(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.
(03/20/07 4:00am)
Two Student Union election commissioners resigned Thursday night, saying they could not remain objective after one presidential candidate discussed publically what they said was their idea for bringing more speakers to campus during a candidate forum last Thursday.Albert Cahn '07, senior representative to the Board of Trustees and Jason Brodsky '07, director of academic affairs, left their posts on the Elections Commission shortly after the candidate, Senator at Large Shreeya Sinha '09, raised the possibility of endowing a fund to pay for speakers.She made the comment at the Justice's sponsored candidate's forum. Cahn said he and Brodsky have been working on creating such an endowment for over a year, and they said they were dismayed that Sinha put forth the idea as her own. "She shouldn't use our work to get a leg up on her opponents," Brodsky said.But Sinha, who never directly took credit during the forum for the idea of bringing high-profile speakers said she didn't mean to imply that she necessarily suggested the idea first. She said she only wanted students to know that she would follow through on the project. "One project is everyone's project," she said. "It doesn't matter who gets credit, it matters that it gets done."Cahn and Brodsky said they have already had several meetings with senior administrators including Senior Vice President for Communications Lorna Miles, Dean of Arts and Sciences Adam Jaffe and Provost Marty Krauss, among others, to discuss the World Speaker Forum. "We are very disappointed and we want the student body to know that we were the ones behind this," Cahn said. "[Sinha] tried to take credit for work she didn't do."Sinha said she only brought up the idea because she knew the project was floating around the Union and she had been part of several related conversations. "It's not a malicious act," Sinha said.The Union's director of communications expressed disappointment at what he called petty resignations."This is probably the most insensitive thing I have ever seen," Director of Communications Brian Paternostro '07 said. "Union officials should not be working for their own credit, but for the greater Union." Still, Cahn and Brodsky maintained that Sinha was out of line."Members of the administration should also know who the people behind this are, and they should not get the idea that this was part of a campaign," Brodsky said.Cahn added: "This could potentially hurt our ability to advocate for the policy."Sinha said she would support the idea if elected."As president I hope to see to its creation and its success," Sinha said of the endowed speakers fund. "It doesn't matter whose idea it was, as long as it gets done.
(03/20/07 4:00am)
Six candidates who were vying for the position of Student Union president last Thursday evening presented their agendas at a candidates forum sponsored by the Justice.The candidates include Senator at Large Shreeya Sinha '09, Jonathan D'Oleo '08, Iris Uzdil '09 and Senator at Large Andrew Brooks '09. Frank Golub '10 and Asher Tanenbaum, senator for the Class of 2008, who participated in the forum, dropped out of the race last Sunday evening. Golub and Tanenbaum both dropped out and endorsed Brooks because they said they were impressed with Brooks' ideas during the campaign, including the debate. The candidates, a diverse group, include three international students and two sitting senators, drew a packed crowd in the Shapiro Campus Center art gallery. Everyone addressed student complaints over the housing lottery, ways to improve the campus social life and how to continue to attract high-profile speakers to Brandeis. Moderated by the Justice's deputy editor, Matt Brown '08, candidates first answered general questions regarding the role of the Student Union president and then answered individuali questions followed by questions from the audience. Sinha said "I want to get Brandeis back on the fast track." She spent most of her time discussing how the Union can be more transparent with students and respond more swiftly to their concerns. The audience, full of Union officials, cheered most loudly each time Sinha stepped down from the podium. "I want to be accessible, I want to be an advocate and I want to be transparent," Sinha said. "We are a pool of resources that connects you to the administration. ... We can be an agent of change." Most notably, Sinha said she would like to extend weekend quiet hours from 1 to 2 a.m., keep students better informed of upcoming events in Boston and create a World Speaker Forum, a platform for major speakers to address the campus on issues ranging from the Iraq War to genocide in Darfur. Although a couple of Union officials subsequently criticized Sinha for presenting the idea of the forum, which they say isn't her own, Sinha commented that the Union as a whole is discussing the idea (see story, p.1). Sinha said the forum would be sponsored by "whoever is interested in donating." "Brandeis needs to get back to its reputation of social justice," she said.Following cheers for Sinha, Tanenbaum took the podium. "I hope I get that much applause," he joked. The housing lottery could be much fairer, Tanenbaum said. If a student receives a poor number one year, he should be given preference for a better number the following year, he said. Tanenbaum also said the current Union officials spend too much time in their office, while they should be mingling more with the students, and staying in touch with their needs. Tanenbaum said he would hold office hours in Usdan Student Center and encourage other Union officers to do the same. "I want to be pro-active with students, and be out there with them," he said. But Monday night he said he dropped out because he was concerned that he would just split the vote with Brooks, whom