(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
(11/25/03 5:00am)
Benjamin "Min" Moldover '07 admitted full responsibility Saturday for posting a flier around campus last week following Daniel Pipes' visit that mocked a "one thought at a time campaign" by Student Union and Coordinator of Diversity Nathanial Mays. Moldover's flier read: "There are 6.5 million Muslim-Americans in the United States comprised of African-Americans, and last night they all did your mom. Twice. Did you know that?" Moldover explained his intent to the Justice and then posted his statement online."My intent was not to target any minority group, but rather to target those who have been campaigning recently for what they call 'diversity,'" Moldover wrote. "What have all the signs and protests accomplished? Have they truly changed people? Is there anyone on this campus who used to hate blacks, whites, Shintos, vegans, whoever, and now doesn't, because of all this?"The Brandeis Muslim Student Association (BMSA) held an open forum attended by President Jehuda Reinharz and other members of the Administration last Thursday responding to the fliers as well as the campus reaction to a pro-tolerance rally that traveled through several residence quads Monday.For the first hour of the meeting students described what former BMSA member Bariza Umar '04 called the "environment of hatred" surrounding the reaction to the pro-tolerance rally."I am absolutely disgusted by all that happened in the past few weeks and condemn it in the most way I know how," Reinharz said. "The most important thing for us as a community is to move on. We all feel beaten up by what happened...however, I still believe that this does not represent the majority of students at Brandeis."Umar said students were physically prevented from entering certain halls, physically threatened and "felt unsafe walking through quads" during the rally. Although many at the forum said they knew people who were threatened during the rally, when Reinharz asked how many would be willing to give more details, only three raised their hands."I was born Muslim, why should suffer for that?" Umar said. "It's a struggle for my existence (at Brandeis). This is about my identity that I have to constantly defend."Throughout the forum, various students present began to cry while talking.BMSA member Qaiser Saify '04 said that while he credits Brandeis with helping him progress personally, Brandeis does not realize that the problem of intolerance is pervasive and is not addressed on a large enough scale here. "Three years ago, I was really impressed with the welcoming here. I thought Brandeis was getting somewhere with its ideas of pluralism," Saify said. "The dreams of pluralism and tolerance, however, have been shattered.""I am rather upset that so much of the community is so ignorant," Saify said.Saify said he hopes the Brandeis community can become the one envisioned by the first president of Brandeis, Abram Sachar."Whatever Sachar's vision, it wasn't mine," Reinharz said in response to students at the meeting who cited a quote from Sachar in which the former president described a goal of eventually having a mosque on campus. Reinharz said it was unrealistic to have a place of worship for every religion represented at Brandeis. Students used the forum to suggest constructive measures against racism and intolerance. One student said everyone should place signs in their rooms that say, "No Hate," taking inspiration from a similar campaign at the University of Indiana at Bloomington. "I want people to walk this campus and see that they are not alone," the student said. After initial discussion, students spoke directly to Reinharz and presented him with a list of suggestions they said Reinharz should act upon.Some of the ideas expressed by students were to revamp the Islamic Studies program to focus on Islamic religion instead of Middle Eastern politics. Several students said they hope to see a class devoted to coexistence. Many students said they feel the Administration has not done anything in response to the recent incidents of hate on campus. Reinharz said he takes exception when people say the Administration does not react to such incidents.Reinharz said current diversity training provided during orientation is "clearly not enough" and that there are many ideas being considered by the faculty. Reinharz also told students they must also participate in the process of healing the community.Co-Director of Students Organized Against Racism and Union Judiciary Justice Daniel Mauer '06 read a list of ideas that students had compiled prior to the meeting. The requests included Reinharz attending a "pro-coexistence rally," requiring all club leaders to undergo diversity training, involving the Graduate Schools in discussions on racism and building a mosque.Reinharz said he would not be opposed to going to a coexistence rally. But he said that requiring club leaders to undergo diversity training was not up to him as Student Union clubs are independent of the Administration. On the issue of the mosque, Reinharz said that it is not financially possible to build one at this time. He did promise to add it to the school's master plan and said that if a donor is found it will be built. Arunoday Singh '04 was one of the only students to disagree with the majority of the students at the forum. "It only gets worse from here," Singh said, saying that life outside Brandeis becomes more challenging and that it is much better at Brandeis than it is elsewhere. Reinharz said that he hopes that students take what happened, learn from it and internalize it. He said students should "not forget, but move one."Reinharz also relayed his commitment to diversity on campus."I spend a great deal of my administration recruiting Muslim students," Reinharz said. "I didn't bring them here to be tolerated but to be accepted."The original fliers that Moldover parodied said: "There 6.5 Muslim Americans in the United States comprised of African-Americans, South Asians, Arabs, South East Asians, Latin Americans and Africans.""I feel it was very hurtful for a lot of people. Not only Muslim students themselves but a lot of minority students who felt directly or indirectly affected by them," Community Integration Coordinator Yanina Seltzer '05, who wrote the original flier, said. "The idea of the campaign was not to force anything on anyone, but to bring more awareness.""To me, diversity is not about you being Islamic and me being Christian and us learning about each other's culture and becoming brothers." Moldover said. "Diversity is about you being Islamic and me being Christian and us not letting that get in the way of talking about the latest Tarantino film. It's true that even as college students we're still children in many ways. But are we such ignorant, unthinking children that you can't depend on us to hear a racist talk and decide for ourselves that 'Yes, this man is a racist?'"Seltzer said that while she thinks some of the points Moldover said his response statement are interesting, she said she disagrees with what he said in the fliers and the way he went about it."He could have realized that what he did could have hurt a lot of people. He could have just e-mailed me and told me he didn't agree with my campaign and it could have made a lot of people's lives a lot easier," she said.Moldover said, "I've heard that a lot of Muslim and black students are considering leaving the school, because they find the atmosphere threatening. I find this disappointing. Brandeis has a reputation as a liberal school, an accepting school, and after you strip away the politics it is."For me, all along this has been about treating each other as people. . .We are not the groups we belong to. . .You're better than this Brandeis. I know you are. I believe in you."Public safety initially announced that two students were suspected to be involved with the flyers. The second student has not been identified. No information is available about any pending judicial action that may be brought against the parties. Editor's Note: Moldover's full statement is available online at www.geocities.com/senorbazo/statement.html
(11/25/03 5:00am)
On Nov. 18, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) issued a ruling that stated homosexual couples have the right to marry, giving the Massachusetts Legislature 180 days to make any necessary changes to state laws.This landmark ruling elicited a wide range of reactions. Gay residents of Massachusetts, not surprisingly, were pleased. Conservative religious and political leaders, perhaps even less surprisingly, were not. And they were quite vocal about it, too.Let's start with the President. In his response to the ruling, George W. Bush said, "Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman."Then there was Gov. Mitt Romney. His response was, "Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. I will support an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution to make that expressly clear."So there you have it: The question, however it was originally phrased to Bush and Romney, boils down to: "Why should the institution of marriage be restricted to a man and a woman?" Both of them responded by saying marriage is an institution between a man and a woman.Such a response is a meaningless tautology. And, while admittedly even less intelligent than most arguments against gay marriage, it illustrates the troubling fact that we let our leaders off far too easily.Gay marriage is a prime example of a catchphrase issue. When you hear people speak out against it, they use terms like "sanctity of marriage," "protection of marriage," "natural law," and the like. Such advocates talk about how gay marriage will undermine morality and cause the collapse of the family, but they don't feel particularly inclined to cite evidence.I for one have always been at a loss about this issue. I simply don't see how allowing gay couples to wed will have any impact whatsoever on me, my family, my friends or anyone else who does not wish to marry someone of the same sex. I have tremendous difficulty understanding any argument against granting gays full civil rights that is not firmly rooted in Biblical doctrine, which - last time I checked - was not supposed to influence legislative or judicial action. Apparently, so do those who are incensed by this ruling.Take for example, a poll cited in the Nov. 21 Christian Science Monitor conducted by the Pew Research Center and the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. 