"Rose Reactions" in PDF form
(02/03/09 5:00am)
Click on the three pdf files to view the entire Forum special section on the closing of the Rose Art Museum.
Search Results
Use the field below to perform an advanced search of The Justice archives. This will return articles, images, and multimedia relevant to your query.
MAELSTROM: Admins: Remember what we stand for
(01/27/09 5:00am)
A lot went through my mind as I sat behind the closed, guarded doors of the Olin-Sang Auditorium today as the faculty met to discuss this University's future.Closed doors. Barred journalists. Student demonstrators. Study abroad, housing policy, scholarship money, missed summer opportunities. More students, less faculty. My entire academic career.Why I came to Brandeis.All in the name of what, exactly?It's not every day you get to sit in the midst of a brewing protest. The atmosphere outside the lecture hall this afternoon was passionate and purposeful. At the sight of the crowd of students, spearheaded by writers for campus blog Innermost Parts, an inexplicable, almost electric vibe shook my system. Those students stood for something important, and they were going to make something happen.Supreetha Gubbala '12, a demonstrator who skipped class to participate in the assembly, exemplified the students' passion when she said, "Students know best, and [the administration and faculty] should have asked us first. The fact that they're not letting us in is a violation of our rights."I can't help but admire those students for heading straight to the scene, adamantly insisting that they have a say in their own academic careers and inviting faculty members to a post-meeting gathering to openly discuss what transpired behind the closed doors of the auditorium. They are genuinely motivated to salvage the academic values that brought them to Brandeis.It certainly seems that the administration is not on the same page as the students. Budget cuts tend to throw matters out of proportion, but is our administration really prioritizing Brandeis' unique educational qualities- which students certainly considered when they chose to enroll here-when it makes major modifications to study abroad policies and proposes long-term changes to the curriculum that would completely revamp the nature of this University?Several hours after sitting outside this dramatized faculty meeting, I remain confused as to where our administration truly stands in terms of the value of our education.Professors' comments after the meeting did not ease my skepticism. For example, Prof. Mark Hulliung (HIST) told the Justice, "A major concern ... is the idea that perhaps we should have something like a Business major, because that would be, the thought is, a great marketing tool."Business major? Marketing tool? Unless I've misunderstood the term liberal arts institution, career-oriented majors are not the focus of academics on this campus. And advertising career-oriented majors in an attempt to sell this University certainly does not speak volumes about the value of the Brandeis education that so many students sought by enrolling here.Prof. Jacob Cohen (AMST) concurred: "What's amazing to me is that all the suggestions for changing the curriculum, not a single one, as far as I know, came from any desire on the part of students to have changes in the curriculum. Contrary to what happened in the '60s when all the changes came as a result of student initiative, this seems to haven taken place without any student initiative."In support of holding fast to Brandeis' academic character, Prof. Joseph Lumbard (NEJS) added, "My main concern is that in attempting to address the desire of some to have a more practical application for their university application, that we may sacrifice the heart of a liberal arts education, which is that of knowledge for knowledge itself. That is something that must not be lost by us." It's no wonder that so many professors claimed this was the most crowded faculty meeting they had ever attended. The administration is taking a risk by putting Brandeis' learning environment on the line, not only for tuition-paying students but also for the faculty who have grown to love teaching and working in their respective departments.Amid the stirring ruckus that built outside the meeting, Gubbala pointed out a plaque, dated 1961, hanging to the left of the entrance to the auditorium. It reads: "The forum at Brandeis University established through a benefaction of Theodore Shapiro of New York to uphold the basic principles of the University: to speak freely, to question openly, to differ without fear." It is unfortunate that these basic principles, in addition to those symbolic of a liberal arts institution, have been put on reserve in the name of matters other than a thorough and candid liberal arts education for Brandeis students.We students are here for one purpose: to learn. Forfeiting the nature of our academic environment will only take us backward. Listen to the voices of the faculty and student body. Cut the budget. Make some changes. But none of this should be done at the expense of this University's character, which students care about and want to help preserve.Editor's Note: This article was originally published on the Justice's Web site Friday, Jan. 23.
French: Univ endowment down 25 percent, budget gap projected to grow to $23 milion by 2014
(01/27/09 5:00am)
var uslide_show_id = "973ee415-43ec-4f47-8ce8-003d5cd9bf42";var slideshowwidth = "468";var linktext = "";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 yesterday 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 yesterday 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 had been discussion among local higher education officials about 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. It was easy and it was a necessity as the University grew," he said yesterday. "That makes us quite vulnerable to the individual donors when we've got ongoing expenditures." 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?" A Jan. 26 article in The New York Times noted that colleges are facing their worst endowment drops since the 1970s, with institutions that had endowments between $500 million and $1 billion experiencing on average about a 25.5-percent drop. -Mike Prada contributed reporting
Students demand to be more involved
(01/27/09 5:00am)
Many students are demanding more transparency and more student involvement in decisions regarding the University's budget cuts and financial situation, especially after the University's recent proposals to create meta-majors, increase the student body by 12 percent, decrease the faculty by 10 percent and institute a required summer semester.Students were not allowed into last Thursday's emergency faculty meeting held to discuss this academic proposal. Unlike most Faculty Senate meetings, this emergency meeting was closed to students and campus media, a decision implemented by the senior administration and the Faculty Senate so that faculty members would feel comfortable expressing their opinions, according to Dean of Arts and Sciences Adam Jaffe.Sahar Massachi '11, Alex Melman '11 and Daniel Cairns (GRAD), who write for the blog Innermost Parts and members of the Justice and The Hoot were turned away at the door. Since the faculty meeting, students have continued to call for more student involvement. Last Friday, students concerned about the budget cuts met in the Castle to discuss how to become more involved. "The pillars of Brandeis are social justice, academic excellence, Jewish sponsorship and nonsectarianism," Massachi said. He added that the students agreed to "focus on ways to promote and preserve and extend the University's commitment to academic excellence."At the meeting, the students created committees to increase student activism by focusing on projects such as letter-writing and dormstorming. Massachi said he would focus on faculty relations. Several students attended Sunday's Senate meeting, where they and Student Union senators asked Dean of Student Life Rick Sawyer and Associate Dean of Student Life Maggie Balch questions about the University's current financial situation. Many students plan to attend this Thursday's Faculty Senate meeting, which will be open to students."We stand in solidarity with faculty; we have the same interests at heart. . We're not against anyone, we're just for the University . We feel hurt that we aren't being trusted or haven't been involved . as much as we feel we could contribute," Massachi said."Honestly, I can't tell you what to cut because the University hasn't given me their budget," Massachi said. He asked Sawyer for a detailed description of the University's budget at Sunday's Senate meeting, but Sawyer referred Massachi to other members of the senior administration, such as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Peter French, for this information.Massachi initially suggested that the University should cut the entire athletics program, not including club sports, before cutting one faculty member. "Right now we pay a lot of money for official University sports, but . they're not essential to the character of Brandeis," he said. Massachi later wrote in an e-mail to the Justice, "I've changed my mind and no longer hold the same views [regarding] Athletics as I once did." He clarified that this does not reflect the position of the Brandeis Budget Cuts Committee, which was created last semester to encourage student involvement in conversations about University budget cuts.When Massachi, Melman and Cairns went to last Thursday's faculty meeting, Assistant Provost for Graduate Student Affairs Alwina Bennett met them at the door. Melman demanded they be allowed into the faculty meeting, Massachi explained. Bennett said that it was a closed-door meeting, but Melman literally put his foot in the door."[Bennett] said to [Melman], 'Do I need to call somebody?' and [Melman] responded, 'I suppose you do,'" Cairns explained. Within minutes, two Brandeis police officers were inside the building, along with Director of Public Safety Ed Callahan. "[The police] said they would charge us with trespassing if we went into the faculty meeting," Cairns explained.Massachi and Melman made phone calls to their friends to organize some form of protest while they waited for the police to arrive. Eventually, a crowd of about 30 protesters gathered outside Olin-Sang Auditorium. The students decorated the building's corridor with flyers that read, "Sunlight is the best of disinfectants," a Louis Brandeis quote that, according to Melman, demonstrated the importance of student involvement and the danger of transparency. The other flyers read, "Students need to be a part of the discussion," and "Transparency! Transparency! Transparency! NOW!!!!!!" The students were standing outside the auditorium when the faculty members exited the meeting. Many protestors had the flyers taped to their shirts.The students invited each faculty member to what they called a "student-faculty summit," a meeting that took place after the emergency faculty meeting to discuss the issues that had been addressed. Prof. Jacob Cohen (AMST) and Prof. Sabrine von Merling (GRALL) attended the meeting."I understand why the students want to be involved, and I think that they should be," Jaffe wrote in an e-mail to the Justice. However, Jaffe believes that the "Faculty meeting is not . the appropriate forum for student-faculty discussion." He wrote, "Although certain student representatives typically attend faculty meetings, these meetings have never been a forum for faculty-student dialogues-they are meetings of the faculty."-Hannah Kirsch, Miranda Neubauer and Mike Prada contributed reporting.
