It’s a daunting task, writing my final article for this paper and avoiding the cliches that characterize graduation season.
From transportation to nightlife, I thought that the nuances of being a Brandeisian were not explained well enough, and we were left to learn too much on our own. Now, after successfully completing my first year, I cannot help but chuckle at just how misguided my earlier thoughts were. The very purpose of the first year of college is to be out of the know. Undergoing a multitude of experiences, making mistakes and taking questionable risks help one grow as a person. Essentially, the first year is about being willing to jump and not fearing the fall.
Instances of workplace bullying and harassment are on the rise. Grown adults are currently bullying other grown adults in their very adult workplaces. This occurs so often that one in every three workers in Massachusetts will experience some form of workplace bullying.
I am puzzled as to why Ellie Eiger (Brandeis ‘20) and Congressman Kennedy in a recent article (“Congressman discusses US-Israel Relationship”) believe that the citizens of Gaza should vote in Israeli elections?
Congratulations to the Class of 2019! Looking back at your college experience, and your senior year specifically, what experiences and people stand out to you the most? In the course of your Brandeis experience, what moments will you look back on most fondly?
This coming Friday, the United Kingdom is set to leave the European Union with or without trade and economic deals, unless an extension is agreed upon by the Union. The International Monetary Fund has stated that the UK leaving the EU abruptly would shrink the country’s Gross Domestic Product and could trigger a recession and a deterioration of the world economy. Do you agree with the IMF’s analysis? How do you think the UK leaving the EU without a deal will impact the UK’s and the EU’s economies in the immediate aftermath, and the world economy in the long term?
Last week, Executive Senator Kent Dinlenc ’19 introduced a proposal to de-charter The Brandeis Hoot, a campus newspaper established in 2005. The Senate waited a week between the proposal introducing to the Senate members and voting on it. This break allowed time for students to rally in support for The Brandeis Hoot, which circulated a petition asking students and clubs to “stand in solidarity with us and support that The Hoot should not be de-chartered as a club on campus.”
At the invitation of the Brandeis Young Americans for Liberty, Fox News anchor John Stossel presented his lecture “Freedom and its Enemies” to a crowd of around two hundred people in Olin-Sang 101 two weeks ago. I was in the front row. I’m not sure what I was expecting, but whatever it was, I did not get it.
Spring is here, which means Brandesians are taking to the outdoors to … continue studying. Ever-industrious laptop and textbook-toters are settling in the two library-adjacent outdoor study spaces, as well as Mandel’s patios en masse. However, cigarette smoke dissuades many students from working outside.
Since I assumed this position in September, my goal for this year has been to learn the inner workings and nuances of the Board of Trustees. This is why the role was created to have two representatives, a junior and a senior. It takes an entire year to figure out the role and most importantly, establish relationships and mutual respect with Board members.
As a Brandeis alum whose career began in 2005 thanks to the rigorous journalism scene on campus, I was profoundly disappointed in the Justice's lukewarm editorial regarding the Student Union's recent proposal to decommission The Brandeis Hoot (Letter From the Editor: Proposal to de-charter The Hoot, April 8, 2019).
Dear Brandeis Students, Climate change presents a massive and growing threat to all humans alive today, projected to impact human health, the economy, and the environment. The efforts to mitigate the causes of climate change and adapt to its impacts do not approach the scales needed to solve the crisis. As Brandeis staff and faculty, we stand in support of all environmentally sustainable efforts at Brandeis and know we can all contribute.
“This is the future liberals want,” proclaims the cover photo of ‘Pete Buttigieg’s Dank Meme Stash.’ The image, bannering a Facebook group that’s reached about 1,000 members in just over two months, shows Mr. Buttigieg, the thirty-seven-year-old mayor of South Bend, Indiana, sitting with his husband Chasten and their big brown dog on the porch of their house.
