Month: December 2010

Gladys and Jamie Scott, two sisters who have been serving life sentences in jail for 16 years now after their 1994 conviction on charges of armed robbery, are being released on “an indefinite suspension of sentence,” which is “tantamount to early parole,” announced Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour on Dec. 29. However, the special condition placed on their release is calling attention from all sides of the political spectrum: Gladys will have to donate a kidney to Jamie, her older sister.

Jamie requires dialysis treatment, an expense which costs the state of Mississippi almost $200,000 a year, and is in need of a kidney transplant. AOL news reported that Chokwe Mumuba, the sisters’ attorney, admitted that the condition “does sound a little barbaric,” but that Gladys was the one to initiate the voluntary offer, when she included it in her appeal for early parole. Neither has complained about the conditions of their parole, although others have criticized the agreement.

Governor Barbour released a statement about his decision, reproduced here from a WCBI article.

“To date, the sisters have served 16 years of their sentences and are eligible for parole in 2014. Jamie Scott requires regular dialysis, and her sister has offered to donate one of her kidneys to her. The Mississippi Department of Corrections believes the sisters no longer pose a threat to society. Their incarceration is no longer necessary for public safety or rehabilitation, and Jamie Scott’s medical condition creates a substantial cost to the State of Mississippi.

The Mississippi Parole Board reviewed the sisters’ request for a pardon and recommended that I neither pardon them, nor commute their sentence. At my request, the Parole Board subsequently reviewed whether the sisters should be granted an indefinite suspension of sentence, which is tantamount to parole, and have concurred with my decision to suspend their sentences indefinitely.

Gladys Scott’s release is conditioned on her donating one of her kidneys to her sister, a procedure which should be scheduled with urgency.”

Arthur Caplan, the director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, said in an interview with MSNBC that it was the first time he had ever encountered this type of situation. “When you volunteer to give a kidney, you’re usually free and clear to change your mind right up to the last minute,” he said, expressing doubts as to the ethics of the deal.

Chief of organ transplants at Hackensack University Medical Center in New Jersey and the chair of the ethics committee at the United Network for Organ Sharing, Dr. Michael Shapiro, told MSNBC that he does not think the organ transplant should be a condition of release either. “The simple answer to that is you can’t pay someone for a kidney,” Shapiro said. “If the governor is trading someone 20 years for a kidney, that might potentially violate the valuable consideration clause,” which prohibits people from trading organs for other items, namely freedom, in this case.

The whole other side of this issue is that the women’s trial and the severity of their sentences has been contested for a long time by the ACLU and other civil rights groups, who have posited that the women’s African-American heritage contributed to their conviction in the state of Mississippi. The total money they were believed to have stolen was $11, which seems wildly out of proportion with the double life sentences they each received.

However, I think the question of their alleged guilt, or of whether they deserve the sentences they got, is irrelevant to the question of whether the terms of their release are ethical and/or constitutional. So, tackling the latter question, no, I have serious qualms about a system whereby people can be rewarded by the government for giving up body parts. Parole is supposed to be granted on whether the defendants have reformed and/or present a threat to society. Sometimes medical problems are taken into account, such as in the case of a defendant who is expected to pass away soon and would like to spend his last months with his family, but never before in the case of a healthy patient, as is being done for Gladys. Gladys could surely donate the kidney voluntarily but still remain in prison, so there is no connection between her appeal and her sister’s health. Her decision and that of the state should be decided on completely different bases, and should not be dependent on one another. In addition, practical questions have surfaced such as what will happen if the doctors do not think their kidneys will be a match (beyond matching blood type which they have already done), or if Jamie chooses not to accept the kidney. The governor has brushed these questions off, saying they will be decided as they come up.

Another important question is whether the state should take into account the cost of upkeep its prisoners require when deciding parole. It seems a very flawed system if unhealthy criminals would be released because they are costing the state too much money to take care of them. No one has said that this was the basis for the governor’s decision, but he did reveal the monthly cost of Jamie’s treatment in relation to their release. I would prefer if the state were to treat criminals as need-blind (I wish Brandeis would too), since the government shouldn’t free them simply because of economic constraints.

So I subscribe to an advise for college applicants listserv back from the days when I WAS actually applying to college. It’s called Outlaw Students. I don’t know that it’s ever helped me, but it certainly presents interesting and often controversial issues, not just your average run-of-the-mill college advisor stuff.

This site’s biggest achievement is its use of sensationalism. I mean, they get ME to read their e-mails and even check their site on occasion. How do they do it, you ask? Well, they send out e-mails with subject lines like “I Was Raped. Should I Tell the Admissions Committee?”

