(03/23/04 5:00am)
How many closeted Republicans exist at Brandeis? This week, they will finally have a chance to make their identities known. Conservative Coming Out Week, sponsored by the Brandeis College Republicans, starts today and runs through next Tuesday.Why would the Republicans schedule such a week? The group's leaders, Jordana Luks '04, Adrienne Camire '04 and Sarah Chopnick '04, say their goal for the week is to raise awareness about conservative issues that are often suppressed on campus. The Republican club is not homogeneous, the three said. They never release "club stances" on any issue, except that the club supports President Bush. The social issue of the year, which seems to be gay marriage, elicited a "no comment" response from the Republicans. "It's an emotional, personal issue, decided on an individual basis," Camire stated.It's not easy to be a Republican on this campus. All three believe that suppression of the conservative voice has gotten worse during their four years at Brandeis. "Republicans are embarrassed on this campus," Luks said. "People will make fun of you." Luks recalled that during her American Government class during her first year at Brandeis, her professor announced that the Supreme Court had come to a decision on the election and that Bush would officially be the next president. "There was complete silence in the room, and I started to clap," Luks remembered. She said the professor told her later that she was "really brave."The three are disappointed with the labels that are often attached to those with different views. "Republicans are often related to anti-woman, anti-minority, pro-killing and pro-destroying the environment," Camire stated. Luks has been called a "fascist" and plainly told that she's "evil." Luks knows of somebody who received death threats because he was in favor of the war in Iraq.While the Democrats have a bulletin board in Usdan, the Republicans do not. "Our office was taken away without notice during the move from Usdan to Shapiro [in 2002]," Camire stated. When they did have an office, she said, Republican paraphernalia was often destroyed, signs were ripped off and destroyed, and walls had been vandalized.Hayley Tozeski '04, president of the Brandeis College Democrats responded to the bulletin board issue, saying, "the Brandeis Democrats have had that bulletin board long before I got here, and I don't know the original process."According to Chopnick, "people who claim to be open-minded are only that way to those who share the same ideas." Tozeski said this is not always the case. "We are at an extremely liberal school," she said, "(but) those who are knowledgeable are receptive to alternate points of view."She thinks that the week is "a great idea" that will "really fulfill a needed dialogue" on campus. "The Republicans are pretty inactive, and a lot of people who agree with their viewpoint don't have a venue," Tozeski said. "These events should garner [the Republicans] support."Institutionalized problemWith a voice so small, it is hard to counter the Democrats' domination of the campus. As Tozeski said, "Any time when you're in the minority, it is difficult to voice your opinion."But the problem goes beyond individuals in the student body, Republican club leaders said. They believe that anti-Republicanism is an "institutionalized problem" at Brandeis."We are trying to get money, trying to attract people, but the Administration only supports certain ideas," Camire said.Even in classes not related to politics or social issues, Luks has experienced many negative comments about conservative ideas, whether it is "a snide remark, or a tirade by a professor."Luks believes that over 90 percent of professors in the Politics department are registered Democrats. "This creates a big impact on the character of the school," she said. "Students look up to professors."Prof. Steven Berg, chair of the Politics department, responded to Luks' claims. "I have no idea about the political preference of my colleagues, nor would I ever ask," he said."Some things you have to expect," Tozeski responded. "Anytime you take politics in a liberal state, professors will publish and express their views. That's what they do. If a professor feels that President Bush is wrong, he is entitled to voice his opinion," she said. Tozeski said she has never heard of professors putting down a student for having a different opinion. "Students have ample opportunity to express their opinions," she said.Luks, though, said that she has had conferences with professors where she had to assert, "I know you don't agree with my position, but this is a well-written paper." This scares students from writing their real views when grades are at stake, Chopnick added.Camire recalled that last year, during the anti-war and pro-war rallies, "a lot of professors cancelled class so students would protest." According to her, some professors then yelled and called pro-war students "freaks" as they walked around carrying an American flag. "Of course," Camire said, "it doesn't apply to everyone; most professors are respectful and very supportive." Luks agreed. "If you build a personal relationship with a professor, you can explore both viewpoints; I've had amazing conversations with professors," she said.Trips, speakers, debatesThe events of Conservative Coming Out Week are targeted at people with interests in diverse subjects. "People might hate some events, but at least they are exposing themselves to something new, something they usually don't hear on this campus," Camire said. To begin the week, about 20 members of the Republican club will take a trip to a local shooting range. They will learn about firearm safety from the Gun Owners' Association League (GOAL). GOAL is a Massachusetts branch of the NRA that works with youth on gun safety and proper techniques.On Wednesday, a member of GOAL will come to Brandeis to speak about the Second Amendment-the right to bear arms-answering such questions as why someone has the right to own a gun, and why one would want to exercise that right.Also on Wednesday, the Republican s will set up a table in Usdan with information about Bush's re-election campaign, along with items supporting local Republican candidates for office. On Thursday at 4 p.m., the Shapiro Atrium will house a debate between the Republicans and the Brandeis Democrats on the issues of national security and foreign policy.Over in Boston on Thursday, President Bush will make a stop at the Park Plaza Hotel. In support of the president's visit, Bostonians are planning a rally in Boston Commons; some Brandeis Republicans plan to join in. The events continue after the weekend with a networking night on Monday, Mar. 29. Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healy, Waltham Mayor Jeanette McCarthy, Waltham Republicans Chair Michael Squillante, Massachusetts House Speaker Tom Finneran and others were invited to the event, though their attendance is not yet certain. This social event will allow students to meet Republicans from the area; students will have an opportunity to talk freely about careers and political involvement at the local level. The week culminates with a Mar. 30 speech by David Horowitz, a prominent conservative writer and best-selling author of Left Illusions: An Intellectual Odyssey. During the 1960s, Horowitz was a leader of the "New Left," editing Rampart's Magazine, an influential left-wing journal. But he withdrew from politics, dissatisfied with radical American policies, and returned in the '80s as a conservative. In 1988, Horowitz created the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, which distributes literature on defending a free society and the dangers of the anti-American left. In 1990, former President Ronald Reagan presented Horowitz with the Teach Freedom award. Future RepublicansWhile over 100 students currently belong to the Brandeis College Republicans, Luks believes that more "people are out there; the number of Republicans is probably bigger than it shows." When closeted Republicans are confronted about their views, Camire doesn't want them to say "no comment" in fear of ridicule. Likewise, Luks said she hopes that closeted Republicans will stand out and say, "this is who I am, and I am proud." She said she wishes for the day when students will be able to "support Bush without shame.""There is enthusiasm out there and people are excited," Camire said. "We will be a presence on campus for a week."In the future, the club "will continue to promote Republican issues, support President Bush, bring a presence to this campus and make [itself] heard," Camire said. Brandeis students can look for the "Students for W" campaign to continue through the election in November.The group will also hold registration drives with the Democrats. "It is important to get out and vote, regardless of party," Camire said.Luks feels that the demographics are changing at Brandeis. In the past, roughly 10 percent of Jews have voted Republican, but she said she thinks it will be more like 20 to 25 percent this election. With more diversity at Brandeis in the future, Luks hopes that the Brandeis community will reflect the national averages.Social stancesWith many women and Jews, two groups usually associated with voting for the Democratic Party, the Brandeis Republicans are not the average sampling of conservatives. To be a member of the club, "one doesn't need to subscribe to every issue of the Republican Party," Luks said. "We don't go down a GOP list and follow all their policies," she said. Meetings are usually held every Monday at 6:30 p.m. in the Shapiro Atrium, where club members essentially participate in a forum. They discuss conservative news, recent events on campus, comment on interesting books or articles and vent to each other."The main goal of the club is for real debate and open communication," Camire said. "Let's hear both sides of various issues.
(03/23/04 5:00am)
To the Editor:As a senior about to graduate from Brandeis University, an institution that has always prided itself on being politically active and simultaneously open-minded, I am outraged by the lack of respect that has been shown for the Brandeis Republican's "Conservative Coming Out Week". To make things clear, I personally choose not to affiliate myself with either the Democratic or the Republican parties, and thus my bias lies with neither side. However, as we near the end of a difficult year in which our community has been confronted with controversial issues dealing with race and religion on our campus, I am appalled to see that we have yet to learn our lesson. Regardless of the defining characteristic (whether it be race, religion, or political party), minorities on the Brandeis campus should not feel threatened as an individual or as a group. Offensive remarks have been written on the "Conservative Coming Out Week" posters, club leaders have been harassed at their table in Usdan, and I have heard snide comments passed between students while walking on campus. While the Brandeis Republicans do not expect everyone in the community to agree with their views, the least they deserve is the community's respect - a respect that all other student clubs demand. I laud the Brandeis Republicans for their effort to make their presence known on campus, and I urge my peers, professors, administrators, and university staff members to give the Brandeis Republicans the respect they deserve, and the freedom to speak in an open forum without risk of reproach or reprisal. Michelle Battat, '04
(03/16/04 5:00am)
Garnering more than $200 million in its opening week, Mel Gibson's film about the death of Jesus, The Passion of the Christ, has profited enormously from its controversial buzz. As a campus with a particularly large Jewish population, it seems appropriate for Brandeis to examine the claims of anti-Semitism in the film. Chaplains Fr. David Michael and Rabbi Allan Lehmann provided a forum for students and community members to learn about the film and voice opinions at the discussion held Tuesday night, "Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ: Inspiring or Incendiary?-Catholic and Jewish Responses." During the discussion, Prof. Rueven Kimelman (NEJS) and Prof. Philip Cunningham, a Catholic scholar and adjunct professor of theology at Boston College, presented their views of the film in terms of accuracy, societal impact and its significance to Christian-Jewish relations.Cunningham began the discussion with a short speech. He spoke first about the violence in the movie. He described the inundation of brutality as emotionally draining. He also depicted the film as presenting a polarized world of good versus evil. Next, he mentioned how he was struck by the number of historical errors in the film. One of the inaccuracies involved the crucifixion itself. In the film, Jesus was nailed through the palms. But documented Roman crucifixions reveal the common practice was to drive the nails through the wrists, not the palms. It is also unlikely that Jesus carried the cross, which probably weighed close to 300 pounds itself.Most of these details derived from Christian artistic depictions of the crucifixion rather than historical methods. Another inaccuracy, according to Cunningham, was the portrayal of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate as a sympathetic leader when he was in fact described as ruthless in many historical documents. On the other hand, Ciaphas, the High Priest of the Jews, is portrayed as vindictive. Jews in general are not presented in a favorable light throughout the film. Cunningham clarified that this is due to the fact that the script is based mainly on the visions of the Passion seen by the 19th century nun, Ann Catherine Emmerich, in which Jewish characters are negatively portrayed. He said that emphasis on Emmerich's visions, rather than the gospels, undermines the proclamations of Vatican II, which made many important reforms in Catholicism, including condemning anti-Semitism.Kimelman spoke next about the impact of the movie. "The most significant impact," he said, "is that people are excited about it at all." Kimelman went on to explain how the controversy sparked by the movie is a sign of progression.Fifty years ago, most Christians would have taken the content for granted and most Jews would have been living with the images for years. Kimelman said the truly remarkable thing is the split in Christian opinion and the fact that it is possible to hold a session on the topic. He then presented a list of statements proclaimed by a group called the Christian Scholars, which made such revolutionary assertions, such as the statement, "Jews did not kill Jesus." He also expressed how the movie can have different meanings for different people. Jews may go into the film looking for anti-Semitic comments, while Christians may identify with Jesus and feel he is suffering for all their sins.Following the speeches, Lehmann and Michael led a question and answer session with the audience and the speakers. Many audience members asked questions about the religious background of the film, including why Jesus was executed, if the use of demonic figures in Judas' demise was accurate and why the Jewish mob chose to eronate Barabbas, a murderer, instead of Jesus. The speakers also fielded questions about the film's impact on Jewish-Christian relations. Both Kimelman and Cunningham felt it is necessary that both Christians and Jews learn more about the New and Old Testaments because education is the key to fostering Christian-Jewish relations.
