in his opinion, Obama has had the most difficult first 100 days in office in American history. Dunbar praised Obama's progress in forging America's relationship with Russia. He also praised Obama's approach to relations with the Muslim world as "quite reasonable." Dunbar also addressed U.S. affairs with Cuba and Obama's increased effort towards friendly relations. "[There is] a new beginning with Cuba, [which is] interesting. [There are] substantive changes [being made]," he said. "[By] easing travel with Cuban Americans, [it is] making it possible to make remittances. We already see the Cubans ready to respond in kind. That's substantive tilling of the garden in the way the garden should be tilled."In reponse to a question from a member of the audience about how he thinks Obama will handle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Dunbar answered, "The two states solution.""All around the world," Dunbar concluded, "Peoples and governments are prepared to say, 'This is a new beginning.'"Benjamin Bechtolsheim '09 praised how informative the event was and said, "I was pleased that students took the initiative to present this forum, and I found it to be a valuable way of looking at the beginning of the Obama administration."-Greta Moran contributed reporting
(04/28/09 4:00am)
Last Wednesday, the Union Judiciary heard a case in which petitioners Gideon Klionsky '11 and Ryan McElhaney '10 argued that barring Mr. Klionsky from running for the position of senator for racial minority students because he was not a minority both violated the Rights and Responsibilities Handbook and contradicted the Union Constitution. The UJ simultaneously discussed whether it had the right to rule on this issue.While the UJ ultimately found against Mr. Klionsky, only Associate Justice Julia Sferlazzo '09 wrote that "this case should not have been heard by the UJ." We agree with Ms. Sferlazzo: The UJ's authority extends only as far as interpreting the Union Constitution. Mr. Klionsky and Mr. McElhaney's petition claims that the Union violated Section 7 of Rights and Responsibilities, which prohibits Brandeis from discriminating on the basis of race. However, cases of alleged discrimination are under the purview of the University Board on Student Conduct, not the UJ. We feel that the justices who decided that the UJ could rule on this case interpreted the Union Constitution too loosely. Associate Justice Judah Marans '11 and Chief Justice Rachel Graham Kagan '09 both cited Article I Section 3: "This Constitution shall be enacted in accordance with all . University policies." In our opinion, this says that the Union Constitution is inferior to Rights and Responsibilities and that the UJ cannot interpret Rights and Responsibilities.Furthermore, even though the UJ decided it had jurisdiction over this case, the justices should have dismissed it on an ideological basis: All white petitioners, respondents and justices held the rights of minorities on trial, requiring analysis of Brandeis' interracial relations. As Ms. Sferlazzo pointed out in her concurring opinion, "None of the justices have degrees in constitutional laws nor are we scholars of race and sociology." We appreciate the UJ's efforts to be fair in this trial by altering protocol to allow the testimony of friends of the court and the entry of amicus briefs into evidence; however, that the UJ had to modify its procedures just to hear this case shows that the UJ was not the proper venue for this issue.While the UBSC should have decided Mr. Klionsky's individual situation, the student body should decide whether the University's minority undergraduate constituency should have its own Union senator and Finance Board representative. We agree with Ms. Sferlazzo's opinion that "a series of open forums and town hall meetings" would be more appropriate than a UJ trial in which only a few proponents of either side could speak. The students who were shushed in the back of the Shapiro Campus Center's makeshift courtroom should be exactly the students the Union should look to for feedback.The Union should have settled the issue of minority representation by proposing a Constitutional amendment. This is both within the Union's authority and a means of involving the community.
