(03/24/09 4:00am)
THE SCOOP
Bill Ayers, a former member of the Weather Underground who remains controversial to this day, was originally scheduled to come to campus on March 30. This development has been met with skepticism by faculty members and students alike. These critics of Bill Ayers' character argue that Brandeis should not welcome a formerly unrepentant bomber of the Pentagon, the U.S Capitol, and other federal buildings-an individual who seems to appeal only to the most radical of students. Although these criticisms are legitimate, the school should welcome Mr. Ayers to speak and express his views. Brandeis ought to serve as a forum for all different kinds of perspectives. Even if individuals offer points of view that are deemed radical and unpopular, they should nonetheless feel comfortable expressing them at our academic institution. We celebrate diversity in our student body and faculty; we should also celebrate heterogeneity in what people think.Preventing Mr. Ayers from coming here would discredit a view held by many members of Brandeis students and faculty. Among those who work at Brandeis and call it their home are individuals whose beliefs represent an entire spectrum of thoughts and philosophies. This vast array of ideas, radical ones included, is what gives our school an intellectual atmosphere. Also, it is one of the most important factors that draws bright students to this corner of the world. Are we to deny someone whose ideas and association with us can only add to this diversity?Another reason to grant Mr. Ayers this opportunity is that he has many positive virtues that override his seemingly dubious past. Currently, he is a professor of education at the University of Illinois and a leading advocate for education reform. He has also served on the board of directors for the Annenberg Challenge, which raised millions of dollars to improve the quality of Chicago public schools, as well as the Woods Fund, a philanthropic organization devoted to fighting poverty. The city of Chicago bestowed its Citizen of the Year award upon Ayers in 1997 for these admirable efforts.In addition, the Weather Underground was in actuality not as horrifying as the caricature its harshest critics continue to paint it as: a destructive and violent group of communist radicals. True, its members bombed several important governmental buildings. However, these acts were not meant to hurt anyone, and they didn't. Rather, they were primarily symbolic and a form of protest against the Vietnam War. Were they a little extreme? Perhaps. But ultimately, the organization had understandable intentions. It was born out of the chaos of the late 1960s and early '70s and not out of some malicious desire to hurt people.In fact, one can consider Mr. Ayers' past admirable in the sense that it can inspire our own activism and desire to engage in political affairs. Although we shouldn't necessarily emulate the tactics that were exercised by the Weather Underground, we ought to view their spirit and fervent desire for change in a positive fashion. That is, we can take from them the fact that, with enough motivation, people can ultimately incite their government to act in ways that better represent their values.Lastly, by rejecting Mr. Ayers, one of the only things we gain is a reputation for being parochial and narrow-minded-a kind of worldview that typified the Republicans in their attempts to demonize Barack Obama by linking him to Mr. Ayers. And personally, I would rather not be associated with the likes of the Alaskan governor who claimed that President Obama is someone who "sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.
(03/24/09 4:00am)
CORRECTION APPENDED SEE BOTTOMStudent Union President Jason Gray '10 praised students for becoming more involved in making University-related decisions in his State of the Union Address last Tuesday. Gray spoke about the effect on the student body of the the University's attempt to discontinue merit aid portability to study abroad Jan. 16. He said that the lack of student input in the process of reaching the decision prompted the Union to express its disagreement with this policy. "We worked with Academic Services to create a representative committee including faculty, students and staff and an online forum for greater student input. Soon after, the decision to restrict the portability of merit aid was reversed," Gray said.Gray also addressed the University's sudden decision to close the Rose Art Museum without the campus community's involvement. "After the initial statements regarding the Rose and during the ensuing controversy, the Union worked with the administration to hold multiple student forums, giving students an opportunity to directly engage with the administration and to be active members of our democracy."He reflected that as a result of such open conversation, the Rose committee, composed of students, faculty and administrators, has been created to make recommendations for the Rose Museum's future. Gray acknowledged the impact of the financial crisis on club funding and that "clubs want to do more, but they have had to cut back on the number of events, decrease the scale of programming and have had difficulty expanding."He emphasized that because there is no more rollover from the Student Activities Fund, which is traditionally 1 percent of student tuition, club leaders are still in need of funding. "[The Union has] asked, in no uncertain terms, that the Board of Trustees uncap the [Student Activities Fund] and give clubs the money that they deserve."A new Student Activities Fund management system has also been implemented, Gray said. The system will "allow club leaders to, in real time, know how much money they have and what have they spent. It will create more responsive and more transparent finances," according to Gray. Gray listed the creation of the Senate Outreach Committee, a new taskforce on communications, as one of the Union's accomplishments this year. The committee aims to keep students in the know about Union activities by posting flyers and sending campus-wide e-mails about Union events. He also talked about the Union's new Web site, which will soon be online and which he hopes will "create as many ways as possible for students to speak and for their government to listen." He listed some of the accomplishments of on-campus clubs, such as the Brandeis chapter of Colleges Against Cancer raising $90,000 last year in a Relay for Life and the English Language Learning club gathering 100 students to tutor Facilities Services and cafeteria workers. "We have come a long way in a year, but we can go so much farther. . If we embrace and emphasize outreach, student involvement and student rights, there is no limit to what this Union and this community can accomplish together," Gray saidIn an interview following the address, Gray emphasized that the Union has "created a culture in which students need to be involved in the decisions made by the administration in a way that has never existed before, and I think that this idea needs to be taken and run with in the future.""I think his speech was one of the most outstanding you can imagine from a student leader," said Rena Olshansky '56, a member of the Board of Trustees' Students and Enrollment Committee, who said that it was her first State of the Union address. Commenting on the Union Rena said, "I think the [students] set their agenda, and that's important." University Provost Marty Krauss, who attended the speech, said in an interview with the Justice, "[Gray] has a tremendous amount of respect among the members of the administration because he's a mature person; he's diplomatic; he thinks about the perspectives of many constituencies; he's smart; and he makes really good recommendations, and he gets things done." Senior Vice President of Communications Lorna Miles, who also attended, added that Gray "has been incredibly vital; his legacy is having created a consciousness in the University among the administration and the faculty that students are part of the day-to-day governance of this community." Nipun Marwaha '12, senator for Massell Quad, said, "What [Gray] has done for the Union and the student body is outstanding."Correction: The article originally incorrectly identified a student's class year. Jason Gray's class year is 2010, not 2011.