After clicking on the link, I was brought to Judge Josh’s column, where he gives a thorough and in-depth advice column-style analysis of the person’s situation, and then answers his or her question. In this case, the story is about a college student who was raped. She reported it to the proper authorities et al, but saw a massive drop in her grades due to this traumatic event. Now she’s applying to grad schools and want to know whether or not she should mention the extenuating circumstances which impacted her grades.

Judge Josh’s take on it was that she should use it to her advantage; saying she was raped but still continued her schooling and managed to finish the semester just proves how strong she is and what a hardworker! He encourages her to reveal it to the admissions officers as long as she feels comfortable doing so. For him it comes down to a question of whether she feels brave enough to share her story with the admissions counselors, in which case he thinks she definitely should. “Don’t worry about the committees — they’ll be fine with it.” Underneath his analysis readers left their thoughts, many in support of his advice.

I don’t agree. I would definitely tell her to do what feels best, and maybe she needs to get this secret off her chest by writing about it in this public way, but from a professional standpoint, I don’t really see how revealing something so personal could be a good thing. Perhaps I feel that way because there’s still something in our culture which makes us want to blame the victim, or tells us that we should feel embarrassed if we’ve been assaulted. But we shouldn’t, and she shouldn’t.

That still doesn’t make it smart to tell someone who you want to impress, that you’ve suffered a terrible personal trauma and dealt with it; personal statements to schools are MEANT to be fluff. The schools want to see that you’re creative, thoughtful, intelligent, insightful, hard-working…all of that, plus a good writer. However, hearing about your worst trauma is not going to make them want to accept you, it’s going to make them feel bad for you.

Even if the question were phrased “I was raped and I coped with it. Should I tell the admissions committee?”, I still wouldn’t recommend that she write her essay on it, but perhaps I would be less resistant to the idea. If the girl wanted to make it about the way she was able to persevere in SPITE of this tragedy, that’s much more understandable than her revealing this episode to the school and then asking them to bear that in mind as they look at her application and her GPA, which it seems is her current plan of action.

Call me a conservative, but I just don’t think colleges really want to or need to know that much about a person’s inner struggles…writing about coping with prejudice? That’s one thing. With rape? That’s another.

I recently read an article in the New York Times about New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand’s success in Congress this past session. The piece highlighted how much Gillibrand has accomplished since she joined the Senate in January 2009, when Gov. Patterson appointed her as junior senator to fill Hillary Clinton’s newly-vacated seat. Gillibrand was re-elected this past November, to fill the rest of Clinton’s term (ending Jan. 2013).

As the first senator from upstate New York in over 40 years, she is in a tough position, having to represent the views of both conservative, suburban upstate New York and innercity, liberal New York City (a drastic oversimplification of NY’s geography). Many of her views have changed since she has joined the Senate, evident from her work as a House representative and as special counsel to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under the Clinton adminsitration. In those positions, Gillibrand fought against gun control, and did not co-sponsor legislation to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

Since joining the Senate however, Gillibrand has become much more liberal, and has had many successes, most notably working on the campaigns to repeal DADT and passing the 9/11 Health and Compensation Act. She has been endorsed by many LGBTQ groups and publications, and one of her goals listed on her campaign site is to repeal the Definition of Marriage Act which stands in the way of gay marriage coming into law. Gillibrand has also been an enormously strong advocate for women’s reproductive rights, and received strong support from Planned Parenthood in the 2010 election.

I admire the work Gillibrand is doing, and enjoy her monthly e-mails. So, consider this a shoutout.

The King’s Speech is an amazing movie.
You should all see it.
Let me describe it though so that you don’t just go based on my advice; it is the story of King George VI (1895-1952), who was king of the UK during WWII, and had a speech impediment.

Albert (Colin Firth) doesn’t even want to be king, and lives a quiet life with his wife (Helen Bonham Carter) and daughters. He suffers from a stutter he has had ever since he was a child, made worse by his family’s constant teasing and familial neglect. He begins to see a speech therapist (Geoffrey Rush), a commoner who uses his knowledge of theatre to help people with their speech defects via unorthodox means. However, when his brother Edward abdicates the throne to marry an American divorcee, he must take the throne, becoming King George VI, and come to terms with his fear and inability to make public speeches. To make matters worse, Hitler is on the march in Germany, and the King must compete with his charisma. His speeches will affect the course of history.

The movie is really exciting, dramatic, inspiring, all that jazz. It makes you consider politics, and where nowadays we would accept a politician who isn’t comfortable speaking in the public arena. Luckily for George VI, his speeches were mostly played via radio (and you can look up the authentic speeches he delivered, as my friend Grace and I did after watching the movie). However, in today’s world, his stutter would certainly be caught on camera, and what would come of his career then? I want your input on whether one qualification we should look at in a politician is his ability to deliver charismatic, motivational public speeches, or whether that is simply a symptom of our being swept away by all the glitz and glamor?