(03/16/04 5:00am)
The urban sportswear company FUBU was given the first Asper Award for social entrepreneurship in a ceremony that took place of the Faculty Club after a forum for global entrepreneurship yesterday.President of CanWest Global Communications Leonard Asper '86 started the project as a way of giving back to his alma mater, "beyond the obligatory $100 or $200 check." The Asper Award honors an individual or company which has displayed extraordinary leadership and innovation in the field of global entrepreneurship, according to a Brandeis International Business School press release."Like this school, entrepreneurship is about being part of something that is being creative," Asper said. "Anyone can create a car, but if you can not commercialize the product and bring it to the people, you have nothing."Keynote speaker Bill Drayton, a Macarthur fellow and the chair and founder of the nonprofit company, Ashoka, spoke about developing social entrepreneurship around the world. Drayton defines social entrepreneurship as a person recognizing when a society is stuck, and taking actions to try and change that."Entrepreneurship can change the world," Dean of the Brandeis International Business School Peter Petri said. "It applies to all dimensions of human activities and is becoming an increasingly essential part of the school's teaching."Drayton spoke about the progress that social entrepreneurship has made in the past half century all over the world. "The social half of the world's entrepreneurs stepped up in the last half century," Drayton said about the advancement his field is making in the world. "We are compounding productivity in the social arena nine to 10 percent a year, when the business world is compounding productivity only two to three percent."Following the forum was a fashion show and the presentation of the Asper Award to Team FUBU: CEO and Founder Daymond John, Co-Founder and President of FB Entertainment Carl Brown, FUBU Vice President J. Alexander Martin, and Co-Founder and Vice President of FB Entertainment Keith Perrin. FUBU was founded in Queens N.Y. in 1992 by John, who began selling hats outside of his mother's basement and then selling them on the street to earn easy money. "Daymond came up with the idea of putting logos on our hats, and we did that for about six months until we ran out of money," Perrin said about the very beginnings of FUBU. "Then we stopped for a while and teamed up with Alex, and then we started selling again for about six months until we ran out of money."In 1994 Team FUBU combined forces with Bruce Weisfeld '83 and Norman Weisfeld, and began marketing their product to the mass market. They started working on their biggest line yet, an extensive sportswear line, which was to debut in 1995."The break came when we hooked up with LL Cool J," Perrin said. "We asked him to just wear a shirt. We didn't want him to do anything but wear the shirt, and from there other artists began to pick up on us."FUBU has had a vast impact on the social landscape in America according to John, bringing in many elements of black culture into mainstream society such as the Fat Albert, Muhammad Ali, and recently with the new FUBU Platinum Harlem Globetrotters line."The real reason we came out with FUBU is that at the time there was this stereotype that Timberlands only made boots for drug dealers," John said. "Now, I have never sold drugs but I own about a dozen pair of Tims. What we wanted to do was make a product for Generation Y."FUBU has also helped to guide young African Americans who are in similar circumstances as Team FUBU members were when they started. All members of Team FUBU have gone to inner city schools to help young black students believe they can accomplish more."Now the kids from the streets are networking," John said. "They learn that there are other things they can do outside of play basketball or sell drugs. When we were starting to get big we would go on tour with rap artists and bring kids with us. We'd go down to South Carolina and they would see everybody swarming us, trying to buy the clothes off of our back," In 1999, Team FUBU established the FUBU Foundation as a way for the Founders to stay in touch with and help out the community. Additionally it is designed to serve as a source of inspiration and encourage for the black community. "I wanted to see more money going into educating the community that teaches teenagers how to help themselves write business plans and get money from the bank," Brown said.To date, FUBU continues to receive awards and contribute to social entrepreneurship and activism. In the past, FUBU has received awards from the NAACP for entrepreneurship, the Pratt Institute Award, the Christopher Wallace Award and a citation of honor from the Queens Borough President. "This company is based around three things: persistence, open-mindedness and innovation," Weisfeld said of how FUBU has been able to accomplish all of its goals. "That is why it is so successful.
(03/16/04 5:00am)
The proposal to remove student anonymity from Brandeis' pass/fail system was abruptly derailed at the faculty meeting last Thursday as professors voted to send the proposed changes back to the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee (UCC).Dean of Arts and Sciences Adam Jaffe and Union President Joshua Brandfon '05 each presented their stances on the potential alterations to the pass/fail system and the issues of anonymity. The UCC proposal included two changes to pass/fail procedures-removing anonymity and allowing students to elect the pass/fail option when taking less than four courses. Under the suggested changes, the pass/fail policy would read, "Instructors are informed of the grading option that a student has chosen."Following Brandfon's address, several members of the faculty voiced their support and opposition toward anonymity.Jaffe and other faculty representatives who belong to the UCC favored amending the policy. Brandfon, citing the complaints of many students, opposed the changes.Jaffe spoke first and described how the UCC arrived at its conclusions about the pass/fail system."The UCC, when it was brought to their attention, asked why we do things the way we do them now," Jaffe said. He said the reasons were not pedagogical, but attributable to current technology used by the Registrar's office.After introducing the proposal, Jaffe heard questions and comments from a few professors. One professor, citing students' opposition to the removal of anonymity, said the UCC proposal was "in the vein of a double-blind medical experiment."Prof. Thomas Doherty (AMST), who sits on the UCC and was, according to Jaffe, a strong proponent of the suggested changes responded to the concerns. He called the present arrangement a "contest between student and teacher," and suggested that some are fearful that professors able to see which students are taking a course pass/fail will unleash "petulant revenge."Prof. Jacob Cohen (AMST) approached the microphone next and gave his commentary on the anonymity question."It's been said the only perspective comes from the students," he said. "With regard to my own experience, I have often had students come to me and say they're taking a course pass/fail and [ask] to not go so hard on them. I don't want to know that."Following Cohen, Brandfon gave his criticism of the proposed changes."First of all, all three student representatives [to the UCC] are against it," Brandfon said. "The fear is that students taking a course pass/fail will not be treated equally under the new system."Brandfon also mentioned that the Union Senate recently passed an amendment in opposition to the UCC's proposal and that an open forum on the subject last Monday heard many students voice their support for anonymity when electing the pass/fail option. The UCC, which includes Jaffe, four other administrators, seven professors including Doherty, one graduate student and three Union representatives, attached a detailed report to the meeting agenda.In developing its recommendations, the committee juxtaposed Brandeis' pass/fail policy with those of other schools. Indiana, Princeton, Rice and Yale offer anonymity, while Brown, Duke, Harvard, the University of Chicago and Washington University in St. Louis do not.More professors commented about the UCC proposal after Brandfon took his seat. Several echoed Cohen, saying they do not wish to know the names of pass/fail students.Prof. Eugene Sheppard (NEJS), a member of the committee, spoke in defense of the UCC's suggestions."Many of us were surprised there was anonymity," Sheppard said. "Most students didn't know there was anonymity. But students didn't want to lose something they didn't know existed."Prof. Marya Levenson (ED) reiterated the concerns of professors supporting anonymity. Although many said they did not favor dropping the policy, some hinted that a passing mark be equivalent to at least a C.Levenson then motioned to table the proposal and send it back to the UCC for review."The UCC can take it up again," University President Jehuda Reinharz said after the motion passed.The University is installing new software designed by PeopleSoft to administer course registration procedures, including pass/fail policies. For several months leading up to the faculty meeting, it was unclear if the proposed loss of anonymity was the result of this technological change. It was later revealed this proposal was pedagogical; it was supported by faculty representatives to the UCC and opposed by Union representatives.Shortly after the meeting, a mollified Brandfon commented on the results."I'm certainly pleased the faculty was able to see the issue from our perspective and recognize some of the disdain that would have come from changing the policy," he said. Brandfon, who is seeking reelection in the upcoming Union elections, called the tabling of the pass/fail proposal a great accomplishment for the UnionThe UCC must now reconsider its changes to the pass/fail system. Both anonymity and the option to take a course pass/fail with less than four courses in a semester will be on the table."We don't know what the committee is going to say," Brandfon said. "I presume that their new recommendation would not include removal of anonymity. The faculty felt pretty strongly about that."Jaffe spoke to the Justice yesterday about the failure of the UCC proposal to win the support of the faculty. He said if any change were to take effect next semester, it would have to be approved at the faculty meeting next month."I was personally in favor of the changes, but they're not central to education," Jaffe said. "All things considered, I don't like the idea of anonymity." He said the loss of student anonymity is not off the table, "but the UCC will have to go back and discuss it."Jaffe said the UCC is scheduled to discuss pass/fail policy at its meeting on Thursday.