MAELSTROM: Administration, remember what we stand for
(01/23/09 5:00am)
A lot went through my mind as I sat behind the closed, guarded doors of the Olin-Sang Auditorium today as the faculty met to discuss this University's future.Closed doors. Barred journalists. Student demonstrators. Study abroad, housing policy, scholarship money, missed summer opportunities. More students, less faculty. My entire academic career.Why I came to Brandeis.All in the name of ... what, exactly?It's not every day you get to sit in the midst of a brewing protest. The atmosphere outside the lecture hall this afternoon was passionate and purposeful. At the sight of the crowd of students, spearheaded by writers for campus blog Innermost Parts, an inexplicable, almost electric vibe shook my system. Those students stood for something important, and they were going to make something happen. Supreetha Gubbala '12, a demonstrator who skipped class to participate in the assembly, exemplified the students' passion when she said, "Students know best, and [the administration and faculty] should have asked us first. The fact that they're not letting us in is a violation of our rights."I can't help but admire those students for heading straight to the scene, adamantly insisting that they have a say in their own academic careers and inviting faculty members to a post-meeting gathering to openly discuss what transpired behind the closed doors of the auditorium. They have genuine motivation to salvage the academic values that brought them to Brandeis.It certainly does seem that the administration is not on the same page as the students. Budget cuts tend to throw matters out of proportion, but is our administration really prioritizing Brandeis' unique educational qualities -- which students certainly considered when they chose to enroll here -- when it makes major modifications to study abroad policies and propose long-term changes to the curriculum that would completely revamp the nature of this University? Several hours after sitting outside this dramatized faculty meeting, I remain confused as to where our administration truly stands in terms of the value of our education.Professors' comments after the meeting did not ease my skepticism. For example, Prof. Mark Hulliung (HIST) told the Justice, "A major concern ... is the idea that perhaps we should have something like a business major, because that would be, the thought is, a great marketing tool."Business major? Marketing tool? Unless I've misunderstood the term liberal arts institution, career-oriented majors are not the focus of academics on this campus. And advertising career-oriented majors in an attempt to sell this University certainly does not speak volumes about the value of the Brandeis education that so many students sought by enrolling here. Prof. Jacob Cohen (AMST) concurred: "What's amazing to me is that all the suggestions for changing the curriculum, not a single one as far as I know came from any desire on the part of students to have changes in the curriculum. Contrary to what happened in the '60s when all the changes came as a result of student initiative, this seems to haven taken place without any student initiative."In support of holding fast to Brandeis' academic character, Prof. Joseph Lumbard (NEJS) added, "My main concern is that in attempting to address the desire of some to have a more practical application for their university application, that we may sacrifice the heart of a liberal arts education, which is that of knowledge for knowledge itself. That is something that must not be lost by us."It's no wonder that so many professors claimed this was the most crowded faculty meeting they had ever attended. The administration is taking a risk by putting Brandeis' learning environment on the line, not only for tuition-paying students but also for the faculty who have grown to love teaching and working in their respective departments.Amid the stirring ruckus that built outside the meeting, Gubbala pointed out a plaque, dated 1961, hanging to the left of the entrance to the auditorium. It reads: "The forum at Brandeis University established through a benefaction of Theodore Shapiro of New York to uphold the basic principles of the University: to speak freely, to question openly, to differ without fear." It is unfortunate that these basic principles, in addition to those symbolic of a liberal arts institution, have been put on reserve in the name of matters other than a thorough and candid liberal arts education for Brandeis students.We students are here for one purpose, and that is to learn. Forfeiting the nature of our academic environment will only take us backward. Listen to the voices of the faculty and student body. Cut the budget. Make some changes. But none of this should be done at the expense of this University's character, about which students care and deserve a say when the choice must be made whether to maintain it.
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Lawrence misrepresents Film major
(01/13/09 5:00am)
To the Editor:I read Matt Lawrence's column ("Film major should be promoting film, not fluff," Dec. 9 issue) with some puzzlement this morning. He has not one positive thing to say about the new Film and Visual Studies major, which he sees as recycled fluff. (For the record, this year we introduced new production classes and two new electives, and next year we will have five new electives.) He conflates the academics with Edie and Lew Wasserman programming, which in part aims to entertain. And he claims that the documentary filmmakers I bring don't count "because of their close personal connection" to me.The film industry has its home in Hollywood, and I am proud to collaborate with an illustrious alumnus who covers that industry for a distinguished newspaper. I think it important to mix art house cinema and independent film with guests and screenings from studios. Linda Jackson premiered The Greatest Silence, a film about rape in the Congo. Last semester Barbet Schroeder came too, and Brandeis hosted the only public forum in the United States in which he spoke about his documentary Terror's Advocate. Students were hardly unaware that the world's greatest documentarians had visited Brandeis. Errol Morris has premiered his last four films in the Wasserman Cinematheque (and, dare I say, won an Oscar for one of them). When Morris and Herzog came to campus last year, they played to packed audiences. Their "conversation" was published in Believer magazine. The two films they screened first at Brandeis have made the short list for the Oscar in the Best Documentary category. I hope this does not now disqualify them as serious filmmakers.-Prof. Alice Kelikian (HIST)The writer is chair of the Film Studies department and the presenter of the original Film major proposal.