(03/10/09 4:00am)
The International Business School is in an ongoing discussion with former Chairwoman and Chief Executing Officer of Playboy Enterprises Christie Hefner '74 about how she can become affiliated with the International Business School, according to IBS Senior Associate Director of Communications Matthew Parillo.Hefner became the chairman and CEO of Playboy Enterprises in 1988 before stepping down this January. In an e-mail to the Justice, Hefner wrote, "Now that I have stepped down as Chairman [and] CEO of Playboy Enterprises, I have the time to become more involved in a variety of activities that I care about."Hefner wrote that she is interested in collaborating with the IBS for three reasons: "I believe passionately in the idea and the ideal of [IBS] that, as Justice Brandeis put it, 'business can be a force for good.' The fact that [two thirds] of the students are from outside of the U.S. makes the school especially relevant to today's global challenges and of [particular] interest to me. And as Brandeis is my alma mater and [IBS] is a relatively young business school, I feel that I could make a larger contribution here than [at] other business schools."Hefner wrote, "It is early in the discussions, but I expect that my involvement will certainly include coming out to speak and to interact with the students [at Brandeis]."Parillo declined to comment on the specific options that the IBS is discussing with Hefner regarding how she can become more involved in the IBS community. He said, however, that the IBS wants to enlist Hefner's help in achieving its mission statement, which, according to the IBS Web site, aims "to advance knowledge on globalization and to train principled leaders for the global economy." Parillo said that talks with Hefner began last December and that "it was [Hefner's] decision to reopen discussions when she decided to leave [Playboy Enterprises]." In an e-mail to the Justice, Executive Director of Media and Public Affairs Dennis Nealon confirmed that Hefner was only interested in colloborating with the IBS and not the University in general. In an e-mail to the Justice, Parillo confirmed that as a volunteer leader Hefner will not receive any monetary compensation.Dean of the IBS Bruce Magid declined to comment. Hefner is a participant in the IBS CEO forum, which brings leading business executives to speak at the IBS. As a participant of the CEO forum, Hefner last visited the campus Feb. 25 of this year. Angelique Ahmed (GRAD) recalled finding Hefner's discussion "very interesting as a business student."Ahmed said, "I think that it's a brilliant idea that [Hefner] may become more involved with the IBS." Parillo stated, "There is no time table and the decisions that need to be made are going to be thoughtful." He said that an important issue to consider is the fact that Hefner is located in Chicago whereas "some of the executives that help [the IBS] and serve [the IBS] on various aspects . are local." According to Parillo, "What we're doing is pretty common. .. where we're always in touch with business leaders and we try to engage them as best as we can." "We would be excited to work out a process by which she can help our students," he said.
(02/24/09 5:00am)
CORRECTION APPENDED SEE BOTTOMA subcommittee of the Curriculum and Academic Restructuring Steering Committee is proposing a new graduation requirement in the form of semester-long experiential learning programs both on and off campus in order to increase the undergraduate student body, while another subcommittee is proposing a Business major to attract more applicants.In addition, a separate group of faculty is proposing a major in Communications, Media and Society in order to attract more applicants.All proposals are intended to increase revenue from tuition-paying students, faculty members said.Dean of Arts and Sciences Adam Jaffe posted all three proposals on a special Brandeis Web site dedicated to the curricular changes in advance of an open forum that will be held Wednesday in order to gain feedback on the proposals and to make further changes. The Undergraduate Curriculum Committee will consider the proposals Thursday, several faculty members said. The subcommittee on a possible summer semester and experiential learning is proposing a new graduation requirement, the "Brandeis Semester," to be completed by 800 to 1,000 students a year either during the summer, fall or spring after a student's first year. The new program would apply to incoming students entering in the fall of 2010, according to the proposal. Students could fulfill the Brandeis Semester requirement through programs such as an Environmental Field Semester, expanded work in a lab over the summer, a Brandeis Summer Arts Festival, Summer Study Abroad opportunities, an internship away from Brandeis during the fall or spring or intensive summer language study, according to the committee's proposal. "I would really have appreciated the option of doing the summer research with courses specifically geared toward people interested in scientific research," Lydia Flier '11, a student representative on the committee, said. Increasing the student body, by having more students live off campus instead of having a Brandeis Semester would be difficult because of a shortage of affordable housing in Waltham, Prof. Tim Hickey (COSI), chair of the subcommittee, said. Additionally, some Waltham neighborhoods might be less used to college students. The goal is to maintain the number of on-campus beds at 2,850 while the undergraduate student body increases from 3,200 to 3,700 over five years, according to the proposal.According to the committee's proposal, the committee members estimate that between $500,000 and $700,000 may be needed for increased staffing in the Hiatt Career Center and the Study Abroad Office. "If we were going to do this, it would definitely require an investment," Hickey said.The committee's proposal also states that students would take the equivalent of three courses as part of their Brandeis Semester, either on campus or through online courses, which is equal to 12 course credits instead of a full semester of 16 credits. Therefore, according to the proposal, students would only have to pay 75 percent of full tuition during either the fall or spring semester. Hickey explained that requiring just a summer semester would be difficult because some students cannot apply their federal and state financial aid to a third consecutive semester. To address this problem for students who choose a summer program, the proposal suggests that midyear students could complete their Brandeis Semester during their first summer or that juniors could spend their last summer as a Brandeis Semester with the intention of graduating early. The proposal also suggests that the University consider opportunities for students to take a semester off and possibly complete a not-for-credit paid internship after a summer Brandeis Semester.At the Feb.12 Academic Open Forum, Prof. Sasha Nelson (BIOL), a member of the subcommittee, explained how adopting a mandatory summer session with a quarter system such as Dartmouth College's would be difficult because it "would take a large amount of faculty resources out of the fall and spring" in order to offer enough courses in the summer.The members of the Business major subcommittee note that their proposal has the potential to attract more students to Brandeis. According to the proposal, 17 percent of college applicants nationwide express interest in a Business major, while only five percent of admitted Brandeis students do, signifying untapped interest in business. Students will need to take classes in both the areas of Business Administration and Business and Society. "[At other schools] the student ends up leaving after four years having had half their degree in business. In our case, the student leaves Brandeis and still has two-thirds of their degree outside of business," Prof. Ben Gomes-Casseres (IBS), chair of the subcommittee, said. According to the proposal, the committee was not asked to estimate the program's costs or revenues. Gomes-Casseres said that more sections would likely be necessary for core courses but that the program would mainly build on existing offerings. According to an online student survey conducted by students, 52.3 percent of Brandeis Business minors expressed interest in the idea of a Business major. Adam Eisenberg '09, student representative to the Subcommittee, noted that "one of the things that a lot of employers look for is students who have business skills." In another effort to attract more students, the preliminary draft proposal regarding a Communications, Media and Society major submitted to the Academic Restructuring Steering Committee by five faculty members from American Studies, Journalism, Anthropology and Sociology notes that "courses of study that consider how, why and to what end we communicate with one another have become increasingly popular." According to their proposal, journalism is the third most popular minor after Business and Legal Studies and a number of students are completing Independent Interdisciplinary Majors in the area. "Our thought is, let's formally recognize what is already happening at Brandeis," Prof. Maura Jane Farrelly (AMST), director of the Journalism program, said. The major would build on a large number of already-existing courses at Brandeis, according to the proposal. "What we are probably going to propose is that the existing Internet Studies minor program and the existing Journalism minor program be subsumed into this major," Farrelly said. In order to incorporate a Liberal Arts aspect to the program, the proposal suggests that students be required or encouraged to double-major or minor in another Liberal Arts discipline. The faculty members suggested that students could concentrate in three different tracks in Journalism: Technology, Commun-ication and Society as well as Politics, Commerce and Culture.Correction: The headline and first sentence originally abbreviated CARS as the "Committee on Academic Restructuring." It is actually the "Curriculum and Academic Restructuring Steering Committee."
