(11/19/02 5:00am)
The potential war with Iraq has brought a pacificist opposition movement to Brandeis. Wednesday evening, students attended "Walk-Out on War: The Teach-In." Some were already opponents of the war, while others came simply to learn more about the situation before deciding their own position. Students listened to Professor David Gil (HS) and Jim Kershner, an ordained lay-member of the Vietnamese Buddhist sect, as they talked about problems of war and peace. Gil, who spoke first, said he was frustrated with the last Brandeis discussion held on the forthcoming war with Iraq, as only technical questions were discussed, rather than the aims of the war. He added the forum had focused too much on why war is bad in general, rather than why war will not be effective in the specific, current case.Gil then identified what he said are probable causes for widespread hatred of the United States. He said the United States constitutes only 5 percent of the global population, yet consumes about 40 percent of global resources. "We are all entitled to (global) products . we are all brothers and sisters . we are all of the same source," Gil said.Gil also addressed the contention that war with Iraq is largely motivated by U.S. reliance on Iraqi oil. He said that in the event the United States invades Iraq, we would no longer need to worry about how we obtain our oil as it would be in our hands. Some see this as a valid reason to go to war, he said.Finally, Gil noted the United States cannot go to war without soldiers. He said he encouraged students to refuse to participate in the war. "We cannot free ourselves from violence through acts of violence," he said.Kershner began his speech by teaching gathered students the basic tenets of Buddhism. He said his pacifist beliefs stem from the Buddhist idea of compassion, adding, "There is no need to fight and kill other people, because we are all one." He said his Buddhist mentor realized it is impossible to end war simply by meditating. As a result, he chose to aid people who were the victims of war, in a process called "engaged Buddhism." Kershner said he equates the potential war in Iraq with the Vietnam War. He said that in the same way the United States did not understand Vietnam, we do not understand the Third World or Iraq. He saw this teach-in as reminiscent of 1960s demonstrations and lent hope to the attendees by adding, "I do believe that it is the opposition of people that ended the (Vietnam) war sooner than it would have." Like Gil, Kershner also encouraged peaceful resistance to war. "Guns will not end violence . killing will not end violence . compassion will end violence," he said. After the lectures, one student said the United States had never tried to respond to a violent measure in a non-violent way, suggesting that this might be a viable solution, if only we were willing to attempt it. Should the United States go to war, many Brandeis students are already planning to respond with a peaceful protest. The first day of classes after the United States begins bombing Iraq, some students plan to hold a "walk-out" or strike on the part of the student body. If the attacks begin during finals or winter break, the strike will occur Jan. 29. Those organizing the walk-out said they hope it is well-publicized and will occur not only at Brandeis, but at many colleges and universities. There will be a walk-out meeting on Thursday. In addition, a pledge against the war on Iraq is currently being displayed in Usdan for all to view and sign. The teach-in was sponsored by the Anti-War Club, Radical Student Alliance, Buddhism Club, Environmental Club and the Meditation Club.
(11/19/02 5:00am)
Sunday, the Arab-Jewish Dialogue group showed the award winning documentary "Promises" in Pollack Auditorium. The screening was preceded by Middle Eastern food and followed by remarks from one of the main figures in the documentary, Faraj Faraj, from the West Bank. There was also opportunity to engage in small group dialogue.Before the screening, members of the Arab-Jewish Dialogue shared their different experiences both before and after joining the dialogue group."One thing I learned in the dialogue group is listening. In the beginning it's really hard. After a few meetings, you begin to listen a lot; you see things from the other side's perspective," Taher Baderkhan '03 said. "I realized we're talking about individuals here, and we all have a history full of pain and loss ... what I've learned is that there is more understanding to do -- our quest for peace requires patience," Manar Fawakhry '06 said.Ayham Bahnassi '05 and Mitchel Balsam '05 further explained the purposes of the dialogue group."It's a learning center...a therapeutic center... a safe asylum ... a place where you can make friends ... Despite our differences, we have a common passion," Bahnassi said."Eventually, we have to make peace. Why not start now?" Balsam said.The 90 minute documentary "Promises" followed filmmakers B.Z. Goldberg and Justine Shapiro as they interviewed and entered the lives of seven children on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides of the Middle Eastern conflict. "What the kids said was very poignant. They were very honest, and at the same time they weren't so naave and innocent. The conflict is a part of them; embedded in their lives," said Zoe Lieberman '06, who attended the screening.After the film was shown, Faraj, who now lives in America, spoke to the audience about his experiences being a part of the documentary, as well as the importance of peace."In 1995 I meet this guy B.Z., an American Jew ... in my school ... and then he started talking to me, saying 'can I hear about your life?' I think to myself 'who are you for me to share my life with?'" Faraj said. "So, I give in, and I talk to him and I find that he is like me. He has feelings, he talks, he swears, he's a human. So, then I started sharing about myself."Faraj told of his first meeting with two of the Israeli children involved in the documentary, twins Daniel and Yarko. "I am excited, scared, angry and nervous. Did I do something bad when I said I wanted to meet these people?" Faraj said. Faraj said he was initially fearful of participating in the documentary because every person in his refugee camp had experienced the loss of some family member(s) to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His family was supportive of his decision to meet with the two Israeli boys, he said. However, the day after his meeting with Daniel and Yarko, others in his camp were hostile to Faraj."The next day, people didn't want to look at my face. They said 'kick this guy out of school -- he worked with Israel.' ... But, why do I have to fight back? Why do I need to hold a gun -- for land?" Faraj said. "I don't need land ... land doesn't move, but my friend, if he goes, doesn't come back," Faraj said he has been trying to convince family to friends to see things from his newfound perspective. He left the audience with a strong message."We have to say stop, look, I don't care who you are, I don't care how you look ... you are a human ... We're human beings, not animals, not enemies. I know the movie changed something for you," Faraj said.The event was co-sponsored by the Hewlett Pluralism Grant, the Slifka Program in Intercommunal Coexistence, the Indian-Pakistani Dialogue and the Peace and Conflict Studies program.