Israel-Gaza conflict isn't all black and white
(01/13/09 5:00am)
I don't usually join the ranks of Brandeis students who express their opinions on every political topic under the sun, but there is now an issue on which I cannot remain silent. It's bad enough that my vacation at home in Israel was marred by the assault on Gaza, but it was even worse to watch my peers, both at Brandeis and elsewhere, lose all semblance of rationality. With the invasion of Gaza, the first major international conflict of the Facebook era erupted. Everyone's opinion on the Gaza crisis became instantly apparent to the entire school community. Yet instead of using this fascinating forum for constructive debate, most simply donated their statuses to a cause, displaying counts of either Qassam rockets fired into Israel or Palestinian casualties. Students could be divided into two camps based on the atrocity of which they chose to keep track. Though Facebook was never really designed to facilitate sophisticated discourse, it nonetheless served as a venue for people's descent into a boneheaded competition of tribal bickering to appear more of a victim than your enemy. But this isn't about Facebook or its limitations. This is about what it has revealed about the minds of our supposedly well-educated student body. These students are the product of a top-40 American university, and the most articulate phrase they can formulate about their feelings is "300 TERRORIST PIGS DEAD!!!"? What's worse is that with all the finger-pointing going on, no one was pointing in a rational direction.Let me preface this next bit by stating that I have never been a strong supporter of Israel, if one at all. I look at Israel and I see my home. But I also see one people oppressed by another's desire to fulfill the prophecy of an ancient nation to which they have, at best, a tenuous connection (the Israelites did not migrate to Hoboken, N.J.). I still believe that Israel has a right to exist. I just don't believe that right is the result of some religious mandate. Truthfully, it's not even a matter of right; it's a matter of reality. Israel, much to the chagrin of many, exists. It is a modern, westernized country, and like every other nation on earth, it was forged through war and will hold on to the spoils of victory as long as it can. But no matter how many ways you slice it, Palestinians have gotten the bad end of the stick from Israel, from the Arab nations and most importantly, from their own government. This latest conflict is the product of that. By sending rockets into Israel, Hamas initiated a conflict in which it can neither win nor protect its citizens. No nation on earth would stand by while its citizens were attacked from so close, and Israel is no different. Israel will continue its assault, regardless of civilian casualties, until it has achieved its goal, plain and simple. The choice lies in the hands of Hamas' leaders, who, if they cared at all for their citizens, would cease their insane military campaign against an unbeatable foe and do something useful for their people, like build a mall or some fire hydrants, anything to get a little capital flowing. This isn't to defend Israel's extreme military overcompensation. I'm just trying to point out that this situation is a lot more complicated than people seem to think, that there's more going on than a "terrorist hunt" or a "Zionist genocide." I'm not giving up hope completely. I'm sure there is a wider spectrum of thoughts brewing in Brandeisian heads, but so far all I've seen is black and white.
Senate Log
(12/09/08 5:00am)
The Senate elected Ziv Quad Senator Andrew Brooks '09 as Executive Senator after a two-hour executive session with 11 votes in an instant runoff. The other candidates were Senator-at-Large Justin Sulsky '09, who received three first-choice votes, North Quad Senator Andrew Hogan '11, who received three first-choice votes, and Senator for the Transitional Year Program Terrence Johnson, who received two first-choice votes. Brooks received eight first-choice votes. The second-choice votes for Johnson went to Hogan, and the second-choice votes for Sulsky went to Brooks. Union Director of Communications Jamie Ansorge '09 reported that a forum on the Mumbai tragedy will be held Tuesday afternoon. He also reported that Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), a former speechwriter to President John F. Kennedy, would be coming to Brandeis Jan. 14 and 15 and that an official invitation had been extended to Governor Deval Patrick to speak on Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Union President Jason Gray '10 reported that he had a meeting with administrators about meal plans and discussed students having the choice to buy multiple meals in a meal period, meal plan structure and point-dollar parity. He reported that Dean of Student Life Rick Sawyer would look into different ways to direct money from late fees for bicycles back into the planned bicycle program. He reported that he had emphasized to administrators that Adagio must have "equally suitable space" for rehearsals after the installation of the new weight room. He reported that the Union had received a report back from Health Center officials about the Health Center review. Points included establishing a better feedback processes, including Beth Israel Hospital members on the advisory committee meetings and customer service. Union Vice President Adam Hughes '11 announced that Senator for the Class of 2011 Alex Melman, Daniel Millenson '09, Stefan Nikolic '09, Sahar Massachi '11, Liza Behrendt '11, Carly Greenberg '11 and graduate students Nery Rivera and Toni Schwarzenbach would serve on the Committee on Endowment Ethics and Responsibility. The Senate tabled discussion of chartering the Swimming Club. Daniel Sternberg '11 said few students attended events this semester. The Senate passed a resolution in support of the Brandeis University Swimming and Diving Team. Senator for the Class of 2009 Eric Alterman reported that Dean of Academic Services Kim Godsoe is considering an overhaul of the advising program so that staff would focus on first year advising instead of faculty.