(04/28/09 4:00am)
To the Editor:The case of Klionsky and McElhaney v. Student Union exploits the legal spirit and intention of our Constitution through co-opting of the letter of law. Within this case, the prosecution argues that two Union positions reserved for racial minorities are discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional. Klionsky's unsuccessful attempt to be included in the election for the position of racial minority senator spawned the petition. He was then told by the Union that he could not do so since he did not officially identify as a minority at Brandeis. As a result, the two petitioners claim that the positions violate the Union constitution and should therefore be abolished. Despite outcries from many parts of the minority community as well as the Union regarding the inappropriateness of this case, the Union Judiciary brought it to trial. After reviewing the facts of the case, in my mind, the initial argument of discrimination does not match the proposed solution of eliminating the racial minority positions raised by the petitioners. I acknowledge that perhaps there is legal merit to the claim of exclusion in being denied participation in the election of the RMS. When a person feels disenfranchised and silenced, he or she has historically taken action by fighting for equal rights and representation. However, the suggested abolition of the position does not acknowledge the need for or value of the representation offered by these Union seats. A response that would alternatively match the initial claim of discrimination would be to advocate for changing the constitutional jargon dealing with the two positions to make them more inclusive. I admit that the relationship between the petition's claim and solution is irrelevant to the official legal discussion, yet it becomes significant when discussing how the majority of people that must abide by these laws do not feel that these statutes protect them. I therefore believe it is necessary, when approaching a legal suit that has potential to destroy rather than build up, for the participating bodies to honestly articulate their intent. Thus, I would hope that such bodies ask themselves the following question before they bring their case into a public forum: Does the possible change for which we are advocating benefit the community it would affect? The disparity between the argument of discrimination and the suggested solution of the elimination of the racial minority positions in the Union leads me to believe that the petition presented does not consider this question. Additionally, though an argument may have legal merit, sensitive issues of race and representation have historically blurred the law's monopoly of what is both moral as well as in the best interest of the people under that law's jurisdiction. Therefore, more than a legislative matter, race is sociological; race is a social construction with extremely real consequences. These consequences are experienced in a variety of everyday institutions with which we all engage, such as schools, political offices and legal bodies. The unfavorable treatment these examples too often bestow upon racial minority groups materialize in inadequate resource distribution. Yet these covert practices of institutional racism are habitually ignored since they are simply deemed part of the status quo. In order to rectify these subtle but shamefully normative injustices, I believe our university community must address issues of race on a theoretical level in order to understand its practical implications. This strategy has a higher chance of eradicating prejudice in contrast to debating the semantics of the Union constitution, for the solution proposed does not directly rectify the initial problem. I believe that discrimination is therefore not confronted and destroyed by changing words but rather by changing minds. Yet the process adopted in the case brought before the Union Judiciary ignores the need for these conversations. In order to bring this discussion into another needed forum, I plead that the Brandeis population does not limit the relevance of this case to the space of the Union Judiciary trial; rather, I hope that as a community we initiate needed dialogue in a sensitive manner to do justice to the complex issue of race and the experiences of institutional racism many of our fellow students encounter everyday.-Rachie Lewis '09
(04/28/09 4:00am)
An Arts teaser last week incorrectly spelled the name of a musical group. It is called Mochila, not Mochilla. (April 21, p. 1). A photo caption in the Leonard Bernstein Festival of the Creative Arts pullout last week misidentified the series the painting "José" is a part of. It is a part of last year's "Faces of TYP," not this year's "Public Memory, November 4th, 2008." (April 21, p. 24) The Sunday schedule in the Leonard Bernstein Festival of the Creative Arts pullout last week incorrectly stated the time of the second Rose tour. It took place from 3:30 to 4 p.m., not from 1:30 to 2 p.m. (April 21, p. 22). An article in Arts last week incorrectly stated the name of the last movement of the Trio for flute, cello and piano, H. 300. It is called an Allegretto, not an Andante. (April 21, p.19). An article in Arts last week incorrectly spelled the last name of a cellist. She is Laura Shechter (GRAD) not Laura Schechter. (April 21, p.19). An article in Arts last week incorrectly stated the last name of the composer of Ruckert Lieder. It was composed by Gustav Mahler, not Gustav Nahler. (April 21, p.19). An article in Arts last week implied that Alicia Kaszeta (GRAD) stopped playing for a period of time because she wanted to pursue a scholarly career. Kaszeta briefly stopped playing because of a performance related injury. (April 21, p.19) An article in Forum last week incorrectly stated when Jonathan Kane '10 ran for the position of racial minority senator. He ran in 2007, not 2008. (April 21, p. 10). The Justice welcomes submissions for errors that warrant correction or clarification. E-mail jsw5@brandeis.edu.
