I visited OccupyChicago for the first time this week, on Friday, October 7th when the movement had been active for exactly 2 weeks. I was lucky enough to meet up with esteemed former contributor Lev Hirschhorn ’11.

What stuck out to me the most:

The diversity of people: From what I’ve heard in the media and how I think of protests in general, I expected it to be mostly white, liberal college kids complaining about the government. Maybe that’s even how the movement started out, but that’s not how it is anymore. There were white, black, Hispanic, and people of all skin colors there. There were men, women and people who don’t subscribe to the binary. There were people who resembled stay at home mothers, businessmen, students, unemployed people and more. Young and old. Dressed nicely and not so nicely. All together.

The lack of police interaction: This is again a misconception that has been spreading in part due to the media. Nationwide, the OccupyWallSt movement gained popularity and notoriety after the NYPD arrested about 700 protesters on the Brooklyn Bridge. We’ve all seen the mace videos. So it came as quite a surprise to see the police watching the protest from across the street, walking through the crowd of protesters at times, but not interacting in any way.

As you will see in some of my pictures, there are barricades up along the streets. However, I learned that these are NOT related to the protest, but in fact were put there for the Bank of America Marathon, which ran through that intersection on Sunday. I have not heard of any arrests or conflicts so far related to the Chicago protest, aside from the police directing protesters not to sleep on the streets and requiring them to continue moving their stores of food (which I don’t fully understand why they must do.)

My Experience:

On Friday, it was business as usual: a crowd of people standing in front of the Federal Reserve Bank building, at Jackson and LaSalle (231 N LaSalle Street). Although the protesters don’t have much space on these chosen blocks, unlike OccupyWallSt, in Liberty Plaza, their protest is situated at the intersection of the Bank of America Building, the Federal Reserve Bank Building.

How do the bankers feel about this bombardment? Well, story has it that, in response to the protesters’ oft-repeated refrain “We…are…the 99%!,” someone hung a sign in one of the Federal Reserve Building’s windows which read “We are the 1%”

To add some levity to the mood (at least I hope that’s why), one protester came adorned in a yacht club outfit with a similar sign.

But the mood was pretty enthusiastic anyway, what with the drumming, the chanting, and the sign-holding. People even ordered pizza and handed it out to protesters and passers-by.

These people are taking shifts, staking out the area 24/7. I was only there for an hour, but already was caught up in the enthusiasm and unity. Chanting can be really fun. It’s going to take me some more time to decide what I think about the protesters’ requests and how effective these demonstrations are, but I know I’ll be going back to find out more.

abUSed: The Postville Raid
February 14, 2011
Sachar International Center
7:00 pm

The film tells the story of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s massive raid on the Agriprocessors kosher meatpacking plant in the sleepy town of Postville, Iowa in 2008. The raid made national and international headlines for the following reasons:

* At the time, it was the largest immigration raid in U.S. history. Nearly 400 immigrant workers, mostly Guatemalans, were rounded up by ICE and charged with identity theft; the majority were jailed and deported.

* The charges against the workers were so excessive, and the miscarriages of justice so great, that the court-appointed translator at their trial broke his professional silence to denounce the proceedings. Many of the workers were native Maya speakers, and could not understand the aggravated charges to which they were pressured to plead guilty. The Supreme Court subsequently ruled that federal prosecutors inappropriately aggravated identity theft laws to prosecute undocumented workers. Lawmakers and labour leaders criticized the Bush administration for going after workers rather than prosecuting employers who knowingly recruit and profit from the use of undocumented workers.

* The raid forever changed not only the tiny community of Postville, but also the rural Guatemalan communities from which many of the workers hailed. With Postville only having some 2,200 total inhabitants, the raid removed more than 20% of the town’s population. The film takes us from rural Iowa to rural Guatemala, with stops in Washington DC courtrooms along the way.

* The raid stimulated much debate among members of the Jewish community about whether or not the requirements for kosher certification should include a provision on the ethical treatment of workers in the production process. For more info, see the New York Times article.

If you’re a Brandeisian interested in social justice, immigrants’ rights, the ethics of kosher production, and labour rights, PLEASE JOIN US FOR THIS SPECIAL SCREENING AND TALK WITH DIRECTOR LUIS ARGUETA! What better way to spend Valentine’s Day than getting together with like-minded folks to watch an awesome movie and discuss the very issues that are dearest to our hearts?