28 percent of those opposed to gay marriage felt it was "morally wrong or inconsistent with the Bible," 17 percent said it was "against my religious beliefs," and 16 percent said that "marriage is between a man and a woman."So, at least 61 percent of those opposed to gay marriage feel the way they do because their religious beliefs tell them to or because, ahem, "marriage is between a man and a woman."Given the way our leaders address the issue, it is not surprising that people don't seem to have given this much thought. Instead of viewing our leaders with a healthy dose of skepticism, we have a tendency to respond to certain key phrases ("Oh no, they're going to steal marriage!") without considering whether there is anything behind them.The fact is, homosexuality has nothing to do with morality and those who practice it have no sinister agenda. I have never heard a principled, logical, secular argument as to why homosexuality is immoral, and - as of the date I'm writing this - I have never been handed a brightly-colored flyer stating, "Homosexuality: It's the Sexuality of the 21st Century!" thereby delineating why I should, as "Seinfeld" once put it, "join the other team."Members of a truly effective democracy must not get riled up when they hear catchphrases meant to evoke outrage or patriotic fervor rather than discussion. Instead, they must examine what those in charge are saying on the basis of logic and reason. This is not limited to gay marriage. Take drugs laws, for example. Many are currently serving life sentences for nonviolent marijuana-related offenses, and few politicians have ever had to fully rationalize this. Instead of making them step up to the plate, we as an American public instead salivate and cheer when politicians tell us how they are going to be "tough on crime," fight the "war on drugs" and "take back the streets." There doesn't have to be logic to the way any of it is conducted because those responsible are engaged in a campaign of pacification. Drugs and crime are bad, taking back the streets is good, and as long as the three are addressed in pithy slogans, the busy American public does not take the time to fully critique the actions of policy makers.If things keep going in this direction, we will soon enter an era of political promises encapsulated in catchy jingles and campaign platforms fit for billboards.The SJC should be applauded for ruling with reason. If they had instead listened to the throngs of talking heads and self-appointed moral leaders, surely the ruling would have come down seven to zero against gay marriage.One last point that should be mentioned regards a more specific critique of their ruling: The oft-repeated notion that the judges are somehow "hijacking" the process of lawmaking from the people.In his Nov. 19 "Talking Points" segment, Bill O'Reilly cited a poll indicating most Americans are against gay marriage and said that "the will of the people must be taken into account here."For someone who attended the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, O'Reilly exhibits an alarming ignorance as to how the system works. Since when were judges supposed to rule according to "the will of the people?" That's the legislative branch, Bill. Judges in situations like this one rule according to the constitution (in this case the Massachusetts one). The SJC judges examined at a previously enacted state law banning same-sex marriages, looked at its constitutionality, and struck down the law. That's what judges do. The will of the people matters little if it is not in accordance with the constitution.
(11/25/03 5:00am)
"What a long strange trip it's been," the well-known title of the 1977 Grateful Dead album, seems appropriate to describe this past semester. We have experienced immense pain, loss, hate and elevated emotions. It has not been easy contextualizing the unexpected circumstances. First-year students have been presented with a campus continually raw with emotion, wondering what happened to the serene university they thought they were attending. But as we look back on this semester tinged with sadness and pain, we must remember the importance of moving-on while absorbing the lessons we have learned.LossWhile most of us have experienced dealing with the death of an elder, many of us have never lost a peer. This semester we were all affected in some way by the passing of Reggie Poyau '04, Mary Jagoda '05 and Eliezer Schwartz '04. They were all integral parts of the Brandeis community. The class of 2004 has been especially affected, having lost classmate Ian Wacks in the fall of 2000. All of these tragic deaths have forced us to ask, "Why?" There is no simple answer to this basic question, and we are left feeling empty and broken. The pain these deaths have caused will not disappear. We will forever miss the presence of these remarkable individuals, and many of us will never feel quite whole again. Brandeis has provided its students with many resources to help them get through these times of grief and we commend the university for that. The Brandeis chaplains and administrators have been a constant source of strength, using their spirituality, knowledge and experience to comfort students. The Psychological Counseling Center has also been a steadying influence. We laud everyone who has provided guidance to students in need. HateThis semester has also been marked and marred by a startling amount of hate. It began with the racist comment written by Daniel Passner '05 in the Oct. 21 issue of the Justice, and was followed by the offensive flyers denouncing Muslims circulated around campus. The students of this university have seen their morals and emotions put to the test by ignorance. These hateful comments have caused unquantifiable amounts of emotional angst. As troubling as the comments themselves are the divides that have been created between students as they try to understand what is happening on their campus.Controversial events, like Daniel Pipes' speech, have only increased the turmoil on campus. Minority students felt attacked and majority students felt unfairly labeled as attackers. It is time for us to look past these glaring examples of hate and racism so we can examine the deeper problems. There is no "solution" to racism and hate. It is a personal and universal struggle that we deal with every day and should be addressed head on. Peer-to-peer communication is key to this, because we will never be able to understand either side of the story until we attempt to look at it through another's eyes. By using individual interaction instead of institutionalized and required steps, such as mandatory classes or seminars, we can begin to suture these open wounds in our community. With those sutures in place, we may finally begin to heal.ActivismIn response to the hate on campus, there have been large mobilizations. This activism is promising because it means that we, as students, are not just willing to talk and hypothesize about problems on campus, but are willing to take tangible actions to fix these problems. The constructive activism we have witnessed - such as the protest/awareness campaign in light of Daniel Pipes' visit - has shown the amazing ability on the part of many students to come together for a cause. It has shown us the strength of the leadership of many groups on campus to take action for the benefit of their members, and their dedication to confronting Brandeis' problems head on.However, not all activism on campus this semester has been constructive. Indeed, some of these demonstrations have actually divided us. The physical threats issued to protesters at Daniel Pipes' speaking engagement are one example of this balkanizing activism. The abundance of students taking comments or situations out of context and remaining unwilling to listen to others is another. As Brandeis' independent newspaper, the Justice has tried to open itself up and allow itself to become a megaphone through which to address these problems. While the Justice does not always succeed in this goal at all times, we need help of students as we strive to play a role in the healing of the campus. We continue to encourage the Brandeis community to write to and for us, and for any of the numerous other publications on campus.To help further the goal of constructive activism that has proliferated this semester, we must learn to act instead of to react. Knee-jerk reactions to troubling circumstances have a way of compounding the problems and work against the inherent goal of activism. Activism is meant to create further awareness and to bring people together, not to divide them further. Instead of confrontational and intimidating actions, student activists can incorporate more discussion and one-on-one guidance in order to bring students together behind their cause. By choosing to act rationally instead of talking emptily, we can take steps in the right direction.LeadershipIn these stressful times, many students looked toward the administration for support and guidance. In the face of adversity, some leaders of the university performed extraordinarily, but others were conspicuously absent.President Reinharz' appearance at the Muslim Students Association (MSA) forum last Thursday was appropriate considering his position of leadership and the fragile state of the community he leads. However, his presence was lacking at other times during this arduous semester. We acknowledge that he is only one person, but he is the president of this university and should have been a more active participant in addressing the disputes and tragedies of these past months. Although his principal duty is to raise funds, his rare appearances make him seem a distant leader. While we understand that he has commitments, it would have been comforting to see our president at the memorial services of our peers. In spite of our disappointment with the president's office, other members of the Administration have frequently exceeded their calls of duty. Dean of Student Life Rick Sawyer and Assistant Dean of Student Life Alwina Bennett devoted incredible amounts of time to helping students cope. In the early hours of Oct. 28, Bennett desperately tried to maintain the peace as incensed students protested outside this newspaper's office. In the following days, Bennett, Sawyer and Rev. Nathaniel Mays reached out to all sides of that dispute. Their inviting and welcoming nature underscores their commitments to productive communication and a cohesive university. Rabbi Allan Lehmann and Fr. David Michael also worked tirelessly to heal the spirit of the Brandeis community by organizing vigils and memorials to remember the lives of Mary and Elie. They are all deserving of the upcoming vacations.The Executive Board of the Student Union has spent many hours advocating for the students of this university. They have been most professional, and for this they should be highly commended.We encourage the faculty, as a significant and influential force on this campus, to respond to future situations that may arise. As we prepare for finals and the upcoming winter break, we hope students, faculty and staff will use this vacation as a period of reflection, and return to campus next semester rested and healthy. We wish you luck on your finals and a wonderful vacation. It has been a hard semester, but we are going to finish it together.