(04/28/09 4:00am)
The visit of Bill Ayers, co-founder of the Weather Underground and professor in the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, to campus this Thursday has raised the ire of members of the surrounding community such as prominent Boston conservative radio host Michael Graham, who has led a campaign to get Brandeis to bar Ayers from speaking. On his blog, Graham further criticized the upcoming visit, writing, "The Unibomber, Timothy McVeigh, Osama bin Laden-hey, they've all got something to say and we should give them a forum at Brandeis to say it." Ayers was a radical anti-war activist in the 1960s and a co-founder of the Weather Underground, a radical protest group blamed for several bombings at the Capitol and Pentagon. The Weather Underground was suspected to have been involved in the shooting of Walter A. Schroeder, a Boston police officer, during a bank robbery in Brighton.Dennis Nealon, the executive director of media and public affairs for Brandeis, said, "We told the [Boston] Globe and the [Boston] Herald that allowing the talk to proceed does not mean that Brandeis condones the views of the speaker.""The University does not unilaterally bar someone because some will oppose their views. . This is about freedom of [educational opportunity]," he said. When asked about his response to Boston College's decision to cancel a planned visit by Ayers, Nealon said that Boston College faced similar criticism to Brandeis but "there just didn't seem to be a solution in saying, 'You just can't hear this speaker.'" Liza Behrendt '11, an event coordinator for the visit and a member of Democracy For America, a group co-sponsoring the visit, spoke about the importance of the Ayers visit's appearance on Graham's show, The Natural Truth, on Boston radio station WTKK. On April 23, Behrendt and Graham engaged in a debate for about 10 minutes during which Graham referred to Ayers' ideas about education as "bizarro and lunatic."During the show, Graham asked if, when Behrendt had referred to Brandeis' tradition of activism, she had been referring to Angela Davis, Susan Saxe and Katherine Howard. These three Brandeis alumnae appeared simultaneously on the FBI's most wanted list, representing the only time in American history that three women have been listed. Behrendt replied that she was proud of those women and said that she didn't believe "sharing a tradition of radical behavior is the same as endorsing a death." In the closing moments of the show, Graham asked if Behrendt would invite Adolf Hitler to speak at Brandeis. In a later interview with the Justice, Behrendt said "I didn't know what to say; it was such an absurd question." Graham could not be reached for comment by press time.When asked if she felt that she was experiencing a personal backlash from the event, Behrendt responded "No, I didn't, because I was just a person from Brandeis who ended up on that show. . I don't think that it's anything personal. I just feel that many people made comments from another ideological place.""It's interesting to see some of the passion that comes with the backlash," Behrendt added.Behrendt said that going on the show "seemed like an interesting opportunity because part of the reason why we brought Ayers was to try and spark dialogue, and this seemed like a good way to do that." Behrendt also said that she thought it was good that Brandeis hadn't backed out, because universities should be the place in society that stands for ideas. On March 29, the Boston Globe reported a statement released by BC regarding why the institution had canceled Ayers' visit to its campus. The statement said, "In light of additional information that was shared with the students on the actions of the Weather Underground, including their alleged involvement in the killing of a Boston police officer in nearby Allston, and out of concern for the safety and well-being of our students, we believe that the appropriate decision was reached." Brandeis student reaction to the upcoming visit is mixed. Doug Moore '11 said, "I've been kind of against [Bill Ayers'] presence on campus," citing "the message we're sending by bringing him here. . It kind of damages that image [of an activist institution that Brandeis has]." Shanna Rifkin '11, however, said "Within an activist community, you have a whole spectrum of activism. It's important to .. get a well-rounded and broad education. You don't have to agree with [Ayers], . but [we should] at least appreciate the fact that he's bringing a different perspective and view than we have [now]." -Daniel D. Snyder, Joel Herzfeld, Shana D. Lebowitz and Nashrah Rahman contributed reporting.
(04/28/09 4:00am)
The recent recommendation made by the Curriculum and Academic Restructuring Steering committee to convert the Classical Studies department into an interdepartmental program has caused much dismay among the department's professors and students, who staunchly oppose the proposal. In response to the release of the CARS report, several students stood outside last week's closed faculty meeting holding protest signs with phrases such as "Save the Classical Studies Department" and "We Love Prof. [Cheryl] Walker." Undergraduate Department Representative to the Classics department Alex Smith '09 explained that the protest was held to promote "awareness of the Classical Studies department as a very dedicated department. We're willing to sit outside the faculty meeting, not saying anything, completely peaceful, just [to] show them how much we care about this," he said. Lee Marmor '10, also a Classics UDR, explained that in addition to the protest, Classics students have attended the three CARS proposal forums and are asking alumni for support. The investment of students in the Classics department did not go unnoticed by administrators, and Provost Marty Krauss explained, "Both [student forums] were pretty much dominated by students from the Classics department, and they made a very impassioned plea