(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
(01/23/07 5:00am)
Continuing its quest to improve campus social life, the Student Union has found what is by far its best idea to date: subsidized parties.It turns out, according to the results of a Union survey on myBrandeis and a forum on social life it hosted, students by and large do not prefer campuswide events like the now-defunct Modfest, which the administration had been so on-edge about. It seems we instead favor smaller parties in on-campus suites. And so, having met an unsurprising defeat with the relatively underattended Purple Rain, the Union, as its President Alison Schwartzbaum '08 announced in her State of the Union address in December, is shifting gears.By subsidizing up to $50 one registered party per week, the Union hopes to encourage small-scale partying on campus. Drawing from the Union's social-life fund, Union Director of Social Affairs Cindy Kaplan '08 and an ad hoc committee will choose the most worthy parties, whose hosts-typical open parties can cost well over $100-will no doubt find the assistance a boon.We commend the Union for this idea, but hope they will recognize that its implementation will be tricky. There's no sense in allowing a good idea to fizzle for lack of foresight.Those evaluating applications should reward creative or themed parties; a receipt that includes tortilla chips, sombreros and a piSata should be more deserving than one listing only a few handles of tequila. But the question of who should make those decisions-and exactly how they should be made-remains. As it stands, Ms. Kaplan and other Union members will decide which parties receive funding. The Union should strive for objectivity when choosing which party gets the money, however. Codifying the policy will prevent whoever selects the "winning party" from playing favorites-now and in the future.With only one grant available each week, a selection process makes the most sense, but the reality that dry parties will attract fewer party-goers raises questions about how-and whether-the grants should be restricted. The allowance would not be paid out until after the parties are held so that suites that are written up for violations of University policy-including serving alcohol in a dry quad or suite-can have their money withheld. Although students in dry suites run the risk of being written up if they serve alcohol at their parties, they shouldn't necessarily be barred from applying for funds in the first place. But the alternative-forbidding dry suites from applying for the funds-is not ideal, either, because it would unfairly bar underage students from having their parties reimbursed. The catch-22 seems unavoidable, and merits much conversation. The possibility for abuse exists, as well. Of course, Union officials should not be stopping by parties for compliance checks, but they must also ensure that the money isn't being squandered by five roommates for a private game of Tour de Franzia. If the program grows-and we hope it will, quickly and considerably-this will become a greater issue.These concerns aside, the Union's initial plan is undoubtedly praiseworthy. But even with this notch on its belt, the Union should not lose sight of its main mission: advocacy. This new emphasis on smaller parties must not distract the Union from negotiating for less stringent rules at campuswide events that serve alcohol, because those vital parts of campus social life are in even more need of revitalization.
(01/23/07 5:00am)
-Because of an editing error, a front-page article in last week's issue about the opening of Einstein Bros. Bagels incorrectly stated that Aramark owns Einstein Bros. Bagels. The bagel chain, owned by New World Restaurant Group, is franchised to Aramark.-A page 2 article in last week's issue about the new interim Hiatt director was mislabeled as a U-Wire article. The article was written by a Justice staff writer.-Because of an editing error, the article about Alan Dershowitz stated that The Hoot's editorial board had already revoked an invitation sent by one of their members to Dershowitz to speak on campus. They had not done so yet, but said they would in the near future.-In last week's Features section, the picture of Jehuda Reinharz was not identified as a photo illustration. All other photos in the section were not illustrations.-Also in last week's Features section, the article about Jehuda Reinharz incorrectly stated that Reinharz removed the Palestinian art exhibit in the Goldfarb Library. Reinharz said he took responsibility for the exhibit's removal.-In the letter from last week's Forum section about Student Union President Alison Schwartzbaum's '08 criticism of the administration's alcohol policy, her first name was misspelled.-On the back page Arts article about the MLK Day celebration, Jonathan D'Oleo '08 was misidentified as the student pictured in the photo. It was a photo of William Chalmus '07.The Justice welcomes submissions for errors that warrant correction or clarification. E-mail corrections@brandeis.edu.