(02/24/09 5:00am)
Those looking for evidence of the growing unrest among college-aged students need search no further than New York University. This past Friday, police ended a nearly two-day occupation of the school's Kimmel Center by a student organization called Take Back NYU. Though the protest may seem reminiscent of our own fabled Ford Hall occupation-whose 40th anniversary we recently commemorated-and our own struggle against an often-opaque administration, the reality is that the NYU protest has little in common with our own revered rebellion and stands as an example of poor organization, noncooperation and unrealistic expectations.On the surface, it seems that our peers' concerns do not differ greatly from our own. Transparency took precedent at NYU as well, with the protestors demanding access to the University's operating budget, investments and endowment.However, a quick glance further down the list reveals many more ill-considered requests. Lacking any serious comprehension of the school's budgetary situation, NYU protesters demanded a freeze on tuition increase and the full recognition of all need-based scholarships while simultaneously mandating that all the school's excess supplies and materials be sent "to rebuild the University of Gaza." In all, the list included 13 separate demands, none of which was met by NYU administrators. This scattershot protest serves as a warning to both students and administrators about the need to speak the same language. Administrators need to remain transparent in order to give students the information they need to reach well-reasoned conclusions. At the same time, students need to remain civil and focused in their efforts as well.Brandeis students should be proud of the progress made in getting the administration to cooperate with students through peaceful protest and active participation. The many open forums alone, well attended by both students and administrators, illustrate the positive relationship that can be achieved when the appropriate lines of communication are followed. Out of NYU's undergraduate population of nearly 20,000, only a few dozen participated in either the Kimmel Center occupation or the subsequent protest against the school's disciplinary actions, which included the suspension of 18 students who participated in the occupation. It may be tempting to join our peers in these more extreme forms of protest, but the evidence for progress points to the more cooperative approach that we've adopted at our own University. Students need to keep their channels with administrators open, not barricade them shut.
(02/24/09 5:00am)
It has been nearly one month since the University administration shocked the Brandeis community with an e-mail announcing its decision to close the Rose Art Museum and sell art from its collection. Since the Jan. 26 e-mail announcing the passage of the Board of Trustees' resolution, the decision has been restated to the point where it may seem as if the administration has backed off its initial intentions. But while the language of the initial decision may have changed, the University's intentions have remained the same. The Rose will still transition from a public museum to a teaching space for the school, and the University will still sell the art if necessary in order to help alleviate its financial troubles. The confusion that has permeated the Rose situation lies in the University's words, not its intended actions."The new statement from the University president, Jehuda Reinharz, proposes certainly a much milder way of phrasing where we're headed, but I still think we're headed in the same direction," Prof. Eric Hill (THA), the chair of the Committee to Review the Closing of the Rose, told the Justice Feb. 13.The initial Jan. 26 press release stated that the Board of Trustees "voted unanimously to close the Rose Art Museum," adding that "the University will publicly sell the art collection." Two weeks later, following extensive publicity in national publications like the Boston Globe and the New York Times, Reinharz seemed to backtrack from the original decision in a Feb. 5 e-mail to the Brandeis community. The e-mail read: "The Museum will remain open, but in accordance with the Board's vote, it will be more fully integrated into the University's central educational mission," and also stated that "The [initial public statements] gave the misleading impression that we were selling the entire collection immediately, which is not true." Reinharz blamed himself in part for the misunderstanding, channeling President Barack Obama by writing, "I screwed up."But Reinharz's second e-mail did not violate the initial Board of Trustees resolution. The original resolution stated, "The University administration is authorized to take the necessary steps to transition the University's Rose Art Museum to a teaching center and exhibition gallery. These steps shall include, to the extent appropriate, review by the Office of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and court approval, followed by an orderly sale or other disposition of works from the University's collection." The resolution does not mention the word "close," and as Reinharz said in the first student open forum held Jan. 28 and organized by Student Union President Jason Gray '10, it merely gave the University proper authority to sell art. It did not mandate that the University sell any pieces.When the decision first broke, Provost Marty Krauss told the Justice that "Ultimately, [closing the Rose] was a decision by the Board, not the administration." Like Reinharz's initial statements, Krauss' words were somewhat misleading. The miscommunication occurred in representing the Board's words in a sufficiently concrete way to the public. As Reinharz wrote in his Feb. 5 e-mail, "[my initial statements] did not accurately reflect the Board's decision."Reinharz first mentioned this communication failure three days after the original resolution, after the story began to receive attention from national publications. Reinharz said at a Jan. 29 faculty meeting that "no one had anticipated that we could have" what he later called "an avalanche of bad publicity," to audible discontent among the faculty. Prof. Marc Brettler (NEJS) echoed the opinion of many faculty members when he said, "Many of us are worried what kind of mechanisms will be put in place [so a further] public relations disaster does not occur." While the University regretted a part of its decision, its regret was in its miscommunication with the public and not in the content of the decision itself.And so as students protested the museum's closure and sought answers to their questions at open forums, the faculty voted to establish the Committee to Review the Closing of the Rose, concerned about future University decisions that could lead to similar public outcry. At a second student forum a week after the Jan. 29 faculty meeting, Reinharz seemingly affirmed the CRCR's importance when he told the audience, "How [the Rose] will function is up to the faculty."But even with the committee's formation, Hill said the University's intentions with the Rose remained as they always have. "I don't necessarily see any changes of course from what the administration originally announced," he said. This interpretation echoed Chairman of the Rose Board of Overseers Jonathan Lee's Feb. 9 comments. "They still intend to sell the art, and they still intend to kill the museum," Lee said.The confusion therefore emerges out of the University's language in describing its original intentions. Brettler's comments at the Jan. 29 faculty meeting underscore the public's confusion over University semantics. Brettler criticized the administration for saying, "In one official document everything will be sold, in one interview [only some things will be sold], and then today maybe nothing will be sold." The language of the original Board of Trustees resolution, however, did not mandate any of those possibilities.The only backpedaling that has occurred has been in the interpretation of the original unspecific language of the Board of Trustees resolution, not in the University's intentions. The intent all along appears to have been to end the Rose's tenure as a public museum, sell art to fill funding gaps if the University must do so and instead use the Rose as a studio and teaching space. But the language used has obfuscated the University's actual intentions. "I think this is what you call spin doctoring," Lee told the Justice.