Students speak out about JuicyCampus
(12/09/08 5:00am)
Dean of Student Life Rick Sawyer urged students last Wednesday to speak out against the gossip Web site JuicyCampus.com in response to student requests for the administration to take action against the site and potentially ban it from campus computers.Posts related to Brandeis started appearing on the site in early and mid-October. Some of the most popular threads are "Campuswide Biggest Slut?" and "Ugliest Person Ever." Over Thanksgiving break, Damien Lehfeldt '09 created a Facebook group called "Shut Down Juicy Campus at Brandeis," which by Dec. 6 had 402 members. Lehfeldt said he started the initiative because he believed the Web site was threatening the Brandeis values of social justice and truth, and he was disturbed by insults written about his friends. "This is cowardice, and it is not protected by free speech," he said. He explained that since he began his campaign, negative posts have criticized his religion and have misrepresented his sexual orientation. The administration was supportive in response to student concerns while carefully reviewing its options, Lehfeldt said. "I wish at this point the administration would put a ban on the Web site," which would convey that the University does not tolerate such behavior among the student body, he said. He also said that he believes there are a number of legal precedents that would justify removing the site for libel or defamatory speech. "We're really empathetic; . I've had students sitting on my couch really upset and a little bit traumatized," Sawyer said, also noting many concerns expressed by friends and parents. "We're really disappointed . that I guess we do have some students on this campus who take advantage of the ability to be anonymous." Sawyer stated the Department of Student Life believed it would be "more appropriate for students to be outraged" than for the administration to intervene. He said he encouraged the Student Union to work with Lehfeldt to establish a wider campus movement by this week and suggested conducting a student body survey. "I would hope that the students who have been to that site and posted bad things would be embarrassed about it, and I don't think they would be as embarrassed if I were to scold them," Sawyer said.In an e-mail to the Justice, Union Director of Communications Jamie Ansorge '09 wrote that the Union Executive Board was unhappy about campus press coverage of JuicyCampus. "The Student Union does not believe that Juicy Campus should receive any additional press or attention. It should be spammed and ignored. That is what we are doing," he wrote. "That is what we have advised the administration and campus leaders to do." Senator-at-Large Justin Sulsky '09 said that Senior Vice President for Communications Lorna Miles asked the opinion of students on the University Communications Advisory Committee of the Web site. After discussions with Union President Jason Gray '10 and other Union members, the committee came to a consensus to recommend that the site should not be shut down. "I think that instead, what needs to happen is a discussion about why people are saying such hurtful things on the [Brandeis JuicyCampus forum]," he said. Last Tuesday, Lehfeldt organized an event to discuss the issue after he met with Sawyer and Chief Information Security Officer in Library and Technology Services Dennis Devlin. At the meeting Erica Lubitz '12 said the site had affected her and many of her friends. "What bothered me the most was that my first and last name are on there, and I just didn't feel like I had enough privacy at that point," she said. She said that she hoped that students could use the site in a positive way to get advice about classes and professors, adding that she was against censorship. Omefe Ogbeide '12 said she responded to criticism of Lubitz, her friend, on the site and encouraged the posters to express their comments face-to-face. She said she did not think students took the site very seriously and suggested that Dean Sawyer should send a letter to the community condemning it instead of censoring it. "I kind of saw how it was becoming this stupid Mean Girls phenomenon, where people get off on making other people feel little," Ogbeide said. Brendan Fradkin '12, who did not attend the meeting, said he posted on the site to make fun of both the insulting and critical comments. While he said he disapproved of the insults and called it an "awful Web site," he also does not believe in censorship. "If anything, I think it's better that people are aware of the gossip that's spreading about them so they can fight it better," he said. "I've been made fun of once or twice; . I don't take it seriously." Five hundred schools have JuicyCampus profiles. JuicyCampus, which was created last year by a Duke University graduate, has faced criticism on many campuses. Tennessee State University was the first public university to ban the site when it blocked access on Nov. 12, and Hampton University in Virginia blocked the site last month. "Blocking their access is on the table," Sawyer said, adding that blocking a site for the first time would open up complaints about sites considered objectionable by community members. Sawyer said that seeing more comparable schools limiting access would influence Brandeis' decision. "The principled part of me would do it in a heartbeat; the pragmatic part of me . understands that it's a Pandora's box," he said, noting the large amount of distracting media attention Brandeis would receive nationally and on campus. "When you're a top 50 research university, you're not supposed to be weak-kneed in the face of confronting material," he said. He added that if a poster could be identified with some certainty, he or she could likely face Brandeis judicial action.In an e-mail to the Justice, Devlin from LTS wrote that when visits to the site were surveyed by LTS one week in mid-November, the high point was under 200 visits per day, a number that has been declining over time. LTS currently blocks a few Web sites to protect against viruses, he stated.
BLC advocating for sweatshop-free apparel
(12/09/08 5:00am)
The Brandeis Labor Coalition is working on an initiative to urge club leaders to amend their club constitutions to include a pledge to buy only sweatshop-free apparel. The BLC has been meeting with individual club leaders to successfully fulfill this initiative, explained BLC member Kaitlin Schofield '08. The initiative to focus on raising awareness about sweatshops began two years ago. The BLC made a club packet explaining what sweatshops are and why the BLC is working to eliminate them, Schofield explained. The BLC's sweatshop information packet now has several definitions for sweatshop. The first definition is "an employer that violates more than one federal or state labor law regarding minimum wage and overtime, child labor, industrial homework, occupational safety and health, workers' compensation or industry regulation." In addition, it also defines sweatshops as factories often associated with mass-produced items in developing countries, sometimes characterized by instances of sexual harassment and violence against workers who try to unionize. Schofield said the BLC tried many ways to keep apparel made in sweatshops from being bought and sold on campus before deciding to focus on working with other clubs to limit the amount of merchandise those clubs purchase that is made in sweatshops.Schofield said the BLC originally focused on working with the Brandeis bookstore to carry sweatshop-free clothing by United Students Against Sweatshops. She said this proved difficult because the store is run by Barnes and Noble, a national chain, and it would be difficult to get them to change the distributor from which they buy apparel.She said the group then "decided to attack it at a different angle by talking to our peers in clubs and making sure that the clothing and apparel they bought is sweatshop-free," Schofield said.She explained that because clubs are not run by a giant organization, they can decide individually where they buy their apparel, which helps people realize their own purchasing power.So far the Mixed Heritage Club, the Activist Resource Center, Students for a Democratic Society, Students for Environmental Action, Aikido and the Student Union have vowed to buy only sweatshop-free apparel. Waltham Group, Reslife, Student Sexuality Information Service and Adagio have also pledged to buy only sweatshop-free apparel, although they do not have constitutions. SEA's constitution states that the club will only buy organic apparel in addition to sweatshop-free apparel. SEA President Stephanie Sofer '09 explained that the club constitution now states that "In accordance with SEA's mission, it is official SEA policy to only purchase SEA clothing that is certified to be sweat-free and organic."In addition to talking with clubs about changing their constitution, BLC member Claire Charny '09 said the BLC wants a general awareness-raising campaign on campus about the issue."We have a big campaign plan for next semester, so I think it's really going to get off the ground. We have a lot of movie showings, and we're bringing speakers to campus. We're having a forum all around the issue of sweatshops, and hopefully that ... will kind of go into a more broader, longer sense of people [understanding] where we're coming from," Charny said. However, the BLC had to go about a step-by-step process to get its plans off the ground. First it had to figure out what exactly they wanted to define as "sweatshop-free," Schofield explained."At the beginning we just went over what we defined as sweatshop-free, which is still kind of in the works. ... Is it made in a union? Or not? And what constitutes as ethical apparel?" Schofield said. Charny said the BLC started with a "top-down" approach talking to the administration before they spoke with individual clubs. Some of these administrators included Assistant Dean of Student Life Maggie Balch."First we tried to see if this would be a campuswide thing. We tried to go to the administration to see if they could pass a mandate that said that everything should be sweat-free, but that's really an impossibility. That's when we turned to clubs, and we turned to an individual department like Reslife, because they [make] all of their [Community Advisor] and some of the orientation T-shirts," Charny said. Charny added that after talks with Reslife, they got them to sign on. "A big win was the following year, all their T-shirts [were] made by a company called No Sweat Apparel, which is all union-made clothing," she said. Although the BLC has not met much resistance, Charny explained that some people have been more enthusiastic than others about their initiative."Most clubs have been pretty receptive, and it's not like clubs would refuse [to change their constitutions]. They would just be like, 'I don't understand why this is important,' and not necessarily take the time to do it. [While] changing the constitution takes two minutes, changing someone's views takes a lot longer," Charny said.