(11/19/02 5:00am)
Dear Sir/Madam,My name is Frank Campbell and I work in the marketing department of a company called MindArk AB. Our company has developed a 3D Virtual Universe that is accessible for free through the Internet.Having been a student myself for several years I know how beneficial it can be to have contact with other students, both nationally and internationally. That is why I am writing to tell you about Project Entropia. While Project Entropia is a commercial venture, there is NO necessity to spend money in order to participate - it is of greater important that interesting people take advantage of and utilize this free, 3D meeting place.I believe it is the perfect forum for remarkable people from all over the world to meet with each other. If you have the time I would like to invite you to visit our website at: www.project-entropia.com where everything is explained in detail.As an Internet venture it may also be of news value to you.I would be delighted to be of assistance or answer any further questions you might have about our Virtual Universe. Please e-mail me at: fc@mindark.comThank you for taking the time to read this and my apologies if it is not of interest to you.Yours sincerelyFrank Campbell
(11/05/02 5:00am)
One in five teenage girls will be a victim of physical or sexual assault by the age of 18, Lori Murphy, told a 40-person crowd in Castle Commons last night. Murphy serves as the director of Outreach and Education for the Support Committee for Battered Women, and joined other speakers to facilitate discussion about violence on campus.Katie Kieran '03 organized the "Forum on Interpersonal Violence at Brandeis" after she found a defaced Counseling and Rape Crisis Hotline poster in the laundry room in Castle Quad in September; she said she felt that something needed to be done in response to the "anti-woman" comments, and she talked to people around campus about the issue. Kieran drew on several campus groups - including the Committee on Rape Education, the Women's Resource Center, BiSpace and the Brandeis Anti-War Coalition -- to sponsor the event. "I knew this was happening on campus, and I got really fed up," she said. "I think gun violence is the flashy form of violence and you hear about it a lot on the news, but it is interconnected with verbal violence and with people not respecting one another. Every form of violence that you take against someone, whether or not you call them a name or you write something on their message board, that creates a climate of fear on campus." Participants first broke into small groups and discussed scenarios and brainstormed possible reactions a bystander could, would and should take. "It's important to be angry," one student said in reaction to a hypothetical situation that involved a male at Pachanga harassing two other men dancing together. Daniel Ludevig '06 facilitated the activity, and said the discussion made people want to react to situations. "I thought it was really strong, positive feedback from everyone, especially guys," he said. "If you looked around the room, most of the people answering were guys and that's really, really awesome to see."Administrative Sergeant Bette Reiley said she hopes students confronted with that scenario or the others presented would inform Public Safety of a potentially dangerous situation on campus.Audience members discussed ways that bystanders could help alleviate the situation without endangering themselves. "That clearly is a tenet of our culture - to mind our business and not interfere, particularly in interpersonal relationships," Assistant Dean of Student Life Alwina Bennett said.Bennett asked students not to shy away from questions that "sound provocative or ill-informed," calling the forum a safe space. "The only dumb questions are questions that don't get asked," she said in the beginning.Reiley said that two incidents of domestic violence have been reported at Brandeis this semester, both within the first month. "The majority of things that happen at Brandeis are crimes against property, not crimes against a person, so I guess in that respect we're pretty lucky," she said. "But, people joke about the 'Brandeis bubble,' - that once you come (to) Brandeis, things are not going to happen - that you're not going to be the victim of a crime, that you're not going to be assaulted or raped, but it does happen. People need to be aware of it."Michelle Zietler '01, who volunteers for the Boston Area Rape Crisis Center (BARCC) and was a counselor on the Brandeis Counseling and Rape Crisis Hotline, said that most incidents of sexual assault, particular on campuses, are perpetuated by an acquaintance. "Most often, abusers are abusive to the one person," Murphy said. "Abusers are Jeckyl and Hyde. They have the public persona and the private persona, and they can sometimes be the best guys, the nicest guys, the sweetest guys in the world. But, when the doors close and they're alone, it's totally different."Zietler said that abuse in same-sex relationships can present other challenges. "Assault can be even more difficult for people who identify as GLBT to report," she said, asking the audience why that may be.One woman said that a victim of same-sex violence may not want to stigmatize the GBLT committee, while another said that the person may not want to be "blacklisted" from it. Others said a victim who is abused by a same-sex partner may fear authorities or peers will not believe the allegation under the assumption that women do not rape women or that men can defend themselves against other men."A lot of this (discussion) is focused on violence against women, because I work for a battered women's shelter. But, I say all the time, violent relationships are not always a man assaulting a woman. Most often, stats range from 85 to 95 percent of the time, it is a man assaulting a woman," Murphy said. There are forms of nonphysical abuse, she added, stressing that domestic violence transcends gender and socio-economic divides."I make it very gender neutral, but it's not really a gender neutral issue, is it?" Murphy said. Abuse begins on average one year after into a relationship, she told the audience. "Nobody ever takes you out on a first date and punches you, or calls you a stupid bitch," Murphy said. "You wouldn't get back together."Speakers offered resources to help friends who may have been the victims of rape or assault, and emphasized that a victim be empowered - that incidents of assault or rape leave the victim feeling powerless."This may mean that you don't say to the person, 'Well I think you should do this, this, this and this.' But, maybe saying to them, 'This would be an idea,' " Zietler said. "One of the most empowering things we can do for our friends is be aware of community resources and be able to tell people what those resources are," Bennett said."They used to call children who were witnessing domestic violence, child witnesses to domestic violence and now they're changing the language," she said. "People are calling it 'child exposure.'" Growing up in a house where domestic violence occurs is the Number 2 cause of post-traumatic stress disorder. "Number one is being sexually assaulted," Murphy said. "This is a public health crisis.""Somebody said earlier, 'I think anger is a useful tool.' I agree with that -- if it's safe," she said. " She added that she does not advise labeling the abusers behavior to the victim because it may alienate the person being abused and discourage them to seek solace in others because they may feel judged. Murphy added that domestic violence victims take an average of seven tries to leave an abuser, and that they are 75 percent more likely to be murdered right after leaving than before."One in three women are affected by domestic violence," Murphy said. "This is not just a women's issue. It's a human rights issue, I truly believe that.
(10/29/02 5:00am)
Oct. 28, 2002 - (U-WIRE) FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. - Security was tight Thursday at Barnhill Arena for the forum discussing the United States and world affairs. The event featured Ehud Barak, former prime minister of Israel, and Benazir Bhutto, former prime minister of Pakistan.As a security measure, backpacks were not allowed inside the building. University of Arkansas students carrying backpacks were told to either take them back to their cars or to leave them in a locker inside the Arkansas Union. Because of the rainy weather, a few students were allowed to leave their backpacks hanging on a rail near the entrance.Students were cooperative with the security measures, said UAPD officer Mark Nichols."We turned three or four [students] away at the door," Nichols said. "No one resisted us or gave us any flak," he said.Women were allowed to carry purses into the building, but only after they were inspected for any kind of potential weapons, including personal security devices such as pepper spray and mace. This security measure was an annoyance, but nothing unreasonable, some people said."It wasn't the coolest," UA senior Amber Hulsey said.One container of mace was confiscated, said Lt. Gary Crain, UAPD public information officer. The mace was returned to its owner as she was leaving.The owner of the mace, Justine Middleton, a UA freshman, said she didn't mind the security measure."I really didn't even think about it," Middleton said. "It was no big deal. I understand where they're coming from."Barnhill was filled to about half capacity for the event. Some students attended merely to fulfill an extra credit assignment. Others were there for more personal reasons."I'm from Jordan, so Israeli-Middle Eastern issues are important to me," said Toula Abuhamdan, a UA student.Other attendees came because they were curious about what the speaker would say."I'm just interested to see what things they'll say, given the current turmoil in the Middle East, and how their views differ," said Keith Flores, a UA senior.And what might happen."I'm curious about what's going to happen between the two prime ministers," said Paula Ehrle, a UA senior. "And whether it's going to be a heated argument or not."The two speakers came from traditionally opposing religious backgrounds; Barak from Judaism, and Bhutto from Islam.But no heated argument occurred. Both of the former prime ministers spoke out against terrorism."I come to you at a time of tension, turmoil, and terrorism," Bhutto said. "Al-Qaeda has pieced together a quilt of chaos, a mosaic that threatens every continent."Bhutto also defended Islam and accused Osama bin Laden of giving her religion a bad name."Bin Laden wants his followers to believe that [the war on terrorism] is a war on Islam," Bhutto said. "But our religion is not what these people preach."Barak also spoke out against terrorism."Would the terrorists that killed 3,000 people feign to kill 10,000, or even 30,000?" Barak asked, referring to the terrorist attacks on the U.S. East Coast on Sept. 11, 2001.Overall, many students were satisfied with the event."I think it's good for people to broaden their view of the world," said Rivka Berman, a UA freshman.And, said Allison Glahn, a UA freshman, "It was good that they showed two opposing views."The two speakers came to campus paid for by a student fee of 85 cents each credit hour passed by students last spring.The fee raised about $177,000 to bring prominent speakers to campus. Bhutto and Barak are the first of the speakers brought by the Distinguished Lecture Fee, each receiving $50,000.The student-fee pays for one speaker each semester.Bhutto and Barak came to the UA as a paired lecture group, but their appearance at the UA was also the first actual time they had both spoken at a forum together in the United States.