(11/25/03 5:00am)
Stirring a range of loud opinions and protest across campus, the controversial Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes delivered a lecture Tuesday in front of a packed crowd in Sherman Function Hall.While many attendees of Pipes' lectures supported his message, others did not.Around 20 of the approximately 275 audience members wore black to show solidarity against Pipes' presence and views. During the last question, nine protesters walked out through the front of the room, in front of Pipes to protest his message. On his way out, Ammad Bahalim '04, former president of the Brandeis Muslim Student Association (BMSA), threw several papers up in the air in protest. A columnist for The Jerusalem Post and the New York Post, Pipes has written twelve books on Islam and the Middle East. In April, President Bush nominated him to the U.S. Institute of Peace, a governmental think tank. After the nomination faced opposition in the Congress, Bush appointed Pipes during a congressional recess.Pipes speaks on Iraq, Islam and IsraelPipes' speech titled "Middle East Crises: A Review of the Bidding" was hosted by the Middle East Forum at Brandeis, the local chapter of the Middle East Forum, founded and directed by Pipes. In his speech, Pipes addressed three topics: the "War on Terror," the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the current situation in Iraq. Pipes said his lecture was about "the three I's: Islam, Israel and Iraq." "The war on terror began not on September 11, 2001, but in November 1979," Pipes said. "That's when two episodes took place: the ... U.S. embassy in Tehran was taken over by militant Islamic groups, and two American missions in Pakistan were overrun. Between November 1979 and September 10, about 800 people were killed. "That assault was responded to as a wave of criminality that had to be dealt with through the judicial system," explained Pipes. 9/11, he said, showed that this approach would not work. According to Pipes, after 9/11 military and intelligence services became more involved and integrated into the war on terror. Pipes said the Patriot Act allowed different branches of government to work together against terrorism.Pipes said the next stage of the war against terrorism must be a fight against "the transformation of Islam the faith into militant Islam the ideology."The United States should have a national debate about the nature of the enemy, Pipes said. "Do we want special attention to be paid to the actions of American Muslims or do we not?"His speech next turned to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.He pointed out what he believes is a fundamentally incorrect assumption of the conflict and of the negotiations meant to bring it to a close, that "when Arafat sent a letter saying he accepted Israel, there was a sea change - the existential issue had come to an end, and it was a matter of working out issues." In reality, Pipes said, "In political speeches, in mosque sermons, in school textbooks, in the media, in literature ... everything pointed to no acceptance of Israel. The map the Palestinian Authority used showed no Israel, only Palestine." During the question-and-answer session, Pipes said that many of those who say they want peace really want only to extract concessions from Israel and maintain the goal of destroying Israel eventually.Pipes said negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians had been counterproductive. "Palestinians came to see Israel as a rather more fragile state than they had in the beginning," he said. "Diplomacy should come when the Palestinians realize they cannot defeat Israel." The final topic of the lecture was the situation in Iraq. Pipes said that although he was originally against the American incursion into Iraq in 1991, he was "quite pleased with the outcome." He had assumed, he said, that after suffering defeat and facing sanctions, Saddam Hussein's regime would fall, but that this hope had proved misguided. Pipes added that when Hussein survived and began ignoring weapon sanctions in 1998, it became clear that he was a problem. Pipes said he supported the 2003 war in Iraq because the war applied the 1991 Gulf War settlement and instituted a preemptive policy against Hussein. "We should not build Iraq as we did Germany and Japan after World War II. We defeated Germany and Japan, but we liberated Iraq," Pipes said. Instead, he said, we should "pull out to the rural areas and let the Iraqis run Iraq, let the Iraqis make decisions about Iraq." Pipes: Pre-eminent scholar or racist?Opinions of Pipes are mixed. The Boston Globe has said, "If Pipes' admonitions had been heeded, there might never have been a 9/11." The Wall Street Journal regards him as "an authoritative commentator on the Middle East," while the Washington Post sees him as "a man who seems to harbor a disturbing hostility to contemporary Muslims." Pipes' visit prompted diverse reactions on campus.Members of several student groups, including the Brandeis Muslim Student Association (BMSA), Brit Tzedek v'Shalom (BTvS), Students for a Just Society (SJS) and the Intercultural Center (ICC) opposed Pipes' visit because, according to fliers posted across campus, he is an example of "racism and intolerance."When MEFAB first announced the event on Nov. 5, the ICC held an emergency meeting to discuss possible responses. Students immediately formed a group and mailing list called Hate Haters. The group has since changed its name to the Coalition for Tolerance. The Coalition for Tolerance put up the aforementioned fliers, which contain excerpts from Pipes' writings along with reactions to the selections. The group also organized a pro-tolerance rally, cosponsored by BMSA, BTvS, the ICC and SJS, held the night before Pipes' visit. Between 15 and 20 participants marched from the ICC lounge in East Quad to the Village, walking through dorms and chanting, "Oppose hate, tolerate," "One-two-three-four Brandeis students say no more; five-six-seven-eight start the tolerance, stop the hate."After the lecture, several students stood outside of Sherman Function Hall holding banners and posters denouncing Pipes as racist and intolerant. To open the question-and-answer session following Pipes' lecture, Yoni Goodman '05 said to Pipes, "There have been a number of allegations charged against you that you are a racist ... I want to give you a forum to respond to these allegations." Pipes responded that the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is "an apologist for militant Islam," and that the allegations made by CAIR are "repeated by those of you who don't do your own thinking." He went on to say that though most Muslims do not support militant Islam, today "the driving force is militant Islam," and it should therefore be dealt with harshly.Bariza Umar '04 asked Pipes about a quote from an article he wrote in 1990, which read: "Western European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and not exactly maintaining Germanic standards of hygiene."According to Pipes, Umar took the quote out of context. Pipes said that in the article, he was trying to portray the problems Europeans saw with Muslim immigration, and that he was, in fact, "pooh-poohing" the European views. When Umar presented Pipes with a copy of the article, Pipes read from it: "Muslim immigration presents a great number of painful but finite challenges; there is no reason, however, to see this event leading to a cataclysmic battle between two civilizations. If handled properly, the immigrants can even bring much of value, including new energy, to their host societies." Pipes said his only regret about the passage in question was that he did not put quotation marks around it. Prof. Qamar ul-Huda (NEJS), adviser to the Brandeis Muslim Students Association (BMSA), described Pipes as a "purveyor of hatred, notorious for his anti-Islamic, Islamophobic, racist dehumanization of Muslims," in an email he sent to the ICC mailing list. Denise Katz '05, founding President of MEFAB, explained the purpose of the Middle East Forum and MEFAB in particular. "The Middle East Forum is a Philadelphia-based think tank that seeks to define and promote American interests in the Middle East ... MEFAB fills a niche on campus of looking at the Middle East through the lens of American interests," Katz said. "Daniel Pipes is among the nation's pre-eminent scholars and leading commentators of the Middle East and Islam," Katz said. "He has devoted his life to study of this field." Huda, however, said that Pipes is "a phony" who has access to national press institutions. "He has made a career in jingoism and using McCarthyite tactics against Muslims. I don't think Brandeis should spend its resources on him, nor should Brandeis students be duped into thinking he is an authority in the field ... for us, he is like David Duke or Louis Farrakhan," Huda said.Prof. Dennis Ross (POL), who served as Special Ambassador to the Middle East under Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton and is the current director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, disagreed. He said that "Daniel Pipes, no matter what anyone says, is a legitimate scholar. Does that mean I agree with everything he says? No. Bu t ...he is not a racist, and is not anti-Islam. He calls attention to militant Islam ... Anyone who tries to discredit him as a scholar has another agenda." Franck Salameh (GRAD), a Lebanese professor of Arabic on the Near Eastern and Judaic Studies (NEJS) faculty and a doctoral degree candidate at Brandeis, commented, "Edward Said (late Professor at Columbia University) offends me ... He says