Corrections and Clarifications
(11/25/08 5:00am)
An article in Forum last week incorrectly spelled the surname in the byline. The writer's name is Zachary Matusheski, not Zachary Matushuesky. (Nov. 18, p. 12).The Arts cover last week incorrectly identified the event featured in the bottom two photos. The people in the photo were performing at Testrogen, not at the BOO coffeehouse. (Nov. 18, p. 17).A photo credit in Arts last week incorrectly spelled the photographer's name. His name is Max Breitstein Matza, not Max Bretstein Matza. (Nov. 18, p. 20).The photo spread in Arts last week failed to identify the nature in which the photos were taken. The photos should have been identified as photo illustrations. (Nov. 18, p. 20).
Students meet with admin to help make budget cut decisions
(11/25/08 5:00am)
A student budget advisory committee that will attempt to assist administrators regarding cuts in the budget that could affect students has been selected, but details of what the committee will discuss have yet to be released.Student Union President Jason Gray '10 announced in his state of the union address on Nov. 17 that "the University is heading the call to involve the community in the process [of deciding how to deal with the budget shortfall]." He said Senior Vice President for Students and Enrollment Jean Eddy and Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Peter French convened the committee of students that will advise them on decisions regarding the budget. In an e-mail to the Justice, Director of Communications for the Student Union Jamie Ansorge '09 wrote, "The Union hopes that the administration will incorporate student opinion into this process at every juncture. We have requested that top administrators engage constructively with the student body through public forums or e-mails about the budget crises. The Union is pushing for students' voices to be heard and for the student body to be informed of decisions when they are made."Gray told the Justice that a statement may be released that would address "the purpose and the Constitution and what we [the Budget Advisory Committee] are going to be discussing."In an e-mail to the Justice Eddy wrote, "the University has been working to identify areas where budgets could be reduced and savings realized. Some of those areas may affect the day-to-day lives of students on this campus. It's important, and it is our practice to have student input as we consider our choices."In his address Gray said, "This is a period of financial uncertainty, and the financial collapse on Wall Street has impacted us here on South Street. We have an endowment that is barely growing, more students are deciding to graduate early, and costs are rising. This has led to a $10 million budget shortfall for the University, and depending on the state of the economy, a similar situation in the year ahead." In addition to Gray, the students on the Budget Advisory Committee are Jessica Blumberg '09, Daniel Acheampong '11, Emily Moignard '09, Bryan Wexler '09, Max Wallach '09 and Noam Shouster '11. Ansorge explained in his e-mail that the students on the committee are connected to many different aspects of campus life and "all have experience dealing with the University administration.". Gray said he selected the students with consultation from the executive board of the Student Union. Shouster wrote to the Justice in an e-mail, "I'm honored and thrilled to be a part of this, and I think as a senator at large I'm really aware [of] what the student body will prefer to do in this situation and I'm there to represent that and to verbalize the will of the students in front of the administration.
Exec describes Internet marketing
(11/25/08 5:00am)
Tuesday night, marketing consultant Allen Adamson spoke to a group of students in Golding Auditorium on the topic of online marketing. Director for the New York office of the brand design and consulting firm Landor, Adamson is currently touring New England in support of his most recent book, BrandDigital, a guide to building and sustaining a commercial brand in the digital age. Aided by PowerPoint and video clips, Adamson described for the audience the current marketing landscape. Though the digital sector has not yet become the dominant one, it has become increasingly important. He described the current situation, in which economic conditions necessitate heavy budget cuts, forcing suffering marketing departments to develop new, more efficient ways of developing and pushing products. Fortunately, the Internet has provided a venue in which there have been very efficient returns on marketing investments. The Internet, Adamson told the audience, has allowed for the development of a forum in which customers communicate their complaints and compliments on a given product in massive numbers. "One of the things digital allows you to do is be a fly on the wall," he said, describing the new consumer culture. Adamson called this phenomenon a "backyard fence mentality," in which products are marketed by word of mouth alone, almost free from any outside influence. "The Internet," Adamson added, "is a huge digital fence." Adamson went on to describe the various effects the Internet has had throughout the marketing and branding industry. Though the Internet is a powerful new tool, it can also sink a product as fast as it promotes it. Whereas once companies performed surveys on their products as little as once a year, the current environment, one in which word of a defective product can spread ever faster, calls for round-the-clock vigilance to ensure that no complaints go unnoticed and untreated. In the digital age, he continued, it's more important for companies to listen to and learn from customers, said Adamson, adding that corporations have realized this and have begun to explore the vast possibilities of social networking tools modeled after phenomena like YouTube and Facebook. One story described in the lecture detailed the online exploits of Ameriprise, an offshoot of American Express. Realizing the value of a forum in which their customers could voice their opinions, Ameriprise set up a site in which customers were encouraged to share their dreams for the future from a financial perspective. The result was twofold. Not only did the company develop its own forum for customer opinion, but they created a community. However, some companies Adamson described did not share the same foresight and suffered as a result. He offered the audience the example of the Kryptonite bike lock, a product promoted as completely secure and with a $50 price tag. Shortly after the product launch, a video surfaced on the Internet of a man opening the lock by inserting the end of a pen into the keyhole. The product was a bust. "Nothing spreads faster than when you make a promise and don't keep it," Adamson warned. He also gave the example of Cablevision, the self-proclaimed champions of customer service, embarrassed when an Internet video surfaced of one of their repairmen taking a nap on the couch of a customer. Adamson also warned that even great products are vulnerable to decline if they don't keep pace with the technology. To illustrate the point, Adamson told the story of Shreddies, a staple cereal in Canada, which was declining but was revived by viral video campaigns. The company that owned Shreddies spread on the Internet videos of test subjects sampling between the original Shreddies and the "new" Diamond Shreddies, the same square-shaped cereal simply rotated into a diamond shape on the box. There was no actual change being made to the product, but customers were nonetheless thinking about the cereal in a new way. The lecture also touched on the new need for corporations to market themselves, as well. Thanks to the wide range of information available on the Internet, customers can now track all of a corporation's products and activities. Not only must products stand for something, but also now must corporations. Adamson described the recent fuss made over the company Unilever, which makes and promotes Dove soap products, and the related "True Beauty" campaign, as well as Axe products, a line often derided as being sexist. The lecture concluded as Adamson reminded the audience that the basic principles of branding and marketing remain the same, but with the digital market comes a need for a more complete customer experience, one which "who you are becomes much more important." A product still needs to distinguish itself. "You still need to stand for something different," he said.