(10/29/02 5:00am)
President Bush's plans for war with Iraq were discussed Thursday night at a Brandeis forum sponsored by the American Studies and Politics departments. This is the first in a series of forums meant to address current political issues. The "New Brandeis Forum: War in Iraq?," provided an informative discussion in which the impending war in Iraq could be debated from multiple angles.Approximately 200 students attended the event. Professor Steven Burg (POL) introduced the forum, explaining the format. He explained that the panelists would each be given seven minutes to express their opinions on the impending war, and would also be required to take a definitive stance: either pro or anti-war. Burg added that students would be able to state their own thoughts on the issue following the professors' speeches. Students expressed varying opinions of the strength of the professors' arguments. "Although I disagreed with him, Jacob Cohen had the best argument because he came fully prepared, brought books to show, and invited us to do our own research into the matter. I agreed most with Professor Fellman because he would like us to go through the peace process and avoid war," Ronitte Shemtov '06 said.This forum was prompted because "several of (the) faculty were talking with each other about (their) desire to talk amongst (them)selves and with (their) students about what is likely an impending war. We need to learn more about our reasoning and bring our students into the discussion too," Professor Gordon Fellman (SOC), one of the forum's organizers, said. He added that it is imperative to hold the discussion now because "our government may, in our names and with our money, embark on a war without provocation, killing who knows how many innocent people, toward a very unclear end." Professor Robert Art (POL) said he believes there are several reasons not to go into war. He said these include the possible casualty rate on both sides and disastrous political fallout in the Middle East if the United States attacks Iraq without provocation. Art added that other deterrents, such as coercive weapons inspections and perhaps even giving Saddam Hussein economic incentives to avoid using weapons of mass destruction could prove to be more effective than going to war. Professor Jacob Cohen (AMST) disputed Art's argument. Cohen said he believes Hussein is a loose cannon -- a reckless man who cannot be trusted. Cohen added that Hussein has killed over 1 million people, including many Iraqi citizens, and was the only world leader to publicly cheer about the September 11th attacks. Cohen also said the U.S. government must consider the consequences of not attacking versus attacking, and decide which is a better course for the nation's future.Professor Erica Harth (COML) argued there is no clear reason to go to war with Iraq -- that a war will not solve our issues with Hussein. She added that although she believes North Korea poses a greater threat to U.S. security, Bush has not proposed attacking that country. Also, Harth said Hussein's refusal of weapon's inspections, Bush's given motive for war, is not a strong enough reason for the United States to attack Iraq. She added that attacking Iraq could increase current tensions in the Middle East. Burg said that the American public must determine if Hussein really poses as much a threat as Bush claims. Burg argued that in the past, sanctions have not effectively curtailed the production of weapons of mass destruction. He added he hopes the public realizes that, in this case, nuclear arms are not the true threat -- chemical and biological weapons are.After hearing the professors' arguments, students were left with the opportunity to form their own opinions on the issue. "I thought it was a good way to get information out, and for students to see the different sides of the issue. It promoted dialogue," Kara Bogusz '05 said.-- Jamie Freed contributed to this article
(10/29/02 5:00am)
"Better the Pains of Peace than the Agonies of War," was the motto printed on the pamphlet given to those who attended The Parents' Circle last Tuesday evening. This group of Palestinians and Israelis, all of whom lost family members in the conflict in Israel, travel around the world telling their stories and why they chose peace, rather than violence and revenge. Brandeis was one of the stops on their journey.The Parents' Circle was started in 1995 by Yitzhak Frankenthal after his 19 year old son was killed by the Palestinian terrorist organization, Hamas. Frankenthal was able to garner the support of 44 other Israeli families who were grieving for lost children as well and create a forum to share grief and work to accomplish peace. Soon after, the organization was extended to include Palestinian families as well. Through educational work, a media campaign and general outreach, this group of over 400 families hope to remind people that "there is just a human voice on both sides of this conflict and the that a continued religious and tribal blood feud need not be the future of the Middle East."Perhaps the human voice was what was most moving at Brandeis that night. Done in a question-and-answer format, participants were able to hear the voices and stories of two Israelis and one Palestinian. Rabbi Allan Lehmann, the Jewish Chaplain and Hillel Executive Director at Brandeis, asked the opening question, but most of the subsequent questions were asked by Israeli and Palestinian students. Participants were able to see the range of feelings these parents felt, how they dealt with them, and the methods they use to deal with their pain. Instead of seeing the Palestinian Israeli rift, participants saw the similarities between the two."We share the pain. We share not only the same piece of land but we share also what's lying underneath this land. The graves of our children ... We have lost our children but our hearts hold no vengeance. We hold no joy at the suffering of others. Our hearts hold only peace," Frankenthal said,
(10/29/02 5:00am)
At a forum held at Harvard Law School Wednesday night, professors speaking in favor of divestment from Israel met largely pro-Israel opposition. The forum was organized by the student group Justice for Palestine, and featured five professors who are leading a petition-signing campaign encouraging MIT and Harvard to discontinue investments in Israeli corporations. Similar campaigns have been launched at dozens of institutions nationwide, including Tufts, the University of California-Berkeley and Princeton. The petition decries what it calls "human rights abuses against Palestinians at the hands of the Israeli government" and criticizes Israeli military activities and presence in Gaza and the West Bank. Those favoring divestment hope that pressure will be placed on Israel much as Brandeis and other universities pressured South Africa to end apartheid in the 1980s."As members of the MIT and Harvard University communities, we believe that our universities ought to use their influence -- political and financial -- to encourage the United States government and the government of Israel to respect the human rights of the Palestinians," the petition reads."I said that I support divestment from the perspective of an American citizen because it goes with the concept of fair play and impartiality," Harvard Psychology Professor Ken Nakayama, who spoke at the forum, said. "We should have good relationships with all countries in the world. That should be codified in the adherence to international law and U.N. resolutions."Harvard President Lawrence Summers, however, has condemned the petition since its inception this spring. In May, Summers called divestment from Israel "anti-Semitic in effect, if not intent." Rafi Feingold '02 was among several pro-Israel Brandeis students who assembled at Harvard Hillel before the forum and carried Israeli flags to the event. "I don't (believe) the signers of the petition have their facts straight, because often the comparison is made to the last big attempt of divestment,which was successful,against South African apartheid," Feingold said. "What is important is that the distinction be made between South African apartheid and what's occurring in Israel today.""In apartheid South Africa, you had a very small, colonialistic white minority controlling a (majority) black population - a population which was forbidden to go certain places, to hold certain jobs. . Anyone who has been to Israel knows that there are thousands of Muslim and Arab university students in Israeli universities and Israeli Arabs are accorded full rights and are permitted to travel and patronize any establishment they want," Feingold said.Nakayama told the Justice that 130 to 150 faculty at Harvard and MIT have signed the divestment petition so far."Palestinians have been confined to 10 to 15 percent of the area, since the 1967 war. They are confined in tiny areas and being controlled by tanks and helicopters. They are divided territories under military rule, getting smaller and smaller," Nakayama said. "We are not calling for the destruction of Israel at all. We have to be realistic and concerned with Israel's security and viability," Nakayama added. Organizers of the forum also faced criticism for its format, which allowed the five professors to speak for about an hour followed by a question and answer session. Initially, audience members posed five questions and panelists responded to those five at once, causing some audience members to question whether their intent was to dodge uncomfortable or objectionable questions. "I think it was a pre-planned fast one," Feingold said, adding that organizers changed the question-and-answer format later to address each question individually.-- Jamie Freed contributed to this article.
