(01/14/03 5:00am)
Thursday evening, the Union Senate is sponsoring a community forum to discuss a bylaw passed in December that has significantly revised the club chartering process. This comes after several club leaders complained the bylaw was not publicized or discussed enough among the Brandeis community before its passage.Previously, a group needed signatures from at least 10 students interested in being club members in order to charter a new club. Under the new bylaw, 200 student signatures are required to charter a club, and at least 20 of those signatories must commit to active involvement following chartering.The standard for being a recognized club that is ineligible for Allocations Board funding remains five student signatures. Recognized clubs, however, are eligible to appear before the Union Senate to request funds.Class of 2005 Senator Michael Corwin said the Union Senate felt more clubs were being chartered than the Allocation Board's limited funding could allow for.An online Justice article and e-mails to club leaders and the general Brandeis community from the Union Senate informed students of the new bylaw. Daniel Silverman '05, one of the developers of the myBrandeis website, created an online forum for students to discuss the new changes. He said the forum received 40 responses from 28 unique users over a three-day period.In addition, Silverman created an online poll for the myBrandeis website. The poll, which ran from Dec. 8 to Dec. 20 received 216 unique votes. He said 78.2 percent of the respondents believed the new policy was wrong, while 21.8 percent approved of the new changes. Silverman noted that even with 216 votes, the poll only attracted 16 more people than the 200 now required to charter a club.Club leaders have had mixed reactions to the new policy, but those posting on the online forum held predominantly negative views of the new bylaw. "Two hundred signatures is an outrageous number. That's fully half the amount needed for a student referendum. At this pace, why not just have a referendum on every club and have the students vote each time?" said Joel Fried '03, founder of the Brandeis Official Readers' Guild (BORG).Other club leaders support the motives behind the new bylaw. Matt DiCarlo '03, president of OTAKU Anime Club, said in the past, "it was pretty ridiculous to see how easy it is to get a club started on this campus." He, however, added that 200 is a very large number, and said he feels the signature requirement could be dropped to 50 or 60 students.Many club leaders also said they feel the new bylaw will not effectively alleviate the current lack of club funding. "The new club chartering guidelines will only stop new clubs from being formed, not from current clubs requesting too much money," Fried said. "One of the reasons that so much money is being requested is that the general consensus is that you need to request twice as much of anything as you want in order to get what you'd like. If everybody actually asked for what they really needed and wanted, the requests would be cut in half."The new bylaw does have a clause allowing prospective clubs having difficulty obtaining 200 signatures to submit a letter to the Executive Senator, explaining the situation. The club's chartering bid can then be placed on the Union Senate agenda at the Executive Senator's discretion."As long as the potential club is not associated with an unpopular political agenda, most people would sign the petition out of common courtesy," said Mira Meyerovich '03, one of BORG's founding members. "(But), if the club is associated with an unpopular agenda," she added, "those are the sorts of clubs Brandeis should be encouraging.Many club leaders said they believe the Union Senate could have done a better job of informing the community of the proposed changes before the bylaw was passed. "In theory, the Senate is always discussing laws and they hold forums on them every time in the form of the open Union Senate meetings," said Jeffrey Morrow '03, president of Boris' Kitchen and the Brandeis Ensemble Theatre. "But, the reality is that if the club leaders really had the time to sit in on every Senate meeting, we wouldn't really have time to be club leaders."Ian Adams '05, an active member of several clubs, said he feels the forum should have been held before the bylaw was passed rather than retroactively.A campus-wide e-mail signed by seven senators, however, said, "The bylaw was passed after a staggering number of hours debating, tweaking and polishing the wording. It was not a hasty decision." These senators also encouraged students to attend Union Senate meetings to discuss or respond to any concerns they may have.The forum will be held Thursday at 7 p.m. in the International Lounge in upstairs Usdan.