(03/09/04 5:00am)
Facing opposition from Hillel and its member groups, the Brandeis Debate and Speech Society, along with the Concord Bridge and Students for a Just Society (SJS) hosted a public forum on the topic of divestment from Israel last Tuesday drawing nearly 40 students. "Debating the idea of divestment from Israel is anti-Semitic in the same way that debating the idea of segregated classrooms is racist," Hillel president Rachel Silverman '04 wrote in her letter to the editor in last week's Justice on behalf of Hillel and its Israel-focused member groups. "No respectable academic institution would present a debate on segregation as a legitimate one. So too, we believe the debate on divestment is invalid."The Debate and Speech Society initially asked Hillel if they wanted to co-sponsor the event, but Hillel board members concluded immediately that this was not an event they wanted to co-sponsor, according to Silverman. Shortly after, Silverman submitted her response to the invitation in the Justice."At first we were a little offended by their reaction," Schon said. "We thought it may have been more appropriate after the event [occurred]. But we cooled down and understood where they were coming from."Silverman disagrees that the debate should have taken place."I think the purpose of a debate is to present two valid sides," Silverman said. "Because one side of the divestment debate is not valid, I think it should not have been a debate."Although Silverman further argued that the debate allowed for "untruths and prejudice ideas to be presented as facts," the Debate and Speech Society still thought that it was an important and valid topic. "Our team knew and still knows that there is an amazing student body on this campus, capable of handling the toughest of situations," Debate and Speech Society vice president Bryan Schon '06 said, "and we felt that this topic was something that could be controversial, and interesting, and if pulled off well, could really show everyone what discourse is capable of-a civilized, balanced and intellectual discussion."The debate consisted of the Debate and Speech Society members making arguments for and against Israeli divestment, students asking questions of the panel and listening to faculty members, Daniel Breen (PHIL), Jerry Cohen (AMST) and Reuven Kimelman (NEJS) speak on the topic."We considered the topic [of divestment from Israel] because we thought it was something that was deserving of an intellectual forum and was something that pushed the boundaries of what the campus normally shied from," Schon said.Schon and Brandeis Debate and Speech Society president Andy Bragin '05 argued the pro-divestment side of the debate.Key points made in favor of divestment included justifying a need for an American reaction, the fact that there is not much recourse to take against the Palestinians, that divestment has been used before and that boycotts have been used effectively by the U.S. in the past."We hold Israel to a different standard because it's a Western nation with Western principles...it's supposed to be a beacon for the world on how to act," Bragin said, in another argument that Israel as a democracy should be hold to a higher standard than other Middle Eastern countries.Eric Sirota '04 and Adam Nir '06 argued against divestment on behalf of the Debate and Speech Society club.Key points made against divestment included that it holds Israel to a double standard, that it is anti-Semitic, that it hurts the wrong people, that there are so many other ways to go about instigating change and that a better solution is to reward countries that have good treatment of its citizens rather than hurt countries like Israel that cannot help it."Israel has a greater burden than other nations that it doesn't deserve," Nir said.Following the debate led by the club, Breen, Cohen and Kimelman gave their take on divestment from Israel, focusing on the double standard to which Israel is held and how other instances of divestment in history cannot be applied to Israel.Breen spoke about how much of the world stood against apartheid in South Africa because of the clear mass violence and disparity in that country.In that case, divestment is an acceptable solution, but in less clear situations like the Middle East, action can be dangerous and can hurt the wrong people.Kimelman remarked on how the double standard against Israel is anti-Semitic."Any standard you apply to Israel that you apply to others you can't call anti-Semitic," Kimelman said, "but when you apply it to just Israel it is subject to anti-Semitism."Regardless of the debate's controversial nature, some students in attendance were impressed with how the Debate and Speech Society covered a wide scope of views."I thought that the debate team did a great job in showing both sides to the argument," Becky Hanus '06 said.Schon added that the topic was created, and voted upon in a democratic fashion by the entire club."[Divestment from Israel] was a very unfairly discussed topic and we'd like to bring balance to that topic," Schon said.Editor's Note: Andy Bragin '05 contacted the Justice in March 2006 to clarify that although he argued the pro-divestment side of the debate in the above story, such action, which is consistent with the activities of any debate club, is, and never was, not representative of his personal views.
(03/09/04 5:00am)
I have very little patience for people who tell me what I am and am not allowed to talk about. I was disgusted when people who were against the war in Iraq were told they ought not to state their views because by so doing they were being unpatriotic. I believe it was a dark day for free expression when, in early November of last year, CBS succumbed to pressure criticizing it for an honest portrayal of President Reagan's homophobia, and cancelled its miniseries The Reagans. It makes me nervous when I am told to keep my mouth shut and never offer criticism of Israel lest I be labeled anti-Semitic. The salience of these events hit me when I read Rachael Silverman's letter in last week's Justice, which implied that providing a neutral forum for discussing of divestment from Israel is anti-Semitic in nature. I am not pro-divestment. In fact, I don't think anybody on the Brandeis debate team is pro-divestment, but I do acknowledge that certain actions taken by the Israeli government are not unambiguously justifiable. The fact that books like Alan Dershowitz's A Case for Israel exist goes to show that there are points of contention to be debated and policies taken by Israel that need to be examined critically. Some believe that Israel represents the Jewish people and attacking it is an indirect way to mount a criticism of the Jewish people. It is for this very reason that people claim criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. However it is also a reason why others do not want the government which represents them to engage in practices that they believe convey a less than desirable image of themselves and their people to rest of the world.These people ought not to be ignored and made afraid to speak on behalf of the country they love. Their viewpoints ought to be engaged not excommunicated. Those who disagree with them should be interested in a forum both as an opportunity to hear how their fellow Jews and non-Jews, people who love Israel, defend a policy that admittedly harms the country they love. Such a forum also acts as an opportunity to persuade those who believe in divestment that, indeed, Israel's actions are justifiable. Whether or not you think that either view is legitimate (or that both are reprehensible), a forum allows exchange of ideas; it allows ideas that are erroneous to be debunked, and it allows people to express their opinions openly to one another. Debate about gay marriage is not homophobic, debate about the Iraqi war is not unpatriotic, and debate about divestment in Israel is certainly not anti-Semitic. Whether or not you agree or disagree with the practices taken by Israel, you must acknowledge that there are people who feel that certain practices in Israel are unacceptable and, as a result, argue for divestment. You can respond by declaring any discourse to be anti-Semitic, in which case people will persist in believing that divestment is appropriate, or you can act to engage their opinion and help to produce constructive dialogue. Editor's Note: Andrew Bragin '04 is the President of the Brandeis Debate and Speech Society
(03/09/04 5:00am)
No news out of Cambridge goes unnoticed. As one of the world's most prestigious universities, Harvard's actions are inevitably subject to scrutiny. Most recently, Harvard raised eyebrows for adding a sex magazine to its arsenal of notable publications. The school's Committee on College Life (CCL)-comprised of students, faculty and administrators-approved the idea for this magazine on Feb. 10. The publication would not only feature articles about sexual issues, but also include nude pictures of Harvard undergraduates. But shortly after national and even world media caught wind of the idea, Harvard officials began to backpedal.The proposed magazine, titled H Bomb, would contain fiction, prose, features, poetry, artwork, humor and photography related to sex, according to the Harvard undergraduates who conceived the idea, sophomore Katharina Cieplak-von Baldegg and senior Camilla Hrdy. The two were quoted in the Harvard Crimson on Feb. 12 saying that their wish was to create "a literary arts magazine about sex and sexual issues at Harvard."The media took a hold of the story after a Crimson reporter asked Baldegg if her magazine could be considered pornography. "You can call it anything you like," Baldegg responded. Reporters did. The Times of London ran the headline "Naked Ambition," while the Boston Herald proclaimed "Nudie Mag" and the New York Daily News declared "Mag will Turn 'em Crimson." Even Hustler picked up the story. Addressing these responses, Baldegg and Hrdy spoke out in a letter to the editor in the Crimson, published on Feb. 12. "H Bomb is not porn," they wrote. "Students will appear nude in photography portions of the magazine, but that is not the main focus." Their stated goal in this letter is to "create a forum for an honest discussion of sex on campus." Harvard officials reacted quickly to the media attention, holding a conference with the editors to ensure that the magazine would not include pornography and that none of the photographs would be taken inside campus buildings. Generally, after a campus organization is approved by the CCL, the founders can apply for grant money to fund their project, but Harvard officials issued a statement in this case that "no funds from Harvard College would be provided for this publication." Erotica magazinesIf printed, the magazine will feature students of all sexual orientations and backgrounds, Baldegg and Hrdy said. In an interview with The Washington Post, the founders said that their hope is for intelligent, constructive, frisky, honest and comprehensive dialogue about sexuality. They said they plan to include nude pictures of both male and female students, hoping not to marginalize or offend anyone.All students posing must be over 18 years of age and must be students at Harvard. Serving as faculty adviser is Prof. Mark Hauser of the psychology department, who, according to the Crimson, has earned the moniker of "Sex" among his students. The first issue of the bi-annual magazine is scheduled for release during commencement in May, provided that Baldegg and Hrdy secure funds.During original deliberations on H Bomb, the CCL looked at Squirm, an erotica publication from Vassar College. CCL members expressed concerns about nudity, but then got "past the fear of porn," Hrdy told the Crimson. The CCL approved the magazine as an official Harvard publication, 12 to zero with two abstentions. "We are aware of the fact that some segments of the population would find the contents distasteful," Associate Dean Judith H. Kidd told the Associated Press before the media backlash occurred. "However, the committee considered this to be an issue of freedom of speech."A college sex magazine is not unprecedented. Swarthmore's Untouchables and Smith's Smithiegirls (an online publication) both existed as short-lived sex publications at their respective schools. Vassar's Squirm: The Art of Campus Sex has received the most success, still running since its inception in 1999. Squirm, self-proclaimed as a magazine of "smut and sensibility," is composed of "60 pages that include 36 photos of male and female students in various poses, in campus buildings or on the grounds," according to the Washington Post.A Brandeis sex magazine?Brandeis has many outlets for open discussion about sex. Student Sexuality and Information Services (SSIS), for one, was created specifically for confidential, honest discussion. Tristin Klein '04, member of SSIS, said that she likes the concept of a sex magazine. "People would be interested," she said. "It would be a really good venue, expressing taboo subjects that aren't freely discussed."SSIS is not unanimously popular, Klein noted. "We provide counseling and we are doing a service to the community, yet some are offended by what we do," she said. "There are people who need our help, and others that don't like that we're here." "As long as everyone partaking consents to be in the magazine, I see no problem with an open forum," Klein said. She conjectured that a small controversy might break out because "Brandeis students get riled up easily," but nothing on the worldwide scale of the situation at Harvard.Yet there is a fine line between a magazine with sexual discussion and a porn magazine. Maggie Frye '04, president of the Brandeis Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance