(11/20/07 5:00am)
The Union Senate confirmed two students who will serve as representatives on the new Firearms Advisory Committee last Sunday.Student Union President Shreeya Sinha '09 chose Matt Rogers '08 and Fanny Familia '09 to join her. Professors Robert Moody (THA) and Paul Jankowski (HIST), Chief Operating Officer Peter French and Director of Public Safety Ed Callahan will also serve on the committee. French will chair the committee. University President Jehuda Reinharz formed the committee at the end of last month to advise the University as it implements its policy of arming officers, a decision he reached in September after the recommendations of a committee of students, faculty and staff that convened over the summer. Reinharz originally ordered that the new committee be comprised of two faculty members, two graduate students, two undergraduate students and two staff members. Sinha e-mailed an application for the committee to the entire student body Nov. 5. The committee will convene after Thanksgiving, she said, adding that the student representatives' goal will be to gather student opinions on the issue through forums and visits to club meetings. Sinha said Reinharz charged her with organizing the selection of the students. Together with three senators and Vice President Alex Braver '09, she selected the students from a group of 25 applicants, she said. Senator for Ziv Quad Justin Sulsky '09, who helped Sinha with her decisions, said the additional panel members each viewed some of the applications before they came together to interview five finalists. Rogers said he wanted to be on the committee "to ensure that all students' interests, regardless of what those interests are, were represented." He added that he didn't think the fact "that there's just three of us means that other student input will be ignored."Rogers said he was still undecided about his opinion on the decision to arm. "I feel like there were issues with the process itself but that the decision .was made by people who have the best interests of the university in mind, and therefore I would tend to say that I don't have a particular problem with the decision."In an e-mail to the Justice, Familia wrote that she saw two sides to the arming issue. "One is that it is a bad decision to arm Brandeis officers because these students already feel unsafe and intimidated by the officers," she wrote. "On the other hand, with recent tragedies in colleges and Universities, . arming Brandeis officers will delay response time and can be the difference in the outcome if such an event were to occur on our campus." At last Sunday's senate meeting, Familia said she aimed to "be a messenger of student's concerns." She added that "Shreeya, Matt and I . all recognize that our role in the committee is to convey the information we gather from students." Some members of Students Opposed to the Decision to Arm, a campus club formed by Ben Serby '10, also applied to serve on the committee. "I'm disappointed that nobody who's actively been working on the issue in any way is going to be participating on the committee," SODA member Phil Lacombe '10, one of the five finalists for the committe, said.He added that he thought SODA members could also be open-minded about arming. "Someone from our group should have been selected specifically because it's very important.that you have someone who can take a critical look at whatever anyone suggests," he said. Lacombe said at least one other student from the group had applied. Braver said the Union's selection panel "didn't immediately rule out anybody from SODA," and looked for students who could advocate for their peers as well as work with administrators. However, Class of 2008 Senator Darren Gallant, another member of the panel, said "It's hard to choose someone whose organization is against [the] decision." Rogers and Familia, Gallant explained, "were very focused on the implementation, not the [past decision]."Braver, one of the student representatives on the committee that reached the decision to arm over the summer, said he "found it difficult to communicate with my constituents over the summer because they weren't all here." He said he hoped for better communication this time around. Sinha said the panel unanimously agreed on the final selection. "They both came from different communities that had issues with the arming of campus police," she said, noting that Familia is involved with the Intercultural Center and Rogers was a member of the Activist Resource Center. "[Familia] is a student who keeps in mind that many of her peers do not have a one hundred percent positive view of the police," Sulsky said. "We feel it was very, very important to have that type of view on the committee.
(11/20/07 5:00am)
An article in News incorrectly referred to Prof. Jeff C. Hall (BIOL) as Prof. John C. Hall. (Nov. 6, p. 5)An article in News misspelled Avigdor Levy's name as "Avigor" on one reference. (Nov. 13, p. 3)A paraphrased quote in News by TYP Senator Kamarin Lee should have indicated the difference between Africans and African Americans, but not compared Africans to black people. (Nov. 13, p. 5)B-Talk in Forum mixed up two names. The first photo is Matt Wakim '08 and the bottom photo is Olen Shen '10. (Nov. 13, p. 10)An editorial in Forum misspelled Student Union President Shreeya Sinha's '09 name as Sreeya on one reference stated that she was a member of the Class of 2008. (Nov. 13, p. 10)In a letter to the editor, the class years of Alison Schwartzbaum '08 and Jennifer Feinberg '07 were incorrect. (Nov. 13, p. 11)A photo caption in Arts incorrectly stated that Rachel Jarman '08 and Rachel Pfeffer '08 are members of the Class of 2007. (Nov. 13, p. 20) The Justice welcomes submissions for errors that warrant correction or clarification. E-mail corrections@brandeis.edu.
(11/13/07 5:00am)
The Asian nation's state's new interest in managing domestic life, particularly sexuality, was examined in a three-panel symposium sponsored by the Asian Diaspora Working Group called "Sexuality and the National Body in Asia" last Tuesday. The event began in the Rose Art Museum and continued in the Women's Studies Research Center.The Working Group on Asian and Asian Diaspora Studies, formed last year, is a group of students and faculty who are interested in both Asian and Diaspora studies. The group emphasizes study involving different parts of Asia, such as India and Japan, in conjunction with one another. "We look at the links and connections between the various fields," Prof. Sarah Lamb (ANTH) said."The three of us [Profs. Ellen Schattschneider (ANTH), Harleen Singh (WGS) Lamb] have been involved in the Asian Diaspora reading group, a loose association of faculty and students meeting from time to time to read material of mutual interest. We are trying to bridge the more conventional divides of, oh that's East Asia, that's Japan. It's so easy for academic work like this to get pigeonholed, but [the symposium] was really an open forum for discussion between different groups," Schattschneider said in an interview after the symposium.The symposium portion was divided into three panels: Figuring the National Body in South Asia, Sexuality, Power and Literature in Japan and Reports from the Field: Transnational Asian Sexualities.Schattschneider talked about some of the overarching themes of the conference. "In relation to the nation state and the nation state's interest in the national body, there's this interesting transformation in the Asian context between the state's lack of interest in mediating sexuality in the private sphere prior to the late 1860s, and then suddenly the nation state's interests become allied with managing the domestic sphere," she said.During the first panel, presenter Jyoti Puri of Simmons College addressed sodomy law in India. "The discourses of sexuality permeate the state," Puri said. "The state is now a sexual domain, it is saturated with biopolitics."Raji Mohan of Haverford College examined issues of femininity and sexuality in the film The Terrorist, released in 1999. The film follows a young girl, Malli, who is given a suicide mission to assassinate an influential person in the Indian government. The director used the assassination of India's Prime Minister, Rajiv Ghandi, in 1991 as his inspiration, though the film is not meant to be a representation of actual events."The film reverses traditional gender roles," Mohan explained. "The main character is deliberately unfeminized." "In [the film], Malli's sexuality is something different and unpredictable, which goes back to the theme of the state's interest in individual sexuality; it turns that [idea] on its head," Schattschneider said.In the second panel, Keith Vincent of Boston University spoke about gender and sexuality in the Japanese context in terms of literature. "In some sense [the ideas were] written out through narrative, especially in the relationships between male writers who were deeply involved with scholarship and poetry," said Schattschneider.The third panel provided an opportunity for graduate students to showcase their fieldwork. "We all really wanted to provide a forum in which grad students could provide some of their work and show what kind of things they're finding in the field, which I think we did successfully," Schattschneider said.All three panels were followed by commentary and discussion.The symposium was preceded by a tour and discussion of the "Tiger by the Tail!" exhibition in the Rose Art Museum with scholars from the symposium, students and women brought to Brandeis from the Waltham community. The "Tiger by the Tail!" exhibit features work by Indian women artists in a variety of media. The artwork explores Indian culture as it pertains to issues such as feminism and sexuality.Schattschneider, Singh and Lamb coordinated the event, which was co-sponsored by the Women's and Gender Studies Program, the Department of Anthropology, the Masters of Arts program in Cultural Production and the Japanese Studies colloquium series."A lot of students are interested in seeing a sexuality studies program that really takes not only gay and lesbian studies seriously but also transgender and queer studies seriously," said Prof. Mark Auslander (ANTH). "It's very encouraging to see so much student interest.
