(10/02/07 4:00am)
Shame on Columbia. According to Dean of International and Public Affairs John Coatsworth, "If Hitler were in the United States and wanted a platform from which to speak, he would have plenty of platforms to speak in the United States . If he were willing to engage in debate and a discussion to be challenged by Columbia students and faculty, we would certainly invite him." Well, that makes me feel good about the state of our country, when our best universities are eager and willing to debate a murderous maniacal dictator who put a brutal and sudden end to European Jewry. I suppose it would have been important before we make any moral judgments-God forbid!-to hear Hitler's side of the story. After all, perhaps some Jews wronged him, and he had strong reasons for his just plans. Perhaps the debate would have sounded like this:Coatsworth: "Well Mr. Hitler, thank you for coming. I know you are very busy over there murdering so many Jews and Poles. I'm glad you could take out time for us. Now, let me ask you, why do you feel like you need to kill so many innocent people? You know, that doesn't fly in this country. You better give a good explanation." Hitler: "Well, the Jews are simply an inferior race, and we need to create a perfect Aryan race that dominates the world."Coatsworth: "Okay. I guess then we will simply have to agree to disagree. But that is precisely what makes this country so great. We allow people with all views to come up and give their opinions, even if they are genocidal maniacs. Thanks for coming." Sadly, in America today, our universities are losing touch with reality. We are so caught up in an elitist bubble that we are blinded by our own sincerity. Morality is no longer a relevant concept. In fact, in universities we are taught that there is no such thing as morality. Thus, our top universities have very few qualms about inviting oppressive dictators to our best campuses. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has incited genocide against the Jewish state, has oppressed members of the Baha'i faith, has put to death homosexuals-which explains why there are "no homosexuals in Iran"-and has aided our enemies in Iraq. Yet our own self-righteousness dictates to us that he should be able to express his ridiculous views in our schools. Frankly, I think this is absurd. There needs to be a line on academic debate drawn, and inviting Ahmadinejad assuredly crosses that line.It is one thing to invite a controversial speaker to campus with whom many disagree. It is another matter entirely to invite a Holocaust-denying fanatic. For example, there was a lot of controversy about inviting former President Jimmy Carter to speak on our campus last year. As a Zionistic conservative Republican, I am naturally not a big Carter fan. In fact, I think he is probably the worst president this nation has ever had. However, I understand his right to speak here, as well as the need to have different views on campus. With this understanding, I waited in line last year for two hours in the frigid cold for tickets, and I respectfully sat through his remarks, which I considered na've and silly. While annoyed that this man was being invited to speak at our campus, I understood the legitimacy of his invitation. Ahmadinejad, however, is a very, very different animal. What is there to debate with him? His speech was used to make him look like an idiot (which it did), but did we not already know this through his previous declarations about the Holocaust and Israel? Even though Columbia President Lee Bollinger commendably ripped into Ahmadinejad, the damage was already done by the simple invitation to speak at Columbia. After the invitation, it didn't matter what was said. When one receives a forum at a university, he is implicitly receiving legitimacy, and this is inappropriate. As I said, universities across the nation seemed to have lost any moral compass. Academics and students often live in a bubble that skews their vision. In this academic world, everything is up for debate, nothing is set in stone and everything is upside down. In this world, murderous dictators deserve to defend their absurd views, while extreme anti-immigration groups on the right like the Minutemen get stormed off the very stage from which Ahmadinejad spoke. What is wrong is right and what is right is wrong, and one is permitted to express any view except for those that disagree with those accepted by the academic world. As I approach my graduation from college, I fear for the well-being of our country, which is rapidly sliding into moral decay.The writer is a member of the Class of 2007.
(10/02/07 4:00am)
Academics like Erwin Chemerinsky deserve better.The internationally renowned professor of law at Duke University was hired as the inaugural dean of the University of California, Irvine's new Donald Bren School of Law Sept. 4, only to be fired from the position a week later. Irvine chancellor Michael Drake justified his decision on the grounds that the appointment was "too politically controversial." Chemerinsky is a liberal, and while Drake insists that Chemerinsky's firing was a "management decision," additional evidence suggests that prominent conservatives lobbied heavily for his dismissal. Particularly noteworthy were e-mails sent by Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael Antonovich to about two dozen Republicans urging them to work to prevent the appointment and brazenly declaring that appointing Chemerinsky as dean "would be like appointing al-Qaeda in charge of homeland security."After firing Chemerinsky, Drake, in the face of significant disapproval from voices across the political spectrum, ultimately reoffered Chemerinsky the position, and Chemerinsky is now on board. But Drake's blunder is an unfortunate symptom of a wider, more dangerous problem facing American educational institutions-an assault on the foundations of academic freedom and open discourse.There is no singular culprit here. Both liberals and conservatives are fighting for the ideological souls of America's college students. But when an attempt is made to silence someone on the basis of "political controversy," it reveals that the intellectual warfare going on behind the scenes is a gross violation of the principles of academic freedom that we should value in our institutions of higher learning. Academic freedom requires that academics be permitted to express themselves regardless of their political beliefs. Politics should not influence the hiring of a dean or other official any more than that official should use his position to impose his beliefs upon others. So long as the individual can work in or-in Chemerinsky's case-create an environment open to differing opinions, then his political or ideological histories should be effectively unimportant. As Chemerinsky himself asserted, "Everyone benefits from the free exchange of ideas."Brandeis has done well in this regard. Last year's visit to campus by former President Jimmy Carter was viewed by many as controversial, but the school ultimately chose to allow him to express his beliefs openly and unabashedly. Columbia University also deserves praise for the appearance last week of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at its World Leaders Forum, an action that demonstrates perfectly what academic freedom represents-the opportunity for minorities to make their case regardless of how remarkably outlandish they may seem.Unfortunately, there is still much left to be done. In another point against the University of California, the UC Board of Regents recently withdrew an invitation to former Harvard University President Larry Summers to speak at a board dinner under pressure from faculty members at the University of California, Davis, where the dinner was to be held. The withdrawal was ostensibly the result of comments Summers made in 2005 that were characterized as sexist-and for which Summers very quickly apologized. That Summers' talk at the dinner was to have nothing to do with biological differences between the sexes is immaterial-his stonewalling is the result of the growing influence of academics who feel they must promote a particular political agenda, even over their duty to convey knowledge.This possibility of censorship and suppression of academics for their politics, whether it is threatened or realized, is unacceptable. If Ahmadinejad is invited to speak in an academic setting, those who oppose him should think twice about attempting to block his appearance. Allowing him to speak does not give a "platform to hate" so much as highlight his own warped views-and ideally, it gives those who disagree with him the specifics of his position. In Carter's case, perhaps his opponents could glean from his speech valid points they had not considered. But ignorance of something leads to fear of it, which in turn leads to intimidation, misunderstanding and even hatred. We must not allow irrational fears to stifle the uninhibited expression of differing beliefs.The writer is a member of the Class of 2011.