(01/23/07 5:00am)
To the Editor:In regards to the Jan. 16 article "Carter to speak," I have a graduate degree from Brandeis and my son Nick graduated in the undergraduate Class of 1997. Many members of our family are Brandeis grads. As such, I was appalled by the initial decision to invite President Carter only if he was paired with Alan Dershowitz. The presence of a former president enhances the reputation of any university and suggesting that he be paired with anyone else insults the president and the presidency. In this case, Brandeis behaved not like the great university it is, but like a Jewish organization, which it isn't. There is no "correct" Brandeis position on Israel or on anything else. As anyone who tries to "sell" Brandeis to prospective students knows its unfair image as some kind of Jewish summer camp limits its appeal to some of the best potential students. The negative publicity produced by the attempt to restrict Carter's appearance because of his statements on Israel replaced the summer camp image with that of, say, the Zionist Organization of America-not exactly a cool image. I'd appreciate it if the administration would stop taking actions that degrade the value of my son's diploma. Act like the great university you are. Thank you, Gordie Fellman, for saving the situation. -MJ Rosenberg, MA '72Chevy Chase, Md.The writer is the Director of Policy Israel Policy Forum in Washington, D.C.
(11/21/06 5:00am)
An evaluation team from the New England Association for Schools and Colleges completed its three-day visit to campus Wednesday and will now begin work on its assessment of the University. The visit is the second step in an 18-month reaccreditation process the University undergoes every 10 years. Prior to the team's visit, the University finished a thorough self-study on topics ranging from diversity of the student body to how faculty salaries have changed over the last decade. "The team members and I enjoyed our visit to Brandeis," John Sexton, the team's chairman and president of New York University, wrote in an e-mail to the Justice. "Those we met with-administrators, faculty, students and staff-were extremely helpful and forthcoming."The nine-member NEASC accreditation team, composed of administrators and professors from Brown University, Dartmouth College, New York University, Wesleyan University and Washington and Lee University, visited Brandeis to assess the institution in light of the self-study. "The team was particularly complimentary about the extent to which the curriculum complements the University's mission and the commitment to a strong liberal arts education that is clearly evident among faculty, staff and students," University President Jehuda Reinharz wrote in an open letter to the community,Sexton declined to comment on the team's findings until his team's report, which includes recommendations for improvements to the University, is released next spring. "It's like getting a report card: I think we're going to get mostly good grades," said Alwina Bennett, the assistant dean of student life, who met with the team. "But I think we're like the average Brandeis student: We want a 4.0 and some extra points."The team's jam-packed visit included meetings with executive administrators, Library and Technology services staff, academic department chairs, graduate school directors and student leaders, Provost Marty Krauss said. "It was an important time to take stock of all that the University has accomplished since the last visit in 1996 and to help focus on the future," she said. The evaluation team will report back to NEASC's Commission on Institution of Higher Education, and the process will officially end when the commission submits its report. Krauss, who oversaw the reaccreditation process with Chief Operating Officer Peter French and Senior Vice President for Students and Enrollment Jean Eddy, said the NEASC evaluation serves a useful purpose for the University.Administrators emphasized the University's improvement over the last decade. "The point of reaccreditation is not to play 'gotcha,' it's to help us improve over the next 10 years," Bennett said. Krauss said students and staff alike were involved in the reaccreditation process. "The participation of the community in these visits was outstanding. It was really a community event," Krauss said.But Bennett disagreed with Krauss: "A certain part of the community was very engaged in the self-study and the reaccreditation process, [but] we forget that there's a whole 90 percent out there that didn't know it was even going on," Bennett said. In an open meeting with Glenn Nicholls, vice president for student affairs at Case Western Reserve University and Prof. Nancy Armstrong, chair of Brown's English department, students spoke about ways the University can improve. Armstrong said during the forum that student voices are vital to the review team's understanding of Brandeis. "To get a complete picture we really need to hear what [students] have to say about the Brandeis experience," she said.NEASC accredits over 2,000 private schools ranging from prekindergarten through the university level in New England and abroad.