(02/10/09 5:00am)
An article in News last week did not finish. The last sentence should have read, "'[The Rose] is not a dead corpse; this is somebody that needs life support,' she concluded, to all-around applause." (Feb. 3, p. 8).A photo credit in Forum last week incorrectly spelled the name of the photographer. The photographer's name is Max Breitstein Matza, not Max Breistein Matza. (Feb. 3, p. 11).An article in Sports last week incorrectly spelled the first name of the University president. The University president is Jehuda Reinharz, not Juhuda Reinharz. (Feb. 3, p. 13).An article in News last week incorrectly identified the position of Diana Pisciotta. She is a spokeswoman for the Carl and Ruth Shapiro Family Foundation, not the executive vice president. (Feb. 3, p. 6).
(02/10/09 5:00am)
The Rose Art Museum will not close, but "will be more fully integrated into the University's central educational mission," University President Jehuda Reinharz wrote in an e-mail to the Brandeis community last Thursday.The e-mail clarifies Reinharz's Jan. 26 e-mail and the accompanying University press release, which both announced that the Board of Trustees had "voted to close" the Rose Art Museum."The Rose is going to remain open," Reinharz explained at a forum for students last Thursday. "How it will function is up to the faculty," he said. According to Reinharz, "A faculty committee . is working right now in thinking what and how the Rose should function on this campus." The current committee, whose members were elected by the Faculty Senate, includes Profs. Eric Hill (THA), Nancy Scott (FA) and Jerry Samet (PHIL). According to Hill, "[The committee's] role is to ask three questions: What are the costs and benefits of keeping the Rose open? . Are there any compromise solutions in between? And what is the damage that has already been done and might further be done going forward as we try not to bungle this up any more than we already have?" Prof. John Plotz (ENG) said in an e-mail to the Justice, "Many on the faculty feel the committee is too small and has too short a time to complete its work." The committee will give its first report on the results of its discussions this Thursday to the Faculty Senate. Referring to the way the Rose announcement, which was met with an outcry among students, faculty and members of the outside artistic community, was communicated, Reinharz wrote in the e-mail, "To quote President Obama, 'I screwed up.'" The original Board of Trustees resolution stated that "the University administration is authorized to take the necessary steps to transition the University's Rose Art Museum to a teaching center and exhibition gallery," including, "to the extent appropriate, . an orderly sale or other disposition of works from the University's collection." The resolution also specified, "The proceeds shall be used to help address the University's needs and preserve the University's assets during this period of economic challenge."At the open forum last Thursday, Reinharz reiterated that the intention was never to sell "all the art" in the Rose's collection but said that "if and when we need to sell, we have the option of selling." The Jan. 26 press release stated, "After necessary legal approvals and working with a top auction house, the University will publicly sell the art collection." The museum's collection currently comprises 7,180 works."The press release misrepresented what the board actually said, as did the initial statements," Reinharz told the Justice at a press conference held last Thursday for campus media.Chairman of the Rose Board of Overseers Jonathan Lee said about the Feb. 5 e-mail, "I think this is what you call spin doctoring. [The administration is] not going to run the Rose Art Museum as the Rose Art Museum. . They still intend to sell the art, and they still intend to kill the museum," he said. Lee told the Justice last week that he will meet with members of the attorney general's office to pursue legal blocks of the closing of the Rose Art Museum and sale of its artwork. According to Lee, looking into donor restrictions and remaining Rose building and staff salary endowments could halt or delay the museum closing and art sales. He said this week that "I don't think anything changes" about his plans to try to halt the repurposing of the museum.Lee also expressed doubt about general University transparency. "There's the open model [of a university], and then there's the closed model. Brandeis is the old-fashioned closed model, where one man runs everything," he said.After Thursday's open forum, Student Union President Jason Gray '10 called Reinharz's Feb. 5 e-mail "a good step. I'm looking forward to see how this all proceeds from here." He later said, "I think that as far as students understanding what the University is talking about [in the Rose decision], the way that really developed is through the open forums that we had the past two weeks. I think that really gives people the opportunity to understand a decision that is made in the context of the economic situation," Gray said."I think [Reinharz] was great today," said Michal Pearl '11 after the open forum last Thursday. "Most importantly, he admitted to be wrong in the way that he presented the issue to begin with. . I think it's a bad time to sell art, but if it's got to go, it's got to go." "I'm at least glad that [Reinharz] admitted he was wrong," Jessica Stearns '10 said. "He's starting to accept responsibility for the way the administration has been acting instead of just deflecting it. -Mike Prada contributed reporting.
(02/10/09 5:00am)
Executive Senator Andrew Brooks '09 announced that East Quad Senator Sara Enan '11 has submitted her resignation. Union President Jason Gray '10 swore in Avi Rhodes '09 as Village Quad senator, Aaron Mitchell Finegold '09 as Ridgewood Quad senator and Matt Kriegsman '11 as associate justice of the Union Judiciary. Chair of the Provost's Advisory Committee Adam Ross '09 spoke to the Senate about the Provost's goals for each of the subcommittees. He also spoke about the faculty's positive response to the formation of the committees. Jenna Rubin '11, coordinator of the Dining Services Committee, spoke to the senate about the committee's goals for the year. They have formed a separate committee to address issues with the meal plan system. She also spoke about the possibility of installing a kosher vending machine. The Senate granted provisional recognition to the Danzan Ryu Jujitsu Club, Project Noor and Students Organized Against Racism. Gray spoke to the Senate about Thursday's open forum with the president and asked the senators to speak about how they felt their constituents were dealing with the economic crisis. The Senate passed a bylaw banning the use of laptops to solicit votes during Union elections and mandating that the elections commission operate nonpartisan mobile voting stations. The Senate tabled a bylaw that would require senators to ask permission for absences from Senate meetings because, according to Brooks, its sponsor, more work on the bylaw's language is needed. Senator-at-Large Noam Shuster '11 reported that the Social Justice Committee plans to become involved with an exhibition about the Rwandan Genocide. Senator for the Class of 2011 Alex Melman reported on the Study Abroad Committee and said that current study abroad applicants who may be denied under the new guidelines would, most likely, still be guaranteed housing.