(09/25/07 4:00am)
The recent decision to arm University police officers has been met with varying reactions from students. Those who support the move stress the need for police to be as prepared as possible, while some of its detractors said they plan to organize efforts to engage students and faculty and ultimately try to reverse the decision.Some students interviewed said they opposed the presence of guns on campus while also respecting the administration's desire to create a safer campus. Still other students said they object to the lack of community involvement in the decision-making process and have concerns over police behavior. University President Jehuda Reinharz made the decision two weeks ago after a firearms advisory committee that met five times over the summer recommended to arm Brandeis police officers. This development came in the wake of the shootings at Virginia Polytechnic Institute last April, but Brandeis police argued on past occasions that they needed guns to protect themselves and the student body.Several students expressed concerns about the new policy at a forum among activist club leaders held Sunday in the Castle Commons.Ben Serby '10, the Activist Resource Center's liaison for Democracy for America, said his group is opposed to both the decision itself and how the administration made it. He argued that arming officers would increase the likelihood of inappropriate coercion by the police and would instill a culture of fear among students. "The answer to gun violence is not further proliferation of firearms," he said. "We feel that this decision will result in a higher level of fear on this campus among...members of the community.""We're somewhat dismayed by the decision on the part of the University to do this in this manner when one of the core bedrock principles of the University in its own words is social justice," Serby said.DFA, along with Students for a Democratic Society and Students for Barack Obama, will work to reverse the decision to arm officers, Serby said. They plan to petition, hold ralleys and get professors who don't support the decision to reach out to the administration, he said.Catherine McConnell '10, ARC liaison to the Student Peace Alliance, said that as a group, the ARC feels the decision was made without sufficient community involvement. She explained that members in ARC groups have varying opinions on arming, so the center won't take an official stance.ARC is going to put together an informational forum because it wants to educate the campus and present all sides of the issue.Sarah Freeman '09 said that the Brandeis community should have been involved in important decisions like this one, but that students may feel more comfortable on campus if police officers carry guns. Freeman added that police officers should only draw their weapons in very extreme cases.David Zucker '09, a training officer for the Brandeis Emergency Medical Corps, said University Brandeis police needed to be armed because, "You never know what is going to happen" in terms of violence on campus, and that the philosophy of the police is to be prepared, for any type of situation.BEMCo crew member, Rostic Gorbatov '09, cited another school shooting, which took place at Delaware State University Friday morning and left a female student in serious condition and a male in stable condition, in his argument for the need to arm officers. Gorbatov explained that it is safer to have immediate force always available because dangerous situations like these are always possible. Student Union President Shreeya Sinha '09 said that she personally disagrees with having guns on campus, but she respects and understands the University's decision to arm officers."It is irresponsible to rule out that anything could happen anywhere at any time, and as a university, it seems only adequate or natural that they would want to do the best they can to ensure the safety of the students," Sinha said. Joshua Manning '09 said that police officers carrying guns around campus may make people feel uncomfortable, but that the intimidation factor is a necessary tradeoff.Director of Public Safety Ed Callahan told the Justice in March 2006 that he thought arming the police officers was unnecessary. However, the final report of the advisory committee discussed that the incident at Virginia Tech "has changed the context of these deliberations.""We'd prefer not to have any weapons anywhere, but looking at Virginia Tech and other things that have happened, it seems as though this is the right thing to do," Prof. Marya Levenson, director of the education program and a member of the advisory committee, said in a telephone interview. Levenson added that the committee was also concerned that it takes the Waltham Police Department two to five minutes to respond to emergency calls, and that they don't know their way around Brandeis as well as the campus officers.
(09/25/07 4:00am)
The study abroad industry has recently come under fire, as college program providers are being investigated for offering universities so-called perks for exclusively sending students on their programs. Four of the five programs subpoenaed by the New York Attorney General's Office last month are programs approved by Brandeis, but the University's study abroad office says it hasn't been tainted by this scandal."None of the programs have made any type of qualifier in terms of our participation," Director of Study Abroad Scott Van Der Meid said. After The New York Times reported Aug. 13 that officials from private study abroad companies offer university officials money and trips in exchange for exclusively directing students to their programs, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo decided to research various companies' business practices. The Institute for Study Abroad affiliated with Butler University, the Institute for the International Education of Students, the Center for Education Abroad at Arcadia University and the Danish Institute for Study Abroad at the University of Copenhagen are University approved programs that have been subpoenaed. Brandeis sends 35 percent of its junior class abroad, many of whom travel on the four subpoenaed programs, Van Der Meid said.The American Institute for Foreign Study was also subpoenaed, but the program isn't approved for Brandeis students. Amy Bartnick-Blume, the vice president of Butler's study abroad program, told The Times they have "exclusive agreements" with certain institutions and provide around $500 to each student for maintaining that relationship.Van Der Meid denied ever steering students toward a certain program for the University's gain and said Brandeis has never been offered travel or financial incentives. "Any type of directing and advising that we're doing is more based on the student's criteria than any agenda that we have," Van Der Meid said.Some of the University's larger programs, however, provide students studying abroad with $50,000 in scholarship money, Van Der Meid said. The scholarships, ranging from $250 to $1,000 each, wouldn't be enough to sell a program, he said. "No student's going to pick a program over another over $1,000," he said. "This is a $25,000 expense."The Times reported that students often feel restricted to travel through the programs their study abroad offices approve. But at Brandeis, programs aren't approved by the Study Abroad Office, but by the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, a group made up of faculty members, Dean of Arts and Sciences Adam Jaffe, and undergraduate and graduate student representatives.Students said they don't feel restricted even though they cannot apply to unapproved programs or to certain universities abroad and still receive credit. Still, applying directly to an unaproved university can be a cheaper option."You might not have every option in the world, but I wouldn't be able to choose if I did," said Holly Sarkissian '08 said, who studied in Cameroon last semester through the School for International Training.Students can't apply directly to most universities in Africa, Asia or Latin America, Van Der Meid said.If a program isn't approved by the UCC, Van Der Meid said students can petition him for approval. Though the UCC considers student services when choosing to approve a program, Sarkissian's experience suggests the Committee may want to revisit SIT.One night, Sarkissian said she and a few friends were attacked at a train station. "I feel like the program should have had someone traveling with us," she said. Jenna Fernandes (GRAD), who worked as a graduate assistant in the study abroad office over the summer, studied in Melbourne, Australia, through Butler's study abroad program in spring 2006.Fernandes said Butler is one of Brandeis' "top-10 [study abroad] providers." She added that the UCC is flexible and fair in its approval decisions, and that the Study Abroad Office and has no incentive to encourage one program over another. In deciding whether to approve a program, Van Der Meid said the UCC judges the academic rigor of the institution abroad, the student services provided by the program and whether Brandeis' peer institutions in New England were satisfied with the program.The institution must also be accredited, match Brandeis' liberal arts curriculum and offer foreign language courses. Students must also be eligible to receive credit for their majors or minors at the university. The UCC has approved roughly 250 programs in 69 countries. Without these various partnerships, students wouldn't have such a vast array of study abroad choices, Van Der Meid said. "We couldn't do what we do and offer as many opportunities for Brandeis students if we didn't work in collaboration with third-party program providers, other [U.S.] universities and overseas universities," he said. Fernandes said the University's Study Abroad Office oversees its approved programs to make sure they meet Brandeis' standards. Van Der Meid and faculty visit programs, meet with officials, sit in on classes and meet with students to evaluate programs every semester. Van Der Meid said the University pays for these trips, not program providers.Van Der Meid criticized The Times' report about the investigation of study abroad programs, saying it was full of "misinformation and misfacts."Both The Times and other publications are drawing parallels between these accusations and recent scandals in the student loan industry, but Van Der Meid said these industries are nothing alike. "It's comparing apples and oranges," he said of the two industries. In study abroad, students have many options, but when it comes to financial aid, students have only a few choices, he said.Brandeis stands out for its exceptional "quality control," Van Der Meid said, because the UCC, not the study abroad office, is charged with approving programs. Van Der Meid helped establish the Forum on Education Abroad, an organization that tries to set national standards for study abroad programs. In response to the Times article, Van Der Meid said he will serve on a Forum committee this month to examine the field's business practices."We are taking [the subpoenas] seriously in the sense that Brandeis is playing a role in the national conversation," he said, adding, "Study abroad hasn't had any national oversight. It's really left it up to every institution and what they do." Van Der Meid doesn't deny that unethical practices exist in the field. Study abroad has grown tenfold in the last decade, he said, and with that rapid growth, there's bound to be some unscrupulous practices on the way. Perhaps employing greater "checks and balances" on programs is the answer, he said. Michael Kerns contributed reporting.