(10/22/02 4:00am)
Brandeis' decision to freeze advertising on WBUR-FM, the main focus of the most recent Board of Trustees meeting, has led the Union Senate to consider holding a student forum to debate the issue. Brandeis discontinued underwriting the Boston National Public Radio (NPR) affiliate due to concerns from alumni, trustees and friends of the University that NPR reporting on the current Middle East conflict is biased against Israel, President Jehuda Reinharz said.The advertisements for Brandeis programs, including the Heller School, the Graduate School for International Economics and Finance, and Continuing Education programs had "apparently been very successful in attracting students," Board of Trustees Secretary Dr. Carol Savietz '69 said. Reinharz said, "the WBUR ads played a role in recruitment, like any ads, but there is no evidence that by stopping them anything dramatic at all has happened. Applications keep coming in because of (the programs') reputation."All Brandeis advertising is currently on hold due to an internal Public Affairs departmental audit, according to Dennis Nealon, director of Media Relations. "The audit could say, all (bias) issues aside, we don't think (WBUR-FM) is the best place to advertise," Nealon said. Union Senate Representatives to the Board of Trustees Ebone Bishop '04 and Jonathan Sclarsic '03, were present for most of the Oct. 3 and 4 Board of Trustees meetings when the NPR advertising issue was discussed. "There were no trustees that publicly spoke against Reinharz's decision, but there were questions from the trustees to Reinharz concerning his final decision, specifically his rationale that led to the decision," Bishop said. Sclarsic said that neither he nor Bishop spoke about the issue at the meeting, "because we didn't know too much about (it)." "We have to see student response and report it to the trustees and Reinharz before the next meeting," he said. Following the Board of Trustees meeting, Sclarsic said that he and Bishop reported back to the Union Senate about the NPR advertising discussions. Senate Communications Director Marci Surkes '03 said the Union Senate Executive Board then discussed the issue at their meeting, and decided to plan a moderated student forum about journalistic objectivity with regards to the Middle East conflict, which Reinharz would be invited to attend. "To the community at large, the consensus is that we are a Jewish school, and by pulling NPR ads, we are making a large political statement," Surkes said.Student Union President Ben Brandzel '03 said he believes, "a process of dialogue and research" needs to occur. "Reinharz seems willing to facilitate discussion. I think that if the students come forward in large numbers with their opinion, it will be listened to," he said. "There should have been more public discourse before the decision was made," and he suggested an all-campus e-mail or community meeting could have been arranged.Brandeis faculty members also have expressed opinions about accusations of NPR bias. Professor Michael Socolow (AMST) said a student forum would be constructive. "Although I'm not familiar with the specifics of NPR's reporting, I would say that the question of balance and accuracy of reporting on the Middle East is one of the most important debates in journalism today," Socolow said. "I think it is legitimate for anybody to withdraw funding or commercial sponsorship from any news organization they disagree with." WBUR-FM spokesperson Mary Stohn said Brandeis and five other underwriters have discontinued their financial support in the last year. She added the station has lost "as much as $2 million" due to advertisers and donors, such as Brandeis, withdrawing support because of accusations of bias. "WBUR-FM sincerely regrets Brandeis' decision. We disagree with the premise on which it was based, and hope they will review their decision and return to WBUR-FM as an underwriter," Stohn said. "We absolutely have pro-Israel views on programs (in addition to pro-Palestinian ones). This is the finest journalism on air, and is without reproach," she added.Professor David Gil (HS) said that Israel supporters tend to view a lot of news reports as biased. "I don't agree with Brandeis' policy, because I think NPR is one of the best media available, and we should not sabotage its worth ... when the BBC covers the Middle East (on NPR), they realize the major Israeli policy is of dominating and oppressing the Palestinian people. They don't hide this," Gil said.Reinharz said the University is not seeking to censor NPR. "Any TV station, any radio station can report how they want. Brandeis, however, does not have an obligation to support a TV station or radio station if the reporting is biased," he said. "Were any group treated unfairly -- it's not just Palestinians and Israelis -- in programs that we advertise on, I would do the exact same thing."Meanwhile, the Union Senate is continuing to investigate the issue, Brandzel said. He said he encourages all students to voice their opinions to both himself and Reinharz via e-mail, and added "we will be continuing to explore ways to create opportunity for discussion in the future.