the Arabs can't think for themselves ... but that does not give me the right to engage in personal attacks on the person and call him names," Salameh said. "If I'm so secure in my beliefs, I would not try to cast doubt on his academics. "If someone who was offensive to me was coming, I would go and face him and respond accordingly, then and there. This is what would be expected of me as a student, as an academic, as a member of an academic community."Salameh, whose studies focus on Lebanon, said, "I know (Pipes') work on Lebanon, and it's pretty respectable." The question of free speechSome say they see a broader problem on campus in which free speech is repeatedly limited. Ross said that "there is a political correctness that excludes independent thinkers from speaking ... you have to be confident enough in your beliefs to hear the other side." Senator-at-large Jonathan Cohen '06 said "I feel stifled by liberals on this campus, and the mere fact that Daniel Pipes is coming to speak at this university gives me confidence that my views will be heard. Many of the messages that he sends represent how I feel." Bahalim, another former president of BMSA and the other Coalition for Tolerance organizer, countered, saying, "It is important to consider all views, but I personally don't believe Pipes has much more than hatred to offer."Katz said "there is discrimination against conservative views." She continued, "The strategy employed by Pipes' opponents is to delegitimize his views in order to convince everyone else to dismiss his views a priori. Daniel Pipes' opponents thereby shut out the possibility of discussion. Legally, I can say what I want. The issue is that there is intimidation going on, and . . . it instills fear in people who might not be espousing a popular view."Though the Nov. 11 issue of the Justice quoted Albert Cahn '07, a representative of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) as saying that the ACLU felt Pipes' "views are not a message we need at this time," the ACLU does not oppose Pipes' visit. Melinda Grodsky '06, president of the ACLU at Brandeis, said, "The ACLU supports Pipes' right to speak here, and also supports the right of groups to protest against him." Grodsky and Cahn both said a misunderstanding had led to Cahn's earlier statement.Mitchel Balsam '05, president of Zionists for Historical Veracity (ZaHaV) and Treasurer of MEFAB, said "People are too afraid to confront what is a legitimate concern of Americans. You don't get to stand behind a wall of accusations and not abide by Brandeis' motto: Truth, even unto its innermost parts."Students react to Pipes' visitWhile some Brandeis students were pleased with Pipes' visit, others were not. Katz simply described the event as "a success," but Umar said it was an uncomfortable revelation."We wanted Pipes to come because we knew that there were people at Brandeis who thought like that, and by asking questions of him, we would be able to address those issues in our own community," Umar said. "However, now instead of thinking that it's a minority of the students who think like that, it feels more like the majority ... I learned that this is not my community."Ari Stein '05, Israel Coordinator for Brandeis Hillel, said, "I felt that his speech went very well. He did a good job of explaining most of the accusations against him ... I think the way the protesters presented themselves with questions was respectable, but the way they walked out to disrupt the event was reprehensible and did not further their case." Stein added, "Though I found some of his answers to questions people asked to be obnoxious, I would not call them offensive."Bahalim explained why protesters walked out of the lecture, and why he threw the papers in the air:"We could no longer pretend that it was an open forum where inquiry was being pursued. The manner in which our questions were answered was insult enough, being ridiculed by the audience was an added injury. Our dissent had to be demonstrated in a clear and determined manner ... I was upset. Given the circumstances, I feel such a loss of composure wasn't too much."Bahalim added that Pipes' visit "brought the problem of hate and intolerance out in visible and tangible form."Elana Lichtenstein '06 said the protesters' methods were misguided. "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," Lichtenstein said.
(11/18/03 5:00am)
Recently, JustArts had the opportunity to talk to Ben Coccio, director of "Zero Day," a film loosely based off the Columbine school shooting.JustArts: What I found most incredible about "Zero Day" was that fact that I was able to relate to Cal and Andre so well. How did you go about making Cal and Andre seem so normal? Was this portrayal of these characters one of your objectives in creating the film? Coccio: I didn't want to demonize them, and I didn't want to lionize them; I wanted to humanize them. Traditionally in a narrative, the idea is that a character does something because they have a motivation to do it, and usually the motivation - even if you don't agree with it - you can understand it. In this movie, a lot of the motivation is cut out so you don't really know why they're doing what they're doing. The only thing you get is how they go about it, and what I wanted to do was to make them look like humans and be able to have someone like you relate to them and sort of feel attention in relating to them because then you think I'm relating to these two guys but look what they're going to do and what they do. Part of that was the writing, but I think a larger part of that was the acting and my casting and sort of purposefully trying to find kids who were going to be very natural in front of the camera and understood that the whole point of this thing was to approach it in that vein. At no point could it feel like a movie when they were acting which is a different kind of acting in which I think they were really well fitted to because they didn't have a ton of experience.JustArts: That leads to my next question, which is why did you decide to use nonprofessional actors for your leads? Do you feel that if you had used professional actors to play the roles of Cal and Andre, the film would have been less realistic and successful? Coccio: Yeah. I mean, to get myself going in the film the first thing I did was... are you familiar with a publication called "Backstage?" JustArts: No.Coccio: "Backstage" is a publication in the New York and L.A. areas. It's basically a newspaper for actors and performers ... So I put an ad in the back of Backstage and I tried to be very kinky about what I was looking for - I didn't want to say that I was looking for two kids to be in a Columbine movie because I figured that would really limit my pool of actors to choose from. All I got from the New York area seemed like a Law and Order extras reunion ... It didn't look right. They all looked like city kids - really cool or they had a very advanced sense of personal style whether you liked it or not ... So I went to up to Connecticut and contacted all the high schools and looked for kids who maybe had some experience acting ...For the two leads, I was looking for people who were already friends ... Andre and Cal were just the best. They were so great because they were really good actors, they were very different people, very different personalities, very different bodies - which is really helpful because you may not remember who is Andre and who is Cal, but you'll definitely remember that one is a blonde and one is a brunette. They just were head and shoulders above the rest.JustArts: Was a lot of the movie improv or was it mainly from the script?Coccio: Well, I wrote the script and every scene that is in the movie except for a couple is in the script. And generally the script is like an outline. I wrote it as an outline. I wrote a dialogue that might have been good if it was delivered verbatim, but my plan was to always have the kids deliver it their way, in their own words - There was tons of room for them to add ...JustArts: The murder scene is shown only through what is supposed to be a high school security camera. Why did you choose to film the entire scene in this manner? Coccio: Part of my decision to do this film in the first person is that it commented on a lot of different things at once in a lot of different ways. It sort of ended up being like a prism. One of the things that it comments on is the idea of narrative and the idea of who is the narrator of a situation. For most of the movie up until that point, Andre and Cal are narrating the movie. They're telling you everything. And in a certain sense, the one thing that I find really interesting is that it doesn't always occur to an audience to distrust them even though they are clearly not really trustworthy. You see a scene where they tell you something point blank, and in another scene they are totally being dishonest to their parents or friends and not letting them know what they're planning. But yet, sometimes an audience won't go back and re-evaluate what they said and start to look for cracks in it because you tend to trust your narrator, which I think is really interesting. And at one point in the movie, they narrate that the movie will end and the last thing anyone will see is them walking into the school and then there won't be anything after that, which is a great image for them to end on. That's like their romantic image that they get to end on. But it doesn't end there. Their narrative goes on and other people are going to have to deal with it now. JustArts: And they're so different in that scene too. They're cruel and mean; it's totally