(11/07/06 5:00am)
The front-page teaser to last week's "Rabbi on the Run" article incorrectly stated Peretz Chein was untrained for the marathon. Chein had trained one year in advance for the race.In last week's Senate Log, it was incorrectly stated that Dean of Arts and Sciences Adam Jaffe will hold an open forum on possible pass-fail changes. Representatives from the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee will hold the forum.The headline for "Psychedelic, energetic and well-honed rock from a Brandeis band" (Oct. 31, p. 19) incorrectly stated that Oh No ! Oh My! is a campus band. The band is from Austin, Texas.The Justice welcomes submissions for errors that warrant correction or clarification. E-mail corrections@brandeis.edu.
(11/07/06 5:00am)
In the summer of 1954, the American photographer Berenice Abbott set out with a couple of friends to photograph the length and breadth of U.S. 1, from its beginning in Fort Kent, Maine to its terminus in Key West, Fla. Abbott later explained that she did what she did because the American landscape was changing so rapidly. "Photography can only represent the present," she said in an interview. "Once photographed, the subject becomes a part of the past."Except that nowadays, subjects don't necessarily become a part of the past once they have been photographed. In this Age of Google, they may very well become a part of some distant present-a present that involves a job interview, perhaps, or even an online dating encounter. It's a reality that I fear many young people who set up blogs or MySpace pages don't pay enough attention to, and they really should.But should newspaper editors pay attention to this reality, given that nearly all papers in the country now produce online versions of their print editions? Are the editors of college newspapers any more obliged than the editors of mainstream papers to take the perennial properties of the Internet into account before choosing the photographs they feature on their cyberpages?There is, I'm afraid, no easy answer.It's a dilemma that I discussed with Dan Hirschhorn '07, editor-in-chief of the Justice, long before the Oct. 10 and Oct. 17 editions of the paper brought the issue to the fore. And although Hirschhorn and I seem to differ on the matter, we are both equally ambivalent about our points of view.Let me begin by stating that I do not believe it was inappropriate for the Justice to run its story about the administration's reaction to the "Less You Wear" dance with a pair of photographs showing exactly how little some of the people at the dance were wearing. If the administration believes, as Assistant Dean of Student Life Alwina Bennett stated, that the dance has deteriorated to "just naked people in a dark room," I think it is important for those of us who were not at the dance to see the photographs in order to evaluate Bennett's estimation of the event. One reader of the Justice wrote in to say that she didn't think the photographs should have been used without the permission of the subjects. I disagree. If a behavior occurs in the public square, it is fodder for news coverage. How, whether, when and where that coverage takes place is, of course, an editorial decision-but except in the case of children, journalistic ethics do not require an editor to obtain the permission of a subject who has acted in a public forum.That same rule applies to the photograph of a student being taken into protective custody that was featured on the front page of the following week's edition of the Justice. This photograph was, I think, more problematic, simply because so-called "perp-walk" photographs tend to undermine our collective commitment to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" (although, properly speaking, this was not a perp-walk, since the subject was not being deliberately paraded in front of a camera by police). Nevertheless, I think it is the damage that might have been done to that principle, more so than the damage that might have been done to the student's reputation on campus (which at least one reader has expressed concern about), that should have guided the editors of the Justice when determining whether and how to use the photograph in their print edition.But then there is the complicated matter of the paper's online edition, which serves a community that exists beyond the boundaries of Brandeis University-and beyond the boundaries, even, of the year 2006. I have stated that newspaper editors are not ethically obliged to obtain permission from a photograph subject who is an adult, and Brandeis students legally are adults. But the majority of them are living on that part of the adult landscape that most closely resembles the American landscape Berenice Abbott photographed in 1954-that is to say, the rapidly changing part. Not only that, but Brandeis students are enjoying four very special years on that changing landscape, years when they are allowed, and sometimes even encouraged, in the spirit of discovery, to make