(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.
(11/11/03 5:00am)
Over 50 students, faculty and administrators gathered for a forum held in the North Quad A/B Lounge on Tuesday night to participate in a two hour discussion about the nature of diversity at Brandeis University.The discussion was inspired by the racially inflammatory comments that appeared in an Oct. 21 sports column printed by the Justice. "We're here not to talk about the Justice, but social justice," Community Advisor Rebecca Katz '06 said, who opened the forum. She said the purpose of the forum was to heal rather than open old wounds, stating that the goal was to address the needs of individuals.The first part of dialogue involved an activity in which participants were broken up into small groups. In the middle of each group stood ten rather ordinary cups, containing a different kind of bean. It was explained that each bean stood for a different label. A split pea was considered to represent wealth, while a chickpea was labeled hispanic. Other beans stood for Asian, black, Christian, international, Jewish, queer, wealthy, white and a blanket category of other.Participants were then asked to take a bean from a labeled cup every time the label described themselves, their families and finally their best friends. The numerous resulting combinations served to raise discussion about the underlying reasons people obtained their specific blends of beans.One topic highlighted was wether Brandeis fostered diversity. This lead into the round-circle discussion.Prof. Harleen Singh (ROCL) who had just participated as a speaker in the colloquium, "The History of the 'N' Word" less than an hour before.Singh said the mere act of using food was indicative of how at Brandeis not many people place much worth in a handful of beans, a striking contrast with much of the rest of the world. "What do you think you are going to do with these beans afterward?" Singh asked all present.Others said Brandeis students are too apt to discount controversy. "Why isn't Brandeis considered the real world?" a student asked.One participant answered by blaming the inherent culture at Brandeis for creating a student body too focused on ambition rather than society."To fit into the elite places of the oppressive culture, those who manage are the agents - whether willingly or unwillingly - of injustice," the participant said.The question of responsibility came to forefront as well."Is it the minority's job to educate the majority?" one student asked.In terms of the Justice, answers differed extensively. Out of those who believed that was the case, one said, "There are some real issues here. There are issues like who has the power to control the media." Others explained that minority students are too far and too few in between at the University to be expected to do everything. "If I hear one more person say that black people need to join the Justice, I'm going to scream. Look at how many black people we have," an undergraduate said.Others called for a change in the way the university is run.Prof. Gordie Fellman (SOC) said, "the faculty haven't done a creative critique of the curriculum for fifteen to twenty years.
(11/11/03 5:00am)
Why all the hype over Pipes?I strongly oppose the message Daniel Pipes's 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 www.campuswatch.org, to attack public figures, academics, and institutions that support Islam. Pipes's 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 such as 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 campuswatch.com have sent thousands of emails, much of it containing threats, to those academics that Pipes listed on his website. The actions of campuswatch supporters have gone so far as to drive one professor to leave the country, and have tormented untold others. Denise Katz claims that Pipes's 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's 1st amendment rights is flat-out wrong. None of the groups mobilizing against Daniel Pipes is opposing or limiting his ability to speak on campus. In rebutting his prior statements, and attempting to unite the Brandeis community in opposition to his views, we are simply exercising the same free speech rights as Daniel Pipes's supporters. Secondly, the 1st Amendment applies exclusively to governmental actions, not those of individuals, and thus cannot possibly be involved. 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 opposing.Albert "button hat" Cahn '07
(11/04/03 5:00am)
Since college campus' heyday of political activism in the 1960s, groups of Brandeis University students have considered themselves to be among the most politically involved in the country. Brandeis, however, is not immune to the recent national decrease in voter turnout among college students. At Brandeis, clubs have shown a varied response to the upcoming presidential election, as not all political organizations are working to register students to vote. "(Students') votes are up for grabs," stated a recently released Harvard survey on the political involvement of college students. According to this report, the nation's nine million college students are a good source of votes for candidates in the 2004 elections. Released on October 23, results show unconventional trends concerning political orientations and activism of undergraduate students. The survey of 1202 college students nationwide shows that President George W. Bush has a much higher support rating among the college students than among the general public and that two-thirds of college students are registered to vote. Of these students, 82 percent reported that they will definitely or probably vote in the 2004 presidential elections. "The conventional wisdom that the majority of America's college students is Democratic and that they care little about politics is clearly disproved by this new poll," said Dan Glickman, director of Harvard University's Institute of Politics - which oversaw the poll - as quoted on the Institute of Politics' Web site. Within the past two weeks, two new political club supporting Democratic candidates have joined the ranks of campus political organizations: Brandeis for Dean and Brandeis for Clark.According to Carlos Lugo '04, president of Brandeis for Dean, and Justin