(11/13/07 5:00am)
The Finance Board will run a pilot program next semester in which all events it funds will be free of charge to Brandeis undergraduates, according to Student Union Treasurer Choon Woo Ha '08. Several changes will also be instituted to the guidelines and rules governing the allocation of club funding, he said.Clubs will not be allowed to require Brandeis undergrads to pay any extra fees for entrance or for other items and services funded by the F-Board, Ha announced in a campuswide e-mail Sunday night. Under the F-Board's new allocation rules, clubs can request full funding for lodging and transportation costs except for car travel, among other changes, to its policy. The F-Board says the new process for allocating funds will be more club-friendly."We opened [the funding] scope up a little more and made it more lenient," Ha said in an interview Monday. Under the old plan, clubs could request up to $20 per room per person per night in funding for lodging, he said.Ha emphasized, however, that "clubs should not feel that [just] because it's opened up, that they will always get full funding." The amount of money allocated will still depend on the amount available to the F-Board and on whether the Board deems the funds necessary for the club, he explained. Two semesters ago, the F-Board did not fund transportation and lodging costs at all, Ha said. "We saw that there was more demand for this kind of [thing], so we decided to fund everything," he said. "We realized that many, many clubs really need this kind of funding for their clubs to function smoothly."Ha added that the F-Board will also be more lenient toward the funding of decorations, publicity and advertising when it is evident that they are necessary for a club's activities and purpose. According to Ha, the free admission policy grew out of concerns over the amount of money undergraduates pay for events. Every semester, 1 percent of the tuition fee for Brandeis undergraduates goes toward the Student Activities Fee. The F-Board is responsible for allocating that money to chartered and secured clubs.Ha said the ability of clubs to sell tickets is an incentive for club leaders to organize events in order to get money beyond the F-Board funds. Ha said the F-Board decided on the test run for next semester to get an idea of the policy's effects. He said the F-Board and clubs could discuss a cap on ticket prices, "but there really is no point in talking about it because this kind of [thing] you can only know once you've experienced both ends of the spectrum." Next semester, he said, "we're going to experience the completely opposite end of the spectrum, which is no tickets at all." The Union will solicit feedback on the new policy from students and clubs through forums, online surveys and meetings to determine further action, Ha said. Scott Frost '09, a coordinator for the Liquid Latex Club, said he disagreed with the F-Board for making this decision without speaking to club leaders. "I feel like a guinea pig," he said. "[It will make] expensive events on campus difficult to have."Anna Umanskaya '10, president of the Russian culture club, said she agreed with the decision. "We are already paying event fees, so I don't believe we should be paying twice."Anya Bergman contributed reporting.
(11/06/07 5:00am)
The University disciplined a longtime politics professor last week after concluding that he made "inappropriate, racial and discriminatory" comments during a class in late September which violated University nondiscrimination policy, according to documents obtained by the Justice.Prof. Donald Hindley (POL) was notified of the action against him last Tuesday in a letter from Provost Marty Krauss, which he provided to the Justice. Krauss assigned Assistant Provost Richard Silberman this week to begin attending POL144a-the Latin American politics course in which the infraction allegedly occurred-to "monitor" Hindley's lectures for speech that might violate University nondiscriminatory policy, the letters said. The University will also require Hindley to complete anti-discrimination training.Hindley, who is in his 47th year teaching at the University, called the charges against him "ridiculous" and "totally out of the blue." He said that he has appealed to the Faculty Rights and Responsibilities Committee and that his case has been accepted.Many students enrolled in his course voiced opposition to the sanctions. In a show of support for Hindley, a group estimated at around 13 students, about a third of the class, walked out before Hindley's lecture last Thursday. The students marched from Rabb to the Bernstein-Marcus administration building, where they met briefly with Krauss before returning to class."We asked to know what was going on, why we weren't informed," said Lily Adams '09, who participated in the walk-out. She added: "It's become a sort of guilty until proven innocent. There's no dissenting view or no forum for students to speak out on his behalf."Krauss said she told the students that the process was "confidential" because "it's important that people have the courage to come forward once they have a complaint."At least one complaint appears to have stemmed from Hindley's reference to the term "wetbacks," a derogatory expression used to describe illegal immigrants who have crossed the Mexican border. Hindley defended his discussion of the term, saying he had used it to describe racism of a certain historical period. Throughout American history, he said, "When Mexicans come north as illegal immigrants, we call them wetbacks." Adams also denied Hindley had used the term in an offensive context. "If he had made comments that were legitimately racist, the whole class would have complained," she said, adding, "It was never him saying, 'This is what I call them,' or, 'This is an appropriate term.'"In an interview, Krauss declined to elaborate on the specific nature of Hindley's comments, citing a need to protect the complaintants. "I know some are upset about this, but there should be some confidence that a detailed process was followed that allows people to come forward with complaints against their supervisors and/or faculty," she said.Hindley defended the right of a student to object to the content of his lectures, but said the source of the complaint had been "used by vengeful people." He attributed the vigor of the University's reprimands in part to his outspoken comments on a number of issues, including a dispute over his salary and his opposition to some Israeli tactics in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "I object loudly to what I see to be arbitrary and unjust authority and that includes within the department and within the administration," he said.Although Prof. Steven Burg (POL), chairman of the Politics department, received the complaints first, Hindley said, the issue was referred to Dean of Arts and Sciences Adam Jaffe and later Krauss, without an attempt to mediate the solution. Section 7a of the Faculty Handbook requires department chairs to "resolve issues concerning faculty rights or responsibilities . through direct discussions with the faculty member involved and/or through mediation."The University's Non-Discrimination and Harassment Policy recommends that problems be resolved "informally" and states that the Human Resources and Employee Relations Department can "assist in this process."Hindley said he was first alerted to the complaints Oct. 22 after receiving an e-mail from Jesse Simone, director of employment, employee relations and training, requesting a meeting that day. Over the course of the nearly two-hour meeting, Simone and Hindley discussed the allegations in the presence of another man, who took notes but did not speak. "She said, 'Did you use the word wetback?' Well, I teach Latin American politics and I'm currently teaching Mexican politics, and of course I use the word wetbacks, [but] not in any derogatory sense," Hindley said, adding, "I thought it was just ridiculous charges, totally resolved, and they were being just silly about it."Hindley said Simone also asked if he had referred to "young, white males having contact with women of color," which he said he had.Hindley said he didn't hear more about the charges until receiving a phone call on the evening of Oct. 29 from Krauss, who told him that he would receive two letters in his mailbox the next day. He read the letters from Simone and Krauss informing him of their decisions before his morning class, and entered to find Silberman present as a monitor.