(09/18/07 4:00am)
The new name of the Hip Hop Club was misspelled in the Senate Log. The club's name is Hipnosis, not Hipnois. (Sept. 11, p. 2)In a photo caption in Sports, Bridget McAllister '10 was incorrectly identified as a member of the Class of 2011. (Sept. 11, p. 16)Photographs of the women's volleyball team were incorrectly attributed to Sara Brandenburg. Ben Bistricer took the photos. (Sept. 11, p. 13 and p. 16)An article in Sports about club sports reforms implied that $140,000 would be added to a club sports budget. The Athletics Department received the added funds. (Sept. 11, p. 16)An article in Forum incorrectly stated that the Allenby River crossing is located at the Israeli-Lebanese border. The Allenby River crossing is actually the Israeli-Jordanian border. (Aug. 28, p. 11)The Justice welcomes submissions or errors that warrant correction or clarification. E-mail corrections@brandeis.edu.
(09/18/07 4:00am)
University President Jehuda Reinharz made a landmark decision Wednesday morning when he announced that the University would begin arming its campus police officers with handguns. The question of whether the officers should be armed has arisen before, most recently following the Virginia Tech shootings last April, with officers arguing that they need guns to perform their jobs effectively and administrators countering that the low crime rate on campus makes guns an unnecessary tool. But with the release of a fire arms committee's recommendation to arm the officers, Vice President of Campus Operations Mark Collins said, all officers will undergo firearm training within the next three months under Waltham and state police officers. Most officers have already been trained by the state to operate firearms, former Union representative Ron Haley told the Justice in April 2006.Training and arming officers will cost around $100,000, Executive Vice President of Campus Operations Peter French said. Reinharz convened the firearms advisory committee comprised of administrators, students, faculty and staff over the summer. The committee, while at first divided, the report said, ultimately recommended to arm the officers."I started this process with really a very open mind, and I was very mindful of the pros and cons of arming or not arming," said French, who chaired the committee. "As we went through the discussion and the presentations throughout the summer, I really came to the conclusion, as did the committee, that it was appropriate to arm the Brandeis police officers." "I think that the committee report speaks for itself, and I think that [arming] is a prudent decision," Collins said. Collins said last month that the shootings at Virginia Polytechnic Institute caused him to rethink his previous stance against arming the officers. According to the report, some members of the committee were reluctant to arm officers because they feel a college campus should be a protected space, free of guns.Taletha Derrington (GRAD), an international student who served on the committee, is pleased that her objections to arming the officers are included in the report, but she wrote in an e-mail to the Justice Monday that she still has concerns regarding the final decision. "I do not think the report's recommendation represents the consensus of the committee accurately-. It was my understanding that we would recommend at least one community forum to share what we learned with the Brandeis community and allow those who were not around during the summer to participate in the discussion," she wrote."I had hoped that rather than following the pack of other universities that have armed their police, Brandeis would have stood by its commitment to social justice by making a decision that uses our brains rather than our brawn to address the issue of campus security," Derrington wrote.Of the 26 private schools in the Association of American Universities, 20 currently arm their police officers, including Harvard University and Brown University.Students were also reported to feel uneasy about the presence of guns because they have experienced police brutality in their home communities.Ultimately, the committee decided that the Virginia Tech tragedy changed the context of their deliberations swaying several committee members.The committee received presentations from Brandeis and Waltham officers, among others, all in support of arming, Collins said."I was responsible to make the final presentation on arming the police officers," Haley said. "The Brandeis University police officers are very effectively trained and this is just a tool to perform the job they need to do." He encouraged the community and the administration to continue supporting the officers. In a campuswide e-mail earlier this month, French wrote, "In its five meetings, the committee studied practices on other campuses, heard from the Acting Chief of the Waltham Police Department and safety and security officers from other campuses, spoke with Brandeis Public Safety officers, and deliberated the options in depth." The committee found that, among other things, many members of the University Police force are already trained with municipal police and are licensed to carry firearms.The report also says that in emergency situations the Brandeis police must call on the Waltham Police to respond. But Waltham officers aren't as familiar with the campus' layout and often take between two and five minutes, and sometimes longer, to arrive on campus. Currently, Brandeis officers "are not allowed to respond to any situation in which weapons are reported or present," the report says."The Waltham police do not know their way around the buildings and campus the way that our officers do. In dangerous and/or highly ambiguous situations, Brandeis Public Safety Officers are able to respond much more quickly, owing to their knowledge of the University's people and physical layout," the report states.Brandeis Public Safety Officers are able to respond much more quickly, owing to their knowledge of the University's people and physical layout," the report states.The committee consisted of French, Derrington, Alex Braver '09, Choon Woo Ha '08, Prof. Jon Chilingerian (Heller) and Prof. Marya Levenson (EDU), as well as Financial Services staffer Sherri Avery and Alumni?Relations staffer Elisa Gassel.Callahan, Collins, University spokesperson Lorna Miles, Dean of Student Life Rick Sawyer and General Counsel Judith Sizer attended meetings as support staff, the report says.The administration recently added several emergency communications procedures on campus, including voice and text messaging to campus telephones, text messaging to cell phones and outdoor sirens. "Everybody's happy," one anonymous police officer said. The officer was granted anonymity because officers are prohibited from speaking to the media.
(09/11/07 4:00am)
University President Jehuda Reinharz has a problem with Islam. Given that Brandeis is the pride of America's Jewish community, and I am a Muslim, one might expect me to condemn Reinharz for supporting Israel and criticizing radical Muslims. But Reinharz's problem with Islam is the opposite of what one might imagine: He has shown himself to be soft on Islamists. What's more, when attacked by a Muslim opponent of radical Islamists (me), he has resorted to Muslim-baiting. I wrote an op-ed in the New York Post last January criticizing Brandeis for hiring Natana DeLong-Bas to lecture on Islamic studies. Soon after discussion began spreading in the United States about Wahhabism and its link to the atrocities of 9/11, DeLong-Bas emerged as a leading defender of the Wahhabi sect. In Wahhabi Islam, DeLong-Bas's polemic on behalf of the Wahhabis and their Saudi patrons, she acknowledged financial support for her research from Fahd as-Semmari, director of the King Abd al-Aziz Foundation for Research and Archives. She even told the leading Arabic daily, Al-Sharq Al-Awsat: "I know of no convincing evidence that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center. All we know about him is that he praised and commended those who did it. Radicals in Saudi Arabia are not influenced by Islam, as so many people think. ... The main factors are political: the Palestinian problem, . Iraq . and U.S. support for Israel." I criticized DeLong-Bas for her presentation of Wahhabism-the most intolerant and violent fundamentalist interpretation of Sunnism in recent history-as benevolent, peaceful, respectful of other religion, and even feminist. A number of Brandeis supporters expressed their shock and concern to President Reinharz about the hiring of DeLong-Bas. In response to critical letters, Reinharz sent a form reply that included this statement about me: "Mr. Schwartz also identifies himself as Suleyman Ahmad, a member of Jews for Allah. He writes under both names, depending on his audience." Reinharz's message is that as a Muslim critical of Islamist ideology, I should not be trusted. But who better than a Muslim can judge the Islamist discourse? In his view DeLong-Bas, who serves as an advocate for the most backward elements of the Saudi order-the Wahhabi clerics-is above reproach, even though Reinharz admitted in his letter that he had not read her book. Let me clarify some points. I am not Jewish by birth (my father was Jewish but my mother was Christian), and I had no Jewish upbringing. I had no religion before becoming Muslim; further, I have never been a "member of Jews for Allah." I have a Muslim name, Suleyman Ahmad Schwartz, but use it infrequently in public, since I am established as an author and journalist under my born name. I serve as the executive director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism. In addition, my 2002 book, The Two Faces of Islam, was the first study that exposed in detail the Wahhabi sect of Sunni Islam, its links to the Saudi monarchy and its role as the inspirer of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. Reinharz's intent was multi-prejudicial: to dismiss my opposition to the views of DeLong-Bas by profiling me as a Muslim while implying that I am an apostate from Judaism. This private and unethical disparagement of a public and legitimate inquiry tries to replace a serious effort to assess the issues present in the employment of a Wahhabi apologist with an attack on my religious adherence. A Brandeis president who denigrates a Muslim opponent of extremism and defends a proponent of Wahhabism is dangerously ignorant of today's internal conflicts in the community of Muhammad and is in no position to contribute positively to the defeat of Islamist terrorism and the survival of global civilization. The struggle against al-Qaida and its supporters will not be won by flattering the academic accomplices of Saudi extremism. It will be won, however, when Americans of all faiths learn that moderate, anti-extremist Muslims are trustworthy and critical allies. The writer is executive director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism (islamicpluralism.org). He writes for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.