Peck '07, president of Brandeis for Clark, the purpose of these new clubs is to raise campus awareness and support for their respective presidential candidates. "Generally the campus has a pretty high political awareness and this generally makes our job easier," Lugo said. "Basically, this is a forum for discussion on national and international affairs and we try to further Dean's candidacy," Lugo added. "We talk about community outreach and how to get people more involved. It is called Brandeis for Dean because it is not exclusively for students, rather for the entire community, including faculty."He added that students are receptive to Brandeis for Dean, and the club's e-mail list already has 76 members. The organization is currently encouraging students to register to vote in their home states through the Democratic National Committee's Web site (democrats.org). The club is not working to increase Massachusetts voter registration. According to Lugo, "the chances of winning in Massachusetts are pretty slim, and we really want to get people registered where their vote can make a difference."The Brandeis for Clark group has not started any form of voter registration because according to Peck, they were only recognized by the Student Union two weeks ago. Peck said that the group has a strong interest in coordinating voter registration as "a joint effort between any and all political clubs on campus."You need people to vote to get people elected," he said."We don't want people thinking that voter registration sponsored by students for Clark would be voting for just General Clark," Peck added. A similar sentiment was echoed by President of Zionists for Historical Veracity (ZaHaV), Mitch Balsam '05. "We don't want to sway anybody's opinions towards Democratic or Republican. We're not endorsing any candidate, but rather seeing who comes out the most pro-democratic, pro-peace, pro-Israel."Many Brandeis clubs are political in nature. Four groups directly represent the political parties - Brandeis Republicans, Brandeis Democrats (including Brandeis for Dean and Brandeis for Clark), Brandeis Green Party Club, the Brandeis Socialist Club; additionally, a myriad of political and activist organizations focus on more specific issues. Of all these, only three are currently sponsoring voter registration on campus. This year, the Federal Elections Committee released a new voter registration form that simplifies the process for college students trying to register to vote in their home states. The form is accepted by all but four states nationwide and consists of several questions on a postcard that students can mail in to their state of permanent residence.Many clubs believe that voter registration extends beyond the political parties or activist groups involved. Brandeis Democrats and Brandeis Republicans recently co-sponsored a three day voter registration drive for students to register in Massachusetts or in their home state using the new voter registration form. "Students are such a large block that candidates should be concerned about what they can do for them," Students for Environmental Action (SEA) coordinator Rebecca Horowitz '05 said. SEA recently worked to register students to vote through tabling in Usdan. Brandeis Israel Public Affairs Committee (BIPAC), a bipartisan, pro-Israel lobbying organization, has also taken an active role in registering students to vote trying by to make the process as convenient as possible. Tali Farahi '07, BIPAC liaison, said that students are responding well. "We don't take sides, but we encourage student to become involved on a more grassroots level and become more educated and aware of the issues involving the United States and Israel and to strengthen that relationship." BIPAC's methods of soliciting student registration include tabling in upper Usdan, going dorm to dorm, and stationing themselves in busy spots on campus. For now, BIPAC is the only club registering students to vote in the residence halls.BIPAC members are also distributing "I vote" pins with Jaffa oranges on them "to remind people of the feel, smell, touch, and sentiment of Israel as a symbol of how important electoral politics are in helping to strengthen the US-Israel alliance,"Farahi said. Additionally, BIPAC has distributed a survey with yes/no questions about the situation in the Middle East. According to Farahi, these surveys aim to foster discussion and measure the sentiment of Brandeis students towards the Middle East conflict, but do not serve as a "determinant of whether (BIPAC) will register (a student) to vote or not." According to BIPAC member Martine Katz-Rajmil '07, people are glad to participate in the registration because of its simplicity. "We send the forms in for them and that's definitely an added incentive."According to Farahi, BIPAC's year long initiative on voter registration on campus is geared towards getting "all pro-Israeli students to be registered to vote."Other clubs have plans in the works."The more clubs that are involved, the more people we can reach, and the more people we can get involved in voter registration,"said the Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance (FMLA) President, Maggie Frye, '05 and added that the FMLA plans to sponsor voter registration with Triskelion.Though the Harvard study indicates that among college students, Bush beats a generic Democratic candidate by a five percent margin, 18 percent of college students still say they are undecided, a number much higher than in the general population. Thus according to this poll, college students are still open to make up their mind about the different presidential candidates. To help all students make informed voting decisions, political organizations at Brandeis place a priority on discussions. The clubs that currently register students to vote also answer students' questions about the candidates and issues at hand. ZaHaV plans to host a forum next semester to discuss different aspects of American foreign policy. According to Andrew Wiechert '06, outreach coordinator of Triskelion, the club hopes to bring representatives from civil rights organizations to speak on campus "to inspire members of the community to unite against politicians who see our lives as things to play with and our rights as things they can revoke."Triskelion's main push for voter registration will next semester to register students for the primary elections and the caucus state elections because "the only way to elect queer-friendly representatives is to vote for them,"Wiechart wrote in an email correspondence. Other politically active organizations are taking an active role in the elections by going to "Bird Dog"the candidates. This is a tactic whereby activists attend the public speeches of presidential candidates and ask questions in order to raise awareness of certain issues. According to Horowitz, members of SEA have gone to candidate speeches in New Hampshire in order to promote the Energy Campaign."There are so many countries in the world where people don't have the opportunity to vote. We live in a democracy. Kids should have a voice because we are the future,"Katz-Rajmil said.