(02/10/09 5:00am)
JuicyCampus, the online gossip forum created in August 2007 for college campuses, was shut down last Thursday, according to a press release distributed on that day from Matt Ivester, the founder and CEO of JuicyCampus."In these historically difficult economic times, online ad revenue has plummeted and venture capital funding has dissolved," Ivester wrote in the press release."I'd like to thank everyone who has engaged in meaningful discussion about online privacy and Internet censorship," Ivester wrote in the press release. "JuicyCampus has raised issues that have passionate advocates on both sides, and I hope that dialogue will continue. While there are parts of JuicyCampus that none of us will miss-the mean-spirited posts and personal attacks-it has also been a place for the fun, lighthearted gossip of college life. I hope that is how it is remembered," he wrote.The media contacts from JuicyCampus did not respond to repeated requests for comment.The site was controversial at Brandeis as it started gaining popularity last semester when students, under the protection of anonymity, began posting libelous information. "The site enabled some students who are ethically and morally challenged to anonymously hurt, through the words the world could read about other Brandeis students," Dean of Student Life Rick Sawyer wrote in an e-mail to the Justice. While the Web site had over a million visitors each month from over 500 campuses, "Those in the administration that knew of [JuicyCampus] were appalled that it existed and that our students would post messages on it," Sawyer wrote. "I despised every aspect of [JuicyCampus]," said Damien Lehfeldt '09, who created a Facebook group called "Shut Down Juicy Campus at Brandeis" over Thanksgiving break. "It was a complete contradiction to everything this University stands for. Students were singled out and encouraged to kill themselves. Some posters wrote about their desires for cancer to take the lives of their professors," he said.Other students took a more ambivalent take towards the Web site. "I knew that those posting the horrible things about our peers had serious problems that they have yet to face. But similarly, I felt that those who took the accusations too seriously really needed to take a cold hard look at who they were and why they were letting a Web site upset them so much," Alissa Cherry '10 wrote.Efforts had been put in place by the administration to help students who were worried about the posts cope with the Web site. The administration discussed the possibility of blocking the site from the school server, Sawyer explained. "We assisted individual students who were seeking advice regarding the site. We worked with student government regarding the proper Brandeis response and to educate the student community," Sawyer wrote. He added that the adminstration also assisted groups such as anti JuicyCampus Facebook groups that were creating strategies for attacking the site through legal means. The Student Union had been aware of the Brandeis JuicyCampus page and was in communication with the Department of Student Life regarding how best to address the situation. The Union encouraged students to write to advertisers on the Web site and post friendly lyrics on the site, which ultimately dropped the number of posts targeting Brandeis students. "We always felt that any restriction of free speech by the University should be avoided ," Student Union Director of Communications Jamie Ansorge '09 wrote in an e-mail to the?Justice.Some students thought that by spreading the word to decrease the number of people who actually visited the site, they could ultimately shut it down. Rachel Horn '09 wrote in an e-mail to the?Justice, "Ultimately, I hoped that through student efforts to publicize the harm that many JuicyCampus posters did to others through their unnecessary attacks, other people would stop visiting the site as a show of support, and it would be shut down when advertisers realized they weren't going to reach a good audience."The shutting down of the Web site came as a surprise to some who didn't think it would be terminated for financial reasons. "I thought it would probably be brought down by someone suing the Web site for slander or by a large public outcry against the site," Sarah Gelman '09 said.However, Lehfeldt explained that the site began to lose major advertising sponsors like Google, Victoria's Secret and Toys"R"US after students from different universities e-mailed sponsors to make them aware of "the kind of malice JuicyCampus promoted." "Slowly, these sponsors withdrew from the Web site, and toward the end, [JuicyCampus's] advertising was from companies like "Pimp Out Your Cellphone," Lehfeldt said. "I didn't even bother contacting them. I knew we had won at that point," he said.Horn said she felt let down by the Brandeis community after learning about the site. "I always appreciated our community here because I felt that, at heart, most people here were really kind and represented a more mature cross-section of students than your average college," she wrote. "After reading what some people put on the site ... some of my positive feelings about the general Brandeis community were erased.""I think that the shutdown of JuicyCampus is a huge victory for our community," Gelman said. "It served no real purpose except to disseminate nasty gossip," she said.
(02/10/09 5:00am)
MAELSTROM
I don't often think in terms of mathematics, but Brandeis is currently experiencing a financial crisis whose ramifications have put together an equation that has been troubling my thoughts:Bad public relations plus efforts to attract prospective students equals . what? Grabbing the attention of impressionable high school seniors is not as simple as throwing around tidbits of our latest brilliant economic maneuvers.Fortunately, the authorities seem to be working steadily at solving this deceptively simple-looking puzzle of equating two very contrary concepts, according to a Feb. 5 article from the Boston Globe: "To help quell public outcry and internal dissent over the decision to shutter the museum, University President Jehuda Reinharz and Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Peter French said yesterday that they would reduce their annual salaries by 10 percent-two days after retaining the services of Rasky Baerlein Strategic Communications, a public relations firm known for strong crisis management. Reinharz will give up $50,000, French $40,000."Our administrators clearly took these pay cuts out of a clear desire to pacify the outrage of the followers of the Rose Art Museum soap opera. In a most respectable motion, Reinharz and French showed the extent of their generosity and alleviated their image as the purported villains of this episode of museum melodrama. That's definitely an improvement if the administration wants to give the impression that those responsible for choosing which aspects of our education to eliminate are sympathetic characters.If only the next line of the Globe's article didn't give away the ulterior motive for these pay cuts.Now, Reinharz did not admit outright that he and French actually planned to use their pay cuts to hire a very professional and very pricey PR firm. But nonetheless, he did impress me with his sincerity at last Thursday's open forum with administrators. When presented with the aggravating problem of figuring out how Brandeis would remain attractive to rising college first-years while sporting lots of negative press, Reinharz said, "Now everybody knows about Brandeis. This is why we're taking the opportunity to make it better."Opportunities like this don't materialize very often. In order to make the most of this chance to create a new, sturdier name for Brandeis, it's probably a good idea to bring in the best and the brightest. Rasky Baerlin does sound like it's the quite the expert. Its Web site claims, "We help institutions navigate challenges such as global competition, financial transparency and affordability for students. We will develop a creative communications strategy that will help you stand out from the competition."Since our administrators have only been under the influence of Rasky Baerlin for only one week, I won't judge this alleged "creative communications strategy" too hastily. But I will advise the administration to keep its focus. This University has a responsibility to a considerable number of people in the global community. A strategy based exclusively on financial transparency will not appease everyone. There is more to this University than minute monetary details.Reinharz is correct to say that Brandeis needs to act appropriately while it's in the spotlight. Hiring a PR firm was a wise move to make in order to improve financial transparency and affordability. But a prospective student's search for the college that best fits him or her is not limited to a school's financial status or decisions.When thinking about whether to redesign Brandeis' beloved liberal arts curriculum or indirectly install obstacles to study abroad, the University must keep in mind that these are among the many celebrated factors that keep Brandeis unique and attractive.Major change is necessary, and heavy criticism is a natural side effect of such major change, but the University needs to be wary of where it comes from, particularly as rising college first-years begin to seriously consider where to enroll this fall. Prospective students should be a top concern when administrators consider plans to modify distinctive aspects of this University. If the administration and its hired professionals have decided that it's time to create a new name for Brandeis, they must remember to market our school to its most important consumers: the people who want to come here to study.Universities across the country are experiencing the same dilemma of maintaining a unique draw while making necessary cuts to programs. But when considering the element of competition, the administration and its new buddies at Rasky Baerlin Strategic Communications must keep in mind why the students who came to Brandeis chose it initially-its generosity, well-rounded education and high regard for the arts were not insignificant factors. While pay cuts and professional communications officers may impress many, there are other, more important ways to impress the audience that inevitably is responsible for keeping the University in existence.