different from the rest. Coccio: Exactly. That's the thing. You need to see it, I think. Not showing that scene would be a cop-out, first off. If you don't see it, you could like them. And telling it that way takes out their ability to influence it. In other words, they seem really mean and awful in that scene, and half of that is because it's not from their point of view anymore, it's from a godlike point of view now. The more real that scene feels, the more awful it feels, which is the point. The point is to make it feel awful and final and terrible and senseless and pointless and mundane in a sense, and at the same time, it's hard to just turn away. JustArts: How closely did you intend for Andre and Cal to resemble real-life Columbine killers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold? Coccio: It was definitely not so important that they physically resemble them. This clearly is a movie after the fashion of Columbine. I chose not to make it about Columbine because I wanted freedom to change things. I think the point of making a movie about something like Columbine is to put it in a form where people can get their minds around it. In real life, it is almost impossible to get their minds around it. JustArts: I think in a way this made it harder. I would like to think of these guys as really despicable, horrible people, but now I feel sympathetic for murderers. Coccio: I definitely wasn't trying to condone what they did. It does make it more complex in that sense. The way you deal with it in real life is to simply demonize them and say that these are just awful people, end of story, let's not think about it. But I don't think that's the best thing to do. I think we should just confront these things and look at them. But I think to do it in a movie is great because it's a way that you can confront it in a forum that works well. You go in, the movie plays, and when the movie is over, it's over. It's not real, no one really died and you can compartmentalize it and work on it with your mind. So I wanted to make it very evocative of Columbine. There were actually a few factual things I took directly from Columbine, for instance one of them going to their prom the night before and them stealing guns from friends and relatives - There were times when I would take artistic liberty, but generally speaking it wasn't so important that I follow Columbine perfectly - but there were some things from Columbine that I thought needed to be dramatized. Justarts:You can't really find a reason for why they do this because it doesn't really seem like anyone is treating them that all that bad. Coccio: I think a lot of middle class high school life is very suffocating and bizarre and weird and it's a weird four years. There is a lot of tension under the surface but it's not necessarily going to explode in violence. The fact that it did with these kids ... there's really no easy answer and I definitely don't want to peddle any with the movie. So I thought it would just be very interesting. I'm trying to debunk a lot of Columbine myths, and I'm trying to remind you that just because they tell you that that's not why they're doing it, doesn't mean that's not necessarily why they're doing it. If they say something to you, anything about why they're doing it, it's hard to parse out ... are they going to be really honest in these tapes? I don't know. I just think it's interesting to play with that ... Justarts: What message do you want your audience to take from this film? I had always hoped back in high school that if there were students who were going to do this kind of thing, I could know it and report them. But instead, these guys are pretty normal and I would never expect people like them to do that kind of thing. Do you think that "Zero Day" can be in any way useful in preventing further attacks of this kind? Coccio: Yeah, I do. I think in a weird way it could be. It's never going to be useful in a sense of helping to create a profile for these kids because I don't think there is one ... The unfortunate reality is that you can't know people as much as you'd like to. Even when you really know someone, you may not ever really know them. But first off, I would say that I have a feeling that if there were kids out there who really wanted to shoot up their school, I don't think that this movie would make them psyched to do it. I think this movie might even knock them down a bit because the finality of it and the mundanity of it when I show them actually do it - there is nothing fantastic about it, it is just awful and boring and terrible - When kids want to do something like this, they look for cultural myths as a touchstone for them to encourage them. They would be more interested in a movie like "The Matrix" where the whole world is a lie and a construction by evil robots that is designed to keep everyone down and there is only one guy who can stop it who has to use tons and tons of guns ... My desire is to try to start a wider cultural dialogue that may be a little more complex than it was before. After something like this, maybe we shouldn't look for blame immediately, but maybe we should be a little bit more complex when we think about these things. Maybe it's not so bad sometimes to admit that there is no reason, or no good reason, and sometimes things just happen that are really bad and the best thing you can do about it is to move on and recover. I don't think that that's a bad method. That's life.
(11/18/03 5:00am)
There was quite a load of reaction and controversy over the past two weeks leading up to Daniel Pipes' appearance at Brandeis today. Pipes came at the invitation of the Middle East Forum at Brandeis (MEFAB). Soon after learning of this, members of the Brandeis Muslim Student Association (BMSA) constructed an opposition group - originally dubbed Hate Haters but since renamed the Brandeis Coalition for Tolerance - based around reactions to Pipes' statements over the course of his career. Before analyzing Pipes and the validity of his writings, I must remark that I am thoroughly impressed by the expeditious nature of discourse surrounding the brief appearance of one scholar.To his credit, Pipes fits the description of an accomplished scholar. He holds multiple degrees in history from Harvard, and has taught both there and at the University of Chicago. He has also conducted research for the Departments of State and Defense. Most recently, he was appointed to the board of the United States Institute on Peace (USIP), a government think tank charged with developing non-military solutions to diplomatic problems. However, Pipes' place at the USIP should be highly suspect. USIP directors are nominated by the president, and President Bush nominated Pipes during congressional recess -bypassing the need for Senate confirmation. More important are Pipes' current activities, many of which indicate he does not bring the most peaceful intentions to the diplomatic circuit.Last month, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammed said, "Jews rule the world by proxy."National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice found those comments deplorable, and later said they are not "emblematic of the Muslim world." While she made the proper condemnation, she followed it up with an open-minded statement. Pipes' column in the New York Post on October 26 contained one of many broad assumptions he makes about Muslim culture.In reaction to both Mahathir and Rice, Pipes wrote, "Mahathir's views are precisely emblematic of current Muslim discourse about Jews - symbolized by the standing ovation his speech received from an all-Muslim audience of leaders representing 57 states." While I found the Malaysian Prime Minister's comments highly inflammatory, Pipes' response is equally disruptive. Pipes claims to have spent his career trying to firmly discern mainstream Islam from fundamentalist Islam, yet that statement is a direct contradiction of his supposed mission in life. I do not claim to be a Middle East scholar, but I do know a poor statement when I see one.In the past, Pipes' writings have expressed his convictions that the Arab world should openly submit to Western culture. While the Middle East undoubtedly needs serious reform, a sacrifice of authentic culture is hardly the answer; rather it is anathema to peaceful dialogue toward regional civility. He has also written extensively on his unyielding support for Ariel Sharon, practically giving the Israeli Prime Minister carte blanche in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While Yasser Arafat should have his Nobel Peace Prize revoked for his actions, Sharon has also done very little to elucidate a peaceful solution. Sharon claimed to accept the "road map" earlier this year, but then contributed to its destruction with continued campaigns of air strikes and erecting a wall around the West Bank. While Israel is right to defend itself, Sharon's policies reek of apartheid, and Pipes' defense of these actions are precisely why he should not be a director of the USIP.In August, Slate columnist Christopher Hitchens gave scathing details to that effect, citing a dismissive piece Pipes wrote after the leaders of Iran rescinded their death edict against "The Satanic Verses" author Salman Rushdie. Hitchens rightfully slammed Pipes for interpreting this event as a sham, and for justifying this belief based on quotations collected from Iranian extremists who continued to harbor resentment against Rushdie. Hitchens also sharply criticized Pipes for attempting to distort the ethnic origins of the late Prof. Edward Said of Columbia University. Said, whose family left Palestine