(01/14/03 5:00am)
Most of 2001 was all but forgotten in the aftermath of the events of September 11th of that year, and in many ways, 2002 was defined by the recovery from 2001. Students returned to campus last January to discover a laboratory in Kalman had been closed over winter break due to fears that anthrax from an experiment had contaminated the building. The city of Waltham investigated Brandeis in Sept. 2002 to determine if it was properly storing hazardous materials, such as anthrax. The University introduced a course on September 11th for the Spring 2002 semester -- the first of its kind at an American university. On the anniversary of the terrorist attacks, students participated in various events in between classes to memorialize the day.The near-closing of Deaconess-Waltham hospital, the closest hospital to the Brandeis campus, caused student concern, as it was to increase dramatically the time needed to transport a patient from Brandeis to a hospital. Students became active in supporting the hospital, but its closing seemed certain in January. By March, however, CareGroup, the owner of Deaconess-Waltham, had agreed to sell the hospital to the Coalition to Save Waltham Hospital, a non-profit group. The hospital was then renamed Waltham Hospital.Local politics affected Brandeis students in another way last year, as two Massachusetts gubernatorial candidates with strong Brandeis affiliations emerged. Robert Reich, a Heller School professor, and Steven Grossman, former chair of the Board of Trustees, both vied for the Democratic nomination. Grossman later dropped out and Reich finished second to Beacon Hill insider Shannon O'Brien in the Democratic primary.The most important on-campus political event of the year was the Union Senate's referendum to eliminate Kraft and other Phillip Morris-owned products from Dining Services. The election had an unusually large turnout of 1,549 voters. The referendum lost by a razor-thin margin of only 21 votes. "I found the vote disenheartening," 2001-02 Student Union President Josh Peck '02 said.A Union Judiciary (UJ) case decided Feb. 8 established that students may not run for Student Union positions while abroad. The UJ found unanimously that "appellants will not meet what we find to be the full-time students standard of inauguration." At the same time, rumblings of a large debate about the Student Activities Fund (SAF) began when the University took over the distribution of checks to SAF organizations from the Union Treasurer. In May, the University began a review process -- yet to be completed -- to revise the SAF system.By far the most compelling thing to occur in the ongoing SAF debate was the discovery in September of more than $100,000 in undistributed money that accumulated in an off-campus Senate account over several years. The senate had simply put extra "rollover" money in the account every year, a practice that many on campus called into question.In March, the Brandeis Debate Team attempted to gain SAF funding and join the Waltham Group, the Brandeis Emergency Medical Corps, the Watch, Archon, the Justice and WBRS. They failed in their bid to become the newest campus group with secured funds. Nov. 22, however, another group, Brandeis Television (BTV), succeeded in gaining SAF funding. The television station managed to win a referendum to gain the Watch's portion of the SAF. The Watch was considered defunct but later reorganized.Acts of intolerance marred the campus on two occasions in 2002. In April, at the beginning of Christian Awareness Week, two of three crosses set up by the organizers of the week were taken down by unknown parties and were never returned. In late September, anti-Arab flyers were placed on the Rabb steps and anti-gay graffiti was discovered in East Quad.At a meeting of the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee in April, a motion to raise the grade point average required for Dean's List honors to 3.67 was tabled. This discussion, however, sparked a new debate on campus about grade inflation. Professor Jacob Cohen (AMST) was not among those worried about the rising trend. "The same kids are here today as were here yesterday," he said. "They were a pleasure to teach and they still are."In early October, the Shapiro Campus Center, plagued by delays, officially opened in a gala ceremony. As soon as students arrived on campus in September, many nicknamed it "The Green Monster," due to its distinctive color. The building, though now in everyday use, remains incomplete. Construction of a new dormitory for upperclassmen near Ziv and Ridgewood Quads began in June. These large construction projects have occurred while the University faces difficult financial circumstances. In the past year, the University budget has already been cut twice. Students wishing to study abroad in the current semester were disappointed in November when an unprecedented number of students' petitions were rejected. The University said it was applying more stringent standards, but after both students and faculty complained that they had not been forewarned, the University reversed almost all of its rejections.Although the current semester just began, there are already many active plans. Over 350 students have signed a petition stating they are opposed to any forthcoming war with Iraq and will walk out of classes in protest following the first day of fighting. Changes have been made in the club chartering system, starting a debate. This has led to the first community forum of the semester being held this Thursday. The new dormitory will be open this fall, housing upperclassmen. And, of course, this is only the beginning.