to the committee about the quality of their experiences with the Classics department, and I thought they did a lovely job and a thoughtful job of expressing their views." Prof. Ann O. Koloski-Ostrow (CLAS) explained the Classics department's opposition to potentially being turned into an interdepartmental program. "It's a very serious thing to turn a department into a program," Koloski-Ostrow said. "We have some very distinguished programs with very distinguished faculty on campus. This is not a slight at those existing programs, but none of those programs were created by the demotion of a department. A department of Classical Studies does do a lot of interdepartmental work, we don't deny that, but to turn us into an interdisciplinary program would be a real demotion in prestige already achieved by the department, and we are concerned about it first and foremost in terms of the reputation of Brandeis University." Koloski-Ostrow said that she believes that eliminating the Classical Studies department would damage Brandeis' reputation because almost all of the universities Brandeis competes with for the best students have Classical Studies departments. "We are trying to explain this to the administration," Koloski-Ostrow said. "We understand the administration is in a bind [and] the CARS committee's mission is to try and be more efficient and save money, [but] this is not going to save money; they have admitted that," she said. Koloski-Ostrow elaborated in an e-mail to the Justice that "the administration and CARS were asked several times (in private meetings and in front of the whole faculty last week at the faculty meeting on April 23) how closing down the THREE departments recommended for 'demotion' into interdepartmental programs would save money? Each time the question comes up, the administration and CARS members say that this recommendation is 'not about money.' Instead, they say that the restructuring is aimed at eliminating duplication of courses and strongly encouraging various academic units to reach across disciplines to fulfill needs that a smaller faculty (in the future) will not be able to fulfill in any other way."Walker said that upon reviewing the CARS proposal she did not see "any documentation to suggest that [turning the department into an interdepartmental program] would a) save money or b) facilitate faculty reduction, which is the charge of the committee." Johnston said that she was "appalled [and] really disgusted" about the CARS proposals. Prof. Patricia Johnston (CLAS) said she was "very proud" and "gratified to have so much support" from the Classical Studies students who held the protest.Walker (CLAS) agreed that she could "not be happier with the students.""I have been so pleased that on their own volition they have taken up the torch and decided that [supporting the department] is something they want to spend time doing," she said, "not only the students on campus but [also] alumni. I have gotten three notices from people who have graduated in recent years. Can we turn all that energy into something positive? I have hope.
(04/28/09 4:00am)
The Curriculum and Academic Restructuring Steering committee recently recommended that the Classical Studies department, an integral part of the academic fabric of our liberal arts University, be reorganized into an interdepartmental program. In its report, the committee praised the department for the "heroic" and "sterling contributions" of its faculty and students to the University. Although "the committee recognizes the irony" of its recommendation, it suggests that Classics be converted to an interdepartmental program, reducing the faculty from four to three. CARS believes that because of the small size of our department, our "organizational structure is not optimal."On the contrary, our faculty and students arrange a wide array of events for the Brandeis community including a popular film series, two prestigious lecture programs that attract world-renowned classicists, undergraduate academic fellowships for majors and minors and an internship program through the Classical Artifact Research Center. In the CARS student forum on Wednesday, representatives of the committee cited "departmental barriers" as an impetus for our reassignment as an interdepartmental program. We firmly believe these barriers do not exist in Classics. Every semester, the Classics department crafts courses that link diverse disciplines including but not limited to Physics, Anthropology, History, Fine Arts, Near Eastern and Judaic Studies and Theater Arts.The committee also conceded that the University would not save much from this change; rather, the private donations that help fund our dynamic lecture programs, undergraduate fellowships and the CLARC could be significantly diminished or withdrawn due to the lack of a departmental status. In fact the University could potentially lose money due to a retraction of alumni donations to the Classics department.Furthermore, our professors- who many members of the Brandeis community know personally-have fostered an inviting and intellectually engaging community worth maintaining as a department. Admittedly, we are a small department, retaining only four full-time professors; however, we are on par with the national average of 3.5 professors in Classical Studies departments. If you know a Classics student, you probably are familiar with our unique atmosphere of scholarship, warmth and-indeed-nerdiness.We welcome everyone with an enthusiasm for classical subject matter to come enjoy our events or a course with Profs. Ann O. Koloski-Ostrow, Leonard Muellner, Cheryl Walker or Patricia Johnston. We ask that the Brandeis administration, faculty, and students help us to preserve the prestige of our small department so that we may continue to offer the vibrant environment that both our faculty and students have created. Valete Omnes!Editor's Note: Alissa Thomas '11, Alex Smith '09 and Dianne Ma '09 are Classics majors.