FMLA, said she believes that "this magazine could go too far and could be demeaning to women and men that are a part of it." Still, she said that a sex magazine at Brandeis could have "the potential to be creative and a good experience for the people creating it." Frye said she does not see this type of magazine as merely porn. "Pornography has no redeeming social value," she explained, "whereas [the Harvard magazine] is talking about being artistic and promoting intellectual discussion." Julia Moskowitz '06, a sophomore and member of the Women's Resource Center, agreed. "There is always a fine line between an artistic representation of women and one that objectifies them," she said. But she also said she is open to the idea of H Bomb. She said she would hope that the magazine would not solely be for heterosexual males. "The main issue is about what social trends are being encouraged and discouraged by the magazine." The main issue for Jeffrey Fowler '06 is decency. Fowler is an editor of the Concord Bridge, the conservative-libertarianon magazine at Brandeis. "The libertarian in me says that [the magazine] is private conduct, consensual and doesn't hurt anybody," he noted. "The conservative in me wonders about the standards we are setting, and the impact on morality."Fowler said he doesn't see the need for this type of publication on a college campus. "The old myths of STDs and unsafe sex are gone, resources are available, we have SSIS, and people know how to be responsible," he said. "College life is saturated with sexuality, and there is an adequate amount of discussion, so there is no need for a publication." Sexuality and free speech on campusIndeed, there is little question about the presence of sexuality on campuses. Publications aren't the only venues of sexual discussion. Past Brandeis events have included Porn n' Chicken night, a sex toy sale and workshop, a workshop titled "How to Pleasure a Woman" and showings of feminist porn movies. According to USA Today, over 650 colleges and universities, including Brandeis, will present The Vagina Monologues this year.Certain colleges have also hosted more graphic presentations. Brown University's Queer Alliance staged Sex Power God, an event with silhouettes of couples engaging in oral sex in campus buildings, according to the Post. Oberlin College annually holds "Safer Sex Night," which includes demonstrations of Sado-Masochism.While many regard explicit publications or behavior as protected by the first amendment, they may not be. Professor Michael Socolow (AMST), who mentioned that he does not consider himself an expert on this matter, said, "private colleges are not required to financially support student publications that may be at odds with their culture." "Catholic colleges," he used as an example, "cannot be compelled to support pro-choice periodicals, and, here at Brandeis, the administration cannot be forced to support the publication of anti-Semitic material.""The issue of sexuality and obscenity is more complex," he noted. "[But] Harvard is certainly not legally required to support the publication of H Bomb." Socolow went on to explain that this is not a freedom of speech issue, because Harvard is a private university. "This is a question of Harvard's financial support, not whether students are legally entitled to produce this magazine," he said.Of course, the United States Supreme Court has made judgments about the First Amendment and pornography. Miller v. California of 1973 stands as the predominant ruling on obscenity and free speech. The case asked the difference between the obscene (hard core depictions of sexual acts) and the indecent or pornographic (arousing, but not graphic). The Court asked three questions to determine if material is obscene. Would the work appeal to shameful interest, applying the standards of the community? Does the work depict sex in an offensive way? Does the work lack serious artistic or political value? If all three answers are yes, then the work does not fall within the protections of the First Amendment, and universities are permitted to regulate it on campus. Passing and funding a sex magazineYet, unless a lawsuit becomes involved, the chartering of a Brandeis publication is not decided by a court, but by the Union Senate. Ultimately, the decision lies with the senators' interpretation of the Merit Clause, Article VIII, Section II, of the Student Union Constitution, which states, "Senators may base their votes on their own assessment of the club's merit." Senator for the Class of 2004 Gabe Reif said he would expect an interesting debate if such a magazine were presented for Senate approval. "Each person takes [the merit clause] a different way when thinking about chartering clubs," he said. Reif said that the administration or alumni might exert pressure not to charter the magazine. "We are an independent body, but working under a university," he said. He added, though, that the Senate "often makes decisions opposed to administrative beliefs."He predicted that "[the magazine] would probably get passed." But, as the Harvard situation has proved, even if the publication is chartered, the University could still debate whether to fund it.Where does the administration fall on this issue? Stephanie Grimes, associate director of student activities, said she believes that free speech is entwined with the policies and vision of the university. "Whether a publication would be accepted here at Brandeis really is based on student opinion," she commented. "Students have the right to express what they want to see on this campus."However, funding the magazine is a different story. "I don't believe that the Brandeis administration would support the allocation of funds toward a magazine like this," Grimes said. With regards to politically sensitive issues like a sex magazine, public funds can certainly be scrutinized and are subject to disagreement. Simply, some will not approve of their money going to a sex magazine. That's where the Finance Board (F-Board) enters the picture.Finance Board Chairman Mark Schlangel '05 explained the process by which publications apply for funds at Brandeis. A magazine is first chartered by the Senate and can then apply for money from the F-Board. "I am sure that such a hot issue [would] spark discussion among F-Board members," he said. All students pay a Student Activity Fee and this money is funneled to clubs. Thus the funds would effectively come from the entire student body. Even though some members of the community might not support allocating funds to this type of magazine, Schlangel noted that "it is impossible to find a club that all students would be comfortable having their money fund." "When deciding allocations, the Board members must ignore personal biases and treat all chartered clubs equally, assessing each request only as it relates to the club and its constitutional purpose," Schlangel said. He pointed to the fact that the F-board has allocated money to sex workshops in the past.Intent and outragePerhaps the outrage following the H Bomb was partially due to recent events. Sex and censorship have been in the news, with the Janet Jackson incident and Clear Channel dropping Howard Stern from six of its stations. All this controversy, Baldegg told the Post, proves that her generation needs to promote intelligent discussion about sexuality. She said she is aiming for a positive appreciation of sexuality, where diverse body types and sexual orientations are represented. It is a forum to break away from high school, where she said abstinence is often the only option taught.Still, some remain skeptical of the girls' intent. "If it's done tastefully, that's fine, but it seems like they are doing it to get attention," Fowler commented. "If they are coming at it from a purely information point of view, and the magazine has an intent to inform, there is no need for the naked pictures." Socolow also wondered whether this is much ado about nothing. "These kids certainly understand the concept of buzz; they've played this for all it's worth and gotten their names in the paper," he said. "Whether H Bomb ever materializes doesn't really matter at this point; they've got their 15 minutes of fame." Moskowitz said she hopes for accountability on everyone's part. "It is the responsibility of both the editors to act and the administration to pull funding if the magazine is offensive," she said. The main issue, which remains clouded, is the difference between sexuality and pornography. Moskowitz said that "pornography is not by definition misogynistic," but only when it presents sex as an act committed by men to women. When Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart attempted to define pornography, he remarked, "I know it when I see it." Although clear to Stewart, the rest of the public is having trouble determining what is appropriate and what is not.
(03/02/04 5:00am)
There are confirmed bigots on this campus-four of them. One has debased this newspaper with a racial slur. Another has put up an obscene and intolerant poster. Another has scribbled a swastika, and yet another student has etched his intolerance into our beautiful snow. To my knowledge, the bigots have received little or no sympathy from either the student body or the administration, if they haven't been outright punished for their actions. Yet, as the majority of Brandeis students have gone about their normal routines despite the actions of a few rotten apples, a number among us have decided to dwell on those isolated incidents. Whether out of sincere motives or not, some students have made callous and unfair generalizations about the students of this university. They have designated Brandeis as a hotbed of racial, ethnic and religious intolerance and, in the process, have implicated an entire campus population in egregious crimes with which it has little or nothing to do. Case in point: The recently-chartered Brandeis Coalition for Tolerance has made it known that the "tolerance" in their club name will be replaced by a more lofty and embracing noun only once the Brandeis community has proven its ability to tolerate ethnic, racial and religious diversity. "Respect," "love" and "friendship," the club claims, are much too impractical to be used given the present campus-wide breakdown in racial and ethnic relations. One step at a time, they say. Make no mistake-BCT is at the forefront of many beneficial and necessary campus awareness programs. Yet I find it deeply disturbing that the group has found it appropriate to label 3,000 of its peers in the nastiest of terms. Who gave these students the moral authority to define the conscience of a campus? Perhaps they are in possession of knowledge to which I am not privileged-if someone would enlighten me, I'm all ears.I find it equally disturbing that the majority of students seem to be oblivious to the accusations which are mounted against them. Perhaps we are smug with self-certainty- "they can't possibly be talking about me, can they?" Perhaps the vague language of "campus intolerance" is a bit too general to shock us into realizing that our integrity has been hijacked. Let's be clear about something-when someone implicates a campus, he or she doesn't mean to accuse one, two or three individual students, but rather the entire student body. To claim that the "campus atmosphere" is one of hate is to take a jab at every individual student who lives amid and contributes to that atmosphere. I take the claim very personally. I am not a racist. I am not intolerant. Neither are my friends. Neither is the great majority of my community. The swastika was not the work of a clandestine Nazi cell in operation on campus, and there has been no student rush to enlist in the Mad T Party. I know of no student who has come out in support of the perpetrators of intolerance. On the contrary-over the past five months I have seen a mammoth expression of love and respect in direct response to the actions of a bigoted few. Hundreds of students attended a solidarity meeting in the days following the posting of a hateful anti-Muslim poster, and the appearance of a racial slur in the Justice provoked a strong show of solidarity from the entire community. In their participation in the forums and meetings surrounding these incidents, Brandeis students did not intend to implicate themselves in the crimes of their peers. Rather, their responses were intended to express the greater community's empathy towards its injured members. Unfortunately, it seems, this intent has gone unrecognized and unappreciated by some.Brandeis students also responded to the swastika incident with a strong, albeit silent, assertion of their support for the community's Jewish members. Their silence in the immediate aftermath of the incident should not be mistaken for apathy-silence, as far as I am concerned, was a most appropriate response. In their protest and in their silence, Brandeis students have decided to let bigots be bigots and to move forward with supreme confidence in the moral integrity of their community. We are good people, and we deserve to be acknowledged as such. As our moral character has been challenged by those who wish to find fault, I urge every Brandeisian to answer that challenge. Let's move forward, with love and respect, past the moral failures of our peers. If a member of our community feels afraid walking to class, accompany him or her with a smile. If a fellow student is feeling vulnerable, ease his or her worries. When engaged in debate with another student on a certain political or ideological issue, speak with respect and humility. These are things we all can do; we do them on a regular basis. May we continue to learn and grow from each other in an atmosphere of love and respect.