(01/14/03 5:00am)
In a hasty move, the Union Senate drastically changed the club chartering process -- making it significantly more difficult for a club to become chartered. The unpopular new bylaw should be reconsidered not only because it was passed too quickly and without the knowledge of the students it affects, but because the legislation itself is deeply flawed. Only Castle Quad Senator Pamela Hoffman '03 had the wisdom to oppose the measure. We applaud her vocal dissent. The new procedure requires a club to collect 200 student signatures -- 20 of whom must pledge to actively participate in the club. This change marks a drastic increase from the 10 student signatures previously required. The new provision violates the spirit of individuality that makes this university's student life stand out. Brandeis has long been proud of the diversity of clubs and the ease with which unique clubs have been chartered. This new bylaw was passed by the Senate at their last meeting of the semester, allowing for virtually no student input on the issue. Despite the importance of the bylaw, even the Executive-board had "very little" involvement in the process, according to Vice President Alex Lo '03. Only after passing the bylaw and receiving many complaints did the Senate decide to hold a forum, to discuss these new changes with the students they represent. And, in a politically-savvy move, President Ben Brandzel '03 condemned the bylaw in his Dec. 6 State of the Union speech. But this action was too little, too late.The signature requirement may make it nearly impossible for some clubs to be chartered simply because they appeal only to a few individuals. Last semester, few if any of over 25-newly chartered clubs would have met the membership requirement. So, while the Senate may claim that requiring 200 signatures is just an "awareness-raising" clause, it will instead become a filter to prohibit the chartering of smaller, esoteric organizations. Student outcry prompted the Senate to defend itself in an all-campus e-mail that failed to adequately justify their action; a poll on myBrandeis.edu indicates that 78.2% percent of the 216 students polled opposed the bylaw. Given the backlash, we would like to see the Senate produce even 200 students who would support their bylaw.The new bylaw does allow for the executive senator to permit clubs to be presented to the Senate if extenuating circumstances exist for a club not meeting the signature provision. This gives arbitrary and potentially discriminatory power to one person, and in the future may prevent unpopular groups from being chartered. Pro-life, anti-gun control or anti-Zionist organizations may go against the values of most students, but because everyone contributes to the SAF, these groups still deserves to vie for these funds.While it is true that the Allocation Board (A-Board) gets requests for over three times the amount of money that it can allocate, the A-Board and Club Liaison Nathaniel Westheimer '05 were not consulted about the bylaw and for the most part have voiced disapproval. The bylaw does not check the number of clubs already in existence, and probably unforeseen by the Senate, will result in a greater number of recognized clubs vying for the money the Senate allocates to recognized groups. This new competition will make the already too-long Senate meetings even more encumbered by mundane details. The Duplicity of Purpose clause prevents the chartering of clubs with too similar purposes. It would be more valuable for the Senate to reevaluate existing clubs and continue to enforce the clause for potential new groups. In addition, the Ways and Means committee, responsible for the bylaw, was unknown to most students and its two meetings went on without any public notice. According to the Senate's e-mail "a staggering number of hours" went into debate and development of the bylaw, yet the measure was only put on the agenda on Nov. 24 and reappeared only once more, the day it was passed, Dec. 1. Given the importance of the measure and in light of the widely-publicized Kraft referendum, it is incumbent on the Senate to actively engage the student body through forums and e-mail priori to the vote.This bylaw is ineffective and we encourage the senate to repeal it and if they will not, students should take measures to repeal it themselves by proposing a constitutional amendment to go before the student body.
(11/26/02 5:00am)
Approximately one year after last fall's "Men's Room" incident, many members of the Brandeis community say that no widespread action has been successfully taken to promote diversity. The few lines spoken by the hosts of WBRS's the "Men's Room" rocked the students, faculty and administrators of the University for many weeks, and have left an impact that still resonates one year later. The anti-Asian and misogynistic remarks were interpreted by many as a sign of ignorance and intolerance on campus. Although immediate action and gradual administrative change were evidently enforced, the success of these measures remains a source of disagreement.The University reactsAside from energizing the campus with debate, the "Men's Room" incident led to immediate action by student-run organizations, including the Intercultural Center (ICC), Students Organized Against Racism (SOAR) and Students for a Just Society (SJS). These student-run groups held forums to build coalitions, increase diversity and promote tolerance on campus. One forum on stereotyping was given by Cindy Cohen, the current director of the Peace and Coexistence Program. Assistant Dean of Student Life Alwina Bennett hosted another forum, live on WBRS during the "Men's Room" time slot. "After the (WBRS incident) happened, there was a discussion that we don't have many role models or people of color (in the faculty)," Dean of Student Life Rick Sawyer said.The administrative reaction came mainly in the form of a diversity task force, appointed by University President Jehuda Reinharz, that consisted of faculty, administrators and students. According to Sawyer, "the committee is educational but also reactive in nature. It's a committee to talk about what's happened and a place where people who are upset could have gone and given their responses and be given University advice with comprehensive abilities." Early this fall, the committee published a lengthy report on diversity titled, "The Brandeis Experience: Embracing Diversity." According to Student Union Communications Director Marci Surkes '03, the report has been made available in hard copy to students upon request at the Student Union office and library. Reinharz said he has"read the