(02/10/09 5:00am)
Our student government, like all governments, gets its share of criticism, much of it deserved. But one member of the student government who deserves much more praise than criticism is Student Union President Jason Gray '10. We at Brandeis are lucky to have a student leader like Mr. Gray in this tumultuous era in our University's history. Mr. Gray's accessibility and constant vigilance have benefited our student body in significant ways over the past few weeks.Mr. Gray has consistently risen above the sometimes petty arguments that frequently embroil members of any government. The high-stakes Jan. 22 faculty budget meeting, which featured a student protest-and promptly became old news in light of the Rose Art Museum decision-kick-started a series of student-administration conflicts that kept Mr. Gray in meetings with both parties daily. After the Friday, Jan. 16 mass e-mail informing students that they could no longer use their merit scholarships toward study abroad, Mr. Gray sprang into action, scheduling meetings the very next Monday to try to get the decision overturned.In the ensuing days, the administration began to re-examine its initial decision and is continuing to do so as we speak. Throughout the semester, Mr. Gray has been mediating between frustrated students and administration in a professional, effective way. By helping to organizing open forums and helping to argue for the students' cause in administrative meetings, he has served the student body well.At the Jan. 22 faculty budget meeting, a conflict between Innermost Parts bloggers demanding to be allowed inside and Assistant Provost of Graduate Student Affairs Alwina Bennett threatened to turn ugly when police were called in to restrain the bloggers. After hearing of the situation from observers, Mr. Gray came to the scene, where he respectfully approached the police officers, asking to talk to the angry students as their peer and leader. The officers conceded, and Mr. Gray calmly talked the bloggers down. The bloggers and police left the building, and no arrests were made.Mr. Gray signs his e-mails, "Yours in service." Such a closing might sound affected from another student government representative. Mr. Gray, however, has truly made good on his role as our most powerful student leader. His office is up for re-election this spring, and if he chooses to run again, his track record so far this semester will make him a formidable candidate. If not, he'll be a hard act to follow.
(02/03/09 5:00am)
var uslide_show_id = "94c4562e-f0f2-4a57-a110-588d06871caa";var slideshowwidth = "468";var linktext = "";
(02/03/09 5:00am)
Senior administrators, including University President Jehuda Reinharz, Provost Marty Krauss and Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Peter French discussed University finances and answered student questions regarding the Rose Art Museum's closure and other possible emergency measures to narrow the school's budget gap at an open forum for students last Wednesday.The forum was organized by Student Union President Jason Gray '10. Reinharz said that students would "have [a] voice in the deliberations" about measures to solve the University's budget crisis but that they will "need to think ... what it is you could live without" and "be as creative as the faculty" in their involvement with resolving the University's budget issues.In his opening slideshow presentation on Brandeis' financial history and current issues, French said the "structural deficit" of the University has resulted from its small base and endowment as compared to similar institutions of its quality. According to French, the University has also "historically relied on gifts ... more than other institutions, and when you get a recession like this, you tend to get fewer gifts, so it makes us vulnerable." French said that Brandeis has taken too much out of its endowment historically and that dipping into the endowment for funds is "not something that you want to do on a sustained basis because you're going to end up with no endowment."Reinharz and Krauss also addressed student concerns regarding the lack of prior notification by the administration surrounding the decision to close the museum. Both Krauss and Reinharz defended the University's decision not to inform students or Rose staff that the University was considering closing the museum."The board decided to keep this under wraps because they did not ... want the discussion of the closing of the Rose to take place in the newspapers," Reinharz explained to students. The choice not to tell Rose director Michael Rush was "to protect [him]," Reinharz added. Krauss later said, "If you try to have this discussion in public, it would completely destabilize the Rose." French said of the final decision to close the museum that "the conclusion that we have come to and that the trustees have come to after looking at all those options we're doing the right thing."Reinharz said in response to a student question that the process of selling the art from the museum "may take months; it may take years." He also stressed that the administration "[does] not plan to violate donor intent" in selling the works of art and that "there will be a discussion" with living donors on the sales of individual artworks.Krauss and Reinharz also emphasized that Brandeis is not the only university combating financial difficulties. Reinharz told students that "Brandeis is not alone in the kinds of decisions we had to make," and said that other institutions are considering drastic actions to combat budget crises."We are the talk of the town right now, but I would really predict that we will see other universities making very tough decisions," Krauss said.Assistant Vice President for Students and Enrollment Frank Urso addressed the future of athletics programs in light of the budget crisis. He mentioned that the administration has considered "converting [teams] to club sports as opposed to being varsity programs" and said that the swim team is set to "operate for at least one more year" despite the closing of the Linsey pool. Student Union President Jason Gray '10, who proposed the forum to Reinharz, said the meeting was "a very strong first step." Gray said, "I think what was awesome is [the forum] showed how engaged the student body wants to be and deserves to be."Alex Melman '11, a writer for the blog Innermost Parts, called the meeting "very productive" despite the fact that "some of [the student questions] didn't get as specific answers as we would have liked." He added that "if we'd have done this earlier we would have avoided a lot of student demonstrations."Senator for the Class of 2009 Eric Alterman said that the forum was "largely what I expected," and added that he hoped the administration would follow up the forum by "bringing students into the [decision-making] process at all levels." Alterman also added that he wished the "contradictions" between different sources of information about the Rose's closing "had been addressed."He later said that initially the announcement of the Rose's closing implied that the Board of Trustees had "mandated the complete sale of all the artwork," but that at the forum "it became clear that there were a lot of ambiguities to the process." Altman later told the Justice that "over the past week or so, ... [the contradictions have] been resolved in the sense that [the administration has] kind of told their story.