(08/28/07 4:00am)
A $15 million donation from a national philanthropic organization with strong ties to the University will fund the creation of the Center for Israel Studies, an institute dedicated to improving scholarship on the state of Israel.The Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation committed to the grant, the largest in the organization's 20-year history, in June, according to a University press release. The University will provide matching funds with the goal of establishing a $30 million endowment for the Center over the next eight years.Prof. Selwyn Troen (NEJS) has been named director of the Center, which will work to broaden the scope of Israel studies by supporting scholarship in a variety of fields, including politics, anthropology and economics, John Hose, Reinharz' assistant, said.The Center will serve as "a major center to focus scholarship on a serious study of Israel in the broadest possible dimensions," Hose said.The new institute represents the second collaboration between the University and the Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation. For the past three years, the foundation, which supports Jewish programs across the country, has funded the Summer Institute for Israel Studies, an annual seminar at the University that trains academics in the field of Israel scholarship."This Center is the perfect marriage of a university committed to creating and disseminating knowledge and a philanthropist interested in making that knowledge available to the wider public," University President Jehuda Reinharz said in the press release.Reinharz first hatched the idea for the Center while hiking in Aspen with Lynn Schusterman, said Lisa Eisen, the foundation's national program director."Our primary goal is to help train a new generation of scholars who can help teach about modern Israel," Eisen said. "Our sense from surveying the landscape is that there is a dearth of scholars who are trained to teach modern Israel."Eisen said her organization anticipates that in addition to training faculty, the Center will disseminate information to a broad audience through public forums, lectures and film series in addition to training faculty."We're.very hopeful that the center will be sort of a hub for teaching and learning," she said, adding, "The effects will be felt well beyond the Brandeis community.
(05/22/07 4:00am)
As a former Gravity editor in chief, I couldn't help but tune in to the coverage of "BlackJerryGate." Gravity always walked a fine line in terms of taste (one of our fundraisers involved selling enemas in the middle of campus) and BlackJerry clearly crossed that line between levity and offense. At the same time, another matter no one should take lightly is journalistic freedom.If I left any lasting achievement on campus beyond causing traumatic memories for grossed-out enema recipients, it was my work in forming the Brandeis Media Coalition as an advocacy group for the rights of campus media. We won for campus publications that spiffy office in the Shapiro Campus Center (and before it, a spiffless office in a disused Usdan hallway). Previously no publication besides the Justice and the now defunct Watch had official workspace. In those primitive ages, we also faced a media controversy: A publication named Freedom Magazine, funded largely by off-campus right-wing political groups, published material that offended many on campus, including me. At that time as well, the Student Union Senate was talking censures and dechartering. Many cheered the chance to toll the death knell for Freedom's ring on campus. It is at times like this when our commitment to the free press is tested most. I and the other heads of the 15 existing campus publications came before the Senate and demanded Freedom Magazine retain its charter. I will invoke now what I invoked then, Louis Brandeis' admonition that "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." Our lobbying persuaded the Senate to let Freedom off with a wrist-slap, and as far as I know, the magazine imploded on its own a few years later.Gravity, by contrast, is no flash-in-the-pan publication; it has a nearly 20-year tradition of entertaining the campus, often taking on important issues such as, in my day, the outsourcing of dining services, corruption in the housing lottery and University President Jehuda Reinharz's ever-more-lavish houses (we even got Reinharz to pose in a Wellesley sweatshirt for the cover). Sometimes, humor is the only way to keep the spirit of protest alive: For years, only Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert could take on President Bush while the rest of the media lay quiet. Sadly, for every Jon Stewart, there is a Michael Richards. BlackJerry should never have been run, just as I once nixed a piece that would have portrayed a Brandeis professor wearing a Nazi uniform. Some "humor" is just too offensive for a healthy community, and it deserves community outcry but not a call for future censorship. I urge the parties involved to engage in dialogue and not resort to dechartering or defunding. Only through dialogue can racism be transcended, and the best forum for that dialogue is media. Reforming media is an ongoing challenge-silencing it is always a mistake.The writer was the editor in chief of Gravity from 1997 through 1999 and a member of the Class of 1999.
(05/22/07 4:00am)
"Every college administrator knows that 'diversity' is a code for 'at least five percent black faces with a goodly sprinkling of Latinos.' They also know that this is only achievable through quota systems euphemized by artful terminology, chronic double-talk and outright lies. Nor do any of them miss, as black students dutifully erupt in furious protest every second spring over manufactured or trivial instances of 'racism,' that in practice campus 'diversity' means black students are carefully taught that they are eternal victims in their own land."Two months ago the author of this quote, John McWhorter, visited our campus. At a place where various speakers have produced outpourings of opinion, McWhorter came and went almost unnoticed. Indeed, the swift coming and going of the diversity critic was symptomatic of the place of blacks at the margins of campus concerns.except when there is a problem. In the wake of Jimmy Carter, Alan Dershowitz, et. al., a debate on diversity seemed almost irrelevant.Then came the spring. Like many on this campus, I am appalled by the material in the recent issue of Gravity, the campus humor magazine. I strongly feel that student funds should not be used to subsidize any publication that demeans any member of our community. After a decade and a half at Brandeis, I have an overwhelming sense of djOe vu. The present furor is a sad reminder of how very marginalized black people on this campus are-we are a "problem." We are a family, but African-American students have often told me that they feel like the step-children of their alma mater. At least one has expressed fatigue with the need to constantly explain why racism hurts and why African-American students have a right to be here. It is a burden no young person should have to shoulder. I am very glad that Jamele Adams, the assistant dean of student life in support of diversity, held a forum a couple weeks ago at which student voices got to be heard. Abandoning the dramaturgy of victimization and demonization, perhaps some small progress can be made. I do not need to see the editors of Gravity as Klansmen. As archaic and crude as it was, I do not need to call its author a "hater" to know that it was "hateful." The point is that the "BlackJerry" advertisement was patently offensive. Anyone over the age of 11 should have been able to see its repercussions. The "advertisement" demanded a search for a historical image and planning of the layout. It was a weird use of early 20th-century stereotypes by young men to insult their classmates in the 21st. I am convinced that this incident, part of a chain of stupidities, will not be the last. That is the issue: The way to ruin is paved with good intentions. The assumptions and stereotypes that inform efforts at dialogue can degenerate into "talking shops." The view that blacks on this campus are the beneficiaries of a form of secular missionary outreach is debilitating. It encourages both condescension and resentment. We need basic change. It is not the presence of a few blacks that causes racism. It is the lack. When compared with our sister institutions, we are falling behind in the education of young African-American women and men. The recruitment pool of black applicants has to be deepened. We must build on the programs already in place. I would specifically suggest that the University hire recruiters to visit those cities and towns that are now sending streams of students to comparable institutions. I was recently quoted in this newspaper as saying I was convinced that the University is sincere about creating a welcoming and affirming environment. That aim, however, should be subordinate to creating real numerical campus diversity. The flat-lining of recruitment of students and faculty will, in the long run, win no kudos. A "harmonious" campus with a miniscule African-American presence would betray the core values of the institution. The writer is a professor of history and African and African-American studies.