report carefully, made some decisions and (has) already implemented many recommendations."Surkes said the most "significant change that has come about as a result of the ... Diversity Report was the promotion of Rev. Nathaniel Mays to the position of Assistant Dean of Students and Diversity Coordinator. Another consequence of both the report and the WBRS incident has been the intensified "recruitment of a more diverse group of students," Reinharz said. In addition, most of the senior administration has been provided with diversity training, a practice that Reinharz said he hopes to extend to other parts of the University. Also, he said he will "move to appoint someone to manage the Intercultural Center." He said he desires to "add to the vitality and diversity of the campus by redoubling our effort, as we have always done, but hopefully with more success."According to WBRS general manager Mark Brescia '04, the radio station also implemented appropriate policy changes. He said that "the talk shows are monitored much more strictly," adding "there is no censorship ... people are just more aware of what they can say."Disagreement over success of implemented measuresDespite the numerous implemented changes, both students and administrators remain unsure that their effects have been significant. "I think where we are now isn't a direct response to what happened last year," Sawyer said. Addressing the Diversity Report, ICC co-chair Shalwah Evans '05 said, "It is a good start to remedying the problems we are facing concerning diversity on campus, but it is only a start."ICC co-chair Bryan Jung '04 expressed much stronger dissatisfaction with the University's measures. "I definitely find it unfortunate that the President doesn't do more than just publish reports," he said. "The University didn't become more caring ... and it is disheartening to admit that there isn't enough pro-activeness."Similarity, SJS core committee member Jocelyn Berger '03 said, "I'm not sure any difference has really been achieved. Although apparently this is the first year that the incoming class is not more that 50 percent Jewish, so that says something about an increasing interest in diversity."Reinharz said he feels the University approached the issue "quickly and aggressively. My feeling is that the administration is deeply concerned with this issue and will not tolerate any degradation of students on campus."A look at the Men's Room incident from withinLex Friedman '02, who was one of the hosts of the Men's Room, said he looks back on the incident with remorse for his words and sympathy for the offended members of the Brandeis community. "While my life's goal is to make people laugh, my legacy at Brandeis is as a guy who made people cry," Friedman said.The intense reaction to the Men's Room was prompted by an e-mail sent out by Jung from the Brandeis Asian American Student Association (BAASA) to Reinharz and later forwarded to a wide list of student recipients, Friedman said. Friedman said Jung quoted many words that had not been said on the air, but added he doesn't "think Bryan's e-mail exaggerated what happened maliciously. Bryan was hurt and angry and in a passion from the comments on our show. He misquotes extensively and that set the tone for how our remarks were perceived.""To my knowledge and to the extent of numerous people who heard the tapes, my e-mail was accurate," Jung said. He added, "Regardless of the way I framed my e-mail, it is without a doubt that these comments were offensive, racist and stereotypical."The subsequent reaction, according to Friedman, included campus wide e-mails about the incident, "an approved e-mail from a student group to urge administrators to expel us" and a "petition from two English professors whom I've never met and who've never met me, who hadn't listened to a tape of the show and hadn't spoken to anyone involved, signed by their students and calling for our expulsion." Within a week of the incident, Friedman said the hosts sent out an e-mail apology and addressed the students directly on the three-hour forum with Bennett. Friedman said apologizing was not a way to avoid further trouble, but a judgment on the nature of the comments. "Humor is about making people laugh. I know for a fact that people were amused who heard the show live ... but I also know just as well that at least one person was hurt by what we said. Humor doesn't have to hurt."In response a column, "Political Correctness in Brandeis," by Yana Litovsky, published in the Justice on April 30, 2002, which referred to the reaction to the incident as "a lot of hoopla over nothing," Friedman said he sympathized with the shocked reaction of the Brandeis community. "The hoopla was about a serious issue," Friedman said. But, "in a race to prove that we (the hosts) were wrong, there wasn't any emphasis placed on what was right. That's the 'nothing,' the sad fact about the hoopla. It achieved little other than headlines, in my view."According to Reinharz, "after listening to students who did the program, I think they truly believe they were being funny ... and didn't realize how much they were hurting other people. It was a case of poor judgment." Brandeis reflects on past and looks toward futureIn reaction to how the University responded to the incident, Reinharz said "I'm sure these things will happen from time to time, but we're better able to deal with them. We can't control every action and non-action on this campus." According to Reinharz, the anti-Arab and anti-homosexual flyers posted earlier this year are further examples of intolerant incidents. "It was alarming and inappropriate," Sawyer said, but added that things will fall into place once Mays officially fills his position.Jung said one result of the WBRS incident was an increase in ICC's pro-activeness. He said this is visible in the frequency of forums held on issues such as the anti-gay and anti-Arab flyers. For Berger, the Men's Room incident "was a wake up call as to the implicit racism so many of us contain, no matter how enlightened we consider ourselves." She said she urges Brandeis to "rise above political correctness and start confronting these very real and often painful issues."Looking to the future, Reinharz said he hopes to continue the University's measures for increasing tolerance and diversity. "New classes are coming in every year. We hope to educate on the culture of the campus," Reinharz said. He referred to the Mosaic program initiated during this year's orientation as an effort to expose the incoming class to diversity as a result of the issues of last spring, and added "there is still a lot to learn.