(02/03/09 5:00am)
"Desperate times call for desperate measures." This is the message that resonated throughout last Wednesday's budget forum as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Peter French outlined the harsh realities of Brandeis' economic situation. University President Jehuda Reinharz, for the most part, refuted the picture of the administration as heartless monsters. Yet the administration was unsuccessful in one of its most crucial goals-assuring the Brandeis community that we will prevail.To his credit, Reinharz did succeed at addressing a key issue: the lack of transparency over the closing of the Rose Art Museum. Although he may not have won anyone over, at least he was honest in his statement that he "didn't want the argument over the Rose Art Museum to occur in the papers" and that he could not trust the museum director to keep quiet about a decision that decides his job. For such an important decision, this may not seem like enough of a reason to shut out students and faculty, but Reinharz's reasoning was at least understandable. As far as the total lack of transparency, Reinharz did exactly what he needed to. He assured students that the administration is listening and that the meetings held regarding the budget will now be open to students and faculty.But despite successfully addressing most questions, he did not inspire students at a time when he should have. Reinharz assured everyone that "Brandeis is not falling apart," but French's ominous presentation surely left the taste of uncertainty in the crowd's mouth.Reinharz said, "Brandeis is not alone," and mentioned an Ivy League school that was going to make even more drastic decisions than Brandeis is. Yet he also stated that because Brandeis is so young, we do not have the same resources to cope with economic harship that some of our counterparts do. This makes it seem as if we are in a far worse situation than other universities and causes us to question just how much other universities can relate.Reinharz said he is "certain that we will survive" and "certain that we will come out stronger," but that the administration needs students' help. How does Reinharz say we can help? By figuring out our priorities as students, seeing the situation in context and trusting the administration in the difficult decisions it has to make, presumably like the closing of the Rose Art Museum.Reinharz's speech implied that we should support the administration because of its belief that closing the museum will allow us to continue to invest in academics, our first priority, and make it through this economic crisis. However, just a few minutes earlier, Reinharz expressed uncertainty that we could even sell the art in this economy and stated that the administration is not sure how much the collection is worth. It is hard to back up the administration when even it does seem certain in its decisions.I understand that the administration cannot possibly have the answer to every question. I understand that these tough times will result in tough decisions. And I understand that not everyone will agree with every decision. But as a midyear who just arrived, at the very least, I need to feel that my future is in good hands and that the people who claim to have my best interests at heart actually do. And while I do not doubt where its priorities lie, I do have some doubts about its ability to guide us through this crisis. At Wednesday's forum the administration failed to give this student any hope. And in desperate times, hope is the most effective medicine.
(02/03/09 5:00am)
We are sure that University President Jehuda Reinharz and the Board of Trustees were opting for the best out of a host of unpalatable choices when they decided to retire the Rose Art Museum, but we think their decision was ill-considered.At first, the administration made it seem in its press releases as if it was going to sell off all the art in the museum-"the university will publicly sell the art collection," read the document. Now the administration says it will only sell some works. Even though the University is being as unspecific as possible, it's obvious that it wasn't as clear on the exact nature of its plan as it should have been.The president and Board of Trustees arrived at their decision without consulting Rose Director Michael Rush, the donors of the art or the wills of the deceased donors. Only now is the University reading over the donors' various conditions and stipulations, some of which restrict what the University is legally allowed to do with these relinquished works of art. The University also failed to consult adequately with the Massachusetts attorney general's office prior to its decision. This should have been taken care of before any decisions were made, not after. All of this resassessment and backpedaling hurts the school's image.President Reinharz reasoned that keeping the Rose considerations under wraps would avoid bad press. "[The Board of Trustees] did not . want the discussion of the closing of the Rose to take place in the newspapers," he said at the open forum last Wednesday. But the sudden unveiling of these plans shocked the art world, students and the media alike. Instead of staving off bad press, he invited it.The New York Times accurately described the reaction as an "outcry" in a headline, and the Boston Globe's editorial on the subject said the University's handling of the situation "showed all the grace of a trash can bumping down a flight of stairs." National Public Radio aired an interview with an incensed donor. The University doesn't need this unflattering coverage, especially not when it's hoping to recruit extra students to the Class of 2014.The powers that be shouldn't have let this happen. They should have told the Brandeis community what they had on the table and kept the museum director in the loop, if for no other reason than common courtesy for our budget as well as for the Rose. If the extent of our budget crisis had been publicly known, many community members would have been less shocked by the Rose shutdown. Says Rebeccah Ulm '11, who organized last Thursday's sit-in at the museum, "I would be less frustrated and angry [with the decision] because I would have been a part of the discussion beforehand instead of after the fact."The Rose decision was rushed, and a lot of its failings could have been cured with a little candor. This isn't the first time this editorial board has called for transparency in recent times, but we hope that this debacle will make the University reconsider its closed-door approach to decision making.
(02/03/09 5:00am)
New developments in the aftermath of the University Board of Trustees' decision to close the Rose Art Museum have raised questions about if and when the museum's collection will actually be sold.During last Wednesday's open forum with students, University President Jehuda Reinharz said the University may not sell any or all of the art in the Rose's collection. The original statement released following the announcement of the museum's closing stated that "after necessary legal approvals," Brandeis would "publicly sell the art collection." The press release also said, "Proceeds from the sale will be reinvested in the University to combat the far-reaching effects of the economic crisis, and fortify the University's position for the future."In response to a student's question during the forum, Reinharz noted that "we are not mandated by the board to sell any particular number of artworks of any given time," and that if "the economy turns around and the stock market is up by 45 percent, nothing impels me, nothing impels us to do anything."The University is currently seeking the necessary legal approval from the Massachusetts attorney general's office in order to try to sell works from the Rose's collection. Before selling a piece of art, the University must determine whether that work was donated with restrictions on its use and sale, according to an e-mail to the Justice from Emily LaGrassa, a spokesperson for the office of the attorney general of Massachusetts. If there is a living donor, the University must ask the donor to release the restrictions; if there is no living donor or if the donor will not release the restrictions, LaGrassa wrote that, "the University must petition the Supreme Judicial Court for release from the restrictions before they can sell the donated items."In an interview with the Justice, LaGrassa said that the office of the attorney general does anticipate that the process "will take some time. We're talking about 7,000 pieces of art, where we have to go through each one and determine if there is a living donor, is there a restriction."During the open forum, Reinharz said, "Each work of art, if it were to be sold, has to be looked at very carefully. ... We don't plan to violate donor intent; if they are living donors, there will be a discussion with them."Chairman of the Rose Art Museum's Board of Overseers Jonathan Lee said he plans to meet with members of the attorney general's office to try to halt the closing of the museum and the sale of pieces from the collection. Lee said in an interview with the Justice that, in addition to donor restrictions on specific works of art, "There are donor restrictions, perhaps, on the building itself ... that could be looked at. There are several endowments at the art museum that also pose an issue aside from the art," including endowments for the museum director's salary and for the acquisition of more art. Lee also said that there is "a more general case to be made" that an art museum "will conduct itself as a steward for future generations of students and the public interest at large." Lee said the argument was "not as ironclad a lawsuit" as actual donor restrictions, but said it was "worthy of trying to have a court review.
(02/03/09 5:00am)
An article in Forum last week incorrectly stated that the contributing writer was a blogger for Innermost Parts. The writer does not write for Innermost Parts. (Jan. 27, p. 11).A photo caption in Arts last week incorrectly identified the medium of "Forget It! Forget Me." It is a painting, not an installation. (Jan. 27, p. 24).The name of an organization was incorrectly capitalized in the Senate Log last week. The organization is called hopeFound, not Hopefound. (Jan. 27, p. 2). An article in News incorrectly referred to Ingrid Schorr as a professor in the Peace, Conflict and Coexistence Department. She is the Office of the Arts Program Administrator. (Jan. 27, p. 7).