New club hosts student rights workshop
(11/25/08 5:00am)
The Advocates, a newly chartered club, conducted its first student workshop, called the Search and Seizure Workshop for On and Off Campus Housing, during which a panel composed of members of Brandeis Public Safety, Student Development and Conduct and Residence Life, the Waltham Police and various Brandeis clubs discussed issues germane to student search and seizure rights.The event, which took place last Wednesday, was also hosted by the Social Justice Committee and the Office of Students' Rights Advocacy and it was co-sponsored by Students for a Sensible Drug Policy and Peers Education about Responsible Choices.According to the event's press release, The Advocates is a newly chartered club that was "formed early last semester with the goal of arming students with specific, practical knowledge of their rights and responsibilities as students of Brandeis University and residents of Waltham, Mass."Approximately 25 students attended the workshop, which was moderated by The Advocates founder Seth Shapiro '09. The forum was divided into two sections of similar length, one dealing with rights of students on campus and another dealing with the rights of off-campus students. The event was divided as such since "Brandeis is its own institution: It can create its own rules" that differ from Waltham and U.S. law within the bounds of its campus, said Shapiro. Students were handed information detailing their specific rights in regards to search and seizure, both on and off campus. In addition, Shapiro took time to convey to the gathered audience some advice for students from an American Civil Liberties Union attorney with whom he had spoken earlier in the day. This advice emphasized the right to remain silent, to be aware that detention or any kind of temporary custody requires reasonable suspicion and that a recording of a specific noise complaint in most cases must be relinquished by the police within 10 days (i.e. If a student believes that the police fabricated a noise complaint, the student can ask the police to produce the evidence).A theme frequently repeated, both by Associate Dean of Student Life Maggie Balch and Director of Public Safety Ed Callahan, was that the safety of all members of the University is paramount and that the rules and regulations set and enforced by the University are in place in order to maintain the safest environment possible. "The University's main goal or main issue is to provide a safe campus," Callahan said.Members of the panel were willing to accept that, in some ways, the issues of search and seizure are nuanced problems. In addressing her discomfort with invading students' privacy without serious reason, Balch said, "We have lots of things we need to wrestle with." However, other members of the panel were adamant that in some areas of law enforcement, the facts are very cut-and-dried. In particular, SergeantBrian Lambert, the Waltham Police Department liaison to colleges, said that although he didn't think that a minimum drinking age of 21 was necessary, he would continue to prohibit underage drinking as long as the law remained in effect.In the off-campus rights discussion, Jerry Kaufman of the community services division of the Waltham Police Department said that in regard to college parties causing conflict and disruption within the community, "things have gotten much, much better." Detective Lieutenant Steve Champion "agreed with much of what" Kaufman said in regards to the generally improved relations between college students and the Waltham community.Champion was also explicit in telling students that the Waltham Police Department does not go out of its way to interfere with the lives of college students. When the police break up a party, he said it is typically in response to a loud noise complaint, he said. However, that is not to say that a party will be broken up just because the police receive a loud noise complaint. Champion said that the police will make their own assessment of the situation, and if they judge that the neighbor making the complaint is being unreasonable, they will clearly take this into account. He did articulate, however, that if multiple complaints were received, the party would almost certainly be broken up.Other issues discussed throughout the course of the forum included the covering of smoke detectors in dorm rooms. Callahan disparaged what he referred to as "the cavalier attitude among the population" toward covering up smoke detectors with plastic bags and warned that people can die as a result of such actions.Proper conduct when dealing with a police officer was also discussed. While Champion acknowledged that in general, students do not have to grant a police officer access to their houses unless the officer has a signed warrant, he also made a point of reminding students that there are other lawful ways of disrupting parties, such as arresting each person who leaves for noise disturbances. Shapiro mentioned that student rights do not include the right to disrespect a police officer. The panel also addressed the recent decriminalization of marijuana under Question 2, as voted upon by the Massachusetts electorate. Callahan emphasized that just because marijuana has been decriminalized does not mean that it has become legal.
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Don't give JuicyCampus the publicity
(11/11/08 5:00am)
To the Editor:In lieu of the recent feature on the ever-growing campus gossip Web site ("Gossipers go wild: Brandeis edition," Nov. 4 issue), I'd like to say that while well-intentioned, the article may elicit unnecessary additional attention to the Web site. How can students be advised not to visit this site when there is that much detail revealed about it? Because of our inquisitive nature, it is nearly inevitable that someone who reads that article will visit the site. As it has spread to Brandeis quite recently, it is still premature to forecast the size or degree of the site's impact on the campus. Perhaps on a campus as socially conscious-driven as Brandeis strives to be, students and administration together, the opinion has begun to form that it is a vile Web site. Indeed it may harbor those tendencies, and so we must be aware of its potential effects. The chief information officer of Pepperdine University described it as "a virtual bathroom wall for abusive, degrading, and hateful speech." The best remedy we have at the moment is to reduce the attention given to this site and simultaneously educate each other about the potential harm that can occur to someone who may not be able to simply disregard false or defamatory information posted in an anonymous, online forum. Though, hopefully enough, people will consider that, at times, as Rebecca Blady wrote well, it is necessary to "curb free speech for the sake of our classmates' emotional well-being."-Matthew Kessler '10
MAELSTROM: Gossipers go wild: Brandeis edition
(11/04/08 5:00am)
Before you read this article, which discusses the issues surrounding the notorious Internet gossip forum JuicyCampus.com, I must beg of you one favor:Do not visit the Web site.It's tempting. The site divulges all of the behind-the-scenes activities of campus social life. You can find the best party spots, the easiest girls and the most absurd rumors. Some of the information is true. Most of it is concocted by bored first-years. Either way, information is there, often posing potential harm to students. And I promise that your lives will undoubtedly continue without a visit to this notorious Web page.As much as this seems like a high school-age endeavor, a 1995 Duke graduate created this Web site, where students can discuss, at length, such vulgar topics on their individual college's page with the comfort of total anonymity. As long as visitors to the site confirm that they are 18 years old, they are free to explore the often fabricated and mean-spirited gossip that abounds on JuicyCampus.And posts get read. For example, approximately 2,300 views have accumulated under one single discussion topic debating the reputations of various female Brandeis students that was started on Oct. 21 on Brandeis' page. Posts on JuicyCampus are explicit and merciless. They target our classmates by full name and often divulge more information than one would deem appropriate for public knowledge.But since JuicyCampus guarantees the anonymity of its posts' authors, students slam their classmates' reputations without thinking twice. Thought you left this nonsense behind when you graduated high school?Well, you thought wrong. JuicyCampus and its defenders successfully rebutt your criticisms with that quintessential university value: free speech.The International Herald Tribune conducted an interview with Michael Fertik, a graduate of Harvard Law School and the founder of reputationdefender.com, a service that helps clients remove defamatory material about themselves from the Internet. "Legally, JuicyCampus is fully, absolutely immune, no matter what it runs on its site from users, just like AOL is not responsible for nasty comments in its AOL chat rooms," said Fertik. Fertik explained that while victims could sue individual posters for libelous or defamatory remarks, the Communications Decency Act of 1996 protects the Web site's owner from lawsuit. And finding those individuals responsible for particularly vulgar posts is nearly impossible.It's important to question whether our First Amendment rights should trump our morality. We've fought for these rights, and we value them, but where do we draw the line?At this time in our lives, we encroach upon the gate to the "real world." Real jobs and real reputations are at stake. JuicyCampus contains information about students' sexual history, drug habits and other illicit and immoral activity. Students are justifiably paranoid about their names being published.A recently posted story concerning some illicit activity by members the first-year class sparked significant anger when one student's name and room number were published on the Web site. Although most of the posts responding to the initial discussion about what really happened were not factual, the scene described and the information pertaining to this student were true.The student contacted JuicyCampus to argue for the removal of the name from the site, fearing a tarnished reputation and the possible loss of the scholarship Brandeis had granted her. After several days, JuicyCampus responded affirmatively and erased the post. However, the student reported that the Web site was not easy to work with."I looked at their information about how to remove stuff. Unless [a post] threatens someone's safety, is a proven, illegal lie or includes your personal address, e-mail or phone number, you have to go through a whole process," this student said. "They say you shouldn't write lies because that's libel, and that's illegal, but then they don't do anything about it. Even if people do lie, [the victims] aren't protected, and then it is still libel."The student further pointed out that at JuicyCampus, "they only think about personal safety. They don't think about emotional safety. People can just use it to their own benefit and don't really think about how much it could damage other people, even if it is just a silly Web site."Perhaps we should take a moment to assess the goals we had when we entered this institution of higher learning. Four years of schooling have potential to enrich our understanding of how we should structure the society we live in.Although college students created JuicyCampus, the Web site does not embody the goals and needs of students within a university setting. Free speech should not be taken for granted. In a society in which this right is considered an absolute, we must consider its limitations. We are obliged to curb free speech for the sake of our classmates' emotional well-being. Four years of college grant us the opportunity to take advantage of the various media that advance this right. We don't need to take it out on our peers.As college students who claim to positively influence our society, we should encourage free speech. But not in this twisted, libelous manner. Channel your first amendment right into a more productive form, not the profane gossip forums of JuicyCampus.