(11/26/02 5:00am)
As administrators promised last semester, the issue of grade inflation has resurfaced; joint student/faculty forums have addressed the issue. Yet, this "community discussion" has failed to delve much deeper into this issue than last semester's discussions, which revolved mostly around several proposed changes by the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee (UCC). Both the Office of the Registrar and the Office of the Dean of Arts and Sciences have been tight-lipped about the subject, telling the Justice they prefer that some information not be published or pushing the responsibility onto other administrators.We know that the average GPA have risen nearly half a grade in 15 years, but it is not clear what grades looked like before 1987. With this information unavailable, we cannot be certain of how extreme the trend is. And, should grades continue to rise as they have for the past 15 years, a Brandeis degree may eventually lose some of its value. The University has historically compiled grade distribution data for every class, department and class year -- making this data available only to department heads. We recognize that perhaps making public grade distributions for individual classes may violate professors' privacy. Data by department, however, is not unreasonable. Students work hard to earn good grades and deserve to understand those marks in context. Moreover, if grades are no more inflated at Brandeis than at other elite universities, we have nothing to fear from a comprehensive inquiry.
(11/26/02 5:00am)
Members of the Brandeis Reform and Conservative Jewish communities have recently questioned the policies of the Brandeis Orthodox Organization (BOO). They were seeking to have non-Orthodox books included in BOO's Beit Midrash, or textual study room, located in the basement of the Shapiro residence hall. Their request was denied.While this was initially an internal BOO issue, the subject was opened to the entire Jewish community to allow a more thorough examination. The nine-member BOO board reviewed more than 130 written surveys, held an open forum on Nov. 4 and spent over 12 hours in board meetings and speaking individually with students. On Nov. 13, the BOO board decided these books, due to their non-Orthodox nature, could not be included in the official Beit Midrash collection. A statement from the BOO board was sent to students on all Hillel e-mail lists. "This decision is not meant to legitimize or delegitimize any of the books proposed," the board wrote. "They are simply not Orthodox books."The board added, however, that the Beit Midrash room contains a set of "personal shelves," where students can leave any books that they please, thus providing an alternative location for the disputed texts. Though this detail was not outlined in the board's official e-mail statement, several BOO members stressed this verbally.Rabbi Allan Lehmann, Brandeis' Jewish chaplain and director of Hillel, discussed the purpose of a Beit Midrash room. "The word 'Beit Midrash' may be unfamiliar to many," he said. "It's usually rendered as 'house of study,' but properly means something more like 'house of inquiry.'" The Brandeis Beit Midrash, located in the basement of the Shapiro residence hall, is currently in its 11th year of existence. The 1991-1992 and 1992-1993 BOO boards also faced concerns from the Reform and Conservative communities as they strove to create a comfortable learning environment with appropriate books. The issue resurged this year when Reuben Posner '05, education coordinator of the Hillel Student Executive Board, and Steven Exler '03, Beit Midrash coordinator, sought ways to welcome more students to the Beit Midrash. They hung a poster at the entrance, made a map of the room and organized a "starting point shelf" to direct new visitors. They also hoped to introduce Conservative and Reform Jewish texts onto the shelves.The books in question were the Conservative chumash, or bible and commentary, "Etz Chaim," the Reform chumash "Plaut" and the "Sim Shalom" and "Gates of Prayer" siddurim, or prayer books. Part of the BOO board's unease in allowing the Reform and Conservative books onto the main shelves of the Beit Midrash lies in the Hebrew to English translations. "You can't really have a translation that isn't a commentary," BOO President Devora Loike '04 said.Additionally, Loike said, the siddurim omit some parts of a traditional Orthodox service, and also add new elements. The chumashim contain commentary that challenges certain tenets of Orthodoxy, mainly the belief that the Torah is the direct word of God. The introduction to the Plaut chumash, which was cited by an Orthodox student during the forum, reads, "This commentary proceeds from the assumption that the Torah is a book which has its origins in the hearts and minds of the Jewish people."Many Reform and Conservative Jews said they were offended by the BOO board's decision. They said they felt the rejection of the books from the Beit Midrash was questioning the legitimacy of non-Orthodox beliefs. The BOO board said this was not their intention. "The decision is certainly not a judgment on beliefs, and definitely not a statement of aversion towards individuals," the BOO e-mail statement read. "This decision maintains what has been known all along: These texts are simply not Orthodox texts."While the final decision is still disputed by many, Associate Director of Hillel Ora Gladstone said she "is very proud of the whole process," adding she feels the issue