“People think that Brandeis’ queer community ends at Triskelion, but as you can see today, there are so many people here,” said Tommy Arnott ‘11, who took part in the vigil. “There are people who never come to Trisk, there are graduate students, and there are so many allies here today to help show that solidarity in the face of this tragedy across the nation.”

Triskelion, Brandeis’s alliance for queer and allied students, organized the vigil with Alison Better, the Intercultural Center’s Program Coordinator for Sexual and Gender Diversity.

“We added it at the very last minute,” said Mary Dunn ‘12, Triskelion’s general coordinator, “because of an address that the Department of Education made to address the issue of bullying within schools, which was made last Friday.”

Before a moment of silence, Dunn read the names of September’s five LGBT suicide victims aloud:

• Asher Brown, 13, from Cypress, Texas, shot himself on Sept. 23. His family said the school district ignored repeated complaints about homophobic bullying at school.
• Seth Walsh, 13, from Tehachapi, Calif., died on Sept. 28 after spending nine days on life support. Police say the teenagers who harassed Walsh didn’t expect him to attempt suicide and once told the news they “burst into tears,” according to NBC affiliate KGET.
• Billy Lucas, 15, from Greensberg, Ind., died Sept. 9. He hanged himself after enduring anti-gay bullying.
• Tyler Clementi, from Rutgers University in N.J., was 18 years old and died Sept. 22. He jumped off the George Washington Bridge over the Hudson River after his roommate recorded an intimate encounter with him and another man and posted it online.
• Raymond Chase, 19, went to Johnson and Wales in Providence, R. I. and hanged himself on Sept. 29.

“I, for one, am so sad and disappointed that there’s so much of a problem with bullying, and people feeling unsafe in our country,” said Dunn, in an address to the group. “It’s wonderful for us to all come together like this and give this moment to remember those who have died whether we know their suicide was from queer related issues or [not].”

As participants helped each other light candles, members of Triskelion read a handful of statistics provided by The Trevor Project, a non-profit organization devoted to suicide prevention among young LGBT people.

Not only are LGBT youth up to four times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual and cisgendered peers, more than one-third of LGBT youth have reported a suicide attempt. The transgendered also have the highest suicide rate than any other group, and nearly half have seriously thought about taking their lives.

Some attending the vigil spoke to the crowd about the issue. Simon Zahn ‘12 described two projects Brandeis groups are developing to address homophobia and bullying.

“A few groups with the ICC are working on the anti-discrimination project that will do outreach to local high schools… on any form of discrimination such as homophobia, queerphobia, racism, sexism, anything like that,” he said.

Zahn added the Intercultural Center and the Queer Resources Center are developing a program that will match LGBT mentors with local high school students.

Other speakers encouraged the gathering to contact either the University’s counseling resources or peer counseling groups on campus with questions or concerns regarding friends or themselves. These groups include the Queer Resources Center, Student Sexuality Information Services, Students Talking About Relationships, and Brandeis Six-Talk.

Hannah Cross ‘11, another participant in the vigil, said in an interview that the event is an important part of Coming Out Week, Triskelion’s annual celebration of LGBT identity and pride.

“We, especially at Brandeis, live in a bubble, as people say,” Cross said. “Many of us have a positive experience in coming out… and we’re priveleged to be here. But we need to remember there are still problems. People in this country and others may not have the privelage of a safe environment.”

As a part of Coming Out Week, Lissa Young, a U.S. veteran, is speaking about the discriminatory “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Policy next Monday. Triskelion is also encouraging allies and members of the queer community to fill out squares of a “Coming Out Quilt.”

“Coming Out Week has come to encompass a lot more things,” said Cross. “It’s really Coming-Out-Two-Weeks because there’s so many events that are going on.”

If you read the Justice today, you’d know the board granted only about 42% of whatever funds organizations requested this semester. Last year, F-Board was able to grant 85% of requests on average, according to F-Board member Gabriel Weingrod-Nemzow (in the same article).

F-Board representatives told the Justice more clubs requesting more money, a dearth of rollover funds, and other changes forced their hand.

Though some of the chosen few- Student Events and BTV, for example- received close to everything they asked for, most campus clubs are now struggling to bridge their funding gaps. The F-Board singlehandedly determined your tuition money’s final destination: which events to support, and which causes to bolster. The Brandeis community needs ready access to more information describing how these decisions will affect them.

That’s why Innermost Parts will be detailing who’s getting how much, and for what. We’ll be talking to club members about how they feel about their funding, and how they plan to work with their budget. We’ll also pose some ideas about alternative methods for obtaining money.