he felt was the most qualified. "We share many of the same constituency, and we'll probably split some votes," Tanenbaum said. "I felt it was important that Brooks win since he is the best for the school."Jonathan D'Oleo '08, an international student from the Dominican Republic who served on the Union as Massell Quad senator for part of his first-year said the Union is not entirely in tune with the needs and wants of students, specifically with regard to party planning. "I think it should be the business of the Student Union to empower rather than dictate," he said. As president, D'Oleo said he would gather student input before planning major parties like Purple Rain. "We should broaden our approach to social life on campus," he said. During his time at the podium, Brooks emphasized that it's the Union's job to serve as an advocate on behalf of the students. "A student president is a student who sets forth a vision and advocates new policies," he said. Brooks also addressed the shortcomings of the Hiatt Career Center, and said he would push for greater networking between alumni and students. "I want to bring more businesses to campus, have more internship fairs and bring more alumni to campus that can help us with internships," he said. "I feel that once we can find a new director we can make progress." Brooks said he would like to work with the Department of Residence Life to reform the housing lottery, so that instead of individual students being assigned lottery numbers, groups of students could sign up for the lottery together and receive one number. This way, even if they don't receive their first choice housing, they could still house with their friends. Iris Uzdil '09, an international student from Turkey, said she would strive to integrate the international community into the rest of campus. Despite all of our different cultures, Uzdil said, "We all have something in common. We're in the same school; we want the same things."Uzdil also talked about giving a bigger role to the International Club to plan more events to integrate the two communities. Frank Golub '10 said, "I don't view being a first year as a liability; I view being a first year as an asset." Golub suggested that students receive their housing numbers via e-mail. But Golub dropped out of the race Sunday because he said Monday night he wanted to support Brooks' candidacy. "Brooks has a lot of out-of-the-box ideas," Golub said, such as his proposal to have the Union President use the veto power to overrule decisions made by the Finance Board. "Those are ideas that are really fresh and that the Union really needs right now.
(03/06/07 5:00am)
To the Editor: Debate is a phenomenal way to learn and grow as educated people. However, it is important that we remember that not all debate is inherently good, and we must recognize certain issues that need to be dealt with more carefully. Benjamin Freed's letter to the editor ("Controversy Must Be Welcomed at Brandeis," Feb. 13 issue) proposes that we must welcome controversy simply because it will spark debate. In my time at Brandeis, I learned very early on that this is not always the case. For example, when a WBRS DJ improvised a song about Asian strippers involving racial slurs, there was an intense controversy that rocked the campus. I doubt if there are many students who welcomed that controversy or would like to see it repeated. Similarly, when students spraypainted swastikas on campus, they expressed a controversial opinion, but I doubt if Freed would welcome the anti-Semitic vandals back for the sake of debate. Obviously, I'm not saying that Jimmy Carter speaking is on par with, or even analogous, to making swastikas or spewing racial epithets (although I know some people are-curiously enough, the opinions of those people are ridiculed by Freed and not celebrated for being controversial). What I am saying is that not all controversy needs to be "welcomed" and not all speakers deserve the right to express themselves with the University as their medium. That does not mean that students cannot express their opinions, but when an outside speaker is invited, it's as if Brandeis approves of that speaker's message, especially when the speaker's presence comes with a cost as great as Carter's (Curiously enough, it seems that it is the people who argue that no cost is too high for the sake of debate who mock the importance of the donations which helped pay for Carter's visit.). Without even discussing Freed's absurd allegation that all opponents of Carter's book are members of the "Zionist right," I must remind him and those who share his views that the integrity of the University is not dependent on letting any speaker speak on any topic. It's not cowardly to say that we as a University believe certain ideas to be hurtful and contrary to the mission of Brandeis. I'm not saying that Carter's message necessarily was or was not destructive enough to ban it from the public forum. I'm just pointing out that it is not cowardly to say there are things we do not want our University to stand for. Students on all sides of the political spectrum have protested speakers on campus in the time I spent at Brandeis sometimes in unforgivably rude ways. Stop worrying about whether President Reinharz was at the speech or not. He has a right to not agree or endorse Carter's message. Frankly, the fact that he allowed Carter to come and approved of the hefty price tag that came along with his visit despite the fact that he doesn't endorse what Carter is saying should be lauded. Yet somehow, Reinharz's complaints after the fact -not about the message but about the event going over budget-have led people like Freed to sling mud at him under the guise of "intellectual diversity." Why is it only your ideas that are diverse, and everyone else's are just wrong?-Dave Firestein '05Berkeley, Calif.