in 1947 before Israel was established, was sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, but his views advocating mutual respect between Israelis and Palestinians were hardly controversial. Yet, Pipes once had the audacity to claim that Said was never a Palestinian emigre; this is a heinous act of libel.One reason Pipes earned the prominence to join the board of the USIP stems from his organizations. In addition to espousing his diatribes in the Post, Pipes is the founder and director of the Middle East Forum (MEF) of which our MEFAB is the local outlet. MEF is a research organization that openly states that it seeks to advance American interests in the Middle East. The MEF list of "experts" is an assortment of pundits with views nearly as hawkish as its director. Among the "experts" are William Kristol, the Weekly Standard editor, and Martin Kramer, another Middle East scholar who has made a career of criticizing Middle East studies. It should be noted that Kramer taught at Brandeis in the spring of 2002. If excessive American interests are part of the reason why the Middle East is such a hotbed of turmoil, further promoting them seems hardly analogous with creating a peaceful situation.An outgrowth of the MEF is Campus Watch, a project that monitors and critiques Middle East studies at American colleges. Not surprisingly, Brandeis - more specifically our department of Near Eastern and Judaic Studies - is featured on the Campus Watch Web site. This project of Pipes' has turned heads in the past, most on the basis of outrage over an organization such as the MEF trying to dictate what is taught in our universities.However, Campus Watch does have some endorsements from a smattering of professors, including Prof. Jonathan Sarna (NEJS). "Campus Watch provides much needed balance to a field besmirched by politics masquerading as scholarship. Its revelations should serve as a wake-up call to everyone truly concerned about the study of the Middle East in the American academy," the Web site quotes from Sarna.Whatever Pipes says today, I suspect it will not deviate from his typical assertions. Discourse is vital in political affairs, especially one as delicate as the Middle East, but Daniel Pipes does not hold the answer to that region's problems. Now that he is a high-level policy maker, Pipes has serious credibility, and this is very unfortunate. Based on the results of policies enacted thus far by the Bush administration and Ariel Sharon, another right-wing ideologue in the mix is the last thing the peace process needs.
(11/18/03 5:00am)
To the Editor:Why all the hype over Pipes? I strongly oppose the message Daniel Pipes' speaking engagement makes about Brandeis and the values of this campus. My opposition is not related to policy on Israel or the Middle East, but to the way this country and this community views and treats American Muslims. Pipes has often purveyed a message of racism, hate and intolerance, using his two organizations, the Middle East Forum and Campus Watch, to attack public figures, academics and institutions that support Islam. Pipes' fearful and simplistic view of Muslim beliefs does not help in the war on terror, but serves to distract policy discussion, focusing attention on individuals and institutions that pose no threat. Pipes does indeed, as many have countered, draw a distinction between radical and moderate Islam. Yet the distinction is undermined by his declaration that mainstream Muslim institutions like the Islamic Society of Boston are tainted by ties to terrorism. The manner in which Pipes makes unfounded assertions that various groups are extremist directly parallels the way he ostracizes those academics whom he defines as un-American in their teaching style. Supporters of Campus Watch have sent thousands of e-mails - many of them containing threats - to those academics whom Pipes listed on his Web site. The actions of Campus Watch supporters have gone so far as to drive one professor to leave the country, and have tormented untold others. Denise Katz, president of the Middle East Forum at Brandeis, claims that Pipes' detractors have created an "atmosphere of fear" by posting oppositional flyers. But where is concern for the fear Pipes has inspired in millions of American Muslims? Furthermore, the assertion that these actions in some way infringe Pipes' First Amendment rights is flat out wrong. None of the groups mobilizing against Pipes are opposing or limiting his ability to speak on campus. In rebutting his prior statements and by attempting to unite the Brandeis community in opposition to his views, we are simply exercising the same free speech rights as Pipes' supporters. Even though Daniel Pipes does not have a definitive legal right to speak on campus, the Brandeis Coalition for Tolerance, in a principled stance, has refrained from attempting to stop his scheduled talk. But we will not stand by silently, for while it is clear that not every word Pipes utters is hateful, he has generally demonstrated a level of racism and intolerance that Brandisians will unite to oppose.- Albert Cahn '07
(11/11/03 5:00am)
Last semester, I studied abroad in Durban, South Africa and was fortunate enough to meet the Nowadayz Poets, a group of young men and women with many things in common - among them, the love of poetry. I got up to the front of the room, recited a poem of mine, and that was all it took: I was a member, both of the group and of the feeling. That's the power of the spoken word - a power Saul Williams, writer and star of the award winning 'Slam' knows how to wield so very well.Upon entering the Paradise Rock Club, I saw a man on stage trying to make conversation with the audience members and failing quite amazingly. We went to the balcony and spied a thin, tall bearded man near the sound engineer. "Saul Williams," my friend announced, "there he is." I had seen him before on television as the mouthpiece to an amazing work of art. The story was of a small-time drug dealer who erupts into poetry at key moments of his life, such as during a prison term. The plot is intense and the performances are equally powerful. I came to Commonwealth Avenue on Wednesday to see some of that strength.After waiting an appropriate amount of time, Mr. Williams graced the stage. As a graduate of the prestigious Tisch program at New York University, he knows how to command an audience, and he does so effortlessly. As he was about to begin his first poem, he decided to change format. He wanted to have the lights turned on slightly so that the venue could have a forum-like environment. So it became an improvised 'question leads to an answer leads to many answers leads to two poems leads to...' It was not the expected format at all, but fortunately, the crowd was as intrigued and delighted as I was. What the night became was a 'VH1 Storytellers' for the underground. He encouraged us to ask questions such as, "Why are you playing chess on the back of a turtle in ...?" or "What is the significance of time in ...?" He handled each inquiry with a friendly, open respectfulness - unafraid to laugh at himself or his off-the-cuff responses. There was little pretension being projected from the stage. As an actor, he was a vessel for another's words and therefore had a certain distance from the audience. Yet as a writer, he could be right next to us, he could be inside of us. That was one of the most important parts of the evening - his willingness to ask us, to listen to us, and to try to understand us. For too many, the 'us' is a bottom line, a consumer line or a queue to be satisfied and refilled. Williams was different. He was engaged, asking who went to the Rock the Vote in town the day before and listening to what the people had to say. He was unafraid to speak his mind - a mind that is often camouflaged by metaphors and wild imagery. There was a nakedness and a vulnerability present that was so refreshing that it inspired the same within the audience. With a two-hour show, he spent perhaps half the time talking and not reciting. Did this bother me? No. This is because I can only really process two of his poems at a time, for they are some of the meatiest, most emotionally and psychologically demanding works I know of, and frankly, time is needed to absorb. That was the brilliance of the set-up; we were given the breathing room. The poetry, however, was absolutely breathtaking. One story, of his first time on stage, when he incidentally met the man who would be Mos Def - among others - concluded with him reciting that very first poem. His body like a shaking wire, his voice loud and distinct, Williams captivated us with his rapid-fire delivery of a picture of the world as he knew it then. Because of the stories, I felt personally responsive to the poem. Because he was so human on stage, I felt personally connected to him. That is the power of Saul Williams. His final poem, "Sha Clack-Clack," expressed my sentiments concerning the night exactly. We all needed more time -more of his time - because every moment of that night was a seed to spawn an hour of thought. Like he said in a story, it's not the time but the moment. A moment can last forever; a moment can last a second. Don't mourn lost time, instead mourn lost moments. I have those moments locked up safely in my head. If you have a taste for poetry that moves you, touches you, makes you want to change the world or maybe just words on the surface of a piece of paper, I suggest that you go buy his new book, 'Said the Shotgun to the Head.' I suggest you rent 'Slam.' I suggest you spend a precious moment to find your way to a stage with Saul Williams on it.