(04/21/09 4:00am)
The April 30 visit of Bill Ayers, co-founder of the Weather Underground and professor in the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, has engendered a wide range of opinions from students, faculty and administration that will be further explored at an upcoming series of town hall-style meetings scheduled for April 27 and 29. In the days leading up to the town hall meetings, some students have expressed their interest in attending the event, while others like Douglas Moore '11 have decided to protest against the upcoming visit through an anti-Ayers Facebook group named Bill Ayers is Coming to Brandeis, Seriously? WTF. There is also a Facebook event, Students Against Bill Ayers Coming to Brandeis, which is scheduled to take place the same day as the Ayers visit.The town hall-style meetings will take place in Lown Auditorium and will be open forums between students and professors, according to Liza Behrendt '11, event coordinator and Democracy for America member. She said that DFA has not yet received confirmation on which professors will be present at the town hall meetings. "We hope to discuss people's reaction. We hope that people who have negative opinions about the event will show up and express their opinions. . We're going to talk about the history, . [and] on Wednesday we're going to watch the film The Weather Underground," Behrendt said.Ayers' visit will take place April 30 after being postponed from its initial March 30 date due to mounting security costs surrounding the event. DFA members and event coordinators Behrendt and Lev Hirschhorn '11, as well as Director of Public Safety Ed Callahan, declined to discuss the total cost of the event or the cost of security, but Behrendt and Hirschhorn both said that DFA would be paying approximately $1,400. The event is being sponsored by Democracy for America, Students for a Democratic Society, the Brenda Meehan Social Justice in Action Grant and four academic departments: Peace, Conflict and Coexistence Studies; Education; History; and Social Justice and Social Policy. The event will be held in the Carl J. Shapiro Theater. Tickets will be $5 each and will be available on a first-come, first-served basis. Only 230 tickets will be sold. Hirschhorn, who is also a Student Union senator for the Class of 2011, said that it was important to invite Ayers to campus and hear what he has to say because "there are a lot of activists on campus, and I think people are very interested in the lessons to be learned from the antiwar movement of the 1960s and the limits of activism." Moore, on the other hand, said, "I think that the problem with him coming to campus is his past involvement in a lot of violent acts, compared to nonviolence and other forms of protest. I think [nonviolence and other forms of protest] should be taught and should be appreciated here on campus, not something like the bombings that the Weather Underground were responsible for." Moore added that he believes the event reflects poorly on the entire campus and that the visit is "kind of pointless." Moore is undecided on whether he will attend the event. Students Against Bill Ayers Coming to Brandeis criticizes the sponsors of the Ayers visit for "donating money to fund a terrorist, rather than use that money for something useful on campus (like saving the Rose Art Museum)." This Facebook event encourages anyone who disagrees with Ayers' outlook to come together to protest, and as of last night there are seven confirmed attendees. Behrendt said that she thinks it is important to listen to Ayers because "he is a very well-respected person now, yet in the past [he] did horrific things in the name of justice, and that is a very challenging puzzle for current activists to work out." The event is also eliciting reactions from several administrators and faculty members. Provost Marty Krauss said about the event, "I've never heard him speak, so I don't know what he will say. I think that Brandeis has always been a place where different speakers come, and if this is a speaker that students are interested in hearing from, I think that it is good that he is coming."Prof. Bernard Yack (POL) said that he had no problem with the decision to invite Ayers. When asked what Ayers could add to the conversation about social justice, Yack said, "He has strong opinions on the subject, and he represents the somewhat more radical view so it certainly adds to the conversation."Robert Mesika '12 said that he was fully behind the invitation extended to Ayers. He said, "We should get everyone's opinions and views on any matter, even if we have to get the radical left or the radical right."-Nashrah Rahman contributed reporting
(04/21/09 4:00am)
On April 20, 2009, the Curricular and Academic Restructuring Steering Committee released its recommendations. These are designed to strengthen Brandeis' curricula and organization while positioning the University to effectively deliver the Brandeis experience in the face of the challenging fiscal environment. The full report can be found online at https://secureweb.brandeis.edu/transformation.We began in February, and dozens of faculty, students and staff have worked incredibly hard on multiple CARS subcommittees and produced the innovative Justice Brandeis Semester, the new Business major, creative new Web site designs, ideas for more flexible requirements and ideas for removing barriers to flexible and creative curricular innovation.There is no doubt that the financial crisis requires tough decisions and sacrifices to be made. At Brandeis, a university with the atmosphere of a small liberal arts college with strong research faculty, we are committed to having faculty and students jointly engaged in learning and scholarship. This is what makes us special, and the CARS process reflects that precious trait of