(10/22/02 4:00am)
BAM! It has hit us, the plague of apathy. What a dirty word! And, it could lead to a bleak prognosis because we have been infested by the worst possible strain, and most of us just don't care. Or, we care, but not enough to do anything about it. We are stuck in a dismal and false state of contentment.Of course I see this apathy through my own eyes and through my experiences since I arrived at Brandeis a year and a half ago. Yet, although some may call me biased, I do not think I stand alone in my bleak view. I am disappointed. Coming to Brandeis, I expected to find a passionate, vocal and reactive student body. Much to my dismay, this does not exist. Yes, there are clubs and certain students who fight for countless issues and are valiant in their efforts, but as a whole, I have yet to see the student body unite to voice opinions and take a stance on a deeply moving issue. I often wonder what it would have been like to be on this campus in the '60s. We have all heard stories including the take over of Ford Hall by Brandeis' African-American students and of Brandeis students participating in Woolworth sit-ins to protest racial segregation, but what meaning do these stories have to us today? The radicalism and spirit of the '60s is long gone, and all that lingers is a blatant disenchantment with the outside world. Back then, college students felt that change was possible. Today, we are content with the bubble Brandeis provides. Maybe it is fear that holds us back. We are, for the most part, used to a world of general monotony. Aside from Sept. 11, we have always had a sense of security. Since then, that sense has been shattered, but we have hardly budged. I believe there is a general apprehension that if we talk too much about world events, after a while we will become so redundant that no one will want to sit and discuss them. Yet, a university has the obligation to cultivate academic discourse. It is only through this academic discourse that we can reach "Truth even unto its innermost parts."As students of one of the nation's leading universities, we must start taking advantage of all the resources we are exposed to. Unlike during the '60s, we have technology that links us to the world. We have the tools; we just need the will and passion behind it. If we do not voice and act on our informed opinions, we give up the right to criticize others. The Brandeis of the '60s is a thing of the past, and perhaps, in hindsight, we see it as a time more radical and progressive than it actually was. But, we can still take some empowering elements from these years and build upon them to create a more fervent, socially-active and concerned campus today. Countering apathy does not mean we have to turn to radicalism or create causes for the sake of having something to fight for. Rather, we must start small and see where it takes us. Discourse is one great example of this. Therefore, I propose that every student at Brandeis makes an effort to attend a forum and debate being held on the issue of U.S. involvement in Iraq on Thursday at 7 p.m. in the Shapiro Campus Center. Professor Jerry Cohen (AMST) has been working diligently, along with many of his colleagues, to assure an informative and intellectually stimulating discussion in which all sides of the issue will be presented Let's show our professors that we, the Brandeis students of the 21st century, have the desire and zeal that Brandeis is so famous for. Let's once again become a campus known as the pinnacle of social justice and foremost combatant of apathy.-- Samantha Slater '05 submits a column to the Justice.
(10/15/02 4:00am)
Coming Out Week concluded Friday as members of Triskelion, Brandeis's GLBTQS organization, set up a giant closet door in front of the Usdan Student Center to celebrate National Coming Out Day. Club leaders, members and students passing by danced to boom box music to end nine days of events, which included a comedian, a dance, a movie night and a celebratory dinner."All the feedback I have received has been incredibly positive," Triskelion General Coordinator Leslie Meltzer '03 said. "The community was impressed by the number and quality of events." Last Tuesday evening, Triskelion held a coffeehouse in Cholmondley's, which featured an open microphone and Brandeis student performers. "The coffeehouse was a blast," Triskelion Social Coordinator Aaron Schwid '05 said. "The acts were entertaining. Mark Lipman wowed the audience with his magical voice and Swallow the Leader was noisy and fun."An event billed as a "Coming Out Story Swap" was held in the Triskelion office Wednesday to allow students a chance to retell experiences of coming out and to provide a forum for students to come out themselves. The event was met with mixed emotions. "The story swap made people very uncomfortable," Schwid said. "Even in as open a group as Triskelion is, coming out is so personal it's hard to discuss."Thursday evening, Triskelion held its annual Big Queer Dinner in the Shapiro Campus Center Multipurpose Room, with free food from a local Thai restaurant. "The Multipurpose room was so full, people were sitting on the floor," Schwid said.The event also highlighted a week in which a number of events saw large turnouts of straight students. "The Big Queer Dinner was probably 75 percent straight," Schwid said. One hitch in the week came Friday, Oct. 4, when the President's office requested that a 25-foot condom Triskelion had placed in the Shapiro Campus Center be removed. Dr. John Hose, spokesman for President Reinharz explained that the President's office request the condom be removed to protect the sensitivities of certain members of the Board of Trustees who were attending a meeting that day. "I explained to (Aaron Schwid) that we were a little concerned," Hose said. "There is a generational difference here . it was a question of trying to be sensitive to people's comfort level, while at the same time to the organizers of the event.""It made me very uncomfortable that the school would have to hide anything from the Board of Trustees," Schwid said. "They should know what actually happening in their school and what is important to their students." The condom, put up to raise awareness for a charity dance to support AIDS Awareness, was moved to Usdan for the remainder of the day."Hanging the condom in Usdan was incredibly effective in getting people psyched about CONTROL (the Coming Out Week Dance)," Meltzer said. "I don't necessarily agree with censorship, but I can't say (President Reinharz) did us a disservice by forcing us to hang it in a more high-profile location."The organizers of the week, regardless, were pleased with the outcome of the week's events. "I think people will definitely see us as an organization worth getting involved in," Meltzer said at the conclusion of the week. "We hold fun events that draw a large intersection of the community." "It was our goal this week to ... give everyone a chance to see what Triskelion is all about," she said.Schwid had another take on what he said he felt was a successful week. "Overall, the straight supporters helped make this the successful week it was," he said. "The existence of the week itself is by far the most important part of it," Meltzer said. "Queer awareness is essential to a campus that claims to address tolerance, diversity, and social justice."And, regardless of the request to remove the condom, Meltzer was pleased with the University administration's dealings with the club during the week. "The upper levels of the administration were generally very supportive of all of our events," she said, "indicating that they too recognize this need (for a Coming Out Week).
(10/08/02 4:00am)
The Brandeis network will soon be connected to Internet2, the second generation high-speed network used by universities and government agencies to exchange large quantities of data. Internet2, provided through Northern Crossroads (NoX), will allow labs and researchers to send and receive complete genetic sequences, experiment data, and research results. The 45 Megabit Internet2 connection will also alleviate stress on the Brandeis Internet connection when connecting to other Internet2 partners.Within several weeks, Brandeis will become the most recent university added to a growing list of participants, which already includes other Boston-area institutions, such as Boston College, Boston University, Harvard, MIT, Northeastern and Tufts. According to the NoX website, the organization aims to "foster high performance networking in New England, share resources and information, capitalize on opportunities for aggregation, foster collaboration among participating institutions and our respective academic communities, consolidate regional representation; represent our interests to the larger community, collaborate with other organizations pursuing high performance networking, (and) investigate advanced network services."One of the effects of the NoX decision to be felt by students is the addition of Internet2 networking at Brandeis. The Internet2 connection, provided and paid for by a branch of NoX known as the NoX Aggregation Point (NoX-AP), will establish a more advanced, high-speed level of networking on campus."Primarily funded to enable collaboration among science faculty, the Internet2 link will also roughly double general-purpose Internet connectivity," Brandeis Network Administrator Richard Graves said.In addition, Brandeis' new affiliation with NoX will provide it greater access to important and helpful information and research and allow for cooperation among fellow NoX institutions, as well as a body in which shared concerns about networking issues can be advanced.Brandeis' affiliation with NoX may not have a noticeable impact on Brandeis students according to Graves. Recently, however, there were causes for concern in Brandeis networking, including the recent frequency of campus-wide network outages and the computer error that affected the execution of Union Senate elections on Sept. 19.During the election for quad senators, some students were unable to immediately vote for students running for positions in their quads. This problem was resolved later that day.Graves said that the election mistake was "not a big deal.""(It was an) indirect consequence of housing information being hidden from the directory this year. Because the system wasn't properly authorized to see where you lived, it was thought almost everyone was supposed to vote for the Off-Campus Senator. This was fixed 30 minutes into the election, but it was decided that under the Union constitution it was necessary to cancel (the election) and re-run," he saidAs for the network outages, individual actions by students can provide protection from such outages among students at large. In response to Sept. 27 queries raised about the network outages on the technical support discussion forum website, for example, Graves recommended for students to stay informed about current anti-virus software and operating systems, as well as avoidance of continuous running of file-sharing software such as Morpheus on students' computers. Nonetheless, such inevitable periodic network outages can create a reasonable obstacle to students needing to use the network."I had some research I was trying to do, and since (the network) was down, it wasn't a huge problem, but it was a problem. It was also just a general annoyance," Julianna Barrer '05 said.-- Daniel Silverman contributed to this article.