(11/11/03 5:00am)
To the Editor:While it is understandable that people's opinions on the racist comments of Dan Passner '06 in the Oct. 21 issue of the Justice and the aftermath to it will differ, some of the comments in the Oct. 31 letters section of the Justice didn't result from differing opinions, but rather came from a stunningly thoughtless mindset.Paul Kandel '06 says that, in an open forum held in the Intercultural Center, "other students made blatantly bigoted comments, saying they 'wish the whole school looked like the ICC room.'" This comment was made in reference to the fact that there were both many students of color and many white students in the same room, both working toward confronting the issue of racism on the Brandeis campus. Given the context of the quote, it is completely inconceivable that Mr. Kandel could have reasonably interpreted the comment in any other way, and, thus, his claim that the comment was "blatantly bigoted" is both disingenuous and offensive.Even more shocking is Martin Lieberman '96's claim that the column in question would have been "fine" had the last paragraph not been included. In the eighth paragraph of the article, Dusty Baker, the black manager of the Chicago Cubs, and Kenny Lofton, the Cubs' centerfielder, who is also black, are compared to Amos and Andy. "Amos & Andy" was an incredibly offensive minstrel radio and television show depicting white actors in "blackface" as nonsensical fools. Comparing two men to Amos and Andy is extremely insulting - there is nothing "fine" about it. - Daniel Mauer '06
(11/11/03 5:00am)
An election the Student Union held last week decided the $122,000 rollover fund would be invested in the new Student Recreation Center in Usdan instead of an Indoor Rock Gym in Gosman Sports Gym. The $122,000 accumulated for five years in a fund designated to catch allocated money left unspent by clubs. Around 8:00 p.m. on Thursday, Student Union Secretary Danny Silverman '05 wrote in an official e-mail to all students certifying the election. Silverman wrote the results were "a vote of 662 (58.0%) in favor of the Usdan Recreation Center and 479 (42.0%) in favor of an Indoor Rock Gym, with 54 abstentions." Members of the Student Service Bureau (SSB), which is located within Usdan, hope the improvements will draw even more people to their services. "We will have to adapt as the room evolves, but we foresee only positive changes. The new recreation center will bring us more business, which will in turn tell more and more people about who we are and what we do," SSB President Jackie Murphy '05 said. Many students and clubs expressed their disappointment with the election results. "On one level we were disappointed about not coming out ahead in the vote," said Mountaineering Club President Jesse Salk '04. On the other hand, the climbing wall only missed the majority by eight percent. I'm pleased that the numbers came out so closely and that such a substantial portion of the undergraduate population participated in the vote." Salk said he has not given up. "The level of student support shown for an indoor climbing facility in this vote, on the PE department survey of the past summer and in other forms has clearly gained the attention of the Brandeis administration," Salk said. "I'm convinced that that the project is not dead in the water and that with continued voice from the community a rock gym will still come together within the next several years." Union officers plan to hold open forums in the near future to hear suggestions from students on how to spend the money in the recreation center. Many students have expressed strong opinions about what they want to see."I want to see things that stimulate social activity like pool tables, air hockey tables, and good furniture. Televisions and video games will not foster that social environment," Noah Cohen '05 said. Other students said they are content that at least the money is being used. Greg Sasso '05 visits the recreation center every couple weeks, but he voted for the Rock Gym proposal. "The climbing wall would have been cool, but either proposal is good," Sasso said. "I am just happy the money is finally being used.
(11/11/03 5:00am)
As a member of the Justice Editorial Board, I must say these past two and a half weeks have been exhausting. There have been many times when I considered throwing in the towel and calling it a day. I wasn't sure how much more I could handle as both an editor and a student on the Brandeis campus. But two and a half weeks later, I think I am able to look back on the "Justice incident" with a different - and perhaps more objective - state of mind. I think I am finally ready to let go of the immense emotion that was coloring my ability to assess what I really thought about what happened.Throughout my two-and-a-half years at Brandeis, I have approached the community with a sense of hesitance. While I love the comfort of having such a small, tight-knit campus, I have frequently dismissed it as a unrealistic and sheltered microcosm of the real world. Our reality, for the most part, stretches from one end of campus to the other and is full of classes, dining halls, extracurricular activities, club sports and other activities never found in our greater society. I have often questioned if I can truly learn how to survive in the "real world" as I am pampered by the silver lining that is Brandeis.While I cannot say I enjoyed any part of these past few weeks, I have finally gotten a sufficient answer to my eternal question. Watching this campus explode with its range of emotions has reinforced my faith in a Brandeis education.As I sat through meeting after meeting, attended the many forums held and constantly defended what I felt was right, I started feeling a sense of frustration. What's the point? "Nothing like this would ever occur in the real world," people kept saying.I can't say those people are wrong. A controversy of this nature probably would never occur in the real world, but, as I thought more and more, I couldn't come up with a good reason as to why it shouldn't occur now.Although in no way do I condone the hurt felt by everyone involved in this incident, perhaps we should start viewing this incident as a learning experience and truly learn from it.It is unclear to me why people continue to focus on the messenger rather than the message. Every writer and editor directly responsible for the mistake of printing those hateful words is gone. What is left is a board of editors eager to work as a part of the community, to combat racism.Yes, this goal is lofty and yes, if reached, this goal is fleeting for us as individuals. Once we leave Brandeis we will be forced to confront a world full of more hatred than we as individuals can combat. We will be thrown into a world that still struggles to overcome simple differences.But, keeping that in mind, we should use our time here to our advantage. Hatred has no place in this world, and especially not on this campus. We have been through too much in these past two weeks to accept anything less than total convalescence in every sense. I don't suspect this will come soon and I know it won't be easy, but it's time to start picking up the pieces slowly and listening to each other.While I have been disappointed with some of the administration for their lack of involvement, I applaud many others for their willingness to help us learn from what happened. Maybe this incident will serve as a lesson to them as well. The administration should be our ultimate supporters, not stand by and watch as hatred festers. Yes we should have a sense of independence and learn to deal with situations on our own, but at the same time we need the voice of experience the administration can provide. At the very least, they must provide an educational environment. At best, and we should expect them to be the nurturers of this "free marketplace of ideas" which will engender the best in all of us.Let's use this as the clarion call to begin the discussion as to how to recognize and respond in a constructive environment to insensitive and hateful attitudes. Most importantly, the discussion should proceed from how to most effectively build that environment to the benefit of all members of this wonderful, diverse and, yes, flawed community.
