(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.
(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.
