Month: December 2007

in posts shall be in effect over the break. Meanwhile, enjoy your holidays!

As a sidenote, I recently sent an email to Pres. Reinharz concerning our endowment transparency. Let us see how he responds. 

For the light posting. I’ve had mad late final essay work to do that just ended about 10 minutes ago, and of course we all want to enjoy the break.

Expect sporadic posting until Monday, when IP will revv up to normal posting speed.

Confused?

I didn’t think so.

Now with Facebook!

I found something marvelous today: The Voices Facebook Application

Fill out your name, address, and zipcode, and a message of your choice (pertaining to the issue page you’re using) and you send an email to your congressman and both Senators.

I’m adding it to our links. There is no excuse not to contact congress when you can do it in 50 seconds, or even less, through facebook.

That’s the same time it takes to refresh your secret crush’s profile and decide that you shouldn’t write on her/his wall just yet.
That’s the same time it takes to update your “Compare people” page, or to invite 10 of your friends with a “hotness request”.

Continue reading “Contacting Congress Has Never Been Easier!”

Family Security Matters seems to be some sort of right-wing, “lump all your fear of foreigners and brown people together” organization committed to “keeping American families safe from not just terrorism, but all those different ideas and people they might be forced to encounter. And by “families,” they mean white, Christian, economically privileged families.”

Over at TAPPED, Kate Sheppard reports:

Family Security Matters just released their 2007 list of the 10 most “insipid, scary and yes, downright dangerous” college courses. Big surprise — they’re courses about labor, sexuality, race, and “social justice.” According to FSM, they “express an agenda far beyond any honest or accurate academic cause” and “offer nothing more than to stroke the ego of the professor’s fascination with silly topics.” My alma mater Ithaca College comes in at No. 7 with Chip Gagnon’s “Whiteness and Multiculturalism,” a course exploring the history of racism and the privileges of whiteness in America.

Well, I looked over the list (IP – we read rightwing propaganda so you don’t have to!) and it’s pretty silly. The “most dangerous course in America,” Islam in Global Contexts is chosen because “this course appears to serve as a way to propagandize students into believing Islamofascism just isn’t that bad.” Islamofascism? You mean that a religion has created a state that values corporations more than people? You mean a “term [that] came into vogue only because it was a way for Iraq hawks to gloss over the awkward transition from pursuing Osama bin Laden, who attacked America, to Saddam Hussein, who didn’t?” (Thank you, Paul Krugman)

Here’s the scandal: Not one Brandeis course is on that list. We have a “right-wing hatred” (of us) gap with colleges such as Williams or Columbia. It’s an honor to be accepting enough of gay rights, labor rights, multiculturalism, minorities, and sexuality to be the object of right-wing hatred. Next year, let’s try and make it to the top 10.

This is a follow-up to the previous post. Read that first =).As students, we can apply pressure to the University to invest in socially responsible areas. We have pursued divestment from companies direclty or indirectly violating human rights (there was a divestment campaign out of Sudan a few years ago; I don’t know what happened to it) and such campaigns have proven successful in universities across the nation. But what kind of things should we invest in? Any ideas which prove socially responsible and fiscally rewarding? Is this something we should research and pursue? What are your ideas? Where do you want your money to go?

I recently came upon the College Sustainability Report Card for Brandeis, which can be found here. Our overall grade is a C, which means that despite some commitment to environmental sustainability, we’re still doing a fairly lackluster job. Especially troubling is the apalling lack of transparency in our endowment’s investment, as well as its lack of commitment to Brandeis’ principles. From the report:

Endowment Transparency – F
The university makes neither its proxy voting record nor its list of endowment holdings public.

Investment Priorities – C
The university aims to optimize investment return and has not made any public statements about investigating or investing in renewable energy funds or community development loan funds.

Shareholder Engagement – F
The university asks that its investment managers handle the details of proxy voting.

From what I can gather here, we are investing purely to maximize profit and without the input of shareholders or students. Is this what we want our university to be doing, when we could be using our money to invest in socially responsible ways such as renewable energy or microcredit loans, just off the top of my head?

These are just cursory ideas, and I think we should do more research into the situation. As responsible Brandeis citizens, we should ensure our university puts its money where its values are. At the very least, it could make its list of holdings public, which many other universities do.
What are we investing in which we have to hide?