our community.Together we have worked to create a process for communicating and discussing these recommendations that is as inclusive as possible. Multiple town hall meetings, online forums, meetings with faculty and various departments and constant outreach to affected parties have all led to better results.The CARS recommendations will make Arts and Sciences more flexible and effective, so that we can be lean and strong rather than feeling undernourished. The report includes targeted reductions in the size of the faculty, and it also includes changes in how we operate so that this reduced faculty can still deliver. In the end, the Committee decided not to recommend the closure of any undergraduate major or minor or any graduate program, but instead to rely on more efficient and flexible provisions of the courses necessary for these programs.In particular, the recommendations are designed to make the process of constructing each year's curriculum more flexible, so the courses that need to be taught will be taught with minimal duplication and maximum variety. As the number of courses taught each semester is reduced slightly, better management of course rotation will ensure that variety and depth are maintained.The recommendations also include transforming some existing departments into interdepartmental programs in order to increase the extent to which faculty from multiple departments contribute to those majors and to ensure that faculty currently in those interdisciplinary departments contribute to maintaining the strength of other departments.Implementation of the recommendations will lead to some shrinkage of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. This reduction will allow the University to focus its resources on undergraduate education, while still maintaining the crucial core of the research university.Read the report -- you will agree with some of the changes and disagree with others. Although no programs are disappearing, there will be changes to the way our existing majors, minors and graduate programs are delivered. Get involved and make your voice heard.When the community is involved in making change, we can better ensure that as many voices and perspectives are as heard as possible. If we are all involved in the process today, our University will be better positioned for tomorrow.Students, please attend one of a series of forums with the provost announced in her April 20 e-mail, and give your feedback. Faculty, please attend the faculty meeting on Thursday.The provost will be reviewing these recommendations and your feedback and comments before any final decisions are made.It has been a challenge and a privilege to participate with our fellow faculty and fellow students shaping our University for the future. Thank you to all who have been, and the many who will continue to be, engaged with us in the process of making change.Editor's Note: Adam Jaffe is the Dean of Arts and Sciences and Fred C. Hecht Professor in Economics. Jason Gray '10 is the president of the Student Union.
(04/21/09 4:00am)
In the aftermath of yesterday's release of the Curriculum and Academic Restructuring Steering committee's report, many faculty and students affected by the proposals immediately began to express initial reactions to the committee's recommendations.The committee's recommendations included making American Studies, Classical Studies and African and Afro-American Studies interdepartmental-programs instead of departments and implementing a 10-percent cut of faculty and staff across all departments, reducing the size of most Ph.D. programs. The recommendation of converting AAAS, AMST and Classics into interdisciplinary programs-meaning the majors are still intact, but the classes will be cross-listed with other departments-was one on which committee members received the most feedback from those affected. Dean of Arts and Sciences and Chair of the CARS committee Adam Jaffe said that the CARS committee met with the African and Afro-American Studies and Classical Studies departments last Friday and with the American Studies department yesterday to discuss the committee's recommendations. "I would say in all cases they were unhappy with the recommendations," Jaffe said.Prof. Joyce Antler (AMST) said, "there's a difference between a program and a department. [American Studies] has been highly successful, and it's not a new program that's come into being. And I think that the rationale for making a transformational change is not convincing. We don't see the cost savings in it at all." Prof. Wellington Nyangoni (AAAS) said he would "be extremely disappointed" if the AAAS department were converted into a program. "Programs are not equal to departments," he said.Nathan Robinson '11, a declared AAAS major, said, "I believe the University has shown a weak commitment toward the AAAS department. I am concerned the studies of African-American issues will merge into the study of the social justices or race and gender issues generically, and I think it's very important for those of us who are genuinely interested in African or Afro-American studies that we have an intense focus on that particular subject."Lee Marmor '10, a Classical Studies major, was one of two students who organized a Facebook group called Save the Classical Studies Department last night to "protest the recent decision to reduce the status of Classical Studies to an interdepartmental program," according to the group's Facebook page."It's outrageous, and universities were founded originally, basically, on the study of classics. I know they're not getting rid of this, but still, it's ridiculous," he said.Prof. Steven Burg (POL), a member of the CARS committee, explained to the Justice Sunday that he understood the department's initial reactions. "If somebody came to me and said, 'Steve, we're