(05/22/07 4:00am)
This year more than ever, the Justice must bid farewell to a group of graduating editors whose impact at the newspaper will never be forgotten. Here is a tribute to their far-reaching contributions:David Fudman: A former layout editor, editor in chief and senior editor, his professional design sense and analytical perspective made a permanent mark on both the content and appearance of this newspaper.Dan Hirschhorn: A former sports editor, editor in chief and senior editor, his immense passion for the Justice first lifted the sports section, and then the rest of the newspaper-especially his fellow editors-to new heights.Abra Lyons-Warren: A former features editor and managing editor whose tireless commitment to the Justice knew no bounds, whether it was in her writing or managerial duties. Her enthusiasm and energy will be missed.Jonathan Fischer: A former arts editor and deputy editor, he reformed the arts section and then contributed his many talents to nearly every aspect of this newspaper, particularly the editorial column and copy desk.Joshua Adland: A former news editor and associate editor, he always lent insight with his balanced editorial viewpoint and sharp news judgment.Michael Grillo: A former news editor, his dynamic style energized the news staff-and the editorial board-in their coverage of this campus.Lisa Nahill: A former photography editor, her beautiful photographs enlivened the newspaper's complexion, and her attitude brightened the newspaper's office.Other graduates who once graced our masthead are Jennifer Morrow, a former arts editor; Jonathan Zimmerman, a former sports editor; Samantha Monk, a former forum editor and managing editor; and Jacob Olidort, a former news editor.We wish each of them them luck in every endeavor. Their absence will be sorely felt.
(05/01/07 4:00am)
Something profoundly racist happened on our campus last week: The most recent issue of Gravity Magazine was published. And while much of the focus has centered on a fake advertisement, the other pages of the magazine are equally disturbing. They are profoundly sexist, xenophobic, ignorant and offensive on so many other levels. Since the magazine was printed, a lot of discussion has occurred about what was said, who said it and what should be done about it. A lot of cries of free speech have also been made regarding the same issue. A forum Sunday night hosted by the Brandeis Black Student Organization addressed the issues brought up by Gravity's publication. At that meeting, among other things, a lot of very strong, very hurt emotions were expressed that came from very real pain. Soon after, the Student Union Senate passed a resolution that speaks to the problems here. Aside from noting that the magazine violated Rights and Responsibilities-the University's code of conduct-the resolution highlighted how the ad brought "a significant number of members of our community to feel 'unsafe,' 'powerless,' 'unsupported,' 'harassed,' and 'threatened.'"It further elaborated:"This issue of Gravity Magazine shows a complete disregard for Brandeis's regrettable history of race-relations and bigotry in campus media including the WBRS Incident (2002), the Justice Incident (Dusty Baker, October 2003), the Lies [magazine] Incident (2005), I Hate You Thugs (The Hoot, March 2006) and countless other experiences of individual students who have been victims of prejudice and hate in campus media and in one-on-one interactions with peers, faculty and staff. All incidents of ignorance and disrespect affect all members of the community and actively misrepresent our community values and standards."Something needs to be made abundantly clear here: What was published last week in Gravity has nothing to do with free speech. It was hate speech. The "BlackJerry" advertisement, in particular, involved the layered, dehumanizing use of racial stereotypes and historical references to slavery that were, from the first word to the last, explicitly racist. The supposedly benign intentions of the authors do not negate that fact.True, the publication explicitly sets out to publish "offensive comedy." However, what was published last week was not funny, and it was beyond offensive. It was hurtful and it was threatening. The jokes intentionally targeted several disadvantaged and minority groups of our campus population. Example: On at least two occasions, the idea of rape was turned into a joke.Hate speech and hateful acts in any and all their forms are unacceptable. This is only compounded by two deeper problems: the history of bigotry that has been expressed by our on-campus media outlets and the sense of entitlement that the editors of Gravity clearly felt when they chose to publish this issue. (Why did they think that was OK?)First, the historical piece. It is well documented that our campus media has a history of bigoted statements regarding disadvantaged groups. What happened last week was not an isolated incident. It is part of a pattern, and it is unacceptable. Second, there is the entitlement component. Imagine for a minute what would happen if somebody felt entitled to make a Holocaust joke in a campus publication, with specific references to the tattoos from the death camps and the "hook-nose" caricatures common to classic anti-Semitic diatribes. The reaction, you might imagine, would not be a small one. The publishers of Gravity felt entitled to make similar references to slavery and racism in the American context. The authors write from a status of privilege that enables them to feel entitled in their positions. As a result, the authors expected the campus community to accept the trivialization of the oppression that some groups feel for the sake of entertainment. This expectation was explicitly bigoted and threatening.In the short term, it is beyond clear that Gravity needs to be dechartered to show that as a campus community, we do not tolerate hate speech in any of its forms. This is not a discussion about anyone's constitutional rights. This is a discussion about privilege, the sense of entitlement that accompanies that privilege and the fact that our campus environment has allowed incidents of this sort to occur repetedly. When someone's actions and words result in the alienation of an entire community on our campus, when they produce real human hurt, those words cannot be ignored, and they cannot be hidden behind the banner of "free speech." Taking punitive, retaliatory actions against Gravity and its editors, however, is not the point of all this. It's more important to work toward a positive resolution that prevents the recurrence of this sort of incident. A very important discussion has been opened up here about the sense of entitlement that certain people feel to hurt and to be willfully bigoted and discriminatory toward others. These actions require correction, and they require action. We, as a Brandeis community, have a responsibility to take that action and ensure that our peers feel safe and valued in our community. Jerome Frierson '07 is the co-president of the Brandeis Black Students Organization. Blake Hyatt '08 is the co-president of the PossePlus club.