(11/06/07 5:00am)
Prof. Michael Rosbash (BIOL), a 31-year faculty member whose research has focused on human sleep cycles, was elected by his peers in the American Academy for the Advancement of Science as a Fellow of the international nonprofit organization last month.The AAAS is dedicated to advancing science around the world by serving as an educator, spokesperson and professional organization, according to its Web site. Fellows attend a forum in February at which they're presented with an official certificate and a rosette pin, the blue and gold colors of which represent science and engineering, respectively. The distinction is granted to those whose social or applied work is viewed as having advanced his or her scientific field."It's a nice thing to receive," Rosbash said. Some of his other achievements include an appointment as a Howard Hughes Medical Institute Investigator in 1989 and membership to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2001.Rosbash has spent his time researching a range of topics, including metabolism and the processing of RNA, a crucial factor in building protein in human bodies. For the past 25 years, his interests have been rooted primarily in circadian rhythm and biological clocks. "It's related to how and why we sleep," he said about his research. "The ticking of the clock has impact on alertness and sleep." Rosbash's research looks at why people sleep and what purpose sleep serves, as well as the molecular basis for sleep. When he first came to Brandeis as an assistant professor, Rosbash was interested in how genes influence behavior. His specific fascination with circadian rhythms was inspired in part by his friendship with Prof. John C. Hall (BIOL), another new member of the science faculty. When they were both starting out, Hall told Rosbash of his previous experience in a lab studying how genes influence circadian rhythm. "The personal friendship was really the driving force behind the beginning of this work," Rosbash said. Together, he and Hall have used research on fruit flies to identify numerous genes involved in the sleep and waking cycles of humans. They also proposed a potential mechanism to explain how a 24-hour biological clock might work. Rosbash doesn't spend all his time in the lab, though. Although his professorial work mostly involves guiding students through senior research or dissertations, he has, in the past, taught undergraduate classes such as cell biology. This year, he teaches the University Seminar for first-years in the Life Science Scholar program. This yearlong course familiarizes LSS students with Brandeis' researchers and their techniques for achieving success in their various fields.
(10/30/07 4:00am)
'Beauty and the Geek'The CW's show Beauty and the Geek is looking for beauties and geeks for its fifth season and encourages all Brandeis students to audition. Saturday from 2 to 9 p.m. at "The Estate," 1 Boylston Place in?Boston.?For more information, contact andrea@tripple7pr.com. Microcredit Awareness Come to Click Drive's Microcredit Awareness Event with speakers from Oxfam America, Brandeis Faculty. Tuesday from 7:30 to 9 p.m. in?Lown 2. "Hold Power Accountable"John Dean, a central figure in the Watergate scandal, will discuss how well American investigative reporting meets its constitutional goal of keeping American citizens informed and democracy safe. Co-sponsored by the International Center for Ethics, Justice and Public Life. Tuesday from 5:30 to 7 p.m. in the main dining hall in the Faculty Center. For more information, contact the Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism at (781) 736-3870.Tobacco on TrialProf. Allan M. Brandt from Harvard Medical School will speak about the rise and decline of cigarette smoking in the United States. Wednesday from 4 to 6 p.m. in Zinner Forum room in Heller. For more information, contact Nancy Feldman at nfeldman@brandeis.edu. The Life of a Forensic AnthropologistWilliam Haglund, the U.N. senior forensic advisor for two International Criminal Tribunals and senior consultant to Physicians for Human Rights, reveals the details of daily life as a forensic anthropologist. The speech is part of a weeklong residency cosponsored by the Hiatt Career Center. Thursday from noon to 2:45 p.m. in the Abraham Shapiro Academic Complex Atrium. For more information, contact bstrauss@brandeis.edu. Indian festival of LightsA religious festival and fair including: Diwali Puja, religious acts, henna, free food, and Garba, a traditional Indian dance. Saturday from 7 to 11 p.m. in the Levin Ballroom. Sophomore Year ExperienceThe first Monday of every month, members of the Sophomore Year Experience team will have a table in the Usdan Dining Hall staffed with advisers from these various officers. Learn about sophomore-specific topics/events/deadlines. Monday from 11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. in the dining hall of Usdan Student Center.