The University must have been very relieved to have Clinton speak at Brandeis. The only thing that can trump a former president is another former president.

Continue reading “Quick thought of the day”

If you are progressive and interested in Brandeis politics or world politics as they apply to us students, we’re looking to broaden our writing base.Whether you simply want to write a post now and then or be a regular contributor, we’d love if you’d drop us a line. Send an email to loki@innermostparts.org and sahar@innermostparts.org if you want to talk more. Act soon, cause interest is growing already. And yes, that is Louis Brandeis.

In the comment thread of Loki’s “On Campus Protests” Adam Hughes, a commenter, said this:

I think it is important to note that a university is not and should not be a representative democracy. For better or worse, the power hierarchy puts the students below the administration.

This is an important issue that I think we really should address.

No one is proposing that we set up a full-fledged constitutional representative democracy here at Brandeis. However, the spirit of liberal democracy contains much more than the right to vote. Democracy, frankly, is a short-hand for a whole host of values, such as freedom of expression, privacy rights, a civic society, egalitarianism, rule of law, and, most importantly to this discussion, self-determination.

If the administration decided to restructure the Student Activities funding mechanism in a vacuum, it wouldn’t be a big deal. But when the F-Board constitution specifically says that Student Activities receives its funds from F-Board, and the University runs roughshod over that document, I get worried. Most importantly, when the Student Body (as expressed by the Student Union) unequivocally rejects this proposal, and the University doesn’t back down, it unveils many problems.

Simply put, the University has a history of ignoring student wishes and imposing its own agenda. I wouldn’t even necessarily call this a malicious move: it seems to me, at this time, that the University considers students’ opinions as an afterthought, or not at all.
Continue reading “Democracy at Brandeis?”

Well, the global climate change summit in Bali has drawn to a close.

Approaching the end, it seemed like delegates would leave the summit with nothing but a tan and a bunch of free pina coladas. The United States continually roadblocked efforts to set tangible emissions standards, citing concerns that China, India, and other developing countries are not making the commitments demanded of the US. But in the final hour, after being hissed at and booed by fellow delegates, we finally capitulated a wee tad. After talking it out, everybody decided it would be a grand old time if… they all talked some more! Two years of talks, to be precise. This from a wonderful round-up of the conference by the NY Times (found here),

The resulting “Bali Action Plan” contains no binding commitments, which European countries had sought and the United States fended off. The plan concludes that “deep cuts in global emissions will be required” and provides a timetable for two years of talks to shape the first formal addendum to the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change treaty since the Kyoto Protocol 10 years ago. 

At first glance, this seems to be dissapointing, non-binding politico-speak leaving us right where we are now. But considering that the Bush Administration has until now entirely denied the need for new climate policy from fifteen years ago, it represents a pretty big shift. And, as Al Gore pointed out when he accepted his Nobel Prize, the next administration is more apt to realize we’re plunging the world to its doom. (Get that story here.) In two years, we’ll have that new government. US negotiators certainly wheeled and dealed and pushed off the issue with another series of non-binding commitments. But maybe – just maybe – a new Administraton will make something real out of these post-Bali talks.

At least one of our presidents sees the urgent need for a stricter energy policy – Brandeis’ President Jehuda Reinharz. We have signed onto the Presidents Climate Commitment, a commitment to form a plan for universities to go climate-neutral. I encourage you to check it out here. Other area schools Harvard, Yale, Tufts, BU, Brown, and M.I.T have all not signed.

An interesting side-note – we spend more developing laser weaponry to fry the world than we do on researching renewable energy sources to keep it from frying. Take the recent mounting of a 12,000-lb laser on a 747 as an example of our twisted priorities.

More on what we as Brandeis students can do on climate change to come.  

This is the beginning of something I hope will be a regular feature on Innermost Parts: A roundup of what the various activist clubs are up to, and how you can get involved.

Welcome to the first ever Innermost Parts On-Campus Activism Report: Inaugural Edition.

Drive Out: Poverty, hosted by Positive Foundations(?)
Your used book donations can fight poverty at home and abroad!

Donate your old textbooks in the specially marked boxes in Shapiro Atrium. Next semester, you can buy the textbooks others donated on the cheap. All money goes to the amazing kiva.org and equally amazing Donorschoose.org.

The collection drive started yesterday, and you can donate textbooks until the end of finals week. More information under the fold.