(02/03/09 5:00am)
Brandeis will not be affected by the Carl and Ruth Shapiro Family Foundation's decision to suspend grants in 2009 as a result of their monetary losses in the Bernard Madoff Ponzi scheme because the University did not expect to receive any donations from the Shapiro family even before the Foundation's decision, according to Senior Vice President of Institutional Advancement Nancy Winship.The Shapiro Foundation announced last Friday that it will provide neither grants nor capital pledges in 2009 to any organizations to which they had previously donated, according to an article in the Boston Globe. According to the statement on the Foundation's Web site, "The Foundation made this difficult decision as a result of losing a significant portion of its assets due to the fraudulent actions of Bernard Madoff," and that suspending grants for a year will hopefully "ensure the long-term health and stability of the Foundation." Despite this decision, the Foundation maintained its promise to "honor its current grant commitments for both capital projects and multi-year grants." The Foundation announced last month that it lost 40 percent of its wealth in Madoff's Ponzi scheme.Diana Pisciotta, the executive vice president of the Shapiro Foundation, confirmed the report in the Boston Globe.Winship said that Brandeis won't be affected because the University had no intention of asking the foundation for a pledge in 2009. Winship said that the Shapiro Foundation was committed to fulfilling its pledges to Brandeis for the $25 million Carl J. Shapiro Science Center, the $14 million Carl and Ruth Shapiro Admissions Center and the $3.5 million Rhonda S. and Michael J. Zinner Forum in the Heller School for Social Policy and Management. "Mr. Shapiro has repeatedly said he will honor all existing pledges," Winship said. "The Shapiros have done an amazing amount for Brandeis and have helped transform the institution. We never considered asking for new grants this year and did not think of going to Shapiro when it was apparent the University's endowment was shrinking because he has already done so much," Winship said.The Foundation has also historically given much of its gifts in the form of building grants rather than gifts to the endowment. Fundraising focus is currently on the latter, and Winship said the University has received gifts in that area from other donors. "We have been heartened by the overwhelming response from alumni and friends to help Brandeis students-our most precious resource-at this critical time," she said, adding that "Brandeis supporters are making an immediate difference in the lives of students by making Annual Fund gifts now to support student scholarships."The Shapiro Foundation sent a letter to over 80 non profit organizations in the Boston area stating their decision not to give any grants in the coming year. However, since the Shapiro Foundation's donations to Brandeis have previously been composed of capital pledges, Brandeis did not receive a letter. Pisciotta said that capital pledges are often in more in-depth contact with the Foundation and received phone calls. The letter, written by Jean Whitney, the executive director of the Foundation, informed the organizations, "We are apprising you of this situation as early as possible to allow you to either seek alternate sources of funding or to adjust your plans for this year." The letter also expressed the Foundation's desire to maintain support for the organizations despite the financial situation, stating, "Members of our team will be reaching out to a sample of our grant recipients to assess how we can support you in non-financial ways.
(02/03/09 5:00am)
Brandeis has experienced a 25-percent drop in its endowment from $712 million at the end of June 2008 to $549 million at the end of December 2008 and is projecting annual operating deficits ranging from $4 million in fiscal 2009 to $23 million in fiscal 2014, according to Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Peter French.French gave a presentation to students explaining the University's financial situation during an open forum last Wednesday at which he and other senior administrators addressed the student body and answered students' questions. The forum was organized by the Student Union, and it featured a question-and-answer session with students, University President Jehuda Reinharz and Provost Marty Krauss.French explained in the forum that the financial standing of the University is compounded by a long-standing structural deficit that has established itself as Brandeis has drawn too many funds out of the endowment, overrelied on gifts and failed to spend enough money to keep up the maintenance of its facilities throughout its history. "Historically we have taken too much out of the endowment," he said.Because of the drop in Brandeis' endowment, the University's young age and its endowment draws in the past, French said at the forum that "we are going to have to go into our savings account." The University can draw on $85 million in reserves for this year and next, "and then our savings account is, in essence, gone," French explained in the forum.During the forum, French explained that many other schools that have existed for longer than Brandeis have a larger alumni base and a much bigger endowment. Those two factors have "resulted in a greater vulnerability of the University to economic downturns because we haven't had enough in our endowment to support our operations," he said at the forum. The University cannot access endowment funds that have decreased beneath their original value because a Massachusetts law only allows institutions to spend money from the appreciation or rise in value of their endowment funds. Twenty-six other states have adopted a 2006 successor to that law that removed this limitation. French said at the forum that there has been lobbying to change the Massachusetts law, but "there has been absolutely no enthusiasm on the part of the state legislature" for any change. He also cautioned that having access to endowment funds that have decreased beneath their original value could be risky in the long term because "you would have no basis [upon which to sustain the endowment].""I feel very strongly that the University should consider looking at some way to get some type of waiver [on the law]," said Daniel Millenson '09, who attended the forum and is on the Student Union's Committee for Endowment Ethics and Responsibility. "All the [Massachusetts] universities are financially hurting. They will also have an interest in the temporary suspension of this law."At the end of this fiscal year, Brandeis will have universally cut its staff by about 5.6 percent, or 70 positions, from last July, French wrote in an e-mail to the Justice. Cost-cutting measures to close the gap in fiscal 2009 and 2010 will amount to gains of $15.5 million, he wrote, achieved through $4.7 million in one-time revenues, $9.2 million in cost reductions and $1.6 million in new sustainable revenues."We are experiencing expenditures that are exceeding revenues in this fiscal year, in fiscal year 2010 and the years beyond," French said in the forum. He said that the University had set plans in motion to respond to a projected $10 million deficit for fiscal 2010, which could grow due to possible reductions in gifts, and to respond to a projected $8 million deficit in fiscal 2009.Brandeis has already taken steps toward "belt tightening," French wrote in an e-mail to the Justice. The University has saved $10.8 million in fiscal 2009 and 2010 through reductions in faculty travel, consulting contracts, training and operating expense budgets and also has access to one-time resources of $4.7 million in fiscal 2009, he wrote.French said in the forum that, while at other institutions gifts make up about two to three percent of gross revenue, at Brandeis they amount to five percent.Both French and Reinharz emphasized that the endowment had been seeing large gains before the unforeseeable financial downturn. The endowment had grown from $190 million when Reinharz became president in 1994 to $715 million through many gains and gifts, French said."[In June] we had six years' worth of endowment draw in the endowment between the accumulated gains and the reserves," French said. "Who could have imagined on June 30, 2008 that we'd be looking at a drop of 25 percent of the market value of that endowment?"-Mike Prada contributed reportingEditor's note: This article was originally published on the Justice's Web site Thursday, Jan. 29.