(10/23/07 4:00am)
When University President Jehuda Reinharz decided last month to arm campus police officers, he made a choice necessary to ensure the safety of this campus. However, in matters such as that which affect the day-to-day lives of every student, staff and faculty member here, more than just the merits of the actual decision matter. While Mr. Reinharz made the right call, he hasn't been sufficiently transparent with the community about his decision-making process.Mr. Reinharz made the decision after a firearms committee consisting of students, faculty and staff convened over the summer and recommended the course of action to him, but he said he could have proceeded even without that level of approval. "I could have come to this decision without a committee," he said last week. "But I decided to have a committee, and it did not make sense to me to waste a single moment once I had their recommendation, which was a unanimous one."The community at large, however, is far from a consensus on this issue. The newly formed Students Opposed to the Decision to Arm presented to Reinharz a petition signed by 830 undergraduates, 16 staff members and 20 faculty members protesting the decision arguing that students and faculty should have been consulted about the decision before it was made.Mr. Reinharz can't go back in time and change how he reached the decision, but he should explain his rationale to the entire community. On top of that, the administration hasn't revealed details on new protocols regarding how officers will use or access the guns. We appreciate Mr. Reinharz e-mailed out the advisory committee's report. We also appreciate that Mr. Reinharz plans to form a firearms policy group that includes students faculty and staff as well as hold a forum sometime before the end of the spring semester. We hope these events will welcome community input. We also hope that Mr. Reinharz will speak to the campus about the decision and allow for a question-and-answer session. Whether or not we agree with major administrative decisions, transparency is a necessary courtesy on the University's part.The decision is also more complex than Mr. Reinharz has acknowledged. This page has argued that campus officers must be armed in order to protect themselves and the community, especially in light of April's shootings at Virginia Polytechnic Institute. But we admit that there are potentially harmful consequences of having guns on campus, such as the promotion of a culture of fear and anxiety, as well as the possibility of weapon abuse by some officers. While these factors aren't enough to hold back the arming initiative, Mr. Reinharz-instead of just stating the benefits of arming the police-must admit the existence of these potential pitfalls and state how the University will deal with them.With Mr. Reinharz's decision to arm officers, we know that he is doing his best to protect our campus from violence. Now, however, it's important that he protect community dialogue. Be open with us, and explain your decision. Without giving us that knowledge, you are leaving us in the dark.
(10/23/07 4:00am)
An article in News incorrectly stated that Tony Williams Jr. was the founding director of the Transition Year Program. Williams was not the founding director, and the program is the Transitional Year Program. (Oct. 16, p. 1)The unrelated photo caption in News said that students played soccer on the Great Lawn. The students were playing on Gordon's field. (Oct. 16, p. 2)An article in News identified a midyear as Faith Bowman '10. The student quoted is midyear Beth Bowman '10. (Oct. 16, p. 7)Brandeis Talks Back in Forum misspelled Alex Melman's '11 name. (Oct. 16, p. 10)A photo credit in Arts misspelled Univesity photographer Mike Lovett's name. (Oct. 16, p. 23)The Justice welcomes submissions of errors that warrant correction or clarification. E-mail corrections@brandeis.edu.
(10/16/07 4:00am)
Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States, will speak at the University Dec. 3, in honor of the late Eli Segal '64, a former Clinton adviser who died in February 2006, University President Jehuda Reinharz announced in a campuswide e-mail Monday afternoon.Clinton, who served two terms between 1993 and 2001, is delivering the inaugural memorial lecture for the Eli Segal Citizen Leadership Program, a new fellowship initiative for civic-minded undergraduates and graduate students within the Heller School for Social Policy and Management. Segal's widow, Phyllis Segal '66, initiated the program, Reinharz wrote in his e-mail."It's a phenomenal honor to have a former president speak at the school, particularly one who has really championed so much of what the Heller School stands for in terms of social justice and promoting the kinds of activities that create social justice," Heller School Dean Stuart Altman said in a phone interview Monday evening.The lecture will be held in the Shapiro Gymnasium in the Gosman Sports and Convocation Center, and is tentatively scheduled for 1:30 p.m., Reinharz wrote. Tickets will be free but limited due to space considerations, he wrote, and simulcast presentations will be broadcast in the Shapiro Campus Center Theater and in the Zinner Forum at the Heller School. Clinton informed Eli's widow about a month ago that he would be "honored" to speak at Brandeis in Eli's honor, said Provost Marty Krauss, who has been working with Phyllis on this project. "The Segals and the Clintons were very close throughout their lives, and Bill Clinton agreed to be the inaugural lecturer for this program," Krauss said Monday evening.Segal, who died at age 63, and helped run Clinton's 1992 campaign as well as Democratic Senator Eugene McCarthy's run for president in 1968, also created two prominent social justice projects as Clinton's assistant in the White House, including AmeriCorps and the Welfare to Work for Partnership, and was a trustee of several nonprofit organizations such as CityYear, the National Alliance to End Homelessness (both of which he chaired) and the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation.Segal was also a chair for the Brandeis Transitional Year Program and a member of the Board of Overseers at the Heller School."Eli Segal was a practical prophet," Reinharz wrote in his e-mail. "He knew that a strong democratic society depends on support for volunteerism, good citizenship and citizen leadership."Although the purpose of Clinton's address will be to memorialize Segal, Altman said he hopes the former president will also speak about general social justice issues and his new book about philanthropy, Giving: How Each of Us Can Change the World, which was published last month. "I'm sure President Clinton will talk about Elliot Segal, but I'm hoping he will go beyond that to talk about the broader issues of the need for all of us to do more to promote social justice around the world, which is what the Heller School stands for," Altman said.Phyllis' goal is to raise a $4 million endowment for the program through a national fundraising campaign for the new program, Krauss said. "We are providing [Phyllis] assistance in her fundraising efforts, but she is primarily using her own networks of donors, of friends who are involved with Eli Segal and who are excited with this new program," Krauss said.Phyllis was at a conference in New York City Monday night and wasn't available for comment by press time.The program will have three components: a paid summer internship for selected undergraduates and Heller students in civic-minded organizations, the creation of an alumni network for the program and an annual public lecture on civic engagement by a "high profile" individual, the first of which will be given by Clinton. A group of mentors drawn from Eli's friends, family and colleagues will choose the interns and internship sites, Reinharz wrote.Clinton will be the second former president to visit Brandeis within a year. Jimmy Carter, the 39th president, spoke on campus last January about his book on Arab-Israeli relations, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. Having two former presidents speak at Brandeis "shows what a terrific place this is, what an exciting and dynamic university we have here," University Spokesperson Lorna Miles said Monday evening.Krauss said that cost for bringing Clinton and the exact security provisions for the event haven't been determined.Security for Carter's visit last January cost the University $95,000. "We are just beginning to get down to that level of detail," Krauss said.Miles, however, said that any security implemented on campus for the event will follow the requirements of the Secret Service, a security force that accompanies current and former presidents. She added that the Office of Communications will create a Web site soon with more details about the event.