(03/02/04 5:00am)
The Undergraduate Curriculum Committee (UCC), in a closed meeting last Thursday, voted to send a proposal to the faculty that would alter the current pass/fail system at Brandeis, eliminating students' ability to take a class pass/fail without the professor's knowledge.Union President Josh Brandfon '05 said that until mid-February the Union was under the impression that all talks of altering pass/fail were a product of technological barriers. He said that the student representatives on the UCC were reporting that PeopleSoft software could not support the current pass/fail system.PeopleSoft, which will replace MAAX and WebReg, is not compatible with the current pass/fail system because, in its original form, it cannot support the uncovering of grades after the semester if a student chooses to take a course pass/fail.The Union, student members of the UCC and UCC Chair and Dean of Arts and Sciences Adam Jaffe agree that discussions to alter the pass/fail system during the last few months were necessary, but there is dispute and confusion over whether these talks were initiated for technological or philosophical reasons. Brandfon said the view of the UCC representatives at the time was, "We can't keep the current pass/fail system the way it is, so let's find the best way to change it." That notion was corrected four weeks ago when, in a lunch with many high-level administrators including Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Peter French, Union executive board members learned that there was, in fact, a way to write a modification to the PeopleSoft program that would allow students to uncover grades. The Union also learned that that this was known to the Administration since November. According to Chief Information Officer Perry Hanson, who would oversee any software modification to PeopleSoft, creating a "module" that would allow the uncovering of grades is both expensive and time consuming, but is possible. It also must be updated and virtually rewritten every time PeopleSoft releases an upgrade. University President Jehuda Reinharz said that he does not think that technology should be used as an excuse to change the current system."I don't believe that it was a technological issue," he said. "If it's a technological issue then it's the duty of the people who run technology to solve. I mean, we should not decide academic issues on the basis of technology. It's just absurd."Reinharz said that he was unaware that there was a technological problem at all: "This is the first I hear of it," he said. "I mean, I don't believe it's a technical problem; I think it's an academic problem-an academic issue. And I think it should be debated, and I have not heard the debate in person."The only alternative to a software modification would require the registrar to manually override each person who wanted to uncover their grade.Until this fall, when the University decided to begin the process of changing the registration software to PeopleSoft, pass/fail was not on the agenda of the UCC, according to Jaffe. Discussions began, however, to address such issues as the uncovering of grades.Surprised that customization of the PeopleSoft program was possible, and that Hanson said he informed the UCC of this last semester, Union officers asked the student members of the UCC to report on the status of these pass/fail discussions. At the Feb. 22 Senate meeting, following the lunch with French and his staff, UCC representatives Brett Freidman '04, Alan Tannenwald '05 and Rebecca Hanus '06 informed the Union Senate that the closed UCC discussions had moved from technological in nature to philosophical.Union representatives expressed frustration over the fact that they were not made aware that a technological solution was available, and that it seemed students on the UCC still thought they were still having a technologically driven discussion.Jaffe said that since the beginning of discussions, he believes every member of the UCC knew that while PeopleSoft opened the discussion on pass/fail, it was not the driving force behind the last few months of talks. "The registrar told me last fall that that the way we do pass/fail would be 'awkward' in PeopleSoft, but not impossible," Jaffe said. "Though discussions began with PeopleSoft, we said, 'let's put PeopleSoft aside, we haven't looked at pass/fail in many years. We should now decide on what is the best pass/fail system that we think we can possibly have, and then return to the question of whether there are problems with doing that in PeopleSoft.'" Jaffe also said that, as a result, the UCC's focus has not been on finding a way to make PeopleSoft work with the current pass/fail system, because the UCC isn't necessarily sure it wants to keep the current system. The student representatives on the UCC reported to the Senate last Sunday that they were not aware since the beginning of discussions that all talks were entirely philosophical. "As far as when it became a technological issue and when it became a philosophical issue, that is debatable," students on the UCC said. "There might have been feelings one way or another when it was philosophical in the minds of the faculty and when it was technological. If it started as philosophical, all initial proposals were still technological. We were working toward developing a technological solution regardless of the philosophy surrounding the issue." The representatives reported that the first time they learned that the pass/fail discussions were entirely philosophical was during the lunch with French and the Union. "We were still operating under the assumption that technology was still the driving force behind the philosophical discussion," the UCC representatives said in a statement to the Senate. After months of debate and discussion, the UCC produced a two-part proposal on Thursday. The first section recommends that anonymity be removed from the current system. This would mean that instructors would know who was taking their class pass/fail. Various Union officers fear that this would compel professors to grade pass/fail students' work less judiciously, since grades would not matter as much. Jaffe and faculty serving on the UCC said these claims were unfounded, and that they would grade all students the same whether they were taking a course pass/fail or for a grade. "The ability of teachers to know which students are taking their course pass/fail works to the benefit of the students," UCC member Prof. Thomas Doherty (AMST) said. "It allows teachers to push students and encourage them to do better. It provides teachers with information that directly concerns students' performance in class. It allows teachers to approach students who are taking pass/fail and doing well and say, 'Why are you taking this course pass/fail when you could be getting an A?'" The second part of the UCC's recommendation to the faculty would eliminate the requirement that students must be enrolled in four or more courses in order to take on of them pass/fail. Jaffe came before the Senate last Sunday to explain and defend these recommendations. He met opposition to any change the current system from almost every Senator in the room. One of the main concerns voiced by Student Union officers at was that the Administration cannot guarantee the students that they will not be treated differently once the teacher is aware of a student taking the class pass/fail.Senator for the Class of 2004 Gabe Reif said that though he sees much validity in Dean Jaffe's arguments, "my problem is that he is leaving too much to professors, saying professors will reach out to all pass/fail students. I don't trust faculty to treat each pass/fail student fairly 100 percent of time.""There is no assurance that anonymity will grant us any type of benefits," North Quad Senator Aaron Gaynor '07 said. "Dean Jaffe promised that if we ended anonymity, professors could approach pass/fail students more easily. I really think it will create a bias. While most professors will fulfill their duties, others might take advantage of the fact that a student is taking pass/fail, and not spend as much time evaluating their work."According to minutes taken at the Senate meeting, Jaffe responded to this by saying, "I admit, I can't sit here and tell you that will never happen, but the balance is that more will gain from this change."At the end of the meeting, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution addressing this issue. The document conveyed to the UCC and faculty the students' desire for the current pass/fail system to remain in place. A statement issued by the Union shortly after the resolution was passed read: "...[the] Senate voted unanimously on Sunday in favor of a resolution to reaffirm students' commitment to maintaining the current pass/fail system at the University." The resolution says that "the pass/fail system has become a unique and powerful part of the Brandeis tradition, a testament to the Brandeis spirit of innovative and interdisciplinary learning, and a commitment to the unsurpassed access to faculty that Brandeis promises to all undergraduates." In addition to encouraging the faculty to take into consideration the voice of the students, it also asks that they create an open forum in which students would have the opportunity to voice their opinions before any decisions are made.
(03/02/04 5:00am)
JERUSALEM-It is a cold, windy and rainy day in Jerusalem-typical winter weather for most parts of Israel. Situated upon hills, Jerusalem is especially frigid, with temperatures reminiscent of early New England winter. It is this cold day that I have designated to meet with my friends who are spending the year before college in Israel. It also happens to be the first time that I would struggle to navigate around the Old City of Jerusalem alone. I know that this adventure will turn out to be quite interesting.At about 2:30 in the afternoon, I was supposed to meet my friend at some shut-down store where he and his band are practicing. The very description of this location, the roundabout directions on how to get there, my not having any money (I got a bit carried away with the beggars in the Old City), and lack of a pelephone (cell phone) all contributed to the tense and mysterious nature of the trip.I had to get to this particular store by way of the Arab shuk (market) and, ignorant of any alternatives, I had no choice. When I asked for instructions from an Israeli soldier, I was directed up a set of stairs, with the suggestion that I remove my kippah. Whether it was because of this request, or merely because of the location that I was to pass through in light of the current situation in the Middle East, I felt my heart drop and a great fear overwhelm me.Removing my kippah, I also felt it necessary to affect a British accent (to avoid giving the impression that I was one of the pre-college teens from America spending a year in Israel), I asked around the market for directions. A very cordial merchant led me through a hoard of stores and suspicious-looking faces. Another trademark of this long alley was the strong stench of urine that kept me company.The man also took this opportunity to try to sell his goods to me while offering me a cup of coffee (as is the Arab custom when welcoming visitors). Well, needless to say, I managed to lose my way even more. It was at this point that I decided it wise to assume the identity of a Russian tourist, following a group nearby. Not realizing where exactly it was going, I noticed the scenery did not change much from when I was with my own merchant-guide. I was walking deeper into the marketplace.To make a long story short, in the end I did meet with my friend (only half an hour after the time that we had set). While a seemingly banal tourist story, this adventure taught me a very important lesson. Besides being more respectful of my parents and raising the caliber of my English accent a few levels above that of Stewie from Family Guy, I also grasped the Middle East conflict on a much more personal and palpable level.I have very close family living in Israel. There is no doubt that with every step forward in the Middle East peace process, as well as every bombing that is, unfortunately, such a part of it, I feel it very deeply. However, at this particular moment, I somehow saw myself as standing in the middle. On the one hand, we are all supposed to be respectful of one another and be tolerant (as my Arab guide showed me) but on the other, there is a certain safety precaution that must be taken to avoid potential danger (as the Israeli soldier indicated). The strange thing is that both are right depending on their contexts. Had I worn my kippah then, I really don't know what I could have expected from this amicable Arab.Well, I honestly can't answer that I know how to analyze this from the Arab perspective, but I know that there definitely is a cause for these problems, as well as possible solutions. The reason for the problems is actually a very simple one-there is an overall miscommunication and misunderstanding between Arabs and Israelis that stems from their polar backgrounds, politics, social traditions and overall mentalities.But how to solve such a problem? This happens to be much more intricate and was the final paper topic for my Ending Deadly Conflict class last semester with Ambassador Dennis Ross (POL). Honestly, I feel that more discussions about the topic should precede any talks of solving it.While clubs on campus have raised this issue numerous times and in various settings, I'm still not convinced of how seriously it is approached. It should be obvious to the average Joe that the very fact that Israel continues to exist while harboring these two extremely different peoples who manage to live almost neck and shoulder from one another is a miracle!While the situation today is the worst it has ever been (and hopefully will ever be), Israeli society continues to flourish and remains ranked one of the most advanced countries in the world. The Israeli Air Force has been the physical savior of the country in every war and has significantly impacted international military tactics. However, this is only one realm of Israel's power and progress. Some of the finest doctors, lawyers and bankers live there (many of whom weren't even born in Israel) who, despite their country's situation, continue going about their daily lives.I could never see myself continuing the day after a terrorist attack. On 9/11, America went into a coma from which it only recovered several months later. I do not mean to belittle what happened in America, as I experienced my share of 9/11 on a very personal level. However, I still cannot grasp the endurance and willpower of the Israelis. The Sunday after my experience in the Arab marketplace, there was a terrorist attack only ten minutes from where I stayed in Jerusalem. Coincidentally, this also occurred in the neighborhood where I met my friends the night before. While I was completely shocked to be woken up to news of this attack so close to where it happened, everyone else around me acted in a seemingly normal way. Everyone went to work and everyone went to school.Spending time in Jerusalem really awakened me to the reality that Israelis must face. Unfortunately, not everyone sees this reality. It is because of this that we should engage the campus in more forums, in-class discussions, and even informal conversations about this topic. Like every other student, I am certainly still learning and trying to understand more about the world around me. There are issues, specifically about the Middle East, which I may yet be too immature or ignorant to understand. But discussing the Israeli-Arab conflict in its entirety-from histories to mentalities-must be a prerequisite to acquire knowledge not only about the Middle East conflict. It may even be a means to cope with our own personal problems.