doing away with the Politics Department,' ... I'd be shocked . But if you make a strong institutional argument, if there may be benefits to me as an intellectual in terms of closer relationships with colleagues in the University with whom I can share some overlap, then there are certain benefits to be had." He added, "These are what are called 'difficult conversations.'"Also released in the report was a recommendation to reduce the number of low-enrollment courses taught each semester.Prof. Jonathan Sarna (NEJS), whose department has several courses that routinely draw fewer than eight people after pre-enrollment, believes these classes will be shifted to graduate classes to which some undergraduates could be invited to take the class. He explained that this could allow for some specialized classes."But at the same time ... we now have to realize that if there are going to be 10 percent fewer faculty and 10 percent more students, then all of us have to carry a load," Sarna said.Another recommendation in the report is a 10-percent cut of faculty across all departments over five years."Certainly, these are difficult times ... This is a burden that should be shared across the University, and [we need to] find ways to continue to offer an effective curriculum with whatever attrition is necessary," Antler said.The report also included a recommendation that would increase the variety of courses taught by each faculty member over a three-year rotation, which would, in effect, mean that each course would be offered less frequently. Antler expressed concerns about this. "Beyond [every other year], it gets very difficult for students who might want to catch courses in their first two years or last two years, and [the courses are] just not available," she said. "[The classes] can't be so irregular that students can't plan for them."Several faculty members declined to comment because they had not yet read the report. Provost Marty Krauss said that she will issue a preliminary response May 4, which will be discussed at a special faculty meeting May 7. She will then issue a final report May 11. Faculty members will begin discussing the report at this week's faculty meeting, and there are open forums scheduled for tomorrow, Thursday and Monday where Brandeis community members can provide their input to Krauss directly, according to a campuswide e-mail sent by Student Union President Jason Gray '10. Krauss said, "I don't want to say very much now about my reactions to it because I really want to hear from the community." Burg said Sunday, "It's not clear to me whether those recommendations will in the end find enough support in the faculty," but he added that, "I believe there are strong arguments for them."-Hannah Kirsch, Shana D. Lebowitz, Miranda Neubauer and Daniel D. Snyder contributed reporting.
(04/21/09 4:00am)
What do we gain from wonder? What can imagination teach us? How do we think about these concepts in a world that puts increasing emphasis on the concrete and the tangible elements of life, especially in education?These questions were central to the Second Annual Symposium on the Pedagogy of Imagination. Held on April 1 in the Lois Foster Wing of the Rose Art Museum, the symposium provided a forum to discuss the abstract elements of life: how our imagination works, why it is so difficult to understand, what creates wonder and how the abstract can be used to create in an educational setting.Prof. Dirck Roosevelt, an assistant director of the Education program, director of the Master of the Arts in Teaching program and assistant professor of education, was the keynote speaker of the event. However, there were many other speakers, including graduate students and other professors. The event was co-sponsored by the Master of Arts in Teaching program, the Philosophy department, the Cultural Production program, the Mandel Center for Studies in Jewish Education and the Rose Art Museum.The theme of this year's event, titled "Arresting Moments: Wonder and the Pedagogy of the Imagination," focused on the position of wonder in education institutions and pedagogic endeavors. In the symposium, participants considered the "drop-dead" moments of wonder felt in the face of a great work of art or performance. How are these moments to be understood usefully, framed and built upon?The audience, which was composed mostly of adults, heard presentations from Brandeis professors and graduate students as well as scholars from the greater artistic community. Emily Mello, director of education for the Rose, said, "I think that wonder is a huge motivator, and I think that you can't have true education without wonder. You can have memorization, you can have training, but you can't have the kind of deep learning that involves critical thinking, that involves letting things slowly unfold in the mind."Mello began the evening by introducing the topics to be discussed and the role that the Rose had played in advocating creative instinct and the importance of imagination on the Brandeis campus. She also said that there has been some confusion since the announcement was made in January about the planned [closing] of the Rose and the plans to liquidate its collection. She took a moment to clarify that the final day for the staff of the Rose is still set at June 30. "There are no exhibitions currently planned beyond the exhibitions that are up now, which close May 17, . and there are still ... plans to go forward to sell some of the art in the collection," Mello said.After Mello's introduction, Roosevelt, one of the original minds behind the Pedagogy of Imagination symposium, quickly remarked on the theme of the evening. He said, "We meet in the Rose Art Museum, and it's hard to imagine what would be a more appropriate setting than this for consideration of the most precious human capacity, the