The democratic liberties experienced in the United States are easy to take for granted. Many Americans are not afraid to voice their opinions regarding the state of the government, the actions of the president, or new legislation that is expected to pass. After all, our current society was formed through the fiery personalities that resulted in long lasting change. These days, the idea of physical protests have transformed into popular Twitter rants. Nevertheless, we aren’t afraid of being threatened or arrested if we criticize the actions of the government. It’s in both our blood and our constitution; but for those currently living in mainland China and Hong Kong, speaking up is equivalent to risking your life.
I walk a lot. For the past few years, my average step count has hovered near 20,000 per day. When I started my MBA program at the Brandeis International Business School (IBS) last fall, I vowed that I would not change this good habit, and I prioritized it over many other things. Walking helps me with so many things, so I decided that taking walks would be the best way to familiarize myself with the campus as well.
In 1942, Isaac Asimov formulated the Three Laws of Robotics. First, a robot must not harm a human being. Second, a robot must obey the orders that a human gives it. Third, a robot may protect its own existence, so long as this protection does not conflict with the first and second laws. Let us analyze how these laws apply to the current situation, when big data and artificial intelligence are becoming increasingly prevalent and their misuse is gaining momentum.
From the Great Depression and the Dawes and Young Plans, to modern day administrations, the U.S. has fully embraced its position as good old ‘Uncle Sam’ for the world, attempting to force its ideas and beliefs on the world — sometimes for better, sometimes for worse.
Following catastrophic damage to the Amazon rainforest caused by an ongoing series of fires, the Brazillian government rejected $20 million pledged by the international community at the G7 Summit, alleging imperialistic ulterior motives on the part of French President Emmanuel Macron. However, Bolsonaro’s administration later stated that they would accept the aid, on the condition that the French President Emmanuel Macron apologize for his comments regarding Bolsonaro’s behavior and what appeared to be a disrespectful potshot at Macron’s wife. Furthermore, numerous environmental scientists and indigenous people have alleged that the cattle industry is starting the fires to clear land with Bolsonaro’s support, raising questions as to whether the President even cares about the rainforest and the people and wildlife living within it. Faced with this cataclysmic destruction, how should we view Brazil’s delayed response and this political back-and-forth between world leaders? What do you think these actions mean for the rainforest, and how might they affect global conservation and environmental protection movements?
Brandeis’ tradition of student protest continued last May when a group of #StillConcerned students—a callback to the Concerned Students 2015 group which led the Ford Hall sit-in—held a protest on the Rabb Steps, per a May 20, 2019 Justice article. These students argued that concerns relating to race on campus in 2015 had not been sufficiently addressed. Among other demands, they expressed a desire for collaboration between activists and offices such as Public Safety, the Department of Community Living, Escort Safety Services and the Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities, saying they “operate as policing forces that disproportionately impact the on-campus experiences” of marginalized students.
I spent a number of days this summer at protests — often branded “actions” — led often, but not always, by Jewish people, in response to the human rights abuses currently being committed by ICE and Customs and Border Patrol against immigrants and asylum seekers in detention facilities along our nation’s southern border. All of these demonstrations involved analogies to the Holocuast — usually centered around the expression “Never Again.” There’s been much discussion in Jewish circles about this analogy ever since it was seized on by the activist collective #NeverAgainAction earlier this year. I think it’s worth sorting through it.
The news can feel like a thick drink I’m forcing down before breakfast every morning. My classes start early, and morning hours beforehand may be better spent splayed out on a yoga mat or listening to classical music. It seems that some days, I forego mindfulness and mental health in favor of reading news that is the same but different every day; it is a Groundhog Day of X with a side of Y on the front page of Z week in and week out. Can’t I pass on this? Because I certainly cannot blame any one of the people I know that have completely cut off their subscription to the daily sludge of violence, hatred and fear on planet Earth 2019. Despite this, here is why I make an effort to read the news.
By now, you might think that you’ve heard all possible adjectives used to describe President Donald Trump’s foreign policy. Here’s a new one: amoral.
Having just spent the previous semester working in Parliament, I can speak from experience that Brexit has made the British political class and hoi polloi thoroughly miserable, having sucked up every last bit of political oxygen and energy from an already exhausted nation. So how did they get here?
As with the first night, I will grade how much the candidates’ performances contributed to their campaigns.
Continuing the series on candidate debate performance grades and analysis, I will provide my input as to how much the candidates contributed to their campaigns on the first night.
With the first democratic primary debates behind us, each candidate will be pressing to spin their performance favorably, no matter how middling, lackluster or even self-evidently superb their performance may have been. Now that the campaign is underway and candidates are being scrutinized by voters and moderators alike, I will be sharing my own post-debate takeaways. The ranking system is based on who did the most to improve their chances and — especially for the lesser known candidates — get their name out.
Dear Justice editorial board, In response to your 04/16 editorial criticizing the Student Union, I’m writing to point out some things the press has not reported on:
The end of the year is very bittersweet. As we finish finals and the semester, Commencement approaches, which means that we have to say goodbye to our graduating editors. We thank all of our seniors for their work over their time with the Justice. As much as we will miss them, we are confident that they will go on to do amazing things in the future.
As someone who grew up in Kashmir, a politically fraught place, and being continuously and unnecessarily frisked and stopped by authorities has been unwelcome but unsurprising. But this time, after living in Boston for a few weeks and experiencing constant stares, I was truly learning how “otherness” works in American social, political and religious contexts.
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.