(02/24/04 5:00am)
The scattered editorial attempts to string together a collection of perceptions and facts about Brandeis and then tries to blame their existence on a lack of diversity here. The editorial fails to touch upon the real problem at Brandeis. It suggests that increasing the number of minority students and changing the image of Brandeis will solve many of the problems that were encountered last semester. Such claims show a profound misunderstanding of both the problems and how to address them. The lack of communication between many of Brandeis' groups is one of the major problems.Changing the demographics of Brandeis will not help in fostering discussion and understanding. Brandeis first must utilize the diversity at hand before resigning to saying that the only way to fix the current tensions within the student body is to throw more diversity at the situation.It is important to ask what happens at Brandeis when diversity related tension arises. Are people conditioned to speak to each other in forums and cordially discuss the problems or will they scream at each other and resort to name calling or rock throwing? Will they discontinue dialogue? At Brandeis, often, angry crowds of people scream at each other throwing around the "ism" of the week often spreading misinformation and sometimes hate. As a result, there is a perceived divide on the Brandeis campus between many ethnic, religious, and racial groups.Continuous and sustained open dialogue is vital to achieve an understanding of any group in the community. By adding more people to one side or another Brandeis will accomplish nothing but increase the number of people unhappy with each other. Instead, everyone should work together to create forums and workshops for students to communicate and work out their differences. Such a dialogue is not only vital when problems arise, but is also important in trying to circumvent any potential problems. If students of all walks of life begin to feel comfortable at Brandeis then the applicant numbers will increase and no concerted effort will be needed to make it appear that students are happy here--as such will then be true. It is, thus, more important to foster an atmosphere of coexistence and acceptance then to concentrate on the apparent lack of diversity.The board mentioned that Brandeis is not a party school and has no fraternities. It seems odd that it would use that as an excuse for a lack of diversity on campus. As mentioned previously, many students attend schools that they feel they will be comfortable at. Many students chose to come to Brandeis due to its lack of Greek Life and a non-existent emphasis on athletics-which is part of Brandeis' charm. Changing such a defining aspect of the University will subvert many of the University's values. At Brandeis, students choosing to study Friday and Saturday feel safe from the taunting of their peers. Anyone coming to Brandeis expecting parties and athletics that rival those of the Univeristy of Massachussetts, definitely did not do his or her homework.Ultimately, Brandeis is an academic institution, known for its rigorous curriculum. Many students come to Brandeis, not be educated about other cultures or to be challenged on their views in regard to religion or philosophy, but to get into medical school or law school. While a few here will call these ambitious students ignorant, narrow-minded, and a slew of other names often ending in "ist," it is anyone's right to come to this institution and learn and not be bombarded with social issues.Saying that "the perceived lack of campus vitality may impede our University's quest to attract applicants who could add much needed diversity to this campus" is stereotypical of the editorial. It is doubtful that such a perception has anything to do with the fact that Brandeis is only 45 percent non-Jewish.It is interesting to note, that among the U.S. universities, Brandeis is unique in its student composition-thus adding to the diversity of choices for aspiring undergraduates. It is ironic that there is a vocal minority striving for Brandeis to be just like every other diverse institution-to reflect the vision of a diverse institution. This, while in a way will increase diversity at Brandeis, will decrease from the diversity of institutions available to prospective students.Yet there is no clear definition presented of what an ideal diverse institution should be like. Is it one that reflects the census numbers of the United States or one that is skewed to allow more minorities than the national percentage (which Brandeis exceeds by nine percent)? Instead of blindly slamming Brandeis for its perceived lack of diversity, it is more productive to clearly define what would an ideal Brandeis be like. Instead of acting to divide students (and administrators) into different camps on diversity, fostering an open discussion, one free of name-calling and allegations will benefit the entire community.-David Cutler, David Fudman and Igor Pedan
(02/24/04 5:00am)
I would like to talk about the recent program at Brandeis sponsored by ZaHaV (Zionists for Historical Veracity), at which Sheikh Palazzi of the Italian Muslim Association spoke. As a member of the Jewish community who has many friends who are part of ZaHaV and who thoroughly enjoyed his presentation, I must say that I am quite upset. First of all, I openly admit that I did not attend the forum, but I talked with people who were there, including ZaHaV board members, and also read various statements by Sheikh Palazzi. Therefore, I am not putting myself into a stance to debate the merits of Mr. Palazzi's comments. In fact, I very much agreed with his message of saying that Islamists (Muslim terrorists and their supporters) have "hijacked" the religion of Islam, which is inherently about peace. However, I believe that this message would have been much stronger and more well received by the wider Brandeis community if it had in fact come from the Muslim community. I believe that the way in which ZaHaV promoted the event made it extremely condescending and patronizing towards members of the Muslim community at Brandeis. I asked myself if I would want a Jewish organization that I am involved with to sponsor someone that a pro-Palestinian group was inviting to speak on campus that does not believe that Israel has a right to exist. I undoubtedly would be enraged at such an invitation. I believe that the action which ZaHaV has taken is much the same as when pro-Palestinian groups invite Satmar Hasidim (Ultra-Orthodox Jews who do not believe that Jews should live in Israel until the days of the Messiah) to come to their events and denounce Israel's existence. Even though I appreciate his advocacy of Islam as a moderate - and peaceful - religion, it is nothing more than sheer apologetics. While he is telling Jews at Brandeis how Islam is not really a violent religion, innocent civilians are being murdered by Muslim terrorists. Sheikh Palazzi has done nothing to work for a just and effective change in the Muslim world, especially for the Palestinians. And by using him as their front man (at least for this event) ZaHaV has done nothing more than indulge themselves in their own uneffective stance of advocacy. We must educate rather than preach. We must reach out to those who are willing to reach out to us. Indeed, it is a tremendously scary and challenging task, especially with the overwhelming amount of terror and fear that exists in our world today. But that is all the more reason why we should not abstain from pursuing it with all of our positively combined efforts, to work for a just and sustainable peace together.
(02/10/04 5:00am)
This editorial board has been forced to grapple with the unfortunate reality that what divided students most of last semester originated in our own pages. Indeed, there were many other controversies on campus, but none of them seemed as far-reaching as the "Dusty Baker Incident" in our Oct. 21 issue. That the comment, which alluded to the "N-word" in a spurious quotation, made it to press represents a failure in the editorial process for which we have apologized and for which we will continue to apologize. However, though we showed remorse immediately, we waited too long to assume accountability. It is possible to express sorrow without assuming accountability. Accountability, unlike regret, should always be the harbinger of change. And we do hold ourselves accountable. In the wake of the "Dusty Baker Incident," the Justice resolved to address the failures and shortcomings of an editorial process that allowed for a racist column to go to press unnoticed. We revised many of our organization's goals and procedures, streamlining the editorial process and placing a new focus on copyediting. That this editorial should come on the same day as the return of Stephen Heyman '06 as our Editor-in-Chief is no coincidence and warrants some explanation. It is important to recognize that the Editorial Board did not consider Heyman's resignation productive. As such, his departure was never thought to be in the best interest of the newspaper for the long term. Rather, it was an attempt at assuming responsibility with clear-cut action that was visible to the University as a whole, and at maintaining a degree of respect for those community members who expressed their concerns so vehemently. Certainly, we felt that Heyman's position of authority made him responsible for correcting whatever failures persisted in the editorial process. However, we felt that that he would have been better able to fulfill this obligation by remaining Editor in Chief. Understandably, the leaders of the Brandeis Black Student Organization (BBSO) saw things differently. We admire their conviction, even if we did not see eye-to-eye at the time. And while we too were appalled at the words that appeared in our paper, our pain was not enough to convince the community we understood the wrong that had been committed and that we were prepared to take responsibility. It has taken four months for the Justice-under the leadership of Meredith Glansberg '05, now our managing editor and with the assistance of Coordinator of Diversity Services Rev. Nathaniel Mays-to strike up dialogue again with BBSO's leadership. In addition, the Justice remains committed to opening similar channels with the entire community.It is nearly impossible for groups to be held accountable when they believe they are completely in the right. Indeed, the biggest concern raised by our readers and fellow students since the incident occurred was that we had yet to hold ourselves accountable for what happened in our pages. But for us, the issues were more clear-cut, at least in principle: The Justice had no reservations about admitting error after the Oct. 21 issue.Clearly, understanding accountability and how it should be assigned is a complex endeavor. This is especially true on a campus filled with young, excited, smart and wildly dedicated personalities, many of whom protest loudly when they believe an injustice is being committed and demand immediate recourse. But when it comes to assigning accountability for these incidents, value judgments become pitfalls. Everyone perceives each act differently, and no single interpretation is necessarily correct. As shocked as we were to see a racial epithet in our pages, perhaps we were incapable of imagining how raw it would leave the feelings of black students, minority students and our community on the whole. Similarly, as offensive a symbol as the swastika is, should its recent haphazard and backwards appearance on campus have warranted as impassioned a response from the Jewish community as last semester's anti-Muslim fliers did from the Muslim community?And was the controversy over Daniel Pipes' visit in November merely a clash of ideologies, or should his invitation from the Middle East Forum at Brandeis be viewed as an insult to all Muslim Brandeisians? You can argue on principle all you wish, but you can't delegitimize someone's feelings. This remains our greatest lesson and one that has hopefully reached all community members as well.Indeed, students at Brandeis should not to be expected to know the appropriate course of action in every difficult situation. This is not for lack of trying. Walking around the student center reveals the seriousness with which members of student organizations operate. The cynic may dismiss this as worthless playacting of no consequence outside Brandeis' borders. But in reality, this "acting" is critical preparation for the real world. We would be hard pressed to find other schools in which their representatives take their responsibilities so seriously. Despite this diligence, we are still students. Brandeis is a serious university, but when mistakes are made, it is important to not exact retribution, but to allow these mistakes to become part of a vital learning experience. The Justice made grave mistakes as it tried to handle an unforeseen situation. But we are learning from these mistakes, and we are using this knowledge to change both ourselves and our editorial processes to ensure that a similar situation never happens again.Assuming antagonistic postures cannot help us further the goals of our community or fulfill the mission of our University. That said, we firmly believe that accountability-in the form of progress, responsibility and maturity-is necessary to bring about positive change.