(10/16/07 4:00am)
Paul Farmer, the founder of Partners In Health, a global humanitarian organization, spoke about the need for "pro-poor" international policy at the opening of the renovated Heller-Brown building at the Heller School for Social Policy and Management last Thursday morning. Farmer, an infectious disease expert, Harvard Medical School professor, anthropologist and author of four books, has opened and run hospitals in Haiti, Peru, Russia and Rwanda to treat patients suffering from AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis, among other illnesses. He challenged "the state religion of public policy," which, he said, cowers from alleviating the suffering of the poor in the modern world. For years, Farmer said policymakers told him it wasn't "cost-effective" or "sustainable" to confront AIDS and other infectious diseases in the third world. Economists, namely, argued that it would be too expensive to fund treatment drugs."I learned that these conversations are not meant to start a conversation, but meant to end it," Farmer said. Instead, Farmer said he decided to "leave the policy community behind" until they caught up with him. In 2002, the new Global Fund for AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria gave Partners In Health a major grant to build Zanmi Lasante (Partners In Health in Haitian Creole), a health clinic in Haiti, and train and pay local community workers to help run the clinic and care for patients. "We have built up a system in Haiti that is robust and pro-poor," he said. Farmer urged the students, professors and donors in the audience to focus on global health equity and develop "pro-poor policies" in their research."We don't have a good plan as a research and teaching community," he said. "We've got to learn how to link our teaching and research to service." Partners In Health's new policy, Farmer said, is to focus on strengthening the public sector. "[In] all of these places we have gone into the public sector and built infrastructure and public sector facilities owned by the people of Haiti," he said. Farmer's work isn't just about treating illness; he said funding for clinics also creates jobs, advocates for clean water and encourages primary education. "Haitians use money to do water projects, to organize patient groups, food and agricultural intiatives," he said. Farmer displayed several maps showing the prevalence of AIDS in Africa, the number of physicians there, and before and after photos of now-recovering patients. One from Rwanda, he noted, looked near death and now needs to worry about his expanding gut. "He went from looking skeletol to looking like he needs lipitor," he said jokingly. Farmer also realized clinics must have a local name, despite the pronunciation problems that might occur for English-speakers. If everything were named Partners In Health, that would be a form of "anthropological machismo," he said. That is why his Rwandan clinic is called Inshuti Mu Buzima (Partners In Health in the Rwandan national language, Kinyarwanda). Farmer's organization has brought its successful strategies back to Boston. "All we're trying to do is raise the Harvard level of care to the Haiti level," he said jokingly.During a question-and-answer session, Farmer discussed why policy makers avoid pro-poor policy."People want to talk about sustainability, but they don't want to talk about history," he said. "It's as if poverty arose de novo from the earth. They want to erase history. Erasing history is the oldest trick in the book for policy people."What we need to sustain, Farmer said, is "our willingness to fight for what's right."Thomas Glynn, Ph.D. '77, chair of Heller's Board of Overseers and chief operating officer of PIH, introduced Farmer, characterizing his life and work as "audacious." As first-years, the Class of 2008 read Tracy Kidder's 2003 biography of Farmer, Mountains Beyond Mountains: The Quest of Dr. Paul Farmer, a Man Who Would Cure the World for its new-student forum. Undergraduates watched the speech through a live video in the Shapiro Campus Center Theater due to space limitations in the Schneider Building, where the event was held.
(10/16/07 4:00am)
A story summary in News said that three students and an alumnus were arrested by Waltham Police. Two students and an alumnus were arrested. (Oct. 9, p. 1)An article in News was attributed only to Shana D. Lebowitz. Ruth Orbach also contributed. (Oct. 9, p. 3)An article in Features about Ramadan said that "their voices were aligned" in prayer. The article should have said "their bodies were aligned," as Islamic prayer is silent. (Oct. 9, p. 9)The quote in the last paragraph of a News article about students who were arrested was incorrectly attributed to Ed Callahan. It should have been attributed to Jimmy Fruchterman '09. (Oct. 9, p. 5)An editorial in Forum said that a debate was sponsored by Democracy for America. The debate was sponsored by Brandeis Democrats and Brandeis Students for Barack Obama. (Oct. 9, p. 11)The answers to the crossword in Arts are the answers to the puzzle from Sept. 25, instead of the answers to the Oct. 2 puzzle (Oct. 9, p. 20). The Justice welcomes submissions for errors that warrant correction or clarification. E-mail corrections@brandeis.edu.
(10/16/07 4:00am)
Plans for the interior design of the Carl J. Shapiro Science Center are becoming more concrete as construction on the complex goes underway, including the design for an atrium serving as the Center's public space, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Peter French said.Planning groups consisting of faculty and administrators are focusing on specific issues such as furniture, signage and graphic displays in the atrium. The new $154 million Science Center is slated for completion at the end of 2008. Payette Associates, a leading architectural firm in Boston, is heading the project.The first phase of the whole science complex's construction, which commenced in spring 2006 and is expected to be complete in Spring 2009, includes the construction of the new science building, followed by the demolition of Kalman and Friedland, and eventually Edison-Lecks, all built in the 1950s.With the atrium, there is an opportunity for a "social hub that we haven't had in the science complex," Feldman said. French said that there will an Einstein Bros' Brothers café in the atrium."People are very interested in the [atrium] being a flexible forum," Feldman said. The goal, Feldman said, was to create a space that could host both formal and casual events. He added that science faculty members are interested in the possibility of being able to arrange "poster sessions" to present their research. Feldman also called the new center "a great opportunity to tell the history of science at Brandeis" and to present current research projects. He said planning groups were exploring the use of graphics and electronic displays to that end.Faculty members emphasized the need for more modern facilities in the new center Prof. Neil Simister (BIO) said he would like to see bigger and better lecture facilites. "Some of the early lectures in the biology track have 200 students and there's really only one lecture theater in the science area that can fit that class adequately," Simister said. "With the conflicting demands of biology and chemistry, it's often hard to schedule the large classes for that theater."Simister added that the current labs are very old. "To have new labs . new benches in a new building, I think would make it a much more agreeable place for students to do their bio labs." Prof. Irving Epstein (CHEM), who was consulted in the construction process by the University and the architects, also stressed that the buildings' age necessitated the construction of a new complex. "The space we're in now is almost 40 years old, and so things like temperature control, the ability to control the level of lighting [and] the quality of the water are not as good as they might be in a building, so we're hoping that those sorts of things will be much better [in the new complex]," Epstein said. Feldman and French said that many faculty members were consulted prior to the conceptual design of the new buildings was set. "With each group that's involved in the building, we showed them the final proposal for design, and we got sign-off from each and every one that they were satisfied [that the changes] were going to meet their needs," Feldman said. He emphasized that the University and the architects had worked hard in meetings with faculty to accommodate suggestions such as "I need more bench space" to "Wouldn't it be great if that door was here?