(11/11/03 5:00am)
Daniel Pipes, the founder and director of the National Middle East Forum and a commentator on militant Islam will host the Middle East Forum at Brandeis (MEFAB) , on Nov. 18, Pipes' work asserts that radical Islam presents a threat to democratic institutions around the world. He said he believes that moderate, true Islam must become the solution to extreme Islamism. Pipes spoke at Yale University last Thursday on the current state of the Israeli-Arab conflict, the same issue he plans to address at Brandeis. His visit caused unrest on Yale's campus. According to the Yale Daily News, at least a third of the 200 attendees of Pipes' lecture wore black clothing and black gags across their mouths in protest of Pipes and his views. During the question-and-answer period at the end of the lecture, students called some of Pipes' past comments racist and hateful. Pipes responded that the comments were being taken out of context, just as he has responded to many similar assertions in the past.Members of several Brandeis groups, including Brit Tzedek v'Shalom (BTvS), the Brandeis Muslim Student Association (BMSA) and the Brandeis American Civil Liberties Union Club (ACLU) , have been working together to organize responses to Pipes' visit. A group of students started an email list called "HH" - which stands for Hate Haters - has been created (the group has since been changed to Brandeis Coalition for Tolerance).Other ideas for further action have also been suggested. At the centerpiece of a drive to educated students about Islam, students are at work on a campaign to circulate selected quotations by Pipes and Brandeis students' reactions to the quotes. A pro-tolerance rally immediately preceding Pipes' lecture, a peaceful protest inside the lecture as was done at Yale, a candlelight vigil discussing offensive material and an anti-hate lecture with specific focus on Pipes have all been proposed as well.Ammad Bahalim '04, former BMSA President and one of the administrators of the Hate Haters list, said, "this is not an isolated thing. It is something Muslims at Brandeis have to live with every day. These are things that are not obvious; he will not use directly offensive words. He walks the fine line."Denise Katz '05, founding President of MEFAB, responded to Pipes' controversial status, saying that "Pipes is among the nation's preeminent scholars and leading commentators of the Middle East and Islam ... He warned of the dangers posed by radical Islam long before September 11, 2001 ... His expertise in the field has been recognized by the President, who has recently appointed him to the U.S. Institute of Peace." Judah Ariel, BTvS Programming Coordinator said that BTvS "is disturbed by Daniel Pipes' bigoted statements towards Muslims" and wishes "that Dr. Pipes' legitimate, if controversial, academic work wasn't marred by his Islamophobic attitudes." Bariza Umar '04, another former President and current member of the BMSA and the other administrator of the HH list, voiced her disdain for Pipes: "A lot of what he says is spreading hatred and reinforcing stereotypes," she said, admitting that, "the quotes may have been taken out of context, in that we cannot flier whole articles," but adding that "a lot of people will not read his books or all his articles, and there are some things that just stand out." While some see Pipes as a "purveyor of hatred" towards Muslims, in the words of Bahalim and Umar, others regard him very differently. Mitchel Balsam '05, President of ZaHaV, expressed concern that "people are using Brandeis' natural aversion to racism to try and silence a speaker who will address some very tough issues."Albert Cahn '07, a representative of the ACLU, a club in the process of being chartered, said Pipes, "has the right to voice his opinions on campus, but his views are not a message we need at this time, or that will be productive." Katz countered this idea, saying, "You don't have to obviously infringe on the First Amendment, but you can make an atmosphere of fear and it becomes borderline."The lecture will be held in Sherman Function Hall at 12:00 noon on Tuesday, Nov. 18.
(11/11/03 5:00am)
A forum in the Shapiro Atrium addressing the origins and importance of the "N-Word," was held Tuesday night. It was sponsored by the Union Senate Diversity Committee, in collaboration with the Brandeis Black Student Organization (BBSO).Secretary of Senate's Diversity Committee Nicole Amarteifio '04 spearheaded the event. "The forum provoked more understanding in the community and the education helps defeat racism on this campus," Amarteifio said. "To see faculty and students together means that it's not just the students' issue, but the faculty's issue as well, whether black or white." Profs. Jacob Cohen (AMST), Ibrahim Sundiata (HIST) and Harleen Singh (ROCL) spoke about the history of the word and any personal encounters they have had with it. They also talked about other words that target blacks as well as other minority groups. According to the speakers, the main point of the forum was more to inform the entire community of this prevalent issue and to not, Sundiata said, turn it into only a "black issue." "The same racism is pervasive among a lot of groups and it wasn't really the N-word, but it seemed that it was related to political prejudice in general," Sundiata said. "It was about people getting what they don't deserve. I saw it as an assertion of supremacy and inferiority, but, I do think we should discuss all other forms of bigotry as well." Prof. Gordie Fellman (SOC) who attended the forum, agreed with Sundiata."It is a community issue, not a black issue," Fellman said. "It is among other things an issue of whites facing troubling parts of themselves and the majority culture and learning to free themselves from taking active or passive (by looking the other way) part in perpetuating the hurting and humiliation of various people."Sundiata continued to voice his opinions. "I don't even privilege black people to use it," Sundiata said. "I don't like this word because it has a very tortuous history. But the crisis at Brandeis is not about one student saying it. Rather, it's about racism and other issues on campus. The quote was not only connected to the word, but that people are getting what they don't deserve because of the color of their skin... one of the most shocking experiences of my life was when people ran out of words and that was the only word they could use." According to Sundiata, the issue is also not about an offensive word progressively losing its in partictual meaning. He said he feels that no matter how often the word is used, it will always retain its negative connotation. Sundiata rejected the thesis of Prof. Randall Kennedy of Harvard Law School concerning this matter. In his 2001 bestseller, "Nigger," Kennedy argued that the more the N-word is repeated, whether through rap songs or through conversations, it will gradually lose its meaning. Cohen spoke about the importance of the voice responsible for any racist remarks. To clarify his point, Cohen related Malcolm X's talk during his visit to Brandeis. He gave a lecture in Olin-Sang on contemporary black separatism. According to Cohen, a student asked Malcolm X what the difference is between whites calling blacks racist names and blacks called whites racist names. Cohen paraphrased Malcolm X's answer. "The Bible says that man is made in God's image," Cohen said. "The term 'image' is not a noun, rather it is a transitive verb- man is made in God's imaging. This means that when we name them, they become what they are named. When a white man calls a black man by that word, it has the power to make them into what they are named. However, when a black man calls a white man a name (such as 'Chuck,' 'Hunk' and 'Jew'); he is not altered by that name." Singh said the use of the word is the core of racism. "It was an issue for non-people of color," Singh said. "It isn't a word that was simply used. Rather, it is issue of an environment for a group of people that allows them to use that word...and in the end, it isn't that the word is an issue - rather that it is our environment that is." Several years ago, a student approached Fellman with a concern. According to Fellman, the student felt that because there were few or no blacks on either the Justice or on WBRS, he was not comfortable being a part of those organizations. "Majorities have subtle ways unknown even to themselves of conveying anxiety and exclusion to people they are not comfortable with," Fellman said. "This is one of the enduring parts of racism. Campus media should reflect the demographics of the campus communities, it seems to me. For that to happen, media folks would have to work hard and self-consciously to make that happen." The forum was beneficial to many students. "The forum definitely helped publicize the issue of racism," BBSO president Alana Hamlett '06 said. "But I don't know the extent to which it helped. It is not the job of the minority students to be on the forefront when racist things happen. I also think that this shouldn't only be a black problem. This forum was a step to help understand this. But there definitely has to be more done to educate about racial awareness and coexistence." According to Cohen, the issue of racism must be discussed on a much broader level. "When I attended the meeting of BBSO, a meeting which I found deeply admirable because they mentioned that they must treat this issue without violence, someone said that if this comment were made about Jews, it wouldn't have been published," Cohen said. "She was wrong. It was published, and it is safe to make these comments at Brandeis. Maybe not all words have the power to hurt, but these certainly did catch my attention." Cohen said he was speaking about the anti-Semitic remarks that bypassed the editorial lines, as well as the Brandeis community, in the Sept. 16 issue of the Justice. Singh agreed with Cohen and felt the issue must also be discussed in relation to women and other minority groups as well. "As a woman I have been called lots of things while walking down the street," Singh said. "So, how does a woman respond? I'm no pacifist and I wouldn't say turn the other cheek. So, I began to teach and for me, the classroom is not only a place where I have the power but where you (the students) have the power." Fellman also said he enjoyed the forum. "The Forum was an impressive small piece of what could be an emphasis on reconciliation," Fellman said. "It contributed to understanding, which is a precondition for reconciliation.