(02/10/04 5:00am)
I was amused by the feature called "'Deisdemystified: truth behind the folklore" by HadasKroitoru in today's edition of the Justice. Iwas a freshman during the 1959-60 footballseason, and actually attended a game or two. Atthe time, the excuse given for cancelling theprogram was that it was too difficult to field acompetitive team in a small school (1400)without compromising academic standards.I had the misfortune to live in the dorm wheremany of the out of work and somewhat disgruntledex-football players lived. With excess time ontheir hands, they took to revelry, which resultedin substantial damage to the then new furniture. All residents of the dorm were charged areplacement fee which was collected just beforegraduation, or else! Even back then, when Brandeis was just 10 yearsold, there were myths about the "old days", someof which were codified in the Handbook as noteslabeled, "heard around campus." It became aquest for new students to learn the meaning ofeach of these cryptic references, although evenafter trying it, the significance of the phrase,"Let's go to Providence for coffee" still eludesme.Its good to know that the thirst for knowledge still persists in Waltham.Ellis Golub '63
(02/03/04 5:00am)
Editors' note: This is the first in a series of three editorials, each of which deals with a specific aspect of the issue of diversity at Brandeis following last semester's "Dusty Baker incident" in the pages of our newspaper. This editorial examines the curriculum initiatives proposed by Provost Marty Krauss. Next week's will examine how campus organizations and community members are held accountable following controversial events on campus. The third editorial will discuss a refocusing of the concept of diversity and its definitions that are, for better or worse, either stressed or misunderstood. We invite and encourage community members to respond to these editorials or to contribute to the discussion of diversity by submitting letters to our forum section. E-mail justforum@courier.brandeis.edu.Last Thursday, Marty Krauss, the provost and senior vice president for academic affairs, sent out a lengthy e-mail to the community addressing potential academic initiatives discussed by the Administration to deal with the contentious issue of diversity. The e-mail was ambitious and inspired, but it was also vague and inconclusive. The Administration felt it necessary to take an academic stance on diversity in light of the overwhelming sentiment that Brandeis lacks diversity. Action is necessary, but perhaps the issues should be further discussed and examined before significant changes are implemented.While recognizing the demand of students for academic offerings is appropriate and even necessary at a liberal arts university, it must be noted that many large, established departments currently struggle to offer enough courses to meet demand. Departments such as Politics, Comparative Literature and Economics have a severe shortage of offered classes which, in conjunction with limited enrollments, makes it difficult for many students in these majors to fulfill their academic desires.Additionally, a lack of classes has created an environment in which courses that should be offered in a seminar setting have become lectures, limiting the possibility of valuable in-class discussions.Professors and students alike must be granted a certain amount of academic freedom. Students need choices in their scholastic endeavors and professors need the liberty to teach as they-the valued scholars of our community-deem appropriate. Excessive University mandates are contrary to the traditions of a liberal arts education. A focus on diversity in the classroom is laudable. However, the possibility of requiring diversity classes is a cause for concern. Students attend liberal arts universities such as Brandeis in order to experience an array of classes without rigid requirements. Students want to have one or even two majors and still have time to take classes purely for enrichment. Currently, there is a non-Western requirement that every student at Brandeis must fulfill in addition to taking classes in each of the University's four schools. The requisite course in non-Western studies compels and encourages students to expand their worldviews. This is a tangible method of, in essence, requiring students to take a class that includes diversity, generally in a racial, socioeconomic or geographic sense.Even if the curriculum is not changed to add a requirement and is simply expanded departmentally to include "diversity classes," one must examine what is currently offered and what the University needs to foster broader perspectives. With so many courses becoming increasingly global in their approach-affording students the opportunity to understand the pluralistic vision that is presumably the goal of every diversity initiative-one must wonder how a class on diversity would specifically be effective. There is another underlying question that begs to be answered. Is diversity an academic matter? Classes can help us understand why the goal of diversity is an important one and they can broaden our perspectives. But classes alone pale in comparison to social interaction, which tears down barriers on a more personal level. It is difficult even to determine if "diversity" refers to socioeconomic status, geographic location, country of origin or color of skin, or if it is more abstract than any of these strict definitions. It is a topic that implores discussion and is subject to a variety of interpretations that cannot and should not be narrowly boxed in a classroom setting. Before curriculum changes can be made to include diversity, the concept itself must be defined and explored. It is intriguing that the administration would seek to give substance to such an abstract value rather than foster a discussion about its true meaning and importance.A mandated class in diversity would not necessarily affect the feelings of a student. People change through experiences and lessons in life, but academia is not always the best setting for this. Increased attendance at university and club sponsored events such as speakers, exhibits and cultural performances that will lead to discussion, either in organized arenas or in smaller, more informal groups would perhaps be a more concrete and successful approach to tackling concerns over this tenuous subject.We have asked many questions that we are not prepared or qualified to answer. It is the responsibility of the Administration to further define these initiatives and what amendments should be made to the curriculum of this university. More importantly, it is the responsibility of each member of the community to discuss diversity and to take active roles in making this university a place of which we can be proud-both in and out of the classroom.
(02/03/04 5:00am)
A keynote address to mark the commencement of Black History Month was received with some disappointment by members of the Brandeis Black Student Organization (BBSO), who gathered with many others on Thursday evening in the Napoli Trophy Room of the Gosman Sports and Convocation Center.David Muhammad, a registered member of the Nation of Islam delivered a 30-minute speech, entitled "How great is our African history?" However, some BBSO members disagreed with Muhammad's message, adding that it did not completely reflect the month's theme, "Blackness: Truth unto its innermost parts," or the opinions of the entire club."We want to let everyone know the views expressed by him were not ours," BBSO's Director of Political Affairs Darnisa Amante '06 said.Muhammad, traveling from New York City, introduced his lecture by describing the African-American's place in modern day life."We are living in a nation and society that has never really appreciated the African man and African woman," Muhammad said. "We are living in a nation and society that has never really accepted the African man and African woman."Muhammad continued to explain that the government is at fault for not appealing to the interests of black citizens."We're living in a government that in many ways undermines the African man and woman," Muhammad said. "It has never made laws that served the development and prosperity of the African man and woman."Not until he became a registered member of the Nation of Islam did Muhammad claim he understood the origin of God and why things happened the way they did. "I could never understand how God allows African people to suffer, and allows others to live so well," Muhammad said. With references to ancient and modern African-American history, including astronomy, medicine, government, slavery and archaeology, Muhammad challenged the historical stereotype "about black people being an in inferior race."Muhammad also addressed more modern-day problems like crime rates among African-Americans."Why do so many Black people turn to crime and can't find an alternative?" Muhammad said. "Because of racism and culture and greed and the idea that 'I've got mine, you've got yours.'"According to BBSO Co-President Alana Hamlett '06, even though Muhammad's views did not reflect that of the entire club's, the rest of the evening served as a good introduction to Black History Month. "The goal of opening ceremonies was to mark the beginning of Black History Month and present to the campus the events that BBSO is planning for the month...this year...we are not only looking to educate but also to enjoy our culture and let our talents and the experiences that we bring to this campus shine through," Hamlett said.Hamlett continued to explain that the club's intention of opening ceremonies was to also serve as an educational experience."We are focusing on the realizations and truths that black people face both here at Brandeis and in the world," Hamlett said. "We hope to educate and enlighten our community to both the uniqueness and differences of the black culture and people."Amante added that the evening also served as an open forum for others to share their thoughts. "Our goal was to discuss history, and let the campus know about African-Americans," Amante said. "Particularly at Brandeis, where we hope to foster a lot of diversity, we want to make sure everyone's voice is heard."BBSO member Nicole Amarteifio '04 also expressed that the "night was supposed to be about healing" from last semester, referring to the Dusty Baker incident in the Justice and the fliers posted throughout the campus by Benjamin 'Min' Moldover '07 mocking the "one thought at a time" campaign headed by Student Union and Assistant Dean of Student Life Rev. Nathaniel Mays.As part of BBSO's activities for Black History Month, the club plans to host a cultural show on Feb. 7 at 6:30 p.m. in the Shapiro Campus Center Theatre and a closing ceremony on Feb. 26 at 6 p.m. at Sherman Function Hall.
(01/20/04 5:00am)
It's hard to think back to the spring. A semester is a long time, but an entire year, while seeming to move so fast, is an eternity in retrospect. A year ago the first-years were still in high school, eagerly waiting at mailboxes for the envelope that would seal their fates. The Village was just a bunch of metal being banged on incessantly day and night. J-Lo's "Jenny from the Block" was still at the top of the charts. A year ago most students on this campus could not begin to imagine the extraordinary year that would unfold.January: Financial tensionAt Brandeis, the Spring 2003 semester was a time of monetary and political tension on campus. Students, faculty and staff returned last January to news of further University budget cuts, specifically in operating and capital expenditures. A financial market that continued to stagnate was cited among reasons for Brandeis' monetary concerns. In addition to the cuts, it was discovered that a former Brandeis treasurer had stolen from the Student Union.February: Provost leaves, security alert risesIn early February, without warning or comment, Provost Melvin Bernstein stepped down from his position, shocking and surprising many at Brandeis. The University was also changed by the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee's vote in favor of increasing the residence requirement from four to seven semesters. This decision, which will prevent many from graduating early, was confirmed in a University faculty vote in March.National and international events hit close to home as security was raised at Brandeis in February due to an orange (high) terror alert announcement. Brandeis Department of Public Safety addressed the Brandeis community through e-mails describing the measures that would be taken to heighten security on campus. Restrictions were placed on entry to campus, and the community was encouraged to be aware and to report any suspicious activities. March: War in Iraq begins, worker diesThe heightened security prefaced the mixed feelings on campus regarding the war in Iraq. The Anti-War Coalition led about 300 students in a walkout from classes on Thursday, March 20 and a protest on Rabb steps. The United We Stand club held a smaller counter-protest to show support for the war and handed out red, white and blue ribbons in support of America. While many students felt very passionately about U.S. foreign policy, many were undecided or indifferent to the war. During this tumultuous time, Brandeis fostered an environment where open discussion between both students and faculty existed, but also where great tensions surfaced and friction existed between opposing viewpoints.Over March break, 39-year-old Mark Choplas-a construction worker for William A. Berry & Son-fell to his death while working on the partially completed Village.April: Farewell to BoogleJoshua Brandfon '05 won the election for Union presidency by one vote, after trailing more than 100 votes int he primaries. The election was disputed with a Union Judiciary case arguing that lost votes from students abroad cost candidate Joshua Sugarman '05 the election. The UJ affirmed that students from abroad are not allowed to vote.Much to the dismay of many students, an April Fool's joke came true and he file-searching service Boogle was shut down following the threat of legal action by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). The RIAA had filed lawsuits against similar search systems at other schools. While Boogle did return a few weeks later with the addition of a disclaimer on its Web site, it eventually shut down in the fall.May: Loss of a student overseasOn the eve of commencement for the Class of 2003, tragedy struck the Brandeis community. Reginald "Reggie" Poyau '04 drowned while traveling abroad in southern Senegal. Summer: Hospital closes, new dorm and phonesStudents and faculty returned to Brandeis in August to the opening of the new Village dormitory. The heralded living quarters consist of single and double rooms arranged