(10/16/07 4:00am)
In the past several weeks, I have heard many students express disappointment and anger over the University's decision to arm public safety officers. Many of these negative responses have to do with the way the decision was reached. I've heard from a number of students that while the decision-making process bothers them, the ultimate decision does not. Due to this, many students have decided that it's not in Brandeis' interest to revisit the decision-after all, why change a decision that they believe is positive? I would like to focus on the positive effects of revisiting the decision to arm public safety officers. Because of the secretive manner in which the discussions were held, further debate on the issue could raise campus awareness and restore trust in the administration and respect for the community. Brandeis, as a private institution, has a high degree of autonomy in its decisions. The administration wasn't obligated to consult students, faculty or staff about the controversial arming decision, let alone any decision. The privacy of the advisory committee, and the quiet decision making of Reinharz, though within the rights of the school, have limited the awareness of important community issues-such as safety. Revisiting the decision, even unnecessarily, would allow more people to contribute to the debate and exchange ideas as to how the University can be safer. Honesty, trust, awareness and respect are pillars of a great community. Honesty, trust, awareness, and respect are pillars of a great community. As a small and close-knit school, Brandeis has the rare opportunity to include many voices in its decision-making process. It is possible that the decision will not change. Nonetheless, by allowing the community to join in the process, the community will not only become more informed as to what is happening on campus, but the administration will be more informed as to how the community feels about campus safety issues. More members of the community can voice their opinions about issues related to, for example, weak anti-bias training for public safety officers or possible problems with Waltham police as exhibited by a recent arrest of two Brandeis students and one alumnus last month. This awareness would allow the administration to create a better decision-making process, even if the decision still arms public safety. Some may scoff at this idea but this is the heart of the debate-members of the community were disrespected by the exclusive nature of the debate and decision. Showing respect is simple; the administration should consider not only the safety of the community, but also their opinions, fears, hopes and experiences; in other words, the administration should treat members of the community as whole individuals. Revisiting this decision will show that the administration recognizes that many in the community are affected by its decisions. I do not believe that anyone in the administration, including Reinharz and the advisory committee, would purposefully disrespect the Brandeis community. However, they have not displayed a willingness to candid about the administration's decision-making. As a result, the community is left feeling devoid of respect. I don't believe the advisory committee merely took orders and made its suggestion because it lacked the faculties necessary to stand up to Reinharz. The decision was thought out, and, hopefully, they had all the information needed to make a sound decision. No matter what the final outcome, if the administration initiated a forum and open debate on the issue, the bonds of our community would be strengthened. The writer is a member of the Class of 2008.
(10/16/07 4:00am)
Last week the Brandeis College Democrats hosted a mock presidential debate at Cholmondeley's in which students representing presidential candidates argued over a myriad of issues facing America. High on the list of priorities are health care, the war in Iraq, global warming and energy efficiency and independence. However, the American presidency is really only about one thing: foreign policy.The American people have come to think that the president is in charge of the federal government. Yet, there are three branches of the federal government; the president heads only one of them. Yes, the president may have more power than any other single individual in the government, but this isn't a monarchy. Presidents usually face a fierce congressional challenge over their economic and social policy. The role of congress in foreign affairs is usually more limited. For this reason, foreign policy must matter to voters. Domestic bills need to circle through the offices of hundreds of congressmen before having an effect. Foreign dignitaries visit only one office: The Oval Office. The candidates at Chum's emphasized foreign policy more so than in past presidential campaigns. The Democrats have taken this up as an important issue largely because under President Bush, our role on the world stage has deteriorated tremendously. The United States once played the king on that stage; now we are more like the court jester.By entering Iraq without the support of the United Nations and the international community, Bush was essentially saying that America is so strong that it doesn't need help. However, though America may have the military capabilities to start a war alone, the current administration doesn't have the strength or ability to end it, as evidenced by the civil war in Iraq. Bush's inability to end the war is in part a result of alienating America's world partners at the war's beginning. Now, in our hour of need, we have no one to help us. But Bush doesn't have to worry about the destructive effects of his administration's policy of unilateralism because he didn't pay for this war in cash; he charged it to his Visa. The problems created by disregarding the international community will not be felt by Bush; his term is up in 15 months. These problems are being passed on to the next generation, and here's the catch; the next generation is us.Yes, we, the young American college students who most likely weren't even old enough to elect our current president, are now inheriting his credit card bill. I'm not talking about the dollar cost of the Iraq war-although we get to pay that too. I'm talking about paying for the damages created by ignoring the importance of strengthening and maintaining positive relations with other nations. Yet fear not, the state of the nation isn't hopeless. This time around, we get a vote, and a voice. We should pick up the challenge of New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman '75; we don't have to be "Generation Q," the quiet generation who stands idly by as our foreign relations decay. We have the power to do more than create Facebook groups. Some students on campus are already using their voices. The Chum's debate was an example of students taking action to influence our political future. And every candidate had a proposal for Iraq. The question is which one is the best, but that's for each of us to decide.The writer is a member of the Class of 2010.Editors note: Forum Editor Daniel Ortner participated in this debate.