(02/13/07 5:00am)
The architects heading the $35 million Ridgewood housing project presented their design for lower campus at an open forum for students and staff Thursday in Ziv Commons. After considerable debate over whether to renovate or demolish the 56-year-old dorms, the University announced last October that Ridgewood would be torn down this summer and be ready for occupancy by Spring 2009. Administrators also said Ziv Commons would be torn down."To renovate Ridgewood would have really been a compromise on what we think the long term goals are here," Dan Feldman, vice president for capital projects said at the time.The new design, presented by William Rawn Associates, creates a quadrangle in lower campus, uniting the two Ridgewood buildings with a reconstructed two-story Ziv Commons, and the Village. Paths from Ziv Quad will "pierce" the quadrangle, and further connect lower campus, Sam Lasky, an architect on the project, said, during the forum."Quadrangles are traditional spaces effective at pulling people together," Lasky said. "The entrance to the Village becomes very clear and becomes part of this lot. It's no longer isolated." Feldman said definitively that a late-night eatery will open in the space in the Village, which has been unused since the Village's construction in 1999.Feldman could not comment on any details regarding the eatery. "We're at the early stage," he said.The new buildings will house 184 residents in single bedrooms in four or six-person suites. Currently Ridgewood holds 109 residents, Feldman said. Each suite will include a kitchen area, a living room and a bathroom, William Rawn, the head architect, said. Lasky said paths from Ziv Quad will lead directly to the new quad, and the rest of campus. Lasky said this both separates the upperclassmen housing from the rest of campus, while still ensuring that it remains connected.In order to create the path to main campus, the Admissions parking lot will be moved closer to the Slosberg Music Center, Lasky said.The new common space, which will face the Shapiro Campus Center, will hold between 150 and 200 people and could function as a space for social and academic events, Lasky said.Before Ridgewood can be torn down, Feldman said the University must receive a variance from the city of Waltham, which should happen by late summer, he said. Feldman said students can submit questions and suggestions regarding the construction through the Office of Capital Projects Web site."We're always open to suggestions," he said. However, in response to a student's question, Feldman ruled out the possibility of using solar panels in the dorm because of their expense.Jamie Pottern, '09, a member of a student advisory committee on the construction, said the University should attempt the more costly energy-saving features in order to be "an example for other universities."But Ariel Strauss '07, coordinator for Students for Environmental Action, and a member of the committee, said that unfortunately, "suites are very, very energy inefficient" as compared with other styles of housing because they include more rooms. Feldman said he is interested in considering other ways to make the suites more environmentally conscious.