in "neighborhoods." Every six to eight students share a bathroom and small lounge and approximately every 20 students share a kitchen and large lounge. The pristine building was received as an innovative type of living area on campus and as a celebrated addition to Brandeis' architecture. However, the new and exciting facility was somewhat overshadowed by the controversy surrounding meal plans for residents of the Village and several instances of unexpected structural damage. A noticeable absence was that of the summer Odyssey Program, which was cancelled the previous October. The program, offered to high school students, provided an opportunity to study in a college setting. Finances and competition were cited as reasons the program ended. Another significant loss was that of Waltham Hospital. After a battle that lasted more than a year to save the facility-including Waltham finding over $6 million to keep it open for an extra year-the hospital shut down in July. The Sterling Medical Center is now in its place, but the loss of the hospital has brought concerns not only to Brandeis, but also to the Waltham community in general.Brandeis' new phone system, while solving the problems of the aging system in place, brought concerns throughout the fall semester. Unannounced phone outages led to criticism of the new Cisco Voice-over-Internet Protocol IP system, specifically the discovery that when the phones are offline, there is no way to reach Public Safety. September: Umbrella organizations questionedZionists for Historical Veracity (ZaHaV) considered withdrawing from Brandeis' chapter of Hillel. ZaHaV pointed to financial mismanagement and scheduling conflicts as reasons for the potential break, and the issue generated many questions regarding the relationships between umbrella organizations and how their subsidiaries are managed.October: Everything gone wrong-another student loss, campus turmoil over racismOctober brought with it an emotional roller coaster ride unmatched in recent memory. The month began with good moments: Brandeis graduate, Roderick MacKinnon '78, won the Nobel Prize in chemistry, and the playoff series between and Red Sox and the Yankees created a playful uproar on the Brandeis campus as many of the school's students, faculty and staff participated in the age-old rivalry by supporting their respective teams. Changes in the study abroad program were made which will enable students-beginning Fall 2004-to study in another country, in certain programs, for the price of their Brandeis education. While upsetting some students because of the greater expense of Brandeis tuition versus many programs abroad, the change, according to Brandeis administrators, is intended to offer all students the chance to study abroad, regardless of their financial backgrounds, as Brandeis financial aid and scholarships will now transfer abroad.Unimaginable heartache struck the community when another classmate was lost. Mary Jagoda '05 died after her kayak went missing off the coast of Cape Cod. A racist comment that appeared in the pages of the Justice in the paper's Oct. 21 issue ignited feelings of anger, grief and betrayal on a campus in mourning. Students from the Brandeis Black Student Organization (BBSO) held a walk-out during a forum regarding the incident a few days after the words were printed and held a protest outside of the Justice office during production for the following week's issue. November: More focus on diversity, mourning a third student deathIn November, students voted to allocate $122,000 from a rollover fund toward the new game room in the Usdan Student Center. Tuition rose by 6.1 percent to $29,875 for the 2003-2004 academic year and Brandeis was listed as the 10th most expensive school for tuition by The Chronicle of Higher Education. The Brandeis Muslim Student Association (BMSA), after years of lobbying, hired a new mentor and advisor, Dr. Qumar-Al Huda.For the first time ever, three Brandeis sports teams earned playoff positions at once. The women's soccer, men's soccer and volleyball teams had great seasons, earning them trips to East Coast Athletic Conference tournaments.The loss of Eliezer "Elie" Schwartz '04 brought unthinkable grief once again. No student was left unaffected by the loss of the three classmates to the community.The issues of racism were confronted again when controversial Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes came to speak at the end of the semester, sparking heated debate and protest. Fliers mocking those of a diversity campaign created another outcry as students questioned their campus and the deeper issues of racism both at Brandeis and in the world at large.This was, arguably, the worst semester in recent memory.In closingSo much sorrow, anger and negativity filled the hearts and minds of the Brandeis community last year. Heart-wrenching struggle in organizations and personal lives made last semester in particular an emotional nightmare. It was difficult for many to focus academically, and the administration went so far as to request leniency from the faculty as the semester ended and finals approached. 2004: A new year There are many students who want to move on and go forward, yet many are eager to continue to keep issues open and discussed. As difficult as it was, no one will forget the last semester. However, it must be remembered that there are two semesters in a year, and the latter one was an anomaly. The spring semester's relative normalcy should be a reminder that things are not always as tumultuous and intense as they were these past few months. Brandeis starts the Spring 2004 semester welcoming the new midyear class into the community and beginning again in the routine of bookstore lines, class shopping and long waits at the gym. January is indeed an opportunity to look back and consider the past year and how one can learn from experiences encountered over that time. But it's also a chance to look ahead-one never knows what a new year will bring.
(01/20/04 5:00am)
Driving to a class at Tufts, my feet went cold. On I-95, I couldn't decide what to do. My hands felt shaky. Something was sloppily dripping on my cheek. I went back to J-Lot instead of class. I didn't find a shoulder, only a steering wheel. As a grown man, I wept. I couldn't understand why or how. The reason I was so disturbed were the events surrounding the Daniel Pipes' event on Nov. 18. As Justice columnist Bezalel Stern noted on November 25, 2003, "facts, and not half-truths, are important when judging people and events." The more fascinating aspect of such an argument is its placement in the Forum section of the paper. Crushing any notions of subtlety, this method of argument absolves itself of any multi-faceted understanding of the nature of truth. The aim of this op-ed, therefore, is to examine with a greater degree of nuance the happenings of last semester. I have been a Co-President of the Brandeis Muslim Student Association (BMSA), though I am no longer one. My actions are not governed by or liable to that organization. Regardless, it is an insult to the collective effort of the many students involved from the BMSA and non-BMSA organizations to have their contributions belittled or misrepresented. When reporting on the protest outside, it was mentioned that students were holding "banners and posters denouncing Pipes as racist and intolerant." This is simply not true. The posters that were being held up were broader, denouncing hate altogether. The exceptions were two posters held up equating Pipes and Joseph McCarthy. To this, a passer-by suggested that McCarthy did actually catch the communists. Given the sentiment expressed at the Middle East Forum At Brandeis (MEFAB) event, it seems like it would be acceptable to subject Muslims to McCarthyite tactics in the name of justice and security. Prof. Dennis Ross noted, "Anyone who tries to discredit [Daniel Pipes] as scholar has another agenda." The Brandeis Coalition for Tolerance (BCT) continues to have another agenda, that of tolerance on campus. To that end, however, the idea has never been to discredit Pipes as a scholar. The BCT statement issued in response to the event, something no one read, very bluntly declared, "We are not disputing Daniel Pipes' authenticity as a historian or commentator on the Middle East crisis." That document also stated, "Daniel Pipes' bigoted attitude mars his scholarship of Islam." The baby is not being thrown out with the proverbial bath water. When scholars make repeated remarks about one group of society in a singular manner, they draw attention to their means and ends. If Muslim immigrants bring "customs more troublesome than most" and must be "handled properly," then a critical eye would be wise to examine such comments closely and criticize them sharply when the need arises-especially if such scholars are oblivious to the history of religious extremism in this country and absolve organizations such as the KKK, as was done at the MEFAB event. We must understand what handling properly can entail. Minorities were "handled properly" in the Spanish Inquisition, slavery in the Americas, pogroms in Eastern Europe and the list goes on.In an Nov. 25 article, "Pipes' visit garners strong support amid controversy," Elana Lichtenstein '06 said, "Instead of responding to important components of the speech, [attendees against Pipes] used prepared sheets complete with out-of-context quotes to corner him. In that effort, they failed. Had people asked questions relating to his speech, their case would have been far more credible." This is another misrepresentation. The representative of MEFAB told the BCT that there would be an open forum for questions, and her one request was that we bring questions regarding all of the quotes to ask Daniel Pipes at the talk. That is why we had prepared questions with us. We also had questions based on the talk that was given, however, since people were being chosen to ask questions arbitrarily, and not everyone who had questions got a chance to ask them (some people even being prevented from asking follow-up questions) we unfortunately didn't get a chance to participate in the "dialogue" that was promised us. This fact has been distorted as well.Take Bezalel Stern's column, "Pipes protest shows left-wing fascism." In this column Stern writes, "They walked out right in front of Pipes, rudely and arrogantly disturbing an otherwise civil and incredibly important discussion." Pipes did not appear to desire a discussion since he didn't let some people finish their questions. He insulted people and restricted certain people's right to ask follow-up questions. Hissing and jeering during questions and cheering and clapping at insults is not civilized behavior where I come from.Stern also incorrectly claimed protesters were "holding signs with statements like, 'We will not tolerate intolerance.'" The exact wording was "oppose hate, tolerate." He also claimed "the protesters took the low road, choosing name-calling instead of dialogue and incivility instead of discourse." I don't remember any name-calling, except by the person who ran up to us chanting, "You're all idiots" and by all the people hissing at us when we were asking questions. This is not to mention people saying things like, "Don't you feel stupid now?" as we were leaving. Understanding this, did the "forum" really look like an avenue for real dialogue to anyone? Honestly?I am hardly a part of "left-wing fascism," as Stern claims. My sophomore year I was elected Secretary of the College Republicans. I've also served as a contributing editor of Concord Bridge. Pipes raises controversy on both sides of the political spectrum. Rationalized intolerance is something that concerns all people, Republican, Democrat, Muslim, Jew, Christian, black, white or brown. The BCT had been asked if the event should be prevented, and at all times the response was no. We supported free speech, and realized that the event had to occur to address the community's problems and foster dialogue.This op-ed is an attempt to further this dialogue. While a discourse of the clash of civilizations is beyond the scope of this column, a discourse over clashes of community isn't. It's not racist to carefully probe the bin Ladenists. However, it is intolerant to require Muslims to be "moderate" and assume that all terrorism stems from some brand of Islam. Brandeis suffers from an acute case of this bias. There's terrorism in Sri Lanka, India, Northern Ireland and many other places and forms unrelated to Muslims or Islam. We must be against all injustice. Brandeis is an institution of higher learning committed to social justice. This vision is perverted through the unsutable and maladroit treatment of minorities. Students that boo, jeer, hiss, or intimidate and are entirely unwilling to treat with equality those with differing beliefs do not belong at Brandeis. We must admit to ourselves that so many "incidents," such as the responses to the pro-tolerance rally, the Justice incident, the WBRS affair, the orientation hypnotist, the anti-Arab flier, the homophobic graffiti and many others are rooted in greater troubles. Students are deprived of the opportunity to learn when thrust into the defense of their identities. Polemics do not advance the cause of justice.
(11/25/03 5:00am)
To the Editor:The heinous reaction to Daniel Pipes' visit is demonstrative of an atmosphere of intolerance that permeates the Brandeis community. Once it became known that Pipes was to visit campus, an "emergency" meeting was called regarding the "possible event," implying that Pipes should be prevented from coming.The night before the event, the "Coalition for Tolerance" marched to oppose the "intolerable" views to be presented the next day. While Dr. Pipes was speaking, protesters walked out directly in front of the podium; one even threw a pile of papers at him. This is not an isolated incident of disrespect for non-leftist views; the Ethics Center advertises events to various left-wing groups, but not to conservative groups. Such neglect represents a false and discriminatory assumption that conservatives are not concerned with ethics and justice.The problem extends beyond extra-curricular activities. I have had to endure classes with professors who freely speak about "evil" Republicans or our "stupid" president. While I've often spoken against such bias, there is a distinct sense of hostility and disregard for equality. Conservatives are a legitimate minority on this campus. Unlike the apologies that are made to other minorities who are attacked, our community is accepting of attacks on those who espouse conservative values.In an academic institution that prides itself on tolerance and diversity, why is there so little tolerance for a diversity of views?- Rebecca Langer '05Middle East Forum At Brandeis, Vice President