Keep reading and refreshing Innermost Parts for additional coverage!

As we’ve done before, I’m doing the “official” liveblog in this post where I’m supposed to be accurate, and a group of snarky livebloggers will be hilarious in another post, specifically this one.

If you haven’t heard already, Gideon Klionsky and Ryan McElhaney are challenging the constitutionality of the Racial Minority Senator position; they claim that it is inherently discriminatory because, according to the order granting cert,  it “violates sections of both the Student Union Constitution and the University’s policies as laid out in the Rights and Responsibilities Handbook.” McElhaney will be the petitioners’ attourney. The opposing council consists of Jamie Ansorge, Nathan Robinson, and Matthew Kipnis.

Now for the trial.

8:05: Kagan wants people to e-mail the Justices about what they have to say, especially on legal issues, since they want to hear as many voices as possible. NOW IT’S OVER! At 8:06. The Justices will decide in a meeting on another day.

8:04: Sahar: “It’s over!” But it’s not. Ansorge talks about how Rothman should recuse himself based on how he left, but Kagan mention’s Julia’s lateness and says it shouldn’t be required.

8:02: Robinson says that their educational ability was not interfered, since he has five other positions to run for, and that the standard is for an unreasonable interference, which this case does not include. He also says that it’s not unreasonable to make distinctions between white and other discrimination due to history. He thinks that if there’s a constitutional contradiction, it’s holistic. The constitution includes the RMS, therefore it’s constitutional, and that a new constitution must be enacted to determine it. Robinson says this is something that EVERYONE should discuss.

7:59: Nathan Robinson is up. He says the decision hinges on whether there is discrimination in the R and R, and says that the only way to determine this is through the UBSC; it’s their perview, it’s what they do. Jason Gray, Robinson says, is not in charge of this, either, since he deals with enforcing the constitutions. He also says there is a jurisdictional question, but if the UJ can, McElhaney and Klionsky are not being discriminated against. Klionsky, he says, could run for the position, and that the issue if they were denied a certain status is with the university.

7:53: McElhaney says that the RMS position denying white people to run is harrassment, and that lower courts can interpret higher courts and discuss rights and responsibilities. He says that the position adversely affect their educational opportunities. He says that the UJ can take action and should, since he’s claiming that the position creates an adverse environment, because it’s making him feel uncomfortable, and that as long as some white people’ feel their rights are being usurped, something should be done. He suggests suspending the position on investigation of what the community wants. He says the race issue is not compelling enough to violate the rights of specific people. He says the requirement to represent minorities has not been met, and that other senators can understand racial issues. He says racism can occur both ways. He says it’s wrong even “when the opressed becomes the opressor, and the opressor becomes the opressed,” he says, “even in theory”. “ALL PEOPLE” have the same rights, he yells. The audience was giggling at him as he sat down.

7:50: More final statements? Five minutes for each McElhaney and Klionsky.

7:50 Kagan thanks the audience.

7:46: Noam Shushter is up: “Hello again UJ”. She represents the entire community as the Senator-at-Large, she apoligizes to the racial minority community for the existence of the trial. She says that this position is needed, regardless of how good it’s functioning right now. She says there’s another choice here: they’re causing more damage and isolating more people than building someone’s… pause. She thinks it’s destroying more than it can build. She talks about everyone in the room, “and then these two…” pointing at Klionsky and McElhaney. She wants the Justices to consider the people in the room other than bylaws, etc.

7:42: Kay Cook, who identifies herself as white, is up. She supports the RMS seat. She says she feels underrepresented even as a white student… he says she heard some comments that she would deem racists. She says that she couldn’t imagine how hard it would be to relate to the senate as a racial minority given the tension… she feels it’s important to garuntee minority representation. She says she recognizes the existence of white privelage and wouldn’t feel underrepresented with the existence of the RMS. She says the position does not make white people feel inferior. She says she would never seek to vote for the position, she says if she did not accept her white privalege and could change her race on SAGE is alienating to the racial minority community. She thinks any alterations to the position could be voted on by students. Another big applause.

7:35: Brooks steps down. Taisha Sturdivant is up: she says that it’s irresponsible to separate the racial minority senator’s identity with the purpose of the position. She says it’s not just a constitutional issue… that race is not simple, and that the arguments would involve contradictory statements and thus and a matter of the constitutional review board, not the UJ. She says the racial minority senator is important for minority voices in the senate, and won’t say anything about whether the position can be represented by a white student or not. She got laughs from,”My race… yes, I’m black”. She says her fight to keep the position is not that it’s the easiest to hold, but that the needs of minorities need to be met. She says she stands there as an outcast… and that these racial events that coincidentally happen around finals have altered her perception of how their senators don’t have her best interest at hand. BIG applause when she steps down.