(10/09/07 4:00am)
Last Friday and Saturday's performance of "Rosa Cuchillo," a monologue based on the experiences of Peruvian political violence victims, was recited in Spanish. But not understanding the language didn't prevent one observer from being moved by the performance."Even though I don't speak any Spanish, I felt that the message of the performance was powerful enough to transcend any language barrier," Sarah Ye '11 said.The monologue was one of a series of problem-solving workshops and performances in "Acting Together on the World Stage: Setting the Scene for Peace" from Thursday, Oct. 4 through Monday, a program that intended to foster a creative approach to dealing with global issues such as war, poverty and culture clashes. The events were open to Brandeis students and faculty as well as members of the Waltham community.The seminars and workshops were led by various theater artists, peace-building scholars and practitioners. They utilized the art of theater as well as storytelling to examine different solutions to international conflicts. Sponsors included Brandeis organizations such as the Alan B. Slifka Program in Intercommunal Coexistence and Coexistence International, as well as off-campus groups such as Theater Without Borders and Stage Source, the Theater Alliance for Greater Boston.Friday and Saturday's productions of "Rosa Cuchillo," performed by artist Ana Correa, were spoken in Spanish to be accessible for the Spanish-speaking population of Waltham. An English translation was also available to the audience. The monologue was followed by a slideshow that documented measures taken by the Peruvian population and the progress made by the Peru Truth and Reconciliation Commission, a group focusing on militaristic and rebellious acts of violence during the 1980s and '90s. The performance came after a day of workshops focusing on the importance of creative and communal approaches to peace. "Together we can free ourselves," said Prof. Mark Auslander (ANTH), who was involved in the organization and production of a workshop that took place Saturday afternoon. One goal of the five-day program was to allow participants to relate to various issues and experiences through the medium of theatrical experience. "Theater happens wherever you create it," Correa said."Theater unpacks academic concepts," said Charles Mulekwa, a speaker involved in the program. "It's all about the packaging of reality."Mulekwa spoke in a seminar attended by students and faculty at Brandeis that dealt with the war-torn regions of Africa. The seminar used reading materials from various University Seminars to discuss the violence and tension in Africa. A playwright from Uganda, Mulekwa draws on personal experiences to educate others on the effects and consequences of war and postcolonial reconstruction. "It's a forum in which I can contribute and also learn," Mulekwa said. "I'm learning the . world's interests in my part of the world." The idea of cultural exchange between audience and speakers was a popular theme throughout the event. Correa said the Acting Together program was designed and organized to benefit all participants, including speakers, performers and audience members from both within and outside the Brandeis community. "This university has given back to the . community of Waltham a truly enriching experience," she said. For more coverage of these events see article on p. 20.
(10/09/07 4:00am)
Student Union President Shreeya Sinha '09 discussed Union's new mission, called the Brandeis Citizen Campaign. She explained her vision of dealing with issues and creating forums for students about race and diversity issues, to focus on the "heritage and legacy."The construction of a Web site and a logo are being developed. "We want to work vigorously to include every member of the community," Sinha said. She hopes to launch the program in an event, with either University President Jehuda Reinharz or Senior Vice President for Communications Lorna Miles. This might mean that Sinha's State of the Union will be moved to later in the semester.Director of Student Events Lauren Barish '08 addressed the Senate about new initiatives and solicited opinions on how better to collaborate with clubs.Representative to the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee Adi Shmuel '08 was sworn in.Sinha met with various administrators to discuss campus unrest over the decision to arm police officers. She explained that the administration felt action had to be taken immediately after the Virginia Polytechnic incident, and few students were on campus during the summer to give their input. Sinha will invite Director of Public Safety?Ed Callahan and Vice President of Campus Operations Mark Collins to speak at next week's Senate meeting.Two bylaws left over from last week were approved. One dealt with preventing breaches of security during elections, the other with amending the non-exclusivity clause in the constitution.National Collegiate Volunteers was chartered after an extensive discussion. The group may come before the Senate to request a charter in 13 weeks, or if members collect 135 signatures, they may return to the Senate earlier. Brandeis University Playback Theater Society requested a charter.
(10/09/07 4:00am)
Associate Dean of Student Life in Support of Diversity Jamele Adams summed up the state of Brandeis' diversity when he said:"We can do better, but we are not doing hardly bad at all." This sentence speaks not only to the attitudes toward diversity that permeate the campus, but also to how the subject is portrayed by the administration. There are many racial minority students who have reported feelings of isolation on our majority white campus, yet recent statistics in a diversity survey could lull the community into a sense of complacency. If this doublespeak sentence says anything, it's that it's difficult to understand exactly what the state of diversity at Brandeis is. Mr. Adams tried his best to make sense of this topic in his recent State of Diversity address and provided the campus with some very interesting figures from his recent survey.The results of the survey, taken by 536 undergraduate students, went against several well-known stereotypes about Brandeis. For instance, around 60 percent of respondents said they have had a "rich social life" and 65 percent feel comfortable expressing their opinions, even when their opinions may seem unpopular. Especially promising is the answer to the question, "Has Brandeis exposed you to groups different than your own?" Nearly 95 percent responded in the affirmative. These responses could reflect the University's recently successful efforts to diversify, as minority enrollment increased by 9 percent this year (up to 24 percent); more classes on gender, ethnic and religious identity are offered every year; and cultural activities fill the my Brandeis calendar.Still, the statistics can be misleading. While 84 percent of students in the survey said they are comfortable expressing their racial background, the students who reported feeling uncomfortable could have easily been all of minority backgrounds. Another alarming statistic says that 33 percent are neutral on whether Brandeis is committed to diversity. If that's true, we have a long way to go. Some racial minority students have reported that they don't feel part of the Brandeis community, fear rejection, stick to themselves and feel the presence of an overall campus divide between minority and non-minority students. "I feel like there are two Brandeises going on at Brandeis, two experiences that are missing each other," said Mingh Daniel '10, a black student from the Bronx.Clearly, there are deep and significant issues at hand. But we must go beyond a survey, as presenting statistics without analysis isn't very useful. Now that we have these numbers, students, staff and faculty should delve into them and find answers for how to bridge the campus divide. The new statistics should serve as jumping-off points for discussion throughout the year. Mr. Adams should lead focus groups on how to hold more activities on diversity in residence halls and how faculty can continue to offer more courses on diversity. Since about 56 percent of students also reported that relationships with peers are most significant in contributing to a "deeper understanding of issues related to difference," one-on-one conversation should be an effective tool.These focus groups can also serve as a valuable follow-up to Mr. Adams' annual diversity address. Simply telling us the statistics, without getting our reactions to them, isn't enough. A more communal analysis is needed. At focus group discussions, students should give Mr. Adams specific feedback on the survey's results that he can incorporate into his future initiatives. Rather than waiting for the next big explosion over media or speaker insensitivity, ongoing discussions could maintain a sense of community and comfort with addressing our weaknesses. A diversity committee, a group composed of student leaders from cultural groups as well as several faculty members, could lead these ongoing discussions.The survey also showed that clubs contribute significantly to students' sense of community at Brandeis, and they can also be used more effectively as a forum to promote campus diversity. Ninety-one percent of students feel a sense of community because of clubs, 79 percent reported that clubs and activities connected them with people from different backgrounds, and 82 percent said that clubs make them feel safe. Mr. Adams should help publicize club-sponsored cultural events through campuswide e-mails to make students more aware of them. In addition, he should help coordinators from cultural clubs with their recruitment efforts. If more non-minority students attend cultural events, or better yet, join cultural clubs, we will all gain a better understanding of each other. The majority of survey respondents, nearly 40 percent, said they have attended "an event highlighting an identity group different from their own" once or twice. Only 14 percent do so regularly. By attending one another's activities, we build community.It's easy to see positive statistics and feel that we are doing a good job, but the topic of diversity is not a topic that can be explained in numbers; it is about the individual. We thank Mr. Adams for initiating this thoughtful, long-overdue survey. But now it's time to look beyond the numbers.