(11/04/03 5:00am)
After almost four hours of debate over the recognition of the Organization for the Discussion of Greek Life in Popular Culture - commonly referred to as the Greek Life Council - a club dedicated to "educating the community of the diverse philanthropic, political and social efforts of local and national Greek letter organizations," according to its constitution, was granted recognition by the Senate on Sunday."We are seeking to educate the Brandeis community on common misconceptions about Greek life and to a greater enhance the community through means such as philanthropic events to benefit charities representing great causes," said Amy Tu '04, a member of Sigma Delta Tau. Josh Sugarman '05, representing the Greek Life Council and a member of Alpha Epsilon Pie at the Senate meeting said,, "our goal is simply to educate...we hope to dispel that Greek life isn't just about drinking. It's about education and philanthropy."The Greek Awareness Club, a club sharing many similarities with the Greek Life Council, appeared before the Senate May 5, 2002 seeking to become chartered. When the Senate rejected the motion to charter the Greek Awareness Club, its members sought recognition, only to be rejected once more. Sugarman said that the main difference between the attempt to get recognized in 2002 and this year's is that the Greek Life Council is now "dedicated to serving as a liaison between Brandeis University and off-campus Greek letter organizations," according to its constitution."There's a different purpose," Sugarman said. "The main thrust of the original was off-campus, and now it's more of a cultural goal."Sugarman explained the 2002 rejection of both becoming a chartered and recognized club might be attributed to misconceptions about Greek life as a whole."People don't understand what's at the root of these groups," Sugarman said.Sugarman claimed that most people base their opinions of Greek life off movies and hearsay, alluding to "National Lampoon's Animal House," a film highlighting the wild lifestyle of fraternities in the 60's. He stressed that misconceptions like these promote misinterpretations of Greek life, and that education and dialogue can help dispel some of these myths. "Without communication we're prolonging misunderstanding," Sugarman said. "I think it's time to change this, and I think (recognition of the Greek Life Council) is the first step."In a vote of 13 in favor, five against and three abstains, the Senate recognized IGC as a club. Those against shared several concerns of how the Greek Life Council would affect the Brandeis community.The Village Quad Senator, Peter Williams '05, expressed hesitancy to recognize the club for three reasons: "The Senate didn't recognize a very similar club last time in May 2002, also regardless of what anyone says, it will be used as a tool to increase Greek influence on campus, and the lack of recognized Greek life at Brandeis is something that makes Brandeis very unique."Castle Quad Senator Andrew Katz '06 disagreed, claiming that the Greek Life Council will be beneficial to the Brandeis community by expanding education on important issues. "I came in with an open mind on the issue, and after hearing the way it was presented I certainly made up my mind," Katz said. "As the meeting went on, I realized we educate people on everything that they may be ignorant about or uncomfortable with from racism, antitsemitism and homosexuality to being left-handed in a right-handed world; and I realized that educating about Greek life was no different - though to a much lesser degree in many people's eyes.""As soon as I was assured that this club was not a front for off-campus fraternities and felt comfortable that this club was interested in helping and improving both the social and philanthropic life at Brandeis University, I was pretty confident with voting yes to their recognition."Now that the Greek Life Council is recognized, Tu believes students will have a clearer idea of Greek life."As with any club on this campus, recognition provides an outlet for more opinions to be expressed and provides greater paths for students to experience new things," Tu said. "Recognition of the Greek Life Council proves that though we may not recognize specific Greek organizations on this campus, we certainly recognize that Greek life and its concepts are important in our overall community and should be a presence that is addressed."Kevin Skobac '04, a member of Phi Psi added that granting recognition to the Council indicates that Greek life has an acknowledged presence on campus."It's a pretty significant contribution to the Brandeis campus because for the first time there will be an active of what Greek life is, so I think this is a pretty significant step," Skobac said. Tu said that it has been difficult to give a greater voice to Greek life on campus in the past, and the recognition of the Greek Life Council will act as open forum for students in expressing questions and concerns about Greek life.Tu said, "As a senior at Brandeis I have found little to no campus help in addressing the issues of Greek Life that many students care about."Recognizing the concept of Greek life and educating the student body on Greek ideals provides a chance for students on all sides of the spectrum to come together and voice their opinions on this matter.