Hey faithful blog readers, and newbies,

Sorry it has been a while since we’ve posted- apparently the holidays were busy for us all.
On the national front, the year ended on a positive front for Democrats, and Obama is being heralded as the Comeback Kid. However, come 2011 Congress will see a change of faces, as Republicans gain control of the House.

One of the bills Republicans might bring up is already turning heads. As the Associated Press reports, there is talk of a bill which would take away the automatic citizenship granted to anyone born in the U.S., meaning that if a child’s parents are living here illegally then the child could be deported along with his/her parents.

This is a far cry from the DREAM Act, the bill that was considered but ultimately rejected just last week, which proposed that minors who arrived in the U.S. illegally but have lived in the country for a period of time would be able to work towards permanent residency status, and be entitled to certain rights and opportunities granted to U.S. citizens. The House passed the DREAM Act, but the Senate did not, failing to have enough votes to end the filibuster to vote on it (55 to 41).

(By the way, the DREAM Act’s website which I linked above is wonderful; it shows exactly what the campaign’s strategy has been, their progress, and even ways which people can help, such as a link to research a legislator and then report back what material you found which can help move the campaign forward. It’s even fun to click around on!)

It seems pretty ridiculous that after the House passed this bill, representatives would consider introducing a bill so extremely different in the next session of Congress. However, with Republicans taking control of the House and Obama still nowhere near the popularity he entered office with, many people fear that Democrats will not be able to get any of their bills passed, and that Congress will remain in deadlock on many issues.

Don’t Ask Don’t Tell has officially been repealed.
It passed in the House with a vote of 250-175 on Dec. 16, and then in the Senate yesterday with a vote of 65-31.
Now it just requires Obama’s signature, and Organizing for America has already sent out an e-mail from the president saying that he is excited to sign it!
That means that from now on, sexual orientation will not be an issue for people joining the U.S. Army!
According to The Atom Stack Tribune, senators were so excited they were even tweeting about it.

“We did it! #DADT is a thing of the past,” Senator Harry Reid tweeted at performer Lady Gaga, and she tweeted back, “Can’t hold back the tears+pride. We did it!i Our voice was heard + today the Senate REPEALED DADT. A triumph for equality after 17 YEARS.”

I’m really excited for this to go into effect, and think this is a great step forward for the country. If you agree, sign this letter thanking the senators who passed the bill, a letter sent out by OFA.

Unfortunately, on a sad note, the DREAM Act, the bill giving illegal immigrant youth rights and opportunities, did NOT pass yesterday. So the battle still rages.

Read this. “Why Class Matters in Campus Activism”:

But why are the U.K. crowds almost 500 times as robust as those in the U.S.? Why does the American movement to fight tuition hikes and funding cuts remain so anemic in comparison?

In no small part, it’s because privileged students at America’s colleges and universities generally don’t take the issue personally. Those who are politically active tend to set their sights on distant horizons — the poor in India, say, or the oppressed in Afghanistan. Without their privileged-kid allies, first-generation college students, immigrants, and students dependent on financial aid are going to have a hard time creating the kind of buzz that Britain has just produced.

Many of us from middle- and upper-income backgrounds have been socialized to believe that it is our duty to make a difference, but undertake such efforts abroad — where the “real” poor people are. We found nonprofits aimed at schooling children all over the globe while rarely acknowledging that our friend from the high school football team can’t afford the same kind of opportunities we can. Or we create Third World bicycle programs while ignoring that our lab partner has to travel two hours by bus, as he is unable to get a driver’s license as an undocumented immigrant. We were born lucky, so we head to the bars — oblivious to the rising tuition prices and crushing bureaucracy inside the financial aid office.

What do you think?

Hey all!

We are applying for a travel scholarship for the 2011 United Students Against Sweatshops Conference at Ohio State University (http://usas.org/2010/10/28/register-for-2011-conference/). If we get enough people to join, we could go for free.

However, the deadline for the travel scholarship is TOMORROW. If you are interested in attending, please sign up on
https://spreadsheets1.google.com/viewform?hl=en&formkey=dFVKQVlSNV9HckZfN0l4dGdJOHZrSlE6MQ#gid=0
before NOON TOMORROW so I can add your name to the scholarship application.

Also, check out the Facebook event:
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=111062752298088

The event will be a great opportunity to learn about a sensitive issue, help build a strong worker/ student coalition, discover new organizing skills, network, and become part of America’s larger progressive movement!