some mistakes. The boy on a bicycle who's featured in one of Berenice Abbott's photographs became a part of the past as soon as Abbott clicked the shutter on her camera. The young adults in panties and handcuffs, though, who are featured in the online archives of the Justice will be very much a part of the present should the photographs be pulled up by a potential employer five years from now-even if the young woman who brazenly wore her underwear in public or the young man who attracted police attention in the Mods back in 2006 no longer exist.So am I saying the photographs should not be featured in the online edition of the paper? No. My thoughts on this issue are not nearly so well-defined. Editor-in-Chief Dan Hirschhorn is firmly committed to the idea that any information conveyed in the print edition of the paper ought to be available in the online version as well, and I respect this point of view. Indeed, the general trend in newspaper publishing is to use the Internet to convey more information than a print version allows, not less.At the same time, though, I wonder if it might not be appropriate to set up some kind of filter such that the simple "googling" of a name will not automatically bring an Internet user to the Justice's website. This would, of course, mitigate one of the truly remarkable contributions the Internet has made to our society, and that is the ease with which information can now be identified and accessed. As I sat in the microfilm room of the Farber Archives last week, looking at nineteenth-century journals that have yet to be scanned online, I was painfully aware of what an amazing research tool the Internet is-and I hesitate to limit its potential in any way. But I don't think putting a filter on the Justice's website would really limit the Internet, per se. It would just require people to be a bit more discriminating when they dig-and sometimes, discrimination can actually be a good thing.The ombudsman serves as the readers' representative, writing a regular column evaluating the newspaper's journalistic performance. Prof. Maura Farrelly (AMST), the director of the journalism program and a former brodcast reporter for Voice of America, can be reached at farrelly@brandeis.edu.
(11/07/06 5:00am)
A chorus of cries rang out in the Shapiro Campus Center Atrium Thursday night as about 30 students reacted to their release from a day of silence in protest of racial prejudice.The students wore black tape over their mouths during classes and throughout the day in an effort to show solidarity with those unable to speak out about discrimination and racism. Many also sported black shirts with messages written on them, such as "unconditional love," "unity" and the word "silence" crossed out. In the evening, a group of participants gathered to contemplate racial sentiments in American society, as well as their own attitudes."Racism does exist at Brandeis, on a subtle level," one participant said during the program. "But I'm very optimistic that students are aware of this and try to make an effort to improve it."Ashley Pham '08, a coordinator of Students Organized Against Racism, which planned the event, began by telling the assembly the group aimed to "bring together the Brandeis community, faculty [and] staff, in a common goal to fight racism and to eradicate prejudice and bigotry."In an initial group exercise, the two moderators read statements and asked participants to step into the middle of the circle if they felt a statement applied to them. The statements "I sometimes think I'm racist" and "I have witnessed acts of racism" each brought a majority of those assembled into the circle. About five students professed to "enjoying racist jokes."Students then formed groups to discuss questions about racism, as well as issues facing double-minorities, people who identify with two minority groups. Slightly more than half of the students agreed with the statement, "Brandeis is racist." "Racism is so prevalent, it's invisible," said Assistant Dean of Student Life Alwina Bennett, who participated in some of the activities. "Because it's so prevalent, you can't grow up in this culture without being racist."Aaron Voldman '09, a Democracy for America coordinator who wore the tape during the day, said he felt "a great amount of solidarity with those around me who were also participating," adding that silence "definitely took people off guard." Pham said the event grew out of the impression that racial issues are not discussed at Brandeis.Controversy over a poem published last year in the Hoot revealed the lack of an effective forum for discussing racial issues on campus, Pham said. "A lot of people didn't have voices that were being heard," she said.Pham called the event a "major success," adding that the 100 shirts the group had ordered for the event were insufficient.The day of silence was planned partly as an inaugural event for a reinvigorated SOAR, which Pham said has been active on-and-off since its founding six years ago.