was handled fairly and responsibly. At the open forum, Loike called upon students one at a time, giving each three minutes to speak. No one group dominated the discussion. Leah Berkowitz '03, coordinator of the Brandeis Reform Chavura (BaRuCH) said, "There were only individual standpoints, not an Orthodox standpoint, or a Reform, or a Conservative." "No one felt excluded from speaking," she added. Scott Selinger '03, a BOO member, said the board "really made sure to take into account everyone's opinion. It wasn't a rash decision in any way."In accordance with BOO policy, however, the ultimate decision was made by the board and not by students at the forum. BOO member Shoshana Cohen '03 said she would prefer to see "a more participatory democracy instead of the representative democracy" that is presently used in voting on such matters.The main argument in favor of including the new books emphasized the need for cohesion among all Brandeis Jews and the danger of alienating non-Orthodox students. Aron Klein '05, BaRuCH education coordinator, said he felt the introduction of more liberal texts would have helped provide "a space for everyone to feel comfortable engaging in Jewish learning." Seth Sclair '03, a member of BOO, originally felt that the books did not belong, but since attending the forum, said he has assigned priority to "keeping a good rapport with all the groups and keeping everything peaceful." "It was a touchy subject," he said. "I'd be more comfortable knowing that no one was turned off or turned the wrong way because of this decision."Cohen said the most important goal is to maintain a welcoming atmosphere in the Brandeis Jewish community. "I think it's sort of silly to have such strong divisions in the first place. I do believe in unity at most costs." She said she is nervous the BOO decision will be misinterpreted as a move to cut off Brandeis' less fundamentalist Jewish students. She added she also worries that the decision will be regarded as the stance of all Orthodox students, saying that is not the case. "People shouldn't be afraid of books. It's important to challenge yourself a little bit and not be threatened," Cohen said. "See what you think. Does it make your beliefs stronger? Does it make you question things?"Those opposed to the book's inclusion said an Orthodox-run and Orthodox-funded organization must first adhere to its Orthodox roots. They said they felt it improper to formally endorse texts that infringe upon halacha, or Orthodox Jewish law. "In a more perfect world everyone would have their own Beit Midrash, or there would be a Hillel Beit Midrash," Selinger said. "But, this is an Orthodox Beit Midrash. Decisions made by an Orthodox organization must be in line with halacha." "I wouldn't expect the Reform community to take the guitar out of their Friday night service or use a mehitza (barrier between men and women). This would alienate their own community," Selinger added. "Within the same regard, in our community, our philosophy, and our halacha, there are certain actions that are very borderline and can really alter the definition of our community and in the process, alienate people within our own community." Rabbi Todd Berman, an educator with the Jewish Learning Initiative and the BOO adviser, said the issue is "multi-faceted," and cannot be boiled down to two distinct sides. He added he hopes students can be tolerant of all the viewpoints expressed during the debate.The issue extended beyond the question of four books, stirring intense reflection throughout Brandeis' Jewish community. In a message to Reform Jews, Klein said "the discussions sparked amongst all Jews were truly for the best." Berkowitz described the forum as "one of the most amazing learning experiences" in her time at Brandeis.Loike said BOO now has a renewed focus on welcoming others into the Beit Midrash and the Orthodox community. Students on the BOO board have already met with leaders of the other Hillel religious groups. Alienation of non-Orthodox Jews, Loike said, "is the opposite of our goal."
(11/26/02 5:00am)
Friday, the Watch, one of Brandeis' magazines, published its first issue since fall 2001. The issue, titled, "The Watch Reborn: a magazine back from the brink," renews The Watch's presence on campus as Brandeis' open forum magazine. This issue's articles covered a diverse range of topics, from religion to the Soviet Union. "I am very excited to reintroduce the Watch magazine to Brandeis," Watch Co-Editor in Chief Benjamin Woodring '06 said. "The open forum publication is really quite distinctive on this campus and really has no parallel."Many people on campus told Watch editors they were surprised to see the Watch, as they thought it was it was no longer in print."Distributing this issue has been exciting as well as frustrating. Underclassmen said, 'what's the Watch?' while upperclassmen said 'I thought the Watch was dead,'" Co-Editor in Chief Jonathan Cetel '06 said. "So, I enjoy enlightening the campus about the existence of a publication that remains distinctly significant to the student body."Cetel said next semester, the Watch will release more issues. "Hopefully, next semester, students will no longer be unaware of the Watch; instead, they'll be looking forward to its arrival," Cetel said. "In the future, we hope to go into greater depth concerning many key issues, accounting for a diverse spectrum of opinions," Woodring said. "The Watch can be a channel for countless intellectual discussions and right now looks very promising."