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: All opinions not worthy of publication
(10/28/08 4:00am)
To the Editor:Give Matt Lawrence credit in his recent vicious attack on Brandeis' policy of not having classes on selected Jewish holidays ("High holidays shouldn't dictate our schedule," Oct. 21 issue). Since he starts off by warning the reader that his opinion is "potentially unpopular," he at least seems to understand that his position is bigoted and offensive.Lawrence writes of his suspicion that "too many people at this institution of higher learning believe that religious beliefs are automatically worthy of my respect." Instead of simply disagreeing with the premise of organized religion, Lawrence feels the need to assault it. Matt: if you are a decent person, you can respect someone's beliefs even though you disagree with him. How would you feel if I told you I didn't respect your atheism?In calling the holidays of Sukkot and Shimini Atzeret "obscure," Lawrence again has the courtesy to warn the reader that "many people reading this will object to the word obscure." Yes Matt, I do object. Thanks for predicting which part of your column would insult me. It doesn't lessen the blow of your slap in the face to the Jewish community. Finally, Lawrence declares that "education is a higher and more important value than religious observance." Speak for yourself, Matt. Religiously observant individuals around the world may disagree with you, as long as you can respect that their opinions exist.There seems to be a perception at Brandeis that it is OK to say harmful things about the Jewish community just because the campus has a Jewish majority, and the majority can handle abuse like Lawrence's tirade. I don't understand this. Intolerance is what it is, no matter what group it is directed at.Between this column, an editorial last spring objecting to the University giving off for Passover instead of a "normal" spring break and the 30-percent Jewish quota proposed in columns by former Forum editor Matt Brown a few years ago, the Justice has gotten into the habit of taking opinions that are harmful to the Jewish community. Lawrence's column is by far the most offensive among these, and there is no excuse for a savvy group of editors to approve this type of content. Just because someone has an opinion doesn't mean it is worthy of publication. Bigotry has no place in any newspaper. I expect more out of the paper I used to edit.-Jacob Kamaras '08Jacob Kamaras is a former editor in chief of the Justice.
BOMS set to drop on Brandeis
(10/28/08 4:00am)
The Brandeis Open Mic Series will provide Brandeis students with a chance to share their poetry, music or performance pieces with their peers. This showcasing of new and original work by the Brandeis community, as well as known slam poets, is a weekly event hosted by Jason Henry Simon-Bierenbaum '11, Kaamila Mohamed '11 and Zamira Castro '11. From 9 to 10 p.m. there are 12 five-minute time slots for which students can sign up to give a performance. However, from 10 to 11 p.m. a nationally touring or Boston-area featured poet will give a performance or host a poetry workshop. This week's featured poet is Associate Dean of Student LifeJamele Adams, and the forthcoming B.O.M.S. sessions will feature poets George Watsky and Jared Paul. It is worth mentioning for those interested in creative expression but not keen on poetry that the workshops will not focus solely on that particular medium. For instance, Jared Paul's workshop will be on the different types of tools available to activists. The workshops will also be hosted by different social and cultural clubs from the Brandeis community; B.O.M.S. seeks to become a place where different clubs can speak out together and learn from each other.After the featured poet each week, there will be a poetry slam competition. The competition consists of three rounds of three-minute poems written and performed by any students who choose to participate, and the winning student will be chosen by the audience. The winners will then compete to become part of the first-ever Brandeis intercollegiate poetry slam team.As VOCAL, a student-run organization that hosted a spoken-word concert at Brandeis in January 2008, showed us, there is a large audience on campus for spoken word poetry. The Boston area and New England, in general, have a very active and diverse spoken-word scene. One of B.O.M.S.' goals is to bring the two together. Another goal of B.O.M.S. is, after having established the aforementioned intercollegiate poetry slam team, to send that team to the collegiate nationals in the spring. Other universities who compete in these spoken word events include Emerson College and Boston University. An additional aspiration of B.O.M.S. is to create an outlet for students to perform in a casual environment. This program seeks to become "a continuing weekly option for expression that can grow as its own community within the Brandeis community," said Simon-Bierenbaum. And, although B.O.M.S. places special emphasis on spoken-word performance, other types of art are welcome. On Nov. 3, Brandeis comedians are set to perform, and B.O.M.S. will become a forum for anyone who has a desire to participate in open mic nights but may have been too nervous to do so before. B.O.M.S presents itself as a safe space for artistic expression, and so even if you have never done spoken word before (actually, especially if you have never done spoken word before) you might want check out B.O.M.S. to perform, enjoy and learn about slam poetry; you might even find yourself on the first-ever Brandeis slam poetry team.The Brandeis Open Mic Series will commence today, Oct. 28. B.O.M.S will take place every Tuesday night from 9 p.m. to midnight in the Castle Commons.