7:33: He says that senators should be involved with all of their constituents, and that constituents have an obligation to go to their senators, and encourages racial minorities to run, because they have a high winning rate.

7:28: Kagan’s sick, awww… I think “friends of the court” are speaking now. Andrew Brooks, Executive Senator, is up. He believes that the court has the right to comment on Rights and Responsibilities. He says that lower courts, in the federal government, are obligated to interpret laws, he says the court does, because of the supremacy clause, can interpret federal and local laws, and have the obligation to. He also believes this case is about feelings and shouldn’t be, and should be judged on the law. He finds the view that non-racial minorities cannot be interested in racial issues “repugnant” and untrue.

7:27: I believe Jordan Rothman left for A Capella Fest.

7:24: My bad; it’s been break time for a few minutes.

7:19: Hey, he spoke about ten minutes.

7:19: Even if the court agrees with everything McElhaney says, they must agree that the end decision should be left up to the student body. And sits down. “Sorry if I was yelling,” he says.

7:17: Ansorge continues that Klionsky and McElhaney are not victims of harassment, since they are not racial minorities, since they have the opportunity to register if they so see it. He says there’s a compelling interest to not dismantle RMS. He says his 1990 document addresses the need for the position to represent the needs of racial minorities on campus… and that diverse opinions are vital for a democratic dialogue.

7:15: He says that a senator by definition represents a majority because it represents a majority vote, and that they don’t have a case since the Senators are elected by majority vote. He says there’s a reason that the RMS position only allows racial minorities to run… he says that Klionsky could have run and should have taken his issue up with the university… and says there are five other positions for with both Klionsky and McElhaney to run.

7:11: Ansorge is getting up. He’s saying the main legal issue is the interpretation of the supremacy clause, which says that the Union is not responsible of enforcing university and local/national laws. Ansorge also says that the enforcement lays in the executive, not in the judiciary. He says this violates university policy; also, these allogations need to be made by university, federal, or local forces. Ansorge continues that the interpretation of discrimination is not under the juristiction of the Union. He’s also arguing over the definition of discrimination… there is no hostility or aversion towards white people within the RMS position. He says they could contest it in the UBSC.

7:10: He’s repeating the “it’s not fair” argument. He sits down.

7:07: He’s been talking for more than 20 minutes, you guys. He’s saying this is a slippery slope. He says that anyone has the right to be uncomfortable despite their race. He says the position violates every principle of democratic values….I didn’t get what he said before he yelled, “UNJUST!”. He’s talking directly to the audience right now, and kind of yelling. “How is this fair to anyone?”

7:04: He wants the Justices to consider the non-discrimination policy. He says that the UJ has a responsibility to get rid of policies that contradict other parts of the constitution. He also says the UJ has the right to view this case because they granted it cert, and because it deals with constitutionality.

7:00: He says that these positions raise pigeonholing concerns, especially with racial relations. He says that there is also the problem of tokenization, and should be treated with concern. He also wants to speak about the limitations of the UJ… he says the appropriate bodies of law and responsibility are the Union and the Rights and Responsibilities. He says that the Student Union government doesn’t have to punish people for pot but do have a responsibility for this… he says to invoke the Union’s ability to not enforce certain laws is “dispicable”.

6:56: He says that a member of the student body who is white could register as an “other” in the university. He says the position allows for gaps in definitions, and that the def in the constitution is underly specific, in that it lumps groups together. He also says it is the least restrictive possible- he  recommends town halls; he also says that there can be a special interest senator that can deal with special interest groups. He says the latter  is problematic.

6:52: McElhaney is saying that equity is impossible because the RMS position would require a bunch more senators, including a queer senator, international senator, etc, and wants to make clear that he doesn’t approve of a white senator… he thinks it’s “dispicable”, just as dispicable as any other position that would discriminate, which he says includes RMS. He says that there is no necessity for the Union to take this into its own hands; he also says there should be a compelling government interest to continue it. Secondly, he says the policy is not specific of what constitutes a racial minority.

6:50: He discusses the Communications Representative position made in ’94, which was created to represent racial minority issues… any member of the Senate could be elected to serve in that position. He says that preventing anyone from running or voting for any position is unconstitutional.