At this point in time, there are few places left to turn for a Democrat, none of them ideal. With the new accusations against Joe Biden and his subsequent response, the pool of candidates and potential candidates for the 2020 presidential election has by the day grown larger and more confusing. Often, I write articles because I am confused about the issue. I write about subjects I feel are important, but being able to write about something in length requires a lot of reading. On the issue of Joe Biden, my goal is not to push the reader toward any course of action. This article is just my attempt to educate myself with the resources I have, like any other college student. I was sure that I would vote for Joe Biden in the next election; I am less sure now, but he still has my vote. Here is why.
Last week, Brandeis University announced the 2019 commencement speaker and six honorary degree recipients. The six honorary degree recipients are as follows: Rivka Carmi, John Landau, Cixin Liu, Barbara Mandel, Perry Traquina and Susan Windham-Bannister. Rivka Carmi has contributed a vast amount of research to the field of medical genetics. Jon Landau is a music critic and Bruce Springsteen’s manager. Cixin Liu is a science fiction writer and the first Asian to receive the revered Hugo Award for best novel. I believe the achievements, professional and academic, of these individuals are wholly deserving of an honorary degree from Brandeis University. I take issue with the philosophy used to select latter three; Barbara Mandel, Perry Traquina and Susan Windham-Bannister.
On behalf of the Office of Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (ODEI), we write to share our apologies to students, faculty and staff negatively impacted by the ‘deis IMPACT! Immigration Court: An Experiential Program proposal process. This program was originally included in the schedule of events for the week-long Social Justice Festival. The program was canceled by the host organization, the Harry Potter Alliance (HPA), before it was delivered, as it was clear that this event, as written, did not reflect the devastating realities of the migration crisis adequately. As this was the first year that the ODEI has managed ‘deis IMPACT!, we plan on engaging in a systematic review and evaluation of all ‘deis IMPACT! processes, including program and Impacter selection, development and support, this summer. Additional plans include a possible collaboration with the Student Union to develop a coalition-building workshop for student organizational leaders from across campus, which has the potential to offer an important development opportunity for many student groups. We are looking forward to including Brandeis community members as we engage in this process. Please contact us at email@example.com if you wish to be involved.
Trash, recycling and compost bins are all across campus. Like many others, I dutifully separate apple cores, bags of chips and bits of cardboard into their appropriate compartments. Recycling is inarguably better than not recycling — but recycling also isn’t an unmitigated good.
On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 in Bucklew v. Precythe to allow the state of Missouri to execute a man whose rare medical condition will cause him excruciating pain when given a lethal injection. Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the court, asserting that the defendant, Russell Bucklew, had taken too long to object to the method of execution. He argues that the Eighth Amendment’s clause barring cruel and unusual punishment does not guarantee a painless death, and that for a punishment to be cruel it must be intended to inflict pain and so be “more than the mere extinguishing of a life.” He also says that “courts should police carefully against attempts to use such challenges as tools to interpose unjustified delay.” Finally, he says that it is the defendant’s responsibility to find a proven alternative method which would substantially reduce the risk of pain as the court held in a previous case, Glossip v. Gross. Despite the precedent set by apparently similar decisions in Glossip and also in Baze v. Rees, Gorsuch’s arguments are not constitutionally sound and this execution violates the Eighth Amendment.
In an April 2 interview with Science News, Nobel laureate David Baltimore, Ph.D., argued that putting a temporary ban on human gene editing, meant to improve the technology and foster a better understanding of the science and its ethical questions, would not work. Baltimore argues that the ban would fail to adapt to new discoveries and would not allow for any continued discussions of the ethics of gene editing. He instead calls for a registry of all gene-related procedures and events. What are your thoughts on Baltimore’s view? Do you think there are any alternatives to a moratorium on gene editing that would take Baltimore’s concerns into account?
On March 31, the Student Union passed a bylaw requiring all secured clubs to select a club consultant from the University’s faculty or administration. According to the bylaw, the consultant, while not a voting member of the club, will be required to meet with the club’s treasurer at least twice a semester. The consultant can also be sought out for advice on other issues the club faces, such as “leadership or membership issues which arise.” The bylaw was passed despite the strong and clear objection of the University’s secured independent media organizations — the Justice, WBRS and BTV — and this board opposes both the content of the bylaw and the process by which the bylaw was passed.