(11/26/02 5:00am)
This year's Rent-A-Gent Bachelor Auction, which benefited the Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition, made a conscious effort to encourage men to bid on other men. The fourth annual auction, held Thursday night in Levin Ballroom, auctioned off 63 bachelors and made about $6,000 for charity.While women bought most of the men up for bids, a few of the men auctioned off were bought by other men. The auction organizers, Mariel Meringolo '03 and Gabrielle Mayer '03, fully supported men bidding on other men, and emcee Morty Rosenbaum '03 got the ball rolling by bidding against Meringolo on Matt Preece (GRAD), who showed up in vinyl pants and a cowboy hat. "You want to get the crowd excited, and once Mariel started bidding, it worked, so I put in a bid too -- it upped the bid, and it let everyone know that anyone could bid on anyone," said Rosenbaum.Later on, Preece bid on Damien Scoditti '05. Rosenbaum also spontaneously auctioned himself off, was bid on by men and women, and was eventually bought for $150 by a man.In the past, the auction has primarily functioned as a platform for women to bid on men to go out on dates with them. After realizing this type of forum was exclusive and not encouraging to the gay community, Meringolo, Mayer and Rosenbaum worked on ways to make the auction more accessible to people of all sexual orientations. "Same-sex bidding is never anything we have prohibited in the past, however, it seemed to come to the forefront this year and we are happy the issue was raised because it illuminated the fact that we are not against same sex bidding and that in fact, we encourage it," Meringolo said.The organizers said they contacted many gay men who are comfortably "out" to encourage them to either be auctioned off or to vocally bid on other men. They even extended the deadline to add in some gay bachelors. The organizers said they realized that audience members may not take the initiative though, hence Rosenbaum's impromptu bid.The audience responded to the same sex bidding by clapping wildly when Rosenbaum won Preece. And, although there were men bidding on men throughout the evening, they just did not always end up winning. "Even if not a lot of bachelors were bought by men, there was a lot of male bidding going on, so there was definitely a presence there," Rosenbaum said. Meringolo said there have been no issues raised because of same-sex bidding, nor does she foresee any potential problems. Due to this year's success, Meringolo, Mayer and Rosenbaum said they hope larger steps can be made in the future. "I felt really happy with it, in terms of the progress it is working towards, as not being a mechanism of compulsory heterosexuality. With anything that's a bachelor auction, there will be problems, but it was a really great step," Rosenbaum said. "Hopefully, in the future, there will be gay men bidding at the auction, not only as a deliberate and necessary way of asserting there presence, but because they will know it is a legitimate place to find a date.
(11/26/02 5:00am)
This in not a letter to the editor. I just wanted to express to the writer of this article, Alexandra Perloe, that she did a wonderful job at presenting all sides to this potentially devisive and incindiery issue.Since I work myself in Jewish Education and outreach, I have seen many articles describing debates like this and almost always they are slanted to one side or the other. Her presentation was thorough, balanced and sensitive.I am also impressed with the Brandeis students, both Orthodox and non-Orthodox for the way they conducted this Forum and the respect that they showed for one another, despite andy ideological differances they may have. I am particulary impressed with how much all the students stressed Jewish Unity and inclusion, while at the same time holding divergent viewpoints.The larger Jewish Community across the Nation could learn a lot from these students.Chanukah Sameach,Rabbi Simcha Barnett
(11/19/02 5:00am)
Speaking at recent forums, students, faculty and administrators have disagreed on the significance of rising grades at Brandeis. Most have expressed reservation about reversing the trend, saying it may be implausible or compromise professors' autonomy.Professor Carol Osler (GSIEF), who spoke at a faculty/student forum yesterday, said there is inadequate incentive to curb the trend. "Even if there are net benefits to curbing grade inflation, it still won't happen, because no one has any incentive to speak up for curbing it, and a lot of people have incentive to speak up against it," she said.The average grade rose .16 on a 4.0 scale between Fall 1987 and Fall 2001, according to the Office of the Registrar. This growth corresponds to about half a grade, with current students averaging just under a B+. Grades are slightly higher in the spring than in the fall, a pattern that Registrar Mark Hewitt attributes to students taking heavier course loads in the fall semester. The issue of grade inflation surfaced nationwide last year when Harvard University announced that 91 percent of its graduates received honors in June 2001. Scrutiny of Brandeis' grading standards gained momentum in the spring when the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee (UCC) held discussions about possibly raising the minimum GPA for Dean's List from a 3.5 to a 