(05/01/07 4:00am)
To anyone whose feelings were hurt or who felt victimized by the BlackJerry advertisement, we are truly and deeply sorry. The intended target of the ad was racism itself, and we did not make this adequately clear. The final product did not clearly convey the message we were trying to send: that stereotypes are horrifying and unfair to the people upon whom they are forced.We, as a humor magazine, attempt to address relevant and important issues through comedy. Was this the best example of that? Clearly not. Sometimes the controversy surrounding difficult issues makes us accidentally slip into a territory that deeply hurts many individuals. We never expected the community to take our magazine seriously-we are a humor magazine. This is the exact opposite of what we were trying to achieve.But no one ever bothered to talk to anyone from Gravity magazine about the article. Our e-mail inbox for comments was empty; the Brandeis Black Student Organization did not inform our E-board that they were going to have a meeting regarding the issue. Following the meeting, Union members gathered a group of students from the BBSO to go to the Student Union Senate meeting to demand that our magazine be dechartered. Again, neither writers nor editors of Gravity were asked to attend. When a member of the campus media ran up to us to tell us to go to the meeting because "they are dechartering you right now," one of our members walked in the door to listen to an official of the Union pronounce that the Union should mandate that the members of Gravity have psychological counseling.This member of our E-board listened to ad hominem attacks for five hours that evening, nearly an hour in the Union Senate. Our magazine writers were pronounced anti-Arab, anti-woman, anti-black and anti-Brandeis. However, the Union never bothered to create a dialogue with us. We waited for hours, hoping that they would confirm to us that they are legitimately concerned about investigating diversity issues on our campus. Unfortunately, the issue of race and racism on campus was hardly addressed.The campus is missing a great opportunity to talk about diversity issues. Instead of focusing the conversation on what makes these issues so offensive and how individuals and publications can work towards being more sensitive in the future, campus groups merely seem interested in pushing the issues under the table through having an inflamed trial without allowing us to explain ourselves. The Union is only interested in punishment, which will do very little to prevent these insensitivities in the future. While we should be having a conversation on race issues, the Union has diminished the debate to a matter of free-speech. What a shame: How will we, as a community, ever learn to transcend our own ignorance if we are being bullied by the Union?We are deeply disappointed in ourselves as humorists for the harm we have caused to members of the community. We will continue to solicit and discuss opinions from the community: We are an open forum and we seek input on how to improve our publication. However, if this trend of the Union continues, we are absolutely certain it will have a chilling effect on campus publications.Again, we are deeply sorry for hurting the Brandeis community and we are taking steps to ensure this never happens again. Please send comments to gravity@brandeis.eduThe writers are members of the Classes of 2008 and 2007 and members of Gravity's Editorial Board.
(05/01/07 4:00am)
A campus humor magazine printed a racially charged fake advertisement last week that sparked outrage from dozens of students who said it was bigoted and offensive. The incident has brought to the forefront intense feelings of discrimination among some racial-minority students. And the editor in chief of the magazine, Gravity, resigned Monday night because of the controversy. BlackJerry advertisement features a "BlackJerry," which it bills as an alternative to the popular BlackBerry cellular phone. It depicts a black man dressed in the minstrel style-he dons a top-hat, bow-tie and pin-striped suit-offering to drive a white traveler from Waltham to the airport in his Camry. The text beside the image reads, in part: "I don't know where the car came from or why it's missing a window, but in no time I'm doing a buck-twenty down I-90 while the BlackJerry rolls up a j and starts humming my favorite mp3s. And all for only 3/5 the cost of a BlackBerry."The last line references the infamous Constitutional compromise that counted slaves as three-fifths of a person. Outrage over the advertisement, as well as other parts of the magazine people considered offensive, was immediate and widespread.Ben Douglas '08 will remain on Gravity's staff after resigning as editor in chief because, he said, the magazine would not have enough people without him.All Gravity editors resigned, issued a public apology to the campus, and announced that the Gravity will not put out a Fall 2007 issue, according to a campuswide e-mail from Student Union President Shreeya Sinha '09 today. In the letter, Gravity editors apologize for the advertisement."We in no way intended to make anyone feel denigrated, marginalized, or attacked, and we would like to express our deepest sympathies to anyone who felt targeted by the content in our magazine. Our failure to properly screen certain material is, in our opinion, the result of an insufficient review process," the letter states.Rather than putting together an issue, Gravity announced in the letter that staffers would spend the coming semester creating and implementing "a more effective editorial hierarchy." Jonathan Rubinger '08, the student who created the advertisement, would not comment, but he posted an apology on the discussion board of a Facebook group created Sunday called "We Do NOT Tolerate Hate Speech on the Brandeis Campus." The group had 320 members at press time."To anyone whose feelings were hurt or who felt victimized by the BlackJerry advertisement, I am truly and deeply sorry," Rubinger wrote. "The intended target of the ad was racism itself, and I did not make this adequately clear." Gravity's publication marks the fourth time in six years that a campus media group has come under fire for racially charged content. Hosts of a show on WBRS made disparaging comments about Asian women in 2002, the Justice printed an allusion to a racial slur in a sports column in 2003, and The Hoot printed a poem titled "I hate you thugs" in 2006.Seeing the "BlackJerry" ad was particularly disillusioning for some seniors, who found their experience at Brandeis literally sandwiched by incidents of what they see as racism in print.The sports column in this newspaper hit newsstands barely a month after those students arrived on campus their first year, and with "BlackJerry" appearing less than a month before commencement, some seniors felt they had come full circle, but with little progress."We came in with racism and we're leaving with racism," Shakiva Wade '07, a co-president of the Brandeis Black Students Organization, said at a recent forum to discuss the issue.At the emotional forum, hosted Sunday evening by BBSO in the Intercultural Center, students expressed feelings of anger and frustration over the advertisement's content, and discussed ways to respond and prevent similar incidents in the future. "This is just racist on so many different levels," said Jerome Frierson '07, the other BBSO co-president. There was some discussion about the possibility of dechartering the magazine, but the conversation focused more on broader issues of hateful speech on campus."We need to be aware - we need to make sure that racism is not slipping under the radar," Frierson said.Suahad Iddrissu '09, BBSO's incoming president, echoed others' perceptions of the advertisement and said media groups should be held accountable, but he also stressed restraint in how students should react."We need to think about this in a very tactful manner. Being emotional and launching a campaign is not the way to get things done," he said.Rubinger did not attend the forum, but Douglas and Kevin Montgomery '07, a Gravity staff writer, did attend. Though Douglas never said a word during the forum, Montgomery described the incident as "a learning experience" for the magazine, adding that he was disturbed by the campus' reaction to the ad."I thought it was funny," Montgomery said.And with the potential for dechartering the magazine hovering over the conversation, he also urged the crowd to consider responding in a less punitive response."I hear punishment, I hear 'let's make an example:' That doesn't work," Montgomery said.Following the forum, the Student Union Senate passed a near-unanimous Union Resolution that condemned the magazine; called on Rubinger and the editors of Gravity to apologize publicly "for the offensive material published in their latest issue" and to resign; called for a judicial investigation into what the senators called a violation of the University's code of student conduct; and called for the Senate to consider dechartering the magazine.The resolution also called for diversity training for incoming students and media editors, as well as "continued dialogue about cultural insensitivity on campus."Leaders from Gravity, BBSO, the Union and other student groups met with administrators throughout the day and evening to discuss the issue. In an e-mail to various student groups Monday night, Union President Shreeya Sinha '09 said the Union was moving to fulfill the steps outlined in the Senate resolution. She also said that a history of events of prejudice on campus would be displayed in the Shapiro Campus Center.Rubinger, meanwhile, sought forgiveness online."I continue to stand by the joke I was trying to make about the ridiculousness of stereotypes, and I apologize for my oversight of what could easily be misconstrued as an attack," he wrote in his apology on Facebook. "Know that it was not my intention to hurt feelings, but rather to induce laughter and promote an increased understanding of the ludicrous nature of black, racial and all stereotypes." "Like all humans, I am prone to making mistakes; as a human, I humbly request that you forgive me for mine," he added.-Michael Grillo, Shana D. Lebowitz and Claire Moses contributed reporting.
(05/01/07 4:00am)
After intense lobbying by Student Union officials for student representation, Provost Marty Krauss said the Student Union president would be given a seat on a faculty advisory committee formed in February to deal with potentially controversial speakers and events.Union President Shreeya Sinha '09 said it is important that the committee include student representation so that the faculty will take "student sentiment" into account when considering campus events.The Advisory Committee on Campus Events was formed after the high-profile visits of former President Jimmy Carter and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz last January and the removal of an exhibit of Palestinian art last spring. Both of these events garnered national attention for the University. Prof. Paul Jankowski (HIST), the committee's chair, said last February that it would try to address free-speech controversies in campus events and exhibits when they arise."In a way this is a committee for grievances, but it is also consultative," he said. "It's there to help."Krauss said that though the committee originally did not include a student, she changed her mind after consulting former Union President Alison Schwartzbaum '08, Jankowski and Jean Eddy, the senior vice president for students and enrollment. She decided a student voice is needed because "most events on campus do affect students." Still, Krauss emphasized, "This is not a committee that is designed to serve as a forum for student complaints or concerns." Students can express their concerns through the Departments of Student Life and Student Activities, she added.Schwartzbaum said it was "appalling" that there were no students on the committee. The committee has no authority over campus speakers or events but could provide advice as to how the events are organized, Krauss told the Justice last February.