(10/31/06 5:00am)
CORRECTION APPENDED (See bottom)Mark Magidson '09 was sworn in as the new senator for the Charles River Apartments.Senior Representative to the Alumni Association Beth Wexelman '07 said the Brandeis House, an alumni and member-only mansion on Manhattan's Upper East Side, may undergo a significant set of improvements, including the addition of a bar. Wexelman spoke about a proposal for an online interface, tentatively titled "BConnect," for Brandeis alums and recent grads to network.University Curriculum Committee Representatives announced that the Italian Studies interdisciplinary program will be continued after a review and will be reviewed again in another three to four months. The Representatives said they wish to hold an open forum on the possibility of changing the pass/fail policy so passing grades lower than a C- would no longer be covered.Jordan Rothman, president of the Brandeis marching band, submitted a petition with the signature of athletes, coaches and trainers as evidence of the overwhelming demand for the new fight song. The Fight Song Resolution, sponsored by Robbie Schwartz '08, senator for Ziv Quad, and Joshua Karpoff, senator for the Class of 2007, was passed. Senior Representative to the Board of Trustees Albert Cahn '07, Senator for the Class of 2008 Michael Goldman and Union Secretary Alex Braver '09 submitted a bylaw amendment which would have ended mandatory office hours for Union representatives. The amendment was rejected by a wide margin. The Senate approved a request by Castle Quad Senator Eric Alterman '09 for $200 to fund a Castle Quad Barbeque. An emergency request submitted by Senators for the Class of 2010 Jenna Brofsky and Rajiv Ramakrishnan to provide money for face paints and brushes to be used at Louispalooza was passed. -Bernard HermanThis article incorrectly reported that Dean of Arts and Sciences Adam Jaffe wanted to hold an open forum to discuss changes to the pass/fail system. It was actually student representatives to the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee wanted to hold such a forum.
(10/17/06 4:00am)
Director of the Hiatt Career Center Marty Ford addressed the Senate for feedback on recent developments within the department including internships, career counseling and a larger staff size. He spoke of the success of the Hiatt Assessment, a career evaluation targeted toward first-year students, and the sophomore-targeted career shadowing program. Beth Wexelman '07 and Reuven Solomon '08, respective senior and junior representatives to the Alumni Association, approached the Senate for comments in order to represent student opinion at next week's meeting. They also discussed BAMD! '06 (Brandeis Alumni Making a Difference), a program that invites returning alumni to speak about their lives after Brandeis.Director of Academic Affairs Jason Brodsky '07 announced the invitation of Dean of Arts and Sciences Adam Jaffe to discuss the academic pass/fail policy with the Senate.The Brandeis Marching Band distributed copies of its proposed Brandeis "Fight Song."The Senate recognized Students Organized Against Racism, a group that previously existed under the Intercultural Center and involves other local universities. The club advocates pluralism and provides forums for dialogue surrounding controversial issues.Director of Social Affairs Cindy Kaplan '08 discussed plans for Purple Rain on Oct. 20. She said event planners worked with the administration to make the event safer than past Modfests.Senior Representative to the Board of Trustees Albert Cahn '07 and Brodsky proposed a more lenient academic probation policy.Under the current policy, the Committee on Academic Standing can place students with a semester grade below a D or a semester GPA below 2.0 on probation. The senate will introduce a more transparent and "forgiving" policy to administration officials and University committees.Union President Alison Schwartzbaum '08 discussed potential plans for the reconstruction of Ridgewood, which may result in a 70-to-85 net gain of beds. She said the University ultimately aims to accommodate 90 percent of students on-campus. Other potential housing plans include a lower C-store and the eventual renovation of the Charles River Apartments.Brian Paternostro '07, director of communications, said he is considering delivering the Union's new newsletter door-to-door in response to students ripping them down from the walls.The Senate went into executive session for unknown reasons. -Lindsay Vacek
(10/10/06 4:00am)