(11/04/03 5:00am)
To the Editor:Benjamin Freed's '06 Oct 31 Justice article, "Join the talking heads and criticize the media," was more of a diatribe as to why he hates conservatives than an analysis of current books criticizing the media. It was almost funny to read his article, considering he embodies the type of liberal journalism that authors like Coulter and O'Reilly criticize. The only thing Freed criticizes is that conservative authors are successful. He seems to believe that the New York Times and CNN are sacred institutions that would never present biased news. He denounces Dick Morris, a former Clinton staffer, for criticizing the liberal media. However, Freed does not mention that Morris helped Clinton find a middle ground between conservatives and liberals in the 1996 campaign. Even as a Republican, Morris has written columns critical of current Bush policies. Morris's "bloodlust" may be justified, considering Clinton almost punched him in the face. Freed's sole criticism here seems to be about the title: is that because he did not read this book either? Furthermore, Freed declares that only a "Washington parasite" like Morris would work for Fox News Channel (FNC). Considering that FNC has equaled and surpassed CNN's ratings, is Freed criticizing the millions of Americans that tune in? Maybe Freed has never watched FNC, as he did not even read the books he reviewed, but it is not "unabashedly right-wing." I was not aware that attempting to present news in the fairest way possible made you right-wing. Liberals must then be prejudiced in their reporting. Coulter be happy to hear that.Freed praises Al Franken as a "focused author" when there is nothing substantive about Franken's book. When Ann Coulter publicly called upon him to defend his claims against her, he could not do so. Franken was probably not aware that, unlike Saturday Night Live sketches, political criticism must be truthful. He enjoys misleading people; as Harvard University learned when, during Franken's fellowship there, he lied to John Ashcroft about an article he was writing and was forced to publicly apologize. Freed seems to think this type of writing is funny and effective; however, it merely supports humor based upon physical appearances and stereotypes. That is not political criticism.It is because of misleading and untruthful "journalists" like Freed that Coulter and O'Reilly have careers. While Brandeis does have a large liberal student body, I would hope that the Justice would not promote articles that attack people simply for being conservative. I support and encourage all forms of political debate here on campus, and hope that liberals and conservatives can have more opportunities to discuss issues in a proper forum. Political criticism is important and welcomed as long as it is based upon facts and issues, rather than name-calling and false truths.- Jordana Luks '04Co-Chair Brandeis Republicans
(11/04/03 5:00am)
The inflammatory comments that appeared in the Justice touched off a firestorm that divided this campus. Despite the high emotions that ran rampant, Assistant Dean of Student Life Alwina Bennett was able to maintain her composure while the rest of the campus was engaging in heated argument. As both a newspaper and a group of students enduring a difficult time, we needed a sympathetic ear to listen to us and help us through. We waited for the administration to approach us, but no one was forthcoming except for Bennett. She took it upon herself to attend all events, was the only administrator at the open forum we hosted and also came into our office to inquire as to our personal well-being. She remained respectfully neutral as she kept a close eye on both sides, making sure that everyone was mentally safe and sound. Much more than any other administrator, Alwina Bennett is truly part of Brandeis University life. She lives in the Foster Mods, spends her spare time talking to all the students around her and is genuinely concerned that we are happy and healthy. She works harder than anyone else to make sure that her students are getting what she considers to be the best Brandeis experience possible, and she is satisfied with nothing less.The Justice thanks Bennett for her tireless dedication and her unbiased and non-partisan counseling to all students on campus. More than just saying that she cares, she actually demonstrates her commitment, especially in difficult situations. She clearly sees that in situations like the one that happened last week, there are not just parties involved, but also people. We hope that more administrators will learn from her shining example and take a genuine interest in student affairs. The spirit that Bennett embodies helps create an environment that makes all of us feel like we belong.