(02/13/07 5:00am)
Daniel Pipes is a distinguished visiting professor at Pepperdine University in Malibu, California, a columnist for newspapers including The New York Sun, Jerusalem Post and L'Opinione and the director of the Middle East Forum, which seeks to define and promote American interests in the Middle East. Pipes received his bachelor and doctoral degrees, both in history, at Harvard University, and he spent three of his six years studying abroad in Egypt. Over the last several years, Pipes has spoken against what he says are the dangers of radical Islam and the threat it poses to America. On Jan. 31, Pipes said at a women Republicans' meeting in Malibu, CA that the solution to the spread of Islamic radicalism in America is to court moderate Muslims and to promote a version of moderate Islam, according to The Malibu Times. He also said in Malibu that he worries "about a leading radical Islamist thinker or scholar coming to [Los Angeles]." Pipes has written 12 books, mostly concerning Islam, the Middle East and Syria. -Michael Grillo
(02/13/07 5:00am)
In October 2006, the Brandeis Middle East Review and the Middle East Forum at Brandeis invited me to speak at the University, and I quickly accepted. The hosts and I selected the date April 23 and the topic ("The Islamization of Europe?"), and everything appeared settled. But on Jan. 23, former President Jimmy Carter visited Brandeis, Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz quasi-debated him, and the ensuing contention prompted the University to establish a closed student-faculty committee to monitor speakers on the Middle East. (This committee comes on top of an already existing committee the provost created earlier in response to the "Voices of Palestine" exhibit in Spring 2006.) Oddly, although my talk was to deal with Europe, it was deemed to fall into the Middle East category and is now on hold, pending this new committee's approval. That's bad enough. Worse was to read in the Justice on Feb. 6 these remarks by University President Jehuda Reinharz: "I have a fear that these people [Norman Finkelstein and myself] who are being invited are weapons of mass destruction."Then John Hose, Reinharz's executive assistant, further elaborated: "These are people who tend to inflame passions, whose mission is not so much discussion and education as it is theater, a show. . If [students] want theater then it's best to go to Spingold [theater]. . But if you want serious discussion, there's lots of resources available for that already at Brandeis."I strenuously object to being lumped in with Finkelstein in any fashion whatsoever. Finkelstein denies the Holocaust as a uniquely evil deed, equates Israel with the Nazis, compares persons he disagrees with to Nazis, justifies Hamas and excuses Muslim anti-Semitism. For good measure, he adds, "I do not think there is very much genuine grief among Jewish leaders about the Nazi holocaust," for they gained from what he calls "the Holocaust reparations racket." They "blackmailed Europe, got billions of dollars and then stuffed their pockets, bank accounts and organizations with the money." Yoking me to Finkelstein betrays Reinharz's profound moral confusion-something especially regrettable in the case of the president of a major university whose moral judgment is in steady demand.The statements by Reinharz and Hose also prompt several questions: 1. How am I, exactly, a weapon of mass destruction, Mr. Reinharz? And what do you mean by this phrase? 2. And Mr. Hose, have you taken a look at just who gets inflamed by my speeches? On Jan. 31, for example, it was a bunch of Islamist goons, and you can see them yourself on the three videos listed on my Web site (www.DanielPipes.org), at "My Disrupted Talk at the University of California-Irvine." After preventing me from speaking, the leader of this group called for the state of Israel to be "wiped off the face of the earth." Your statement makes me wonder whose side you are on-theirs or mine?3. What, precisely, are those scholarly resources available at Brandeis? Might Hose be referring to the University's leading specialist on "contemporary Islamic thought and practice" (the title of her course), Prof. Natana DeLong-Bas (NEJS), an apologist for Al-Qaeda whose depraved thinking was exposed in several recent articles (including "Natana DeLong-Bas: American Professor, Wahhabi Apologist" and "Sympathy for the Devil at Brandeis," from frontpagemag.com)? Or is he referring to Khalil Shikaki, a Crown Center fellow who has been credibly accused of terrorist links and has a second-to-none record in getting it wrong in his chosen field of Palestinian public opinion?Looking at the larger picture, Brandeis has incurred a sorry record when it comes to Israel in recent years-staging that "Voices of Palestine" exhibit, hiring DeLong-Bas and Shikaki, appointing the muddled Prof. Shai Feldman (POL) to head the Crown Center, permitting an Islamist (Qumar-ul Huda) to serve as its Muslim chaplain and setting up the Brandeis-Al-Quds University study-abroad partnership. Over the decades, Brandeis has benefited substantially from the support of those concerned with Israel's security and welfare. Sadly, its record in this arena under Reinharz has strayed so badly that already a year ago the Zionist Organization of America called for "donors to reconsider their support for Brandeis." So long as he remains the University's president, that strikes me as sound advice.The writer is a distinguished visiting professor at Pepperdine University and director of the Middle East Forum.