6:46: He also wants to talk about why voting is important. He says that the note in the constitution that everyone should be able to vote is one of the most important cornerstones of democracy… he says that other senators have the capacity to deal with racial issues. He says he thinks his voice is not invalid in these issues. He says his skin should never keep him from having his voice heard. He says that participation in elections is just as important.

6:45: He’s asking what the spirit of the bylaw against discrimination means, and says that the eligibility to vote or run based on race is beyond the bounds of the constitution and a form of discrimination and will not be tolerated. “Any harassment is intolerable”. He says this is “intimidating and hostile as a white person.”

6:41: McElhaney says his final speech will go longer than 10 minutes. Five questions to ask: First, whether the position violates the Union constitution and university policy. He says the constitution should inherently ensure these laws are delt with. He says that the UBSC doesn’t have the scope to deal with the Union or the Union constitution; that is only possible under the UJ. Second, he’s arguing that the Union is discriminating based on race, since race is a protected class. Third, he wants to make sure that ALL people should be respected and free despite race, and that since the RMS position does so it should be eliminated.

6:38: Should we call Andy Hogan, president elect, to the stand? Let’s argue about it. We’re not calling him to the stand, since- I think- next year doesn’t matter as much in everyone’s argumentation.

6:36: One last question. The audience sighs, and Kagan tells them that McElhaney has the right to ask questions. Silverstein-Tapp says that being a part of a community and not having a vote within that community doesn’t mean you don’t have a stake in it, in terms of her relationship with the Racial Minority Senator position.

6:32: Pause. mcElhaney is thinking of a good phrasing for this question: “Do you think it’s essentially just to discriminate based on race no matter what?” He clarified what he meant and Silverstein-Tapp says, “Yes”. “Is this a good thing for this university?” She says that institutional racism should be addressed. She goes through her definition of racism, which involves systematic privalege and power. McElhaney: “But what about Brandeis?” The audience reacts negatively. Silverstein-Tapp says that Brandeis is the real world.

6:31: Silverstein-Tapp says you shouldn’t be able to vote if something doesn’t represent you. She says the position is supposed to be a support system to address the history and realities of racial discrimination on campus. “McElhaney asks her if she thinks this overrides the democratic system on campus.” She does.

6:29: McElhaney asks it’s okay if something’s offending the largest group of students. The audience boos.

6:26: McElhaney is asking questions now. “Who represents your racial beliefs to the Senate?” She says the only position designed to do that is the RMS position. McElhaney asks her if it’s unfair if she’s not allowed to vote even if she’s passionate, she says, “…because I’m genuinely invested, I’m able to communicate my concerns in other ways.”

6:23: New witness! Ariel Silverstein-Tapp , says she’s white and that the majority of her friends identify themselves as a racial minorities, and that she’s involved in the TYP program. She says she feels like she is not being discriminated against in the RMS position. She says knowledge of experience is different than lived experience. She does not feel as if she’s systematically discriminated against in the RMS position.

6:22: McElhaney’s argument is that he disagrees with the concept of privilege… he establishes that there are different standards at work here.

6:18: McElhaney says the scholarship doesn’t specify criteria for racial/ethnic minorities. Mohamed doesn’t know. McElhaney’s asking her if there’s a position that racial minority students could not vote for, if this would be racism. Mohamed says yes, but that” race isn’t equitable between whites and non-whites.” She says the same argument can’t be used due to white privelage. She repeats to McElhaney after another question that discrimination between whites and non-whites are not parallel. Mohamed: “Race does matter, and taking a colorblind approach” wouldn’t work.
6:16: Robinson asked a couple questions, and sat down. Kagan says the Women’s Research Center is separate from the university, but associated with it, and I believe she’s saying it’s therefore not reflective of university policy.

6:14: Document time. It’s a scholarship, so McElhaney objects. Ansorge says it’s a document reflecting university policy that allows benefits for racial minority students specifically. We’re discussing it.

6:11: Mohamed was a senator last year, founded the Mixed Heritage club, and a member of pretty much every racial minority group ever. She says she’s actively involved in these issues, which interest her. Mohamed says people feel that the RMS position represents them, they want to have it in the government, and they want it in how decisions are made.

6:10: Kaamila Mohamed to the stand. McElhaney objects because he thinks the witness will make points that have already been made. She’s allowed up.

6:08: Ansorge says there’s a difference between “must get rid of the position” and “should” get rid of the position. Justices say they’ll consider it.