(10/31/03 5:00am)
These words are possible because a group of Brandeis students refused to say no, refused to lie down, refused to compromise and refused to accept anything short of success...On Oct. 21, many members of the Brandeis community felt betrayed by their school newspaper when the "N-word" was used in a sports column. The "N-word" is undoubtedly the most hateful word in American history, and it has absolutely no place in a university newspaper. For those who have never been called it or have never experienced racism, you cannot begin to imagine the pain nor determine what is or what isn't a "reasonable" solution. For that reason, members of Brandeis Black Student Organization (BBSO) approached the decision makers of the Justice with a list of demands that would allow the Justice to correct its gross error and begin to mend it relationship with the minority community. These demands included the resignation of those responsible for the article and an apology and response from us on the front page of the next issue. Unfortunately, we were met with resistance and the Justice refused to meet our demands. Their unwillingness to comply was a sign of disrespect and further action had to be taken.We staged a walkout on Thursday to make it very clear to the Justice and the entire campus that the forum was unacceptable and it was imperative that our demands were taken seriously. On Saturday, we attended a Justice Alumni event during Parents' Weekend and participated in a discussion with a professional reporter about "ethical journalism." We were happy to find that she condemned the irresponsibility of the Justice and shared many of our sentiments. Over the next couple of days, members of BBSO and the Editorial Board met several times and, although some of the demands were eventually met there was still conflict. On two occasions, we were under the impression that an agreement had been reached only to have the Justice renege on their end of the deal. Late Monday night however, it ended. After finding out that the Justice decided to ignore our demand - which called for a front-page response - by printing Tuesday instead of Friday, we held a demonstration outside of their office. For six hours, nearly fifty students rallied together to protest the printing of the Justice. At around 6 a.m., our voices were finally heard and our demands were finally met. When it was all said and done, the editor-in-chief, sports editor and columnist all resigned and we received our front-page apology and response.Now it's time that we begin the healing process. We have to come together and start to seriously combat the problem of racism on our campus. We plan to work along side the Justice to accomplish this goal. They will be enlisting a professional and independent adviser to give editors and writers the necessary training and guidance to handle their responsibility. They will also revamp their editorial process in order to increase efficiency and reduce mistakes. We will also work with and challenge the administration to take strong preventative measures and look out for the interests of the minority community. We are requesting that a mandatory University requirement be implemented that will force every Brandeis student to take a class about race relations and cultural sensitivity. In the near future many panels, forums and discussions will be held with the rest of the Brandeis community to increase awareness and actively attack the issues that have divided us for far too long. Apathy will no longer be tolerated. Racism affects us all and everyone must look within him or herself and do everything in his or her power to start making changes.Last Tuesday, the Justice fell asleep and allowed this disaster to occur. By today, everyone woke up. The editorial board woke up and realized that they must take their job more seriously and put in a conscious effort to maintain the highest level of journalistic integrity. The Brandeis administrators finally woke up. They now understand that it is not students' responsibility, but rather the administrators' responsibility to protect the minority community. They also know that if they fail to protect us, we will turn this university upside down. The greater Brandeis community woke up. Whether they agree or disagree with our cause, they cannot deny that we have a voice - a very powerful and undeniable voice. But most importantly, we woke up. We realized that it's not that actions speak louder than words, but actions are the only things that speak. We pushed ourselves to limits beyond what we ever thought possible and refused to stop until our demands were met. We are truly UNBREAKABLE.If this were to happen again at Brandeis, to any community, always remember the words that rang out at 2:30 in the morning and will forever echo throughout the halls of the Shapiro Campus Center... A People United, Will Never Be Defeated.Peace.Justin Moore '04, BBSO & Our Supporters