Darfur Refugee Collection Drive Hosted by Impact Aliyah, STAND
Donate supplies or money to Darfur Refugees in Israel

There have been many Sudanese refugees/immigrants seeking asylum in Israel over the last few years, due to the whole Darfur tragedy. Impact Aliyah and STAND are starting a donation drive for “school supplies, food, packable blankets, and anything you think might be useful for the refugees as they enter the colder months in Israel,” but also, of course, money. During winter break, Impact Aliyah participants will distribute everything they collected personally to the refugees as they visit Israel.

This is a really cool partnership between two different groups on campus. Good! You can donate items “in the main entrance to the village, the main entrance to Hass in East, the Bet Midrash, and the library.” If you’d rather straight-up donate money, they will be tabling in Sherman “Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday nights collecting money.”

With the semester winding down, I think that’s it for active progressive campaigns on campus. Be sure to email me or leave a message in the comments if you think I missed anything.

Continue reading “On-Campus Activism Report”

There’s been a lot of discussion about the merits and purpose of the protest, both on and off-line. Here’s how I feel:

Regarding what Loki said here:

First of all, the event was only organized with the consent and oversight of the Administration itself, the very institution whose policies we were supposedly acting out against. What does this say about the commitment to student independence we were supposedly trying to defend?

It’s perfectly legitimate to work within the establishment to effect change. In fact, many times, it’s necessary. And if the school gave us the tools to fulfill our goals (a student union, money, etc) then of course we should take advane of them.

Let’s put it this way. The administration is in a bind. What are they going to do, revoke these deep-rooted privileges (and the ability to buy donuts is a privilege) and rights of student protest, assembly, etc? That would make them look even worse. So the only way to let them off the hook would be to not use those rights and privileges.

I’ve written much more “below the fold” (click on the “read the rest…” link).
Continue reading “My thoughts on the F-Board Protest”

A few weeks ago, you’ll remember the Administration decided it would be a wonderful idea to remove $210,000 from student control under the F-Board and instead allocate it to the Department of Student Activities. Quite a few people, myself included, were a bit upset. A university is built upon the students – we are the sole most important force, its future representatives in the world. It is we who should be the primary deciders of our institution’s philosophy and policy. We therefore have a right to be outraged when a hefty chunk of the already meager financial resources under our control is suddenly snatched by a hand in the clouds. The principle of the thing – that we are neither fiscally responsible nor wise enough to manage money concerning our extracurricular involvement – is grounds enough for protest.

And so we did. On December 6, a substantial group of students (my eye for figures is notoriously bad, but I would say the number was… 70? 100?) gathered outside the Bernstein-Marcus Administration building and marched through its halls, chanted a few times, and ate a good deal of donuts and hot chocolate. Now, I certainly don’t have anything against hot chocolate – that stuff’s delicious. But I think the whole vibe of the thing – the snacks, the protest almost solely for the sake of the experience – was fundamentally flawed.

A protest is a deeply symbolic act. Its symbolism – that masses of people are willing to get up and spend their time marching in defense of a cause they care about – is the entire point. And I think that idea was missed here, for several reasons. First of all, the event was only organized with the consent and oversight of the Administration itself, the very institution whose policies we were supposedly acting out against. What does this say about the commitment to student independence we were supposedly trying to defend? We apparently only care enough about our rights to organize one event for which we must seek official approval? We are only able to do so by enticing attendees with donuts and hot drinks from Dunkin Donuts? After saying a few words and disbanding, we pat ourselves on the back and don’t plan any follow-up action or demonstration. This is a tepid response at best.

What we need to be doing is continuing to protest until we are actually listened to, not patronizingly tolerated. We should have been showing up on the lawn of Bernstein-Marcus every day until we received some serious response. Instead, the message we sent was that we do not care enough about our rights to actively demonstrate for them, and will only show up to one officially approved march if we are bribed with luxuries, no matter how tasty they may be.

Martin Luther King said that “he who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.” While a transfer of funds is not the worst of evils, it is certainly something harmful to our student independence. To combat it, we must continue to protest. Once was not enough. It is regrettable that we have let so much time pass, regrettable that we will not really be able to continue action until after winter break. But, if we wish to be taken seriously, we must continue organizing protests, even without administrative consent. We must not stop until our voices are heard.

by andy on our first post. check it out here