(10/08/02 4:00am)
In the Nov. 5 state election, Massachusetts residents will not only elect new representatives, but will also decide whether or not to dismantle the current bilingual education system. The current system, which allows immigrant children to be instructed in their native language while learning English, may be replaced with an English-only immersion program. At a forum held Tuesday evening in Upper Usdan, both supporters and opponents of Question 2, the bilingual education ballot initiative, gave their opinions on the issue to educate voters. This referendum has been imported from California, where state voters approved the proposition in 1998. State representative Debby Blumer (D - Framingham) said the situation in Massachusetts is not the same as in California. She said that while "Massachusetts has 1 million children enrolled in public schools, only 5 percent are currently participating in bilingual education." Blumer said that in California, however, over 1.5 million children out of 6 million attending public school are enrolled in bilingual education programs.Dr. Susan McGilvray-Rivet, director of the office of bilingual education in the Framingham school district, explained that under the current system, each immigrant child's English abilities are tested. Then, parents have the choice of four programs for their children, although school districts make individual program recommendations based on the test results. She added that children not immediately placed in English-only classrooms are not segregated; they take "music, art, P.E., and other units of study" with mainstream students and often partnered with English-only students in a "gradual process of transition."A co-sponsor of Question 2 and Co-chair of the Massachusetts English for the Children Initiative Campaign, Dr. Rosalie Porter, who had immigrated to the United States at a young age, said she feels the current system is failing, and added that she sees Massachusetts Curricular Assessment System (MCAS) standardized test results as evidence of this. "There has always been accountability in the law, but it hasn't been enforced until the last few years," Porter said. She said that as a result of this new enforcement, "bilingual education students must take the same MCAS as other students after they have been in the system for four years." "Ninety-two percent of third graders passed the MCAS," McGilvray-Rivet said. She said this statistic refers to the students in bilingual education programs only, and does not include those in English-only classrooms. She also added that in Framingham, all high school graduates who were legal immigrants, and therefore eligible for Federal financial aid went on to some form of higher education. Marissa Martinez '03, from California, spoke on the panel from "personal experience, not statistics." Born a U.S. citizen into a Spanish-speaking household, she only participated in bilingual education for one year before making a successful transition to a mainstream classroom. Martinez said that "the higher the age (of the student), the longer the transition needed" and added that many of her relatives did not possess the same high-level language skills as she did, and needed more time in bilingual education programs before entering English-only classrooms.Blumer said she believes new educational reforms passed by the Massachusetts state legislature this summer, which limit students to only three years of bilingual education programs, make Question 2 unnecessary. In addition, a provision in the referendum allowing for lawsuits against teachers who instruct children in their native language, "makes the law look mean-spirited rather than constructive," Blumer said. Porter disagreed with this statement, and said that this part of the law has not yet been enforced in California, and that "in the initiative, teachers can explain something in the child's native language - they just can't teach it for three or four hours per day."McGilvray-Rivet said she encourages all citizens to "read the exact language of the ballot measure." She said she feels, "there are certainly people who can learn a language quickly and easily without support, but not all can." "Children can master a second language, but timing is key. The more time they spend on English, the better they can learn it," Porter saidThe event was sponsored by Tzedek Hillel and co-sponsored by several other on and off-campus groups.
(10/01/02 4:00am)
Sept. 27 (U-WIRE) MANHATTAN, Kan. - It's a rising debate. Across the nation, universities have implemented free speech zones. These zones, which restrict where demonstrations and free speech occur, have sparked a controversy.Administrators say the zones keep order. Students say they infringe on rights.So the debate has come down to one question: Are free-speech zones efficient forums or First Amendment violations?At Kansas State University, officials say the answer is clear."The whole campus here, historically, has been a free speech zone. Period. End of story. Good night," Dean of Student Life Pat Bosco said.Bosco said members of the K-State family are free to exercise their right to free speech anywhere on campus. They are not restricted to the area commonly referred to as the free speech zone in the K-State Student Union Plaza.However, that has not been the case at other universities.Iowa State University, the University of Houston, Florida State University and West Virginia University all have been under fire for their free-speech zone policies. Students there were not allowed to protest, picket or demonstrate anywhere other than the free-speech zones. Students retaliated, saying it was their First Amendment right to speak out or demonstrate anywhere on campus.The case at West Virginia University garnered national attention when the police were called on a student activist who wanted to distribute fliers about corporations and human rights outside the free speech zone. They said he only could hand them out in the designated free-speech zone.That was in April, 2002.Since then, the debate has grown.Todd Simon, director of the A.Q. Miller School of Journalism and Mass Communications, said restricting speech to certain areas on state-owned property is against the law. Under the Public Forum Doctrine, the answer is simple, he said."People are able to practice free speech everywhere," he said.If university officials tell students they cannot practice outside the free speech zone, the officials are not consistent with the rules, he said."The basic rule is pretty simple. As long as you are somewhere where the public is allowed to be, you aren't disrupting traffic or classes, you have a right to be there," Simon said. "The problem is when you start regulating who speaks there. The Supreme Court is very clear on you can't do that."Universities can determine where, when and how long someone exercises their freedom of speech. But Bosco said K-State only does this with outside groups who are not affiliated with K-State. The area called the free speech zone is one of about seven locations where outside groups can exercise freedom of speech.But K-State students, faculty and staff have no limitations, Bosco said."The entire campus is a free speech area. That's what a university is about," Bosco said.Bosco said he did not know when or why people started referring to the plaza area as the "free-speech zone" because there is no specific zone for free speech.Student Body President Zac Cook said the area does help preserve the educational environment because it gives people a place to protest away from educational buildings. He also said he never has heard anyone oppose the zone nor want to protest outside of it.Simon said that although free speech can be practiced anywhere, the free-speech zone is ideal because of the high traffic."If students have the impression that's the only place they can spout off, they're wrong, but I'd still argue it's the best place to spout off."Bosco said freedom of speech is sacred at K-State."That's part of the K-State spirit, and that's not going to go away," he said. "I understand there are difficulties at other campuses, but not here."