(02/13/07 5:00am)
It seems that it has become accepted practice for students to be penalized because of a group of faculty members, or even one, who organizes a speaker in 13 days with ill-preparation and misinformation.This is the context of former President Jimmy Carter's January visit that Student Union President Alison Schwartzbaum '08 provided for us and which, we now understand, has become the backbone for a curious new policy the Union has adopted.Apparently, Dean of Student Life Rick Sawyer recommended on Jan. 29 that Schwartzbaum establish a committee for "screening" (to use Schwartzbaum's word) Middle East speakers invited to Brandeis University.It can be excused that at that stage, a precise definition and purpose have not been identified.What is not excusable, and has become increasingly mysterious, is that over two weeks later, a clear goal, details or even a reason for the committee have not been defined.We have contacted Sawyer, Schwartzbaum and Assistant Dean of Student Life Alwina Bennet, only of the last whom has responded to our messages. In meeting with all three, it became clear that each has placed him- or herself in a comfortable position of non-responsibility and muteness on the topic (Schwartzbaum followed all of her statements with "I don't know more than that," and Sawyer said "it is Alison's committee").It comes as an especially frustrating development (or stagnation) as we have each been working toward coordinating unrelated speaker visits for this semester. The planning for the Daniel Pipes event began in October, before any thought was made about Carter's visit. The Norman Finkelstein event was planned twice to completion, only to be deferred to begin stage-one planning through this committee. It may be appropriate to mention here that despite the fact that we are inviting speakers from different perspectives and that among ourselves disagree with each other, we are all in complete agreement regarding this committee and its application.And while we take Bennett's suggestion of "working within the system" to heart, it is unfortunate that all we could do in that respect is nothing. There seems to be no application process, no announcement yet of the week-old members of this committee, and no interactions with us (save for those we initiated) on the organization's progress.So what precisely is the purpose of this committee?One answer, which Schwartzbaum gave, was that following Carter's speech, students felt they had no comfortable forum to discuss Middle East matters. But is a committee possibly devoted to screening Middle East speakers the solution?We offered to divide the tasks along two parallel and independent courses. We would be allowed to go ahead freely with inviting speakers (what is the harm?) and we would offer suggestions for a Union committee devoted precisely to the task of creating a safe space for discussing the issue-with a Middle East Awareness month, professor panels, information sessions following speakers and Middle East activities celebrating different aspects of regional culture. These in addition to the plethora of NEJS and IMES courses, the invited specialists, the Middle East dialogue groups and publications already available to students.The answer given by Sawyer and Schwartzbaum was a nod and a quiet "maybe" with no follow-up and no evident interest in pursuing any of these options.The next possible measure this committee would address, according to Schwartzbaum, was the centralization and better-management of speaker expenses.Indeed, such a committee would centralize costs. However, does this ensure better management? What about the offer by certain speakers to visit for free? And what exactly does evaluation of the "appropriateness" of a speaker have to do with costs?Regarding finances, it seems there is no precedent for such action. Students have been inviting speakers from all parts of the spectrum since the university's inception, including Meir Kahane, Walid Shoebat, the Weathermen and an endless list of other controversial figures.It seems this committee will remain deliberately amorphous in form and ambiguous in objectives for the duration of its existence, functioning as a specter of bureaucracy, dare we say censorship, rather than as that noble medium of dialogue we wish to be its purpose. We only hope now that those responsible for it could prove us wrong.
