(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.
(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.
(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.
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