(05/01/07 4:00am)
In October 2003, the Justice published a column containing an allusion to the very worst of American racial epithets. That event and the tumultuous weeks that followed--remembered as the Dusty Baker Incident, referring to the former Cubs manager at whom the racist insult was hurled--seem now as mythical as a cautionary tale, one in which this publication failed to fully grasp the severity of its gaffe, and in which the campus's condemnation was appropriate in its vehemence. But the method of that response--and its aftermath--buried the issues at hand instead of resolving them.With the last class of students witness to the controversy about to graduate, we would have hoped the campus's wounds had healed. But nearly four years later, it appears little has changed.As community members and as a fellow publication, we are profoundly embarrassed by the hateful satirical advertisement for a "BlackJerry" personal assistant that appeared in Gravity Magazine last week. Just as we were astounded by its blatant racism, we can barely comprehend how its editors--knowing fully the campus's intolerance for hate speech--thought the advertisement's publication would ruffle no feathers. This should not have happened.But it did, and emotions are justifiably high. We share our peers' frustrations, which in turn have shed light on an even starker dilemma: The racial dynamic on this campus is far more than strained; it is broken.That notion was staggeringly apparent at the discussion moderated by the Brandeis Black Student Organization Sunday night: Passions filled the room. And senior members of BBSO, who hoped progress had been made in combating racism here, expressed a renewed disillusion. They rightly said that the advertisement crossed the line between satire and hate speech, and that actions were necessary.The first arrived when the Union Senate overwhelmingly passed a resolution condemning Gravity, one which moved to punish the group, prevent future racial insensitivity in campus media and promote cultural understanding. In some passages there is potential for progress. But elsewhere, and in the resolution's overall tone, we see a familiar theme reemerging, one that disastrously marked past controversies, including our own.We see in the resolution an antagonism that leaves little room for reconciliation. It rightly wants students to comprehend the damage that has been wrought. But rather than attempting to understand why these recurring and frequent instances of racism occur, it simply hopes to suppress an indeterminate ignorance:--- It proposes to "mitigate cultural ignorance and insensitivities on our campus" through dialogue events and displays to recount past instances of racism in campus media. But with summer fast approaching, members of Gravity and the Intercultural Center need to hold an open forum this week. Undoubtedly and necessarily, much of it would focus on the hurt caused. But the event must serve not merely as a forum for anger and defensiveness, but discussion, understanding and self-criticism.When students return in the fall, the audiences for such events will undoubtedly narrow, and students should focus on the source of their frustration. To ensure that "BlackJerry" marks the last time racial tensions reach a boiling point, members of every media group must voluntarily and independantly hold open conversations with every segment of the community. And these groups--including this newspaper--must work to diversify their staffs, with cultural groups equally aiding in this endeavor. The media best serves their readership by proportionally representing it.--- The resolution's attitude toward campus media troubles us greatly. It proposes the Union stop funding publications that contain "cultural ignorance or insensitive remarks," and create standards and consequences for publications they deem prejudiced or hateful toward any group. We worry that such measures would create a chilling effect in which organizations would fear broaching sensitive issues--the very effect that plagued this newspaper in the years following the Dusty Baker Incident. Racism has no place in campus media, but issues of race cannot become taboo. Campus media must continue to regulate themselves independent of the Union.--- Finally, the Union's document demands that the editors of Gravity both apologize publicly and all resign. Ben Douglas '08, the magazine's editor in chief, rightly did the latter last night, and we hope students appreciate his gesture. (He intends to remain on Gravity's staff, and while we feel it would not be necessary, leaving the magazine of his own volition might help repair its reputation.) The creator of the "BlackJerry" advertisement should also choose to resign, but the Union cannot force him to do so, and should not even recommend it. A government has no business dabbling in the personnel decisions of any club, let alone a media organization.Most worryingly, a passage in the resolution moves that the Union consider dechartering Gravity. It must not. Colleges allow for mistakes, and while this one was astonishing, it was nonetheless a product of ignorance and shortsightedness, not hate. Gravity's members must understand the enormity of their error in coming weeks. It will take years to redeem the magazine's reputation, and that task is a more than appropriate punishment. Ultimately, it will be up to Gravity, its peer publications and this community to transform the debacle into an educational experience.
(05/01/07 4:00am)
-Because of an editing error, a front-page article last week about the administration eliminating off-campus club bank accounts incorrectly identified the University office that records clubs' financial transactions. It is the Accounts Payable Department, not the Accounts and Payables Department. And because of a production error, the article did not end. A complete version is available online. (April 24, p. 1)-An article last week in News about Daniel Pipes' lecture incorrectly reported the last time he spoke on campus. Pipes, a conservative Middle East scholar, last spoke in May of 2006, not November 2003. (April 24, p. 3)-Because of an editing error, an article last week in News about the percentage of applicants accepted misstated the year in which they applied. The statistics were for the Class of 2010, not the Class of 2011. The headline for the article was also misleading. The University admitted the smallest percentage of applicants that year; it was not the smallest class overall. (April 24, p. 3)-The Student Union Senate log last week cited imprecisely to University health coverage for a vaccination against the human papilloma vaccination. The University's health insurance will cover 80 percent of its cost. (April 24, p. 2)-An entry in Brandeis Talks Back last week misspelled the name of one respondent. He is Emilio Mendoza '09, not Mendora. (April 24, p. 14)-A photo caption last week in Forum accompanying a column about how isolation can breed violence omitted the photo's context. It was taken at a campus vigil for the victims of the Virginia Tech shooting. (April 24, p. 15)-Because of an editing error, a column last week in Forum about the need for stricter gun law repeated one paragraph. A corrected version is available online. (April 24, p. 16)-A photo credit accompanying an article last week in Arts about the Culture X show misspelled the name of one of the photographers. She is Jenny Edelman, not Jennifer Edelman. (April 24, p. 25)-A caption last week accompanying the Brandeis Through the Lens photo misstated the context of the photo. The student looking at the painting is in fact not Hannah Chalew '09, the painting's artist. The caption also incorrectly stated that the name of the exhibition was "Stagnation." This was only the name of the painting in the picture. -A letter to the editor last week about the reforms to the club sports system omitted part of a credit for the writer. It should have noted that the writer, Noah Haber '08, was part of an informal Student Union committee that lobbied for the reforms. (April 24, p.17)-The masthead last week referred incorrectly to Matthew Wright's position. He is the Business Manager, not the Business Editor. (April 24, p. 14)The Justice welcomes submissions or errors that warrant correction or clarification. E-mail corrections@brandeis.edu.