(02/06/07 5:00am)
On Monday Jan. 29, I was hijacked. I stepped into the Senate office building ready to lobby my senator, Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), about ending the Iraq War as part of the nationwide lobbying day organized by the United for Peace and Justice, a coalition of political groups committed to ending the war. I was prepared to offer what I feel are practical ways for the Senate to stop the war from escalating. Alas, when I walked into Nelson's office, I discovered that some of my fellow lobbyers had their own agenda. They spent nearly half the meeting talking about the atrocities of the Israeli occupation of Palestine. One even went so far as to pull out a bottle of olive oil from Israel that was conspicuously wrapped with an image of Saddam Hussein and hand it to Nelson. Because of this tangental discussion, we didn't have enough time to discuss our points about Iraq. When we left, I felt like I hadn't accomplished anything. This struck me as a stark metaphor for one of the biggest problems we face on campus. This issue was made apparent most recently by the visits of Jimmy Carter and Alan Dershowitz, who discussed the barriers to peace in Israel. While I don't reject the Baker-Hamilton Report's contention that "the United States cannot achieve its goals in the Middle East unless it deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict and regional instability" and strongly feel that America's lack of open criticism toward dubious actions by Israel damages our reputation in the region and the world, the reality is that soldiers and untold numbers of civilians are dying every day during our current occupation of Baghdad. As students in the United States, we can have a greater impact on ending the war in Iraq by raising our voices to our senators and representatives than on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a completely gridlocked and hopeless situation.Perhaps our desire to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has left us apathetic when it comes to dealing with the Iraq quagmire. Last semester, Brandeis' chapter of Democracy For America sponsored a signature drive against the Iraq War, but did little else to raise awarness and initiate anti-war advocacy efforts. And the drive was only during the bloodiest months yet, when the news reported downed choppers and hacked bodies daily. There was not a single march, rally or protest organized on campus in opposition to the war. Even factoring in online forums like Facebook.com, it was impossible to locate a single anti-war group started by Brandeis students or broadly supported in the Brandeis community. All over campus this week, one can find fliers that detail the radical history of our student body, from sit-ins to storming campus buildings. This does not, of course, imply that we have abandoned our legacy and become lazy. Rather, we're spending too much time arguing about a single line from page 213 of Carter's book and whether it constitutes anti-Semitism, and channeling too little energy and anger as a community toward combating the real injustices being perpetuated by our own government in Iraq. The prevalent Israeli-Palestinian discourse on this campus is dividing our community rather than turning us into a powerful movement that can take control and achieve something.Last Tuesday, after I returned from a several-hundred-thousand-person anti-war march in Washington, D.C., I attended a small peace vigil on campus sponsored by the Brandeis chaplaincy. Fewer than 30 people attended, but I felt as much energy resonating from this small crowd as I did from the thousands in the capital. For one moment, any semblance of the divisiveness that pervaded the campus during the past few weeks disappeared completely. There were no distractions of anti-Semitism or diversions on Israel as we all focused in a moment of silence on the troops lost in combat and the innocent civilians who have lost their lives. It was a small but beautiful start to what I hope will be a broader movement to bring our community together.
(02/06/07 5:00am)
In the first of the Heller School for Social Policy and Management's "In Our Own Backyard" lecture series, two of the University's top healthcare-policy experts said Massachusetts' recent health-insurance legislation must serve as a model for other states as the country moves toward widescale and necessary reform. The series focuses on the predominant issues affecting the health and well-being of American society.Prof. Stuart Altman (Heller), a nationally recognized authority on healthcare policy, and Prof. Michael Doonan (Heller), the executive director of the Massachusetts Health Policy Forum, gave an overview of the Commonwealth's reforms, which combine an "individual mandate" to purchase health insurance, a fee on businesses that do not provide health insurance and an increased financial responsibility for the state government. That combination, they said, should serve as a guide for the state-by-state reforms that have never been more necessary in an environment of ever-rising costs and improbable federal-level reform."It's a lot easier to beat something than to build a coalition and try to pass it," said Doonan, explaining why the Massachusetts plan found initial success. "This way, everyone gives a little, but not a lot."The professors mentioned California as an example of a state that has mirrored elements of the Massachusetts plan. California faces problems, however, stemming from its significantly larger noncitizen population. Other states are also attempting reform. Altman said he has received inquiries from healthcare reform committees in Vermont and Kansas.The next event of the "In Our Own Backyard" series, scheduled for Feb. 13, is titled "New Immigrants: Public Policies and the Roads to Integration.