capacity of 'what if?'"As Roosevelt introduced the human propensity to wonder, Prof. Andreas Teuber (PHIL) described his interest not in wonders but in the power that wonder has as a teaching tool. This was the central theme of the symposium: how the feeling of wonder can be understood and to some extent be used in an educational setting.Teuber spoke of the abstract nature of wonder. He said, "there was a distinction between miracles and the marvelous. . Miracles were things that defied the laws of nature and were really, truly, incomprehensible. Therefore, you would be struck by a miracle, but you couldn't get it, and the fact that you couldn't get it confirmed the existence of some supreme being. . The marvelous were something in between the ordinary and the miraculous but something that was accessible to human faculties and could be opened up and maybe understood."The presentations that followed focused on examples of imagination and wonder as well as their effects in real-life scenarios from housing developments to the Rose itself.Professor Mark Auslander (ANTH) and a group of students from his class "Engaged Anthropolgy" presented what they had achieved through their work with the Waltham Family School, an Even Start Literacy program that improves educational opportunities by combining childhood and adult education in literacy as well as parenting activities. Auslander and the students had been working with immigrant women in an anthropological context discussing the meaning of clothing and human appearance. This process involved the women creating images of clothing as well as visiting the Rose and discussing what they saw.Finally, Roosevelt gave the keynote address. He explained that "making art . is a structured experience for elementary-age youngsters, who come here [to the Rose] for five sessions, . and discussions are designed to combine looking at, thinking about and discussing one or more of the current exhibits and making their own art and thinking about and discussing that art." Although the symposium ran well beyond the scheduled time, it seemed to take on the very sort of nature that infuses imagination: a process of thinking and wondering about things that can never be truly understood but is immensely powerful and can achieve amazing things.
(04/07/09 4:00am)
Senior administrators and the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities agreed on a modified process for the consideration of proposals by the Curriculum and Academic Restructuring Steering committee, which will be released later this month, Provost Marty Krauss announced in a campuswide e-mail sent April 2 and at the faculty meeting last Thursday.The new process will have Krauss presenting an initial report of the CARS recommendations to the community May 4 and presenting a final report at the May 14 faculty meeting. The May 4 announcement was originally the final report. CARS recommendations will be released April 20, according to Krauss.The CFRR "wanted to be sure . that if people wanted to have a comment on [the May 4 report], that wouldn't be considered the final report," Krauss said. The final report would be binding on the issues that she is authorized to make decisions about, she said. Chair of the CFRR Prof. Aida Wong (FA) said that the committee had been concerned about the transparency of the deliberation process of the CARS proposals. She said that with the timeline change, "the faculty meeting will still be a forum for discussing [the proposals] . rather than having the deliberative process [for the CARS proposals be] independent of the regular governing procedure."CFRR had also asked for an enumeration of the criteria for the restructuring so that faculty members could "have a common ground to assess the merits of the forthcoming recommendations." Wong said.According to the April 2 campuswide e-mail, Dean of Arts and Sciences Adam Jaffe stated at the meeting that CARS had considered eight criteria, including a program's contribution to the University's multiple missions, its contribution to the undergraduate experience, its excellence compared to similar programs at other schools, the extent to which it is required, its distinctiveness regarding the Brandeis profile and the extent to which it contributes to other programs.
(03/31/09 4:00am)
An article in News last week incorrectly spelled the last name of a student. She is Rebecca Erenrich '12, not Rebecca Eisenrich. (Mar. 24, p. 1).An article in News last week incorrectly stated the position of Brian Koslowski. He is the Massell Quad Community Development Coordinator, not the Quad Director. (Mar. 24, p. 1).An article in News last week incorrectly stated the postion of Stephen Costa. He is a budget analyst in the Office of Students and Enrollment who also handles Student Union finances, not just a budget analyst for the Union. (Mar. 24, p. 3).An article in News last week incorrectly stated Jason Gray's class year. It is 2010, not 2011. (Mar. 24, p. 5).An article in News last week incorrectly spelled the last name of a student. He is Charlie Gandelman '09, not Charlie Gandleman. (Mar. 24, p. 5). The Op-Box in Forum last week quoted Brent Arnold at an improvisation workshop hosted by Nettle: Music for a Nu World. Arnold is the cellist for Nettle. (Mar. 24, p. 10). An article in Features last week incorectly spelled the last name of an alum. She is Amy Debra Finstein, not Amy Debra Feinstein. (Mar. 24, p. 9).An article in Features last week mistakenly omitted the class year of an alum. Amy Debra Finstein's class year is 1998. (Mar. 24, p. 9).An article in Features last week incorrectly stated the year Pachanga started. It started in 1997, not 2001. (Mar. 24, p. 8).The Justice was informed that Pachanga began as a house party in the former Ridgewood Quad. Pachanga became an officially funded party in 1998.