[From the USAS website:
“The 2011 USAS National Conference is a unique chance to gather with hundreds of students committed to taking back our universities from those who value corporate greed instead of respect for workers and affordable quality education for all. At the conference, you’ll:

* Learn about and plan national USAS campaigns with workers who sew our schools’ clothes and workers on our campuses.
* Sharpen your organizing skills and get new ideas for your campus group with workshops and trainings with veteran student and labor organizers.
* Join teams of students already working to build our student-labor movement much larger, share experiences with organizers from all walks of life, and make our work more dynamic, creative and fun.
* Be part of a powerful student movement that fights for justice, and wins!”]

Hope you can all make it!

Sasha Beder

I’ve been pretty silent amidst the sea of self-congratulation in the wake of ‘Celebrate Brandeis,’ but there were a lot of things that bothered me about this response to the WBC. But after reading Liz Posner’s op-ed in the Justice today, I had to respond.

Titled, “In legitimizing WBC, Brandeis trumps Harvard,” Posner notes that Harvard responded very differently when WBC came to protest at their Hillel the same day. They held a “Suprise Absurdity Protest,” with John Stewart-esque signs (God Hates Flags, etc.). Posner posits that our protest was better because we legitimized the views of the Westboro Baptist Church.

Oddly enough, this was exactly my problem with the way we responded. If the purpose was to ignore the church, than we failed miserably. Instead we spent an entire day congratulating ourselves by comparing ourselves to the WBC. Well of course we came out looking good! We’re not a bunch of kooky extremists! Its not such a great thing to be proud of. There was no sense of inward self-reflection throughout the day to challenge the idea that ‘Brandeis is so great because we support social justice.’

People were so determined that the ‘Celebrate Brandeis’ be the only response that students (wearing “Celebrate Brandeis Mediators” t-shirts) and police officers were on site in order to prevent Brandeis students from engaging in conversation with members of the WBC. Are these people’s views so serious of a threat that we can’t trust Brandeis students to even talk to them? The whole event seemed to legitimate WBC in a way that they didn’t deserve.

Posner writes, “Harvard’s ‘Absurdity’ protest missed an opportunity to take the WBC seriously. Harvard students decided to scoff at the church’s despicable and archaic values instead of recognizing them as a true threat.”

That’s exactly the problem I had with ‘Celebrate Brandeis’, the Brandeis protest acted like the WBC was a real threat. These guys go around holding signs that say “Your Rabbi is a Whore” and “God Hates Your Feelings.” They write and sing silly parodies of Lady Gaga! If that’s not worth scoffing at, I don’t know what is! If you look at what the WBC actually does, the reality is that they do nothing. They’re mission isn’t to raise political support for anti-gay or anti-Jewish causes, its simply to inform us that we are all sinners and that god hates us and our way of life. They do it because they want to help us change — very altruistic, and also completely harmless. The best way to counter-act something that ridiculous is to show everyone just how ridiculous their message actually is. An action along the line of Harvard’s would have be appropriate.

But instead, Brandeis acted like their message was serious, not ridiculous, and thus legitimized the message. The WBC is small-fry, they are not something worth being scared of. If we want to rally the community in a serious way, there are serious groups that are real threats that more or less espouse the same message. For instance, just up the road are the headquarters of Mass Resistance, a Waltham-based political anti-gay hate group – those guys are a real threat.

Next time, lets take the Harvard route.

A huge THANK YOU to go out to the Center for German and European Studies in cooperation with the Campus Sustainability Initiative, the Environmental Studies Program, the Sustainable International Development Program, and Students for Environmental Action. The Green Unity Gala was a HUGE success yesterday!

This event was funded by the German Embassy to the USA, devoted to raising awareness about Climate Change in celebration of 20 years of German Unity, an initiative of the German Embassy in Washington, D.C. and the Transatlantic Climatebridge.

President-elect Fred Lawrence spoke, as well as several members of the Brandeis faculty.

Janna Cohen-Rosenthal, the Sustainability Coordinator at Brandeis spoke of several successes, such as the Brandeis Sustainability Fund. The BSF granted 5 student proposals funding to be achieved next semester.

Yifan Wang, a member of the Greening the Ivory Tower course, created a video documenting the community service and individual projects students from the class achieved over the semester.

Cece Watkins and other members of the STARS committee explained how Brandeis is currently being evaluated for sustainability in several fields. Be sure to check out their full report in January 2011!

The Brandeis debate team presented a fabulous debate for and against nuclear energy and what the choice means for the future of Germany. The arguments on both sides were compelling, interesting, and left me wanting to learn more!

Dinner was a delicious locally grown vegetarian feast with German desserts!

The Gala was serenaded by the fantastic voices of Voice Male and Up the Octave!

At the end of evening was an exciting raffel with many prizes, including a new bike won by Rebecca Ludwig!

I know I had an amazing time at the Gala, and I was impressed by all the hard work Brandeis students have done to better the campus. I am excited for our future, and for the Brandeis community to continue to grow in a sustainable and environmentally friendly way!