(09/24/02 4:00am)
On Wednesday, Sept. 11 in the Shapiro Atrium Lounge, Brandeis students performed the play, "Bystander," written by another Brandeis student, Meron Langsner. The one-act play chronicles his personal experiences in New York City on Sept. 11, 2001. Unlike many of the commemorative events that went on at Brandeis on the anniversary of Sept. 11, this theatrical production had touches of comedy, which to many was a welcome change. Langsner explained, "people have to laugh in order to truly feel the sadness of the situation." The production describes the events of the day from the point of view of Langsner as he commuted to work. The play brings to light the confusion and the uncertainty of what was to come, as well as the support strangers gave to one another on that day. Members of the audience alternately cried or laughed at different moments in the play. The play was previously performed in May in Buffalo, N.Y. at the Ensemble Theatre. It was also performed on this Sept. 11 in New York City at the Episcopal Actors Guild, and will be performed soon in Los Angeles under the direction of Glenn Ettman '99. "The students planned a menu of events that met the needs of the community," Alwina Bennett, Associate Dean of Student Life, said. "There were opportunities for people to express what they were feeling; there was space for people to have a 'normal' day." Many students participated in the various events, such as the moment of silence at 8:46 a.m., the reading of the names of victims, signing the condolence books, making the commemorative tiles in the Shapiro Center, and lighting memorial candles.One of the most interactive events of the day was an interfaith dialogue held in Sherman Function Hall in the afternoon of Sept. 11.The trialogue, as it was called, posed the question: Does religion equal intolerance? The discussion was moderated by Professor Joyce Collins (HS), Protestant Chaplain Reverend Nathaniel Mays, Jewish Chaplain Rabbi Alan Lehmann, Catholic Chaplain Father David Michael and Professor Khaleel Mohammed (IMES).Michael opened the forum by reminding all in attendance that memorializing those who died on Sept. 11 was too narrow a means of dealing with the event. This is a time to comfort and support those who were left behind to grieve. He told students to find the common core values they share with their neighbors and to join in solidarity as beacons of hope. Michael was the first to address the argument that religions themselves may be the problems.Mohammed said the true martyrs of Sept. 11 were those who were killed. "Terrorism is directed at a perceived enemy to make it self-destruct," he said. He explained how tired he was of the misconceptions that Islam was what fomented terrorism. "No religion inculcates terrorism and hatred," he said. "People do.""No religion tolerates terrorism, even though terrorism may fight in the name of religion," he said.Lehman spoke last. He reminded everyone that, "this is a time for intense introspection. We must think of what actions have we made that were right or wrong." In the case of Sept. 11, he asked students to keep in mind that, "by one person's wrongdoing, the whole society should not be held accountable.
(09/11/02 4:00am)
To the Editor:The events of Sept. 11 changed the world as we knew it, and had a direct impact on Brandeis and the Department of Public Safety. The tragic events impacted the relationship that the Department maintains with municipal, state and federal law enforcement agencies and created weekly dialogues concerning potential terrorist acts which may relate to Brandeis and the members of the university community. Since the date of the tragic events, the Department of Public Safety has maintained a heightened awareness of potential acts of terror and communicated not only with external law enforcement entities but with university community members at various forums of discussion. The Department has broadened the community policing approach and interacted with all members of the community relative to personal and community safety. In addition, the Department has participated in the University's Crisis Management Team established by the University President and Chief Operating Officer and has been involved in emergency response plans involving university constituents. The Department continues to be alert and prepared to serve the University community as required.- Edward M. CallahanDirector of Public Safety
(08/27/02 4:00am)
Anne Fadiman, author of "The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down," spoke at Spingold Theater Center. First-year students, Orientation leaders, and Brandeis staff and faculty filled the auditorium to capacity for her address and then ask questions about the book which they were given by Brandeis to read during the summer. Fadiman message was to bridge cultural barriers."After the meetings with the families we would have what we would call 'in the car,' and in the car was my cultural debriefing and education. I would ask my translator to explain all of the things that she had translated word for word but that were still utterly puzzling," Fadiman said.Fadiman emphasized the importance of recognizing that there are cultural differences between people such as the one that she said existed in her book between the Lee family and the Hospital staff that were treating their daughter, Lia, for epilepsy. Fadiman emphasized finding common ground with people who are different. She described a Venn-diagram as an example of two different cultures. She said that unless people are willing to venture out the edge of their own circle they will never get to the part where the two circles intercept. "In our nation, people who wear turbans, have Eastern last names, or worship in a Mosque are being attacked. And, it is because we are retreating to the center of our culture and are too scared to be at the edge. And whether it is relationships with people who practice another religion or relationships with people whom we wish to be friends with, but who simply seem different from us and we can't venture out to the edge we will never find common ground.""I got a more complimentary understanding of the relationship of the book and the author," Wayne Mak '06 said after the Fadiman's speech.Students were allowed to ask Fadiman questions afterward. "This book chose me and I did not chose it," she told the audience.Fadiman described the eight-year process of her writing the book. It started as a late addition proposal for an article for the New Yorker Magazine. It was the only topic on her proposed list that she didn't know anything about and much to her surprise it was the only one accepted by the editors. She decided to quit her job at Life Magazine and pursue the story full time. After submitting her first of three segments to the New Yorker, the editor who originally approved the article was fired and her article was rejected. Not wanting the story to get lost, Fadiman pursued it further and eventually published the book.Fadiman's appearance at the annual New Student Forum, which brings a new writer to Brandeis each year, was sponsored by the endowment from Helen and Philip Brecher Fund.
(05/28/02 4:00am)
As the Class of 1952 marched with this year's graduates, it seemed only appropriate to reflect upon the University's shifting roles in a changing political sphere. More specifically, the current situation in the Middle East has highlighted Brandeis's Jewish identity and that of many of its community members. Given recent events, Zionism has come to the forefront of campus discussion and has made the ideal of coexistence more challenging. The University claims to champion coexistence, a subject in which it will soon offer a master's degree. At the same time, however, the University's ability to provide a tolerant atmosphere to the student body has been questioned from many directions. On May 17, the Boston Globe ran a front page article titled "Teaching coexistence." While the new degree was the news peg, the piece also focused on coexistence at Brandeis and on Brandeis's role regarding the situation in the Middle East. Complicating the situation, events on campus during this past academic year have demonstrated the discomfort and anger that many students say they feel: Some minority students feel alienated and argue that the University is not living up to its goals of fostering diversity; other students say they feel stifled and unheard.Acting chair of the Peace and Coexistence Studies (PAX) Professor Cynthia Cohen aptly acknowledged the isolation and tension that exists. Furthermore, she recognized that there is a lack of awareness of other students' beliefs, practices and values. Indeed, a largely homogeneous community can intimidate students who do not identify with the mainstream -- in the case of Brandeis, a white, Jewish majority. We need to take the initiative to self-educate, to ask questions and answer them. And, we need to understand that our time at Brandeis is an educational experience, and mistakes will be made. Coexistence does not mean one should abandon any component of one's identity or one's convictions thereof. Moreover, it underlines individuality, while augmenting understanding of and communication among cultures.However, it is unclear to whom the responsibility for this struggle belongs. Many argue that it is the obligation of the undergraduate community, and not the administration. We feel, though, that it is also imperative to recognize that racism and feelings of alienation are not unique to Brandeis; rather, they are endemic to our society. That, however, does not deny the responsibility of the individual nor the collective obligation of the undergraduate body. By choosing to attend Brandeis, we also chose to be under a microscope. And, if we are going to claim to subscribe to ideals of acceptance, we must do our best to make this campus a welcoming place. On the other hand, while forums for communication are often available, a large portion of the student body feels they cannot speak, for fear of being berated for their opinions. Consequently, a tone of "political correctness" becomes the expected norm and the standard to which students are uniformly held. It is important to treat other students with respect, and, paradoxically, respect entails both the absence of racial slurs like those aired on WBRS last semester and tolerance for difference of opinions other than one's own. However, a blanket of "political correctness" can prevent the discussion necessary for true enlightenment. Indeed the line between political correctness and peaceful coexistence is a fine one, the limits of which must be brought to the forefront of public discourse. But, discussion without active participation is unfruitful.Following the open forums in November and December, the ICC held a meeting in which students attending -- mostly activists and leaders of ICC clubs -- generated ideas on how to form a coalition of tolerance at Brandeis. This action demonstrates the passion of a select few, but the overall apathy of most students makes change difficult. To build an all-inclusive community, everyone needs to seek inclusion and participate on campus.For the University to be the accepting place it aims to be, it is absolutely necessary for real conversation to take place. This dialogue cannot occur unless everyone feels comfortable enough to honestly express their right to speak freely and unless students use respectful, constructive, language to represent their viewpoints. At the same time, students must exercise their individuality and demand to be heard.