3.67. Negative feedback from students - especially in the sciences where the average GPA is about 3.15 - caused the UCC to withdraw the proposal, at least for the time being.Hewitt said that about half of grades at Brandeis are A's and A minuses, but that the number of D's and E's has remained steady.In May, Hewitt and Associate Dean of Arts and Sciences Elaine Wong told the Justice that issues of grade inflation and grading in general would resurface this fall as the UCC considered what, if any, changes to propose. Hewitt said he felt a "community discussion" would be in order. There have been three meetings in the past few weeks about the issue, and students have been able to attend and participate in two. University administrators have been reluctant to release specific data about grades at Brandeis, and even figures shown at meetings go back only to 1987. Hewitt told the Justice Friday that he did not have access to figures before 1987, and said he would need to ask other administrators before releasing specific data about grade distribution and averages within departments and throughout Brandeis history. Professor Marya Levenson (EDUC) served on yesterday's panel. Grades, she said, should provide students with "feedback" on the knowledge they have acquired in a course. "Mastery should mean and could mean that we have more students at the higher end because we have more students who have mastered the material," Levenson said. She added, however, "effort does not always equate to mastery."A faculty meeting on Oct. 24 addressing the issue resulted in a mixture of perspectives, according to Wong. Faculty members, she said, offered a variety of suggestions on how to make grades and transcripts reflect both students' effort and knowledge. Some said that students benefit from understanding how grades are determined and what they reflect. Others, Wong said, felt that transcripts could include the average grade in a course, helping graduate and professional schools understand what individual grades mean. Many faculty said they were wary of the university mandating grade distribution - feeling too much regulation could hamper their academic freedom.Some faculty expressed concern that students avoid classes that they are interested in but in which will not be guaranteed a good mark, Wong said. Students speaking both yesterday and Thursday echoed this anxiety, and made their own suggestions to encourage students to study outside their major. Jeremy Hamburgh '04 and Class of 2005 Senator Michael Corwin served on yesterday's panel. Both told faculty that revamping the pass/fail system may encourage students to take more classes they are interested in but in which they feel they may receive a poor grade. A two-tier Dean's List has also been proposed to distinguish levels of achievement. Hewitt said Thursday that 46 percent of students were on the Dean's List last semester. Many students majoring in the School of Science, however, say that even at the current standard, achieving the Dean's List is unattainable. Creative arts classes receive the highest grades, followed by Humanities. Social sciences, in the past several years, have been comparable to the average GPA, and science classes have consistently produced the lowest grades.Evan Guggenheim '04, the Undergraduate Department Representative (UDR) for Chemistry, was in line with science majors who spoke at Thursday's forum. "Brandeis happens to be a school where, especially in the Chemistry department, it's hard to get good grades so it is probably more frustrating for people who are going to medical school and need to worry about their GPA a lot more," he said.Undergraduates seeking admission to medical or law schools expressed greater anxiety about grades than students looking to attend graduate schools. Nevertheless, some pre-medical students said they have not shied away from challenging or intriguing courses. "I'm still going to get into med school," Castle Quad Senator and math major Pam Hoffman '03 said. "I don't care about my grades." Brett Friedman '03, student representative to the UCC, said that feedback he has received indicated that students don't perceive grade inflation as a problem at Brandeis. In addition, Hewitt said that a rise in incoming students' SAT scores may suggest that Brandeis students are getting better."Most students would say these are earned A's and A minuses," Friedman, a UDR for the Politics Department, said. Sarah Light '04, student representative to the UCC, disagreed with Friedman. Calling grade inflation at Brandeis a "problem," Light said policies about what grades mean would be beneficial. "People are concerned because, while we have grade inflation, a 4.0 here is worth less than a 4.0 at another school," Light said. "If everyone at Brandeis gets either B's or A's how do you differentiate between a good student and a bad student?""I think the solution comes with having policies about what the grades mean and breaking away from the stigma that a B is a bad grade," Light added. "As long as we have that idea in our heads it's hard to admit that a B is a good grade.""I'm not sure we're doing the students any favors," Osler said at yesterday's lunch. "All of us who have been out in the real world know how important it is to get that kick in the pants sometimes.
(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.