(01/30/07 5:00am)
You always know who has the upper hand in a debate: It's the person who discusses the issue at hand calmly and simply sticks to straightforward facts to make his case, all without appearing overly vested in the outcome or resorting to petty insults.Now, many will argue that no such "debate" occurred last Tuesday evening when former President Jimmy Carter discussed his highly controversial book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid and was separately followed by Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz. As is blatantly clear in this case, a debate can successfully occur in the public forum without those involved ever directly speaking to each other. Despite what some may believe, former President Jimmy Carter graced Brandeis with an open speech detailing his extensive experience with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and, alas, with the highly publicized discontent regarding his book. In fact, he even apologized several times for the notorious wording on page 213 of the book, which to some appeared to condone Palestinian terrorism against Israelis as an effective political tool. Having read Carter's book, I lost count of the number of times in the first 40 pages alone that Carter clearly condemns the use of violence, calling the terrorist attacks "a course of action that is morally reprehensible and politically counterproductive." Poor wording aside, I find it hard to believe that anyone could honestly state that Carter stands firmly behind the use of Palestinian violence for political gain. It is undeniable that this book fails to paint a rosy picture of both the Palestinian and Israeli involvement in the conflict. Yet who at this point in time truly believes that either side of this highly complex issue is completely innocent of wrongdoing? Certainly not the average Brandeis student.Many students longed for a true debate between President Carter and Alan Dershowitz, believing it would be more educational than the arrangement that actually occurred. Yet these same students simply wanted the book, which presents one side of the conflict, to be entirely discredited and disregarded as an implausible and outright falsehood. A former president and Nobel Peace Prize recipient with enormous credentials in the Middle East is focusing the American people on the Israel government's treatment of the Palestinian people. His book should not be casually dismissed. Clearly, those clamoring for a debate simply wanted to see Alan Dershowitz continue his name-calling and ad-hominem style of arguing for which he is infamous. That is not educational; that is a counter-productive form of reality theater that simply exacerbates the issue rather than attempting to resolve it.It is time to come to the realization that innocent people on both sides of this conflict are dying while leaders within our own country continue to fight over who is right and who is wrong. Both sides will continue to share the burden of being wrong until a peace arrangement-one which is equally just to both the Israelis and the Palestinians-can be successfully reached.So accept President Carter's visit for what it truly was: an honor for Brandeis and possibly a small step in the direction of a desperately hoped-for resolution. Otherwise, the fighting, both home and abroad, might never cease.
(01/30/07 5:00am)
Last spring, an Israeli student, Lior Halperin, put up an exhibit called "Voices of Palestine"-drawings by Palestinian teenagers depicting the misery of their lives in the Occupied Territories. Originally planned for two weeks, the exhibit was abruptly taken down by the University administration after four days. Jimmy Carter's visit to Brandeis last week addressed many issues provoked by this exhibit and its removal while also giving all of us a lesson about civil discourse. Our world is increasingly hysterical, especially about the Mideast. We need more rational discussions, and universities are ideal venues for them. Last week, there was one.Many criticisms were leveled at the "Voices of Palestine" exhibit justifying its removal: It was propaganda, it manipulated children, it wasn't art, it was uncivil and it lacked scholarly analysis and context. Even if true, these criticisms missed the point. The significant issue was that the pictures had obvious and painful political content. How could that content be discussed at Brandeis or anywhere else with civility while avoiding the other expressed criticisms?Jimmy Carter was the perfect answer. He's not an artist or a kid. He was President of the United States and won the Nobel Peace Prize. He brokered a Mideast peace treaty that has endured, however cold, for decades, saving untold lives. He's an internationally recognized humanitarian and statesman and the author of many books. He visited Brandeis in an accepted, time-tested university format to talk about his best-selling book on Palestine and to answer questions. If he can't say these things, probably no one can.That he has recently provoked controversy is undeniable. That he comes from the mainstream of American political life is equally irrefutable. He does not represent the boundary limits of free speech: He was not shouting "Fire!" in the crowded auditorium, nor is he an incendiary figure from the radical right or left, much as some would like to push him to those margins.The questions asked by members of the Brandeis community were not, as moderator Mari Fitzduff said, squishy matzah balls. After speaking for 15 minutes, Carter was pointedly questioned for another 45 about statements in his book that have caused alarm, the appropriateness of its title, funding of the Carter Center, the realism of his solutions, the rationale for the separation wall in Palestinian territory-in short, with the utmost in derech eretz (good manners and respect), Brandeis students put him through the