(05/07/02 4:00am)
In a community of a few thousand, the line between responsibility to community members and allegiance to journalistic ideals can get fuzzy. That level of intimacy frequently makes reporting difficult for the Justice or any other college newspaper. Unavoidably, some issues affect us; The Debate Society's now shelved crusade to join the Secured Allocations Fund (SAF) groups is just one example. On one hand, the Justice had to report it because it was big news; on the other hand, the Justice is itself an SAF group and maintains a close working relationship with the other SAF groups, and therefore objectivity is all the more difficult to obtain.In covering the controversy that has unfolded in response to Yana Litovsky's '05 column, "Political Incorrectness at Brandeis," the Justice has let the pages of its Forum section convey the variety of reactions. We are enabling all members of the community who chose to express themselves an open forum to do so. By this method, we hope to both inform the campus about the controversy and provide an outlet for opinions, unaffected by the interpretation of a third-party writer.In the Forum section, however, objectivity of the writer is not the ideal. Instead, the Justice strives for diversity of ideas, opinions expressed therein can get unavoidably personal. It is difficult, at a self-labeled "liberal" university, to represent a full breadth of opinion, and it's easy to forget how diverse sentiment on campus can be. For many, the piece opened old wounds and reminded all of us how much anger there is on this campus, coming from many directions. To understand the reaction in context, it is imperative to recognize the anger and isolation many students feel, perhaps first by introspection; if you in any way have felt different at Brandeis, multiply that by how much more different some students feel. The least a person can do to help build a constructive community is to listen to one's peers, and engage in dialogue. Litovsky's column -- an expression of her opinion -- was not written to offend anyone. Rather, she has expressed feelings that we have seen that a lot of community members harbor, but do not know how to express. The controversy has made the Justice's Forum section the stage for discourse it ideally should be; it has allowed many students to express their varying opinions and to educate one another.That's what this is all about: Education. Like classes and other school activities I have partook in at Brandeis, the Justice has been a tremendous learning experience in my life. That we can have civil discussions without vilifying anyone is a sign of maturity. And, that students who were upset about Litovsky's column can create a poster for discussion, resulting in many constructive, diverse opinions, is another step in the right direction. Litovsky has a right to her opinion, the Justice has a responsibility to represent a cross-section of opinions here on campus, and everyone has an opportunity to join the discussion.I am glad that many Brandeis students seem to understand why printing Litovsky's article was so important, and why we uphold that action; a "Forum" section that never stirs controversy can never live up to its name.Moving from one issue to another, I would like to apologize for the SDR interview of two weeks ago. Having listened to the tape of the interview last week, I think the piece should have been cut altogether. I have spoken to members of this community who expressed dismay about and disappointment with the piece, and I have grown to agree with them, especially with the actual interview in mind. The writer, and then the Arts editor, had to cut large portions of the interview because it was unfit for print. The band's comments weren't merely irrelevant; they were frequently lewd and even offensive. When we chose to print the piece, we had journalism in mind; we felt then that we had to report what was said, even if a lot of it isn't nice. But, ultimately, so much of that interview had to be cut for inappropriateness or expletives that what was left was out of context. And, one could argue that taking their comments out of context drastically negated any ability to represent what actually happened in the first placeTo be fair, the laid-back environment and the band's inexperience with being interviewed set up an ambiance that may not have been conducive to producing a worthwhile interview. I am grateful for the maturity SDR displayed in their prompt apology, and I hope that the Justice's readership will accept ours as well. The Justice too is about education, and I am confident that next time, should there be one, the Justice and the members of SDR will be educated enough to not repeat this mistake.To everyone who has contributed (and hopefully will continue to contribute) to the active Forum section of this week, thank you again for helping this newspaper be a part of community discussion at Brandeis, for better or for worse. I love to talk to other students and get constructive feedback about the Justice. You can e-mail me at justice@brandeis.edu. I would love to hear what you have to say. -- Michaela May '03 Editor in ChiefPlease see related letters:
(05/07/02 4:00am)
To the Editor: After having had some conversations with members of both SDR and the Justice I feel as though I must express some concerns over the interview with SDR. When I read this article I thought, "Oh no, they didn't do this," in reference to the Justice, as I had already spoken to members of SDR. I still feel that perhaps this article would have best been left unprinted but such is not the case. Perhaps this can be a lesson to us all in stepping back, asking a few more questions and really considering the effects of printing such articles in the future. My concern lies not in what SDR said; I believe that while perhaps inappropriate publicly, this talk was the type of talk between friends who understand that it does not have the prejudicial undertones some might take from it in a more public forum. I believe that SDR did not mean harm by their comments, and probably would have been more than pleased to have kept them to themselves. The fact of the matter is that these words became public and that can be a dangerous thing. I say this because I worry about the message that gets sent to people who actually feel prejudice and hatred towards those who some of these comments were about. By seeing such words and phrases in the paper these people may think that our community finds this as proper public speech, having a place in the community. Additionally, they may believe that we do not condemn such words towards queer people and women. We must be ever vigilant to ensure that we do not encourage hatred towards minorities on campus and stand by ideals of a safe, welcoming and accepting community.Additionally, as the newspaper of the student body, I worry what message this sends to those who are not yet out or comfortable with their sexuality. They may feel that they are better off hidden as they will not have to be exposed to such words and feelings. If we are truly an open campus we will do everything in our power to encourage the opposite ideas.Lastly, I must think of those who are not yet a part of our community. As a prospective student or parent reads an article such as the SDR interview they will wonder what kind of community we actually have here. Like it or not, they will believe that something that is printed represents the beliefs of a larger portion of campus than is true in reality. These prospectives may not just worry because they are queer, but simply because they will wonder if Brandeis is truly the place for them regardless of who they are. The Justice is a piece of the face of Brandeis, representing us beyond the bubble of this institution. While I hope that nothing bad comes from this article or the implications it has, I ask that the Justice and all of us at Brandeis consider public actions and the effects they have on our community. If we fail to take on this responsibility we will be unable to create the community we hope for here at Brandeis. -- Noah Branman '03