(10/02/07 4:00am)
"Taser this: F-- Bush. This was a controversial and concise editorial that appeared in the Colorado State University paper, The Rocky Mountain Collegian, last Monday, and has subsequently made national news. Since the appearance of these four words, the paper has received a threatening phone call from an angry reader; its advertising revenue has, according to a CNN article, gone down by $30,000; and there have been calls for the editor in chief to resign. This raises, once again, the issue of free speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment, and how far it ought to extend. Put very simply, free speech and freedom of the press are vital necessities for an open and free society. While limits can and should exist on certain types of speech, they should be as unrestrictive as possible. In my mind, these restrictions include speech that directly threatens injury or death to a person or group of persons, or that advocates that such action be taken. Absent such extraordinary circumstances however, there should be little, if any, regulation of speech.However, there was absolutely nothing wrong with the businesses removing ads from the newspaper. While it is certainly economic pressure on the paper based on its point of view, the businesses are well within their rights to decide where they wish to spend their advertising dollars. If they don't want to advertise in a publication that holds views opposite their own, it is their choice, and this should not be seen as an illegitimate attempt at censorship. The Rocky Mountain Collegiate's mission statement says that the paper should serve as a public forum "where students have the only authority to make content decisions." Advertisers can't determine what the paper prints. The calls for?editor in chief J. David McSwane, to resign, however, are over the top. While it is possible to argue that he should have had the possible consequences in mind when he published this, there is a fallacy to that argument. If an editor is expected to resign any time something is published that greatly offends people, what sort of freedom exists? The answer, quite simply, is none. If exercising a freedom will always or usually result in an adverse outcome, this is no freedom at all. A freedom implies the ability to undertake an action with some level of impunity, and if the action always leads to negative responses, it cannot rightly be called a freedom.It is a writer's right to make a political statement in the manner he or she chooses, and there should be no punishment administered, or called for, for such an action.This does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that I would have written or, if I had the editorial authority, even approved the aforementioned editorial. I don't particularly like expletives and try to avoid them at all times-for example, the absence of the full quote at the beginning of this column. Expletives are an easy way out, used when one doesn't have the ability or desire to fully think out a well-couched argument or point of view. Thus, while they do make a point quite boldly, they can in fact actually detract from the intended goal. Instead of the editorial being looked at as a scathing attack on the president-which, while brief, it most certainly was-for many, it has been turned into a debate on speech and its limits, thereby completely removing focus from, the content.Even though I disagree with the manner in which the editorial expressed its point of view, it's imperative that the freedoms of speech and of the press be upheld. They are an important foundation of a free society and ought not to be impinged upon.
(10/02/07 4:00am)
On Monday, Sept. 24, I was mad. Two days after the second-holiest day of the Jewish year, Yom Kippur, Columbia University had invited Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to express his views in a "free speech" type debate. The president of Iran is known for denouncing the Holocaust as a myth, calling for the destruction of Israel and supplying Iraqi insurgents with Iranian weapons to kill and wound American soldiers. Just two days after listening to my rabbi list sins you should redeem yourself for, I could not help but wonder which ones Ahmadinejad did not commit.Ahmadinejad's visit took the place of a visit from the leader of the Minuteman Project, an organization seeking to secure U.S. borders, going so far as to create fences and to patrol the border in search of illegal immigrants. The decision to allow one speaker over the other was unusual since the leader of an all-American organization wasn't allowed to speak, yet the leader of a nation that exports terrorism was. Yet, some stated that even Hitler would have been allowed to speak if he had requested the forum prior to the invasion of Poland.So, on that heart-racing morning , I woke up early to turn on TV news stations to find out what time the president of Iran would speak in case I had time to watch it. No stations mentioned when the president would speak, and neither did they explain if it would be televised or shown later. The most tantalizing bit of information I found was that the president was staying at a hotel across from the Jewish Heritage Museum. How could the media devote more time to Britney Spears' umpteenth drug overdose and not cover the simplest details concerning this monumental and uncharacteristic invitation by an Ivy League university? Rather than focus on the event's logistics, the media mocked the speaker and Columbia's intentions for inviting him in the first place.Although much less a controversial figure than Ahmadinejad, former President Jimmy Carter's visit to Brandeis last year to discuss his points of views in his published work Palestine: Peace not Apartheid was thoroughly organized at least several days before the actual visit. Included in the visit were prescreened questions asked by Brandeis students, followed by Alan Dershowitz, a professor at Harvard Law School. Brandeis took care to explain what time the event was taking place, where, how you could view it if you weren't able to be there. If you missed the date completely, the University provided access online so you could view it at your leisure.None of this information was covered by the media in preparation for the esteemed visit by the Iranian president. I finally managed to locate a copy of the president's transcript on the Arizona Daily Star's Web site, after hours of scrupulous Google searching. The transcript was 13 pages long. Lee Bollinger, president of Columbia University, introduced Ahmadinejad, but his introduction unequivocally left me with one underlying question: Why invite the president of Iran with the expressed aim of culturing ourselves with differences in opinions, but then continue with such opening and closing statements as: "Let's then be clear at the beginning. Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator . Frankly-I close with this comment frankly and in all candor, Mr. President-I doubt that you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions."Columbia prided itself that the purpose of the visit was to receive an impartial understanding of an opposing point of view. Yet, our views on Ahmadinejad were blatantly skewed before his actual speech. The Iranian president predictably did not answer questions forthright. For example, when asked whether he believes the Holocaust occurred, he answered with a reference to the Palestinian people, saying they are suffering at the hands of Israelis and being blamed for the Holocaust, though they played no role in it.Also, he backhandedly stated his views on America when discussing his theological beliefs on science and discovery. "Some big powers do not want to see the progress of other societies and nations. They turn to thousands of reasons, make allegations, place economic sanctions to prevent other nations from developing and advancing, all resulting from their distance from human values, moral values and the teachings of the divine prophet. Regretfully, they have not been trained to serve mankind." With most likely the intent of a good publicity stunt, Columbia University's decision to invite Ahmadinejad did more damage than good. Columbia had no right to invite Ahmadinejad to replace pro-American speakers, but it also had no right to disrespect and prejudge the invited speaker before he spoke.As Minuteman Project leader Jim Gilchrist stated after his invitation to speak at Columbia was revoked, "I've always respected Columbia, but I've relegated it to a gutter school after that incident. They've stopped free speech. That's worse than killing people. With that, you can kill an entire nation.