(04/24/07 4:00am)
On Jan. 8, 1969, more than 50 black students walked into Joseph and Clara Ford Hall, insisted the day's classes be cancelled and staged a sit-in they vowed not to end until the University met their demands.Among those demands were the formation of an African Studies Department, the hiring of more black professors and the creation of an Afro-American Center, an idea that eventually inspired the Intercultural Center. At the time, white students' initial reactions ranged from disapproval to tacit sympathy. In an increasingly hostile confrontation with the strikers, then-University President Morris Abrams offered the striking students amnesty for their actions, later retracting the offer and replacing it with threats of suspension. Ford Hall was demolished in 1999 and the Shapiro Campus Center now sits in its place. The students ended their protest that same month without the immediate fulfillment of their demands, but today, many of them have been long-fulfilled. "If I mention Ford Hall in a classroom, everyone knows what happened," said Prof. Gordon Fellman (SOC), who has taught at Brandeis since 1964.Almost 40 years later, the sit-in is still telling of the racial tensions largely obscured by the University's liberal character. And there are still times such tensions come to the forefront.Student hosts of a program on WBRS made disparaging on-air remarks about Asian women in 2002, and The Hoot, a campus newspaper, printed a racially charged poem titled "I hate you thugs" that inflamed students last year. As with Ford Hall, there was a perception among some white students during both affairs that the minorities involved were overreacting.But no event in recent memory matches the conflict ignited when this newspaper printed an allusion to the most infamous of American racial slurs. In a 2003 sports column criticizing then-Chicago Cubs manager Dusty Baker, the author closed by quoting a student who later said he had never been interviewed:"The only thing Dusty Baker has a Ph.D. in is something that starts with N and rhymes with Tigger, the cheerful scamp who stole all our hearts in the Winnie the Pooh series," the quote read. The uproar on campus was immediate and fierce. The columnist was immediately fired, and editors struggled to manage what had been unleashed. When the Justice hosted a forum to discuss the issue, a row of mostly black students sitting at the front walked out when the sports editor took the microphone. Ultimately, several editors, including the editor in chief, resigned under pressure from the administration. On the night before the Justice's next publication, the Brandeis Black Students Organization organized a protest outside the Justice office. The students succeeded in forcing the newspaper to delay printing so that BBSO could submit an op-ed piece that ran on the front page."Many members of the community take note of diversity" only when racial tensions boil over, said Prof. Govind Sreenivasan (HIST), who has studied coexistence on campus. "Diversity challenges aren't confined to these spectacular events."Such events inevitably lead to self-examination by the University. Committees are formed, recommendations are made, some are followed. Examining various coexistence-oriented reports over the years, the similarities in their observations are striking.But the debate inevitably subsides, and the racial tension returns to its familiar place beneath the surface.In an article published in the Justice during the Ford Hall occupation, this reporter's father foreshadowed the difficulty of handling such issues."The repressive institution invites conflict, but the liberal institution may seek to mask it," the article said. "Such an institution, with the best of intentions, seeks to avoid or ameliorate conflict, by eliminating its surface manifestations.
(03/27/07 4:00am)
Senator at Large Shreeya Sinha '09 won the Student Union presidency in a sweeping landslide, receiving more votes than her three competitors combined. Overwhelming voter support nullified the need for a final round of elections, with Sinha receving more than 50 percent of the votes in the primary Tuesday. "It hasn't sunk in yet that I'm president," Sinha said. "I'm honored that so many people had faith in me." A year after current Union President Alison Schwartzbaum '08 ran unopposed for the office, Sinha went up against an intial field of five other candidates, though two droppped out before the primary. Her opponents, Jonathan D'Oleo '08, Senator at Large Andrew Brooks '09 and Iris Uzdil '09 couldn't garner near the amount of votes that Sinha did, who rode to victory at least in part because of fervent support from within the Union. She garnered 752 votes while D'Oleo received 289, Brooks received 284 and Uzdil came in fourth with 46. "When I found out [I won], I just sat speechless," Sinha said. Brooks, who was endorsed by former candidates Frank Golub '10 and Asher Tanenbaum '08, said, "Although I'm disappointed I didn't win, I'm still committed toward making Brandeis a better place and realizing the goals that I put forth in this campaign." Union Secretary Alex Braver '09 won the vice-presidency."I'm excited and humbled and ready to do my best to make sure that things work next year in the Senate," Braver said moments after the unofficial election results were announced. Braver defeated Senator for Racial-Minority Students Christina Khemraj '09 by a vote of 601 to 316 in the second round.Union Treasurer Choon Woo Ha '08, who ran unopposed, won a second term. In the first round, Senator for the Class of 2008 Michael Goldman defeated Jared Hirsh '10 by a margin of nearly 300 votes in the race for secretary. The new Finance Board members are Jordan Rothman '09, an incumbent, Emily Moignard '09, Amanda Hecker '10, Garrett Nada '10 and Tejas Kumar '10, who will serve as the representative for racial-minority students. Graham Miller '09, Jacob Bockelmann '09 and Zachary Pyle '09 were elected as representatives to the Alumni Association, Board of Trustees and Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, respectively. Voters seemed unbothered by the resignations of two election commissioners who accused Sinha last week of taking credit for an idea they said was originally theirs. Senior Representative to the Board of Trustees Albert Cahn '07 and Director of Academic Affairs Jason Brodsky '07 left their posts as election commissioners after Sinha said she was interested in creating an endowed fund for prominent speakers-a plan that Cahn and Brodsky say they have been working on for about a year. Sinha announced the plan at a candidates' forum two weeks ago sponsored by the Justice. Daniel Fried '07 voted for Sinha because his Ultimate Frisbee team had decided she was the best candidate to support club sports.As for the newly elected president's goals, Sinha said, "The first thing I am going to do is get everyone on the same page and set a vision for the Student Union.
(03/20/07 4:00am)
Shreeya Sinha '09, senator at large, won the Student Union presidency in a sweeping landslide, receiving more votes than her competitors combined.As she received more than 50 percent in the first round, the race for president didn't require a final round."It hasn't sunk in yet that I'm president," Sinha said. "I'm honored that so many people had faith in me."Voters seemed unbothered by the resignations of two election commissioners who accused Sinha last week of taking credit for an idea they said was theirs originally.Senior Representative to the Board of Trustees Albert Cahn '07 and Director of Academic Affairs Jason Brodsky '07 left their posts as election commissioners after Sinha said she was interested in creating an endowed fund for prominent speakers-a plan that Cahn and Brodsky say they have been working on for about a year. Sinha announced this plan at a candidates' forum last Thursday sponsored by the Justice.Despite this, her opponents, Jonathan D'Oleo '08, Senator at Large Andrew Brooks '09 and Iris Uzdil found themselves unable to compete with Sinha, who garnered 752 votes. D'Oleo received 289, Brooks received 284 and Uzdil came in fourth with 46. "When I found out [I won], I just sat speechless," Sinha said.Brooks, who was endorsed by former candidates Frank Golub '10 and Asher Tanenbaum '08, said, "Although I'm disappointed I didn't win, I'm still committed toward making Brandeis a better place and realizing the goals that I put forth in this campaign."Union Secretary Alex Braver '09 won the vice-presidency in another landslide."I'm excited and humbled, and ready to do my best to make sure that things work next year in the senate," Braver said moments after the unofficial election results were announced. Braver defeated Senator for Racial Minority Students Christina Khemraj '09 by a vote of 601 to 316 in the second round.Senator for the Class of 2009 Sung Lo Yoon and Finance Board Chair Sridatta Mukherjee '09 were eliminated in the first round. Union Treasurer Choon Woo Ha '08, who ran unopposed, won the election for a second term. In the first round, Senator for the Class of 2008 Michael Goldman '08 defeated Jared Hirsh '10 by a margin of nearly 300 votes in the race for secretary.The new F-Board members are Jordan Rothman '09, an incumbent, Emily Moignard '09, Amanda Hecker '10, Garrett Nada '10 and Tejas Kumar '10, who will serve as the representative for racial minority students. Graham Miller '09, Jacob Bockelmann '09 and Zachary Pyle '09 were elected representatives to the Alumni Association, Board of Trustees andUundergraduate Curriculum Committee, respectively. As for the newly elected president's goals, Sinha said. "The first thing I am going to do is get everyone on the same page and set a vision for the Student Union.