examination that he deserves and has asked for. In turn, he compelled us to examine our own beliefs and perspectives. That's what's supposed to happen at universities and is the process through which students learn to think for themselves. Last Tuesday I experienced the University that I have always wanted to work for.Carter's visit demonstrates to the Brandeis community, and beyond, that we are capable of civil controversy (Now, can we do it without the aura of the Presidency and a phalanx of Secret Service agents?). Moreover, the way we talk affects the way we think. Politics may have degenerated to mudslinging, marginalizing opponents, and rebutting what they say immediately. But successful discourse depends on listening to, reflecting on and understanding what people have to say, especially when we do not agree with them. We need not reside in an iPod society where everyone listens only to what they like. In the early 1960s, with American cities in turmoil, my Jewish parents went to hear Malcolm X speak at the Ford Hall Forum in Boston (They were not contemplating joining the Nation of Islam.). As an undergraduate, I went to hear Roy Cohn, of McCarthy infamy, and questioned him about his improprieties as a prosecutor in the Rosenberg trial. I recently heard Shmuel Trigano, a French and Jewish intellectual, speak at Brandeis. Among other things, he said that photographs of dead children in Beirut after last summer's war were blood libel, and thus anti-Semetic (this was acceptable Freudian free association, but unfortunate public discourse.). None of these audiences needed an ideological wet nurse reassuring them immediately afterwards with a comforting "other side." Each of these speakers said things worth thinking about. Thinking-that's why you go to college!Yale President Kingman Brewster said at his 1964 inaugural, "Universities should be safe havens where the ruthless examination of realities will not be distorted by the aim to please or inhibited by the risk of displeasure." We at Brandeis welcomed Jimmy Carter into our own safe haven. I am proud to have written to him, suggesting his visit. The Brandeis University motto is "Truth, even unto its innermost parts." Since we don't always know where the truth is, we need a way to go look for it. President Carter's visit shows that we have the capacity to conduct that exploration.Harry Mairson is a professor of computer science and chair of the Faculty Senate.
(01/30/07 5:00am)
Administrators have twice stalled recent efforts to bring Norman Finkelstein, a left-wing professor of political theory who has written controversial books on the Middle East, to campus, Kevin Conway '09, a member of the Radical Student Association, said.Originally, Conway said RSA and the Arab Culture Club wanted to bring Finkelstein to campus to respond to former President Jimmy Carter and Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz immediately after their talks."Finkelstein is acknowledged as an expert on the Middle East," Conway said. "No one has been able to discredit him on his work alone."But Conway said the speaker's visit was rejected because administrators, during a one-stop meeting, felt the RSA proposed the program too hastily. Student groups looking to hold events meet with departments such as Student Life and Public Safety during one-stop meetings."These events should be planned more thoughtfully and have more of an educating aspect," said Alwina Bennett, assistant dean of student life.Administrators on Monday rejected a second effort to bring Finkelstein to campus at a one-stop meeting.Bennett said Finkelstein was not really prohibited to come to campus, but added that bringing controversial speakers like Finkelstein should be well-planned. Bennett said soon student groups will propose these types of events to a yet-to-be-named committee to better organize these events. Bennett suggested Conway's group meet with this committee in the future."We need to find a balanced way of getting speakers to campus," Bennett said.Student Union President Alison Schwartzbaum '08 said a committee like this should be comprised of students, faculty and staff. "There should be a forum to discuss this in an intellectual manner," she added.But Conway and Farrah Bdour '07, co-president of the Arab Culture Club, said they did not feel it was necessary to start a committee to approve Finkelstein's visit. "I realize he brings up controversial and sensitive points of view, but it's a view that is sorely missing from Brandeis," Bdour said. "People need to hear all sides of the story." "This committee is not about Student Union or Student Activities censorship, even though people might look at it that way," Schwartzbaum said. "But that's not at the crux of the issue."Bdour said administrators approved an upcoming visit by Daniel Pipes, a neoconservative Middle East analyst, despite the fact that its organizer, Middle East Forum at Brandeis, had not yet gone before the committee.
(01/30/07 5:00am)
To the Editor:As an alumnus of Brandeis University, I am deeply disturbed to hear that the administration abandoned its academic and moral responsibility and allowed President Jimmy Carter to speak on campus. President Carter's book, replete with inaccuracies and anti-Israeli bias, does not deserve a promotional forum at a university that was established to provide an academic safe haven for American Jews who were blacklisted at Ivy League universities. President Carter's refusal to debate, coupled with the use of prescreened questions, cloaks propaganda in the guise of academic discourse. His visit dishonors the values of this great institution and its namesake. The administration had a chance to uphold the moral character of the University and demand debate on a crucial issue that deserves discourse, but instead folded to pressure and compromised away our integrity.-Mordecai Slomich '03New?York