The unanswerable question
(10/28/08 4:00am)
It's a riddle that might never be solved, but when the Brandeis Humanists met Chabad at Brandeis Oct. 6 for a public debate, they discussed one of the most disputed questions in the modern world: Does God exist?The Humanists, represented by Jonah Cohen '10 and Max Lewis '09, and Chabad, represented by Alex Flyax Ph.D. '13 and Rabbi Peretz Chein, debated before an eager audience of students and faculty in Rapaporte Treasure Hall.Chein opened the discussion by asking the audience to abandon their traditional modes of sensory perception in order to explore a "more complex" definition of "existence." His arguments centered on the concept of God as the "first cause," the action for which there is no antecedent.Everything we know about the world is a "joke," Flyax added, if a first cause is not the reason behind the creation of life. "Complex things," he said, "are the result of an organizing force."Although Flyax acknowledged the roles of evolution and natural selection in human geneology, in an interview after the debate, he described evolution as a result of God.While they didn't dispute the necessity of a first cause, the Humanists rejected the concept of an omnipotent God, asserting that the Big Bang was the first cause and the beginning of the universe.Surprisingly, perhaps, Cohen didn't entirely reject the idea that God might have caused the Big Bang. Cohen said he's "willing to wait" for concrete evidence of God's activity.The Humanists did point out the impossibility of a coherent definition of God in light of the multiple conceptions of God that exist among world religions.Yet Chein countered that Judaism espouses a more general view of God."God is the first cause of all creation who is engaged and responsive to all existence," he said in an interview after the debate. God has all "positive and good qualities" imaginable, he said.Throughout the debate, however, Lewis remained skeptical, pointing out flaws in what he saw as Chein's idealistic notion of God.If God is in such a perfect state, he argued, then it would seem impossible for anything, even prayer, to bend his will.Lewis suggested that if God is responsible for creating mankind and shaping human nature, then God, not free will, is to blame for tragedies, citing in particular the events of Sept. 11, 2001.Lewis declared that he will "gladly" believe in God if someone proves his existence. Religion is grounded in faith rather than certainty, he said, and faith is not evidence enough for the existence of God."You can't have faith without evidence," Lewis said, and proceeded to draw a distinction between religious and personal faith. Belief in human relationships, such as that between husband and wife, he explained, is based on the proof of fidelity.The individual who believes in personal faith can therefore be "happy and accomplished without religion," Lewis said, by turning to the "beautiful" universe around him instead.In response to a question from an audience member on the relationship between religion and morality, Flyax said that although atheists and religious individuals alike can practice morality, a belief in some higher power allows people to regard morality as a "personal responsibility" as opposed to a "social benefit" or optional performance.Cohen insisted that people should not feel obligated to act morally, but Flyax answered that the individual option to act according to moral standards is not enough to sustain the well-being of society in general.Religion, Flyax said, is necessary to implement morality in certain societies.The Humanists said that religion is especially meaningless when it is inherited rather than attained through knowledge. Religion should not be forced upon an individual, Lewis said in an interview after the debate.When an audience member asked the Chabad representatives how they would perceive religion had they not been raised as Jews, Flyax responded that he was raised as an atheist but remained "objective to the environment." Later, he discovered a personal connection with Judaism and converted, he said.Some students in the audience were impressed by the persuasiveness of the cases for and against the existence of God.The topic of the debate was "very well-tackled," said Matthew Lawrence '10, noting that he was particularly "surprised" by Chabad's strong arguments.Other students, however, felt that both sides of the debate lacked the passion they would have liked to see.Tara Metal '10 was "disappointed," as she expected a more heated and controversial debate, she said.Flyax admitted that the topic of God's existence was "too general" for the participants to engage in more detailed discussion. Instead, the aim of the debate was to provide the audience with the incentive to think and respect other schools of thought, he said in an interview.The debate, Cohen said, was designed to "promote dialogue."Editor's note: Matthew Lawrence '10 is a writer for the Forum section of the Justice.
Stand up for your right to fight poverty
(10/28/08 4:00am)
The voices of hundreds of people in Harvard's packed Paine Hall echoed loudly and clearly the pledge to take action against global poverty:"Campaigners world-wide will stand up and take action to push their governments for more and better aid, debt cancellation, education for all boys and girls, health care, trade justice, gender equality and public accountability!"With these words, a group of enthused college students and recent college graduates initiated the Stand Up and Take Action Against Poverty Rally, held Oct. 17. The conference was part of the Stand Up and Take Action movement, an international initiative in which over 100 million people in more than 100 countries registered to fight poverty at a variety of events focused on the Millennium Development Goals, which are eight goals for international development that the United Nations hopes to achieve by 2015, including decreased child mortality, improved maternal health and the elimination of extreme poverty and hunger. The Oct. 17 rally featured an idea bank contest, in which attendees submitted their ideas to help achieve the Millennium Development Goals. The event was hosted by the Youth Alliance for Leadership and Development in Africa at Harvard, one of the founding organizations of Millennium Campus Network's, a college student-led organization that aims to eliminate world poverty.MCN combines the efforts of 11 anti-poverty student groups at seven universities across the country. Sam Vaghar '08 and Seth Werfel '10 created the organization in August 2007, along with students from Brandeis and other Boston-area universities. Will Herberich, a Tufts University junior, is currently MCN's executive director and president.A variety of student leaders spoke at the event, including members of Circle of Women, a group that seeks to improve girls' formal education in underprivileged areas, and Black Men's Forum.The conference made a significant impact on at least one of its student attendees."Parts of [the conference] I thought were also shocking, as far as how many people there are in the world impoverished," Madeline Barr '12 said. "One of the statistics was one out of [about] seven people . are malnourished." For MCN organizers, the conference served to strengthen their belief in students' ability to fight poverty."You look around at all these talented teens and you think, 'This is something that could really happen,'" Herberich said.Before founding MCN, Vaghar and Werfel were very active in Positive Foundations, a Brandeis anti-poverty organization. Vaghar described the moment when he realized that ending poverty would be an attainable goal for the future if people were given the proper resources and tools."I read this book called The End of Poverty by Jeffrey Sachs. It didn't just talk about what our problems are, but it talked about real solutions," he said. "So, I basically decided that [helping to eradicate extreme poverty] is my passion, and I want to keep doing this."Herberich became involved with MCN through his friendship with Vaghar and his involvement in a grassroots organization at Tufts devoted to ending extreme poverty.MCN's overarching goal is to "bring as many student groups together who are devoted to ending poverty," Herberich said. "[MCN] wants these groups to share resources with each other, and [the Network] wants to share resources with them from connections with the non-profit world and other funding sources."MCN now has nine directors and several associate directors. The organization held its first conference last April at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where about 1000 students showed up.The conference featured guest speakers and anti-poverty advocates such as Paul Farmer, Jeffrey Sachs, Senator John Edwards D.-Illinois, John Legend and Ira Magaziner. Conference attendees discussed plans for a new global health movement.According to Gabe Verzino '10, a member of MCN, in the future, MCN plans to organize student groups from different universities into regions all over the country, including New York City and the San Francisco Bay Area."The main problem we've seen is that there are students on every single campus that want to tackle global poverty and global disease but they don't have the resources," Vaghar said. "Oftentimes other student groups are doing very similar work, but they're not talking to each other and we want to help fill in those gaps."Herberich described MCN's extreme passion for fighting world poverty, even at the expense of the members' academic records."You have to believe that the sacrifices [you make for the organization] are maybe worth taking a couple of points off your GPA," he said. "If you really want to dive into creating social change, you've got to dive in headfirst; you can't just sort of dip your toes in."Herberich said he was optimistic about the future of MCN."I think five to 10 years from now, when people think of students that are active participants in ending extreme poverty . they will think of MCN." Editor's note: Gabriel Verzino '10 is a contributing writer.