In their book, The Elements of Journalism, Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel lay some pretty hefty obligations at the feet of America's journalists. Members of the Fourth Estate, we are told, are obliged to monitor power, seek and verify "the truth," provide citizens with the information they need to exercise their rights and create a public forum, where the criticism and compromise that are so essential to any democracy can take place.All the while, Kovach and Rosenstiel insist, journalists must strive to be "interesting and relevant."It seems to me that the way reporters and editors can best accomplish this final obligation is by fostering a sense of community through their product. They can monitor power and verify truth all they want, but if their audience has not been encouraged to identify with the power and the truth, journalists will not have met their obligations in a free and democratic society.To foster community, journalists do not always have to focus specifically on such grandiose notions as "power" and "truth." Communities, after all, are made up of people-some powerful, some not-who all have different ways of discerning and understanding the truths in their lives. A good news product will introduce citizens to one another and challenge readers to understand the "different ways of knowing," so to speak, that are expressed by individuals and groups within their community. It will also compel readers to constantly redefine the boundaries of their communities.This brings me to the commitment the Justice clearly has to reporting on the arts at Brandeis. I was delighted to discover that each week, the paper devotes an entire pull-out section to the wealth of artistic expression on this campus-music, theater, photography, sculpture, painting and dance. Not only that, but the writing is good-often very good. I was able to learn from Kendra Fortmeyer '08, for example, that the obscenely wealthy Mexican women in Daniela Rossell's photography exhibit at the Kniznick Gallery are "bored out of their tanned, bleached-blond skulls," and that their houses are full of the "desperate possessions of those who long ago lost all sense of what it was to want." Michelle Minkoff '08 made me sorry I had missed the "camaraderie" that was apparently quite evident between and among the four cellists who kicked off this year's classical music series at the Slosberg Recital Hall. I'll be sure not to miss the next performance.Poetry is another mode of expression the Justice recently touched upon, in the profile of poet-in-residence Franz Wright that was put together by Claire Moses '08 and Shana Lebowitz '10. The feature alluded to some of Wright's poems, but it was really about the man-how he works, what inspires him, and how he feels about his art. In this respect, the piece was similar to the profile of my American Studies colleague, Prof. Brian Donahue, that was written by Rachel Pfeffer '08 and printed the week before. Both profiles provided me with a very personal window (a llama, Brian?) into the lives and motivations of two men who contribute to the unique intellectual identity of this community I recently joined. I encourage the editors at the Justice to continue with these profiles of faculty and to look beyond the professoriate to administrators, staff and students. Each of us brings to this community elements of the other communities that have shaped us-ethnic communities, racial communities, political communities, religious communities.And speaking of religion, it strikes me that a newspaper at "a nonsectarian university under the sponsorship of the American Jewish community" probably ought to have much to say about the issue of faith on campus-starting, perhaps, with an exploration of what that phrase actually means to the people who live and work in this community.The Justice is not alone in the short shrift it has given to religion. Until very recently, mainstream American journalists were quite loath to recognize that as Western democracies go, the United States is a pretty gosh-darned religious nation. Even after the election of 2004 forced members of the media to stand up and take notice, the coverage of religion in America has seemed, at times, to border on pandering. And so I issue a challenge to the reporters and editors at the Justice: Do better than some of the people you aspire to be.The ombudsman serves as the readers' representative, writing a regular column evaluating the newspaper's journalistic performance. Prof. Maura Farrelly (AMST), the director of the journalism program and a former brodcast reporter for Voice of America, can be reached at farrelly@brandeis.edu.