6:07: Kagan says she’s aware that there are better ways to deal with this, but that that’s not what the case is about. Ansorge says it’s important for the UJ to consider their power in this case, and considers this argument to be a compelling interest.

6:05: Justice Judah says “I don’t want to turn this into a public spectacle.” It already is, though, sadly. A Justice suggests that there might be a post-trial to get out frustrations.

6:02: Judah asks Souffrage if he would feel comfortable if a non-racial minority changed his status with the registrar to run. Souffrage says that if he truly believes that he can…. he says he’s very frustrated. Justices are apologizing to the courtroom for all the bullshit going on. The “bullshit” part is not all that unbiased, but… yeah, people are upset. comments making people upset.

6:00: Souffrage is talking about racial privelage- skin color, as opposed to other kinds of privilege. He’s trying to explain privilege to McElhaney… McElhaney still doesn’t get it (“does that mean we can have a white senator?”), and the audience keeps talking. McElhaney is saying that discrimination works both ways.

5:56: McElhaney’s questioning. Souffrage says he probably wouldn’t feel uncomfortable if no African American students were on the Senate as long as someone could understand. McElhaney is asking what he means- he says he might be more qualified for the RMS position since he grew up in the inner-city and poor. Someone in the audience says, “No you’re not.” Kagan bangs the gavel.

5:54: Ansorge question about why the RMS position was instated and what would happen if it’s taken away based on the document’s reasoning is deemed speculative. Now he’s asking Souffrage would feel if the position would remove. He says he “ran for this position because… I wanted to make a change in this community.”  So he wouldn’t feel too good about it. People snap their fingers.

5:52: The document deals with the Union’s official statement regarding the position of racial minorities on campus; McElhaney says it’s too admissions oriented, and Klionsky says it’s about restructuring and not about the Union. Kagan says go on.

5:48: Ansorge is asking questions. There’s a large pause, I don’t know WHAT for. The document up for review is from the archives; it’s a Blueprint for Renewal… a really long title. From the 70′s, I think ’72 to ’77? Authors are a bunch of senators, unanimously approved by the student body, I think? So it’s a Student Union document. Oh, okay. Could have just said.

5:46: One senator is African American at the moment, and that if the RMS position is eliminated there will be no more African American students in the Senate. Souffrage says that he feels he has “no way to get his voice out there,” if the position is eliminated.

5:44: McElhaney is arguing that racial diversity can occur without the position, I think? We’re moving on! Good, I got lost.

5:44: Robinson says this objection is untimely because the racial/ethnic makeup of the Senate was discussed earlier.

5:39: Robinson is back up. The Justices discussed how the ethnicity makeup of the Senate can change every year; and one (is it Julia?) says it’s beyond the scope of what UJ can deal with in this trial. She says that race does not determine what someone’s purpose on the Senate is. Robinson says that if the RMS position does not exist, African American students would not be adequately represented on the Senate, and resentment…. McElhaney says they can be represented by anyone.

5:36: McElhaney: “Do you think white people have an opinion on racial issues?” Souffrant: “Yes.” Uh, I don’t think McElhaney understands what privilege is. Souffrant repeats that the racial minority senator is needed for a particular reason. McElhaney: “Do you think it’s fair that racial minority senators get extra representation…. purely based on race? Do you think that’s fair?” (there was info in there about the senators racial minority students have available that I wasn’t able to transcribe)Souffrant: “They deserve more.”

5:31: McElhaney’s asking questions. Souffrant says that it’s possible for students to consult their quad senator for issues, and explains that he would feel comfortable talking to Kamerin about his issues because he can understand them more. McElhaney is asking if a white student could ask questions that concern them to a racial minority senator, and if there should be a “white senator”. Souffrant says no, of course, because if you look through history, racial minorities have been discriminated against. He’s talking about Ford Hall and the reasons the RMS position was created.

5:27: JV Souffrant is up, Robinson’s asking him why he’s running for the RMS. He wants to prove why the RMS position is valuable in itself, enough to reasonably violate Klionsky’s ability to run for RMS. JV Souffrant says that he’s running because it’s important to the minority community, who feel they don’t get as much exposure as people in minority groups. He does not feel that racial minority students are not well represented in the Senate. Souffrant says that the RMS must serve his constituency.

5:24: The choir is making this break feel EPIC.

5:20: Break! There’s a loud choir in the atrium. We’ll be back in three minutes or so.

5:17: Judah asks if we should establish a sexual orientation senator, Gray says it’s a really good question to ask (it really is), and says he would approve of finding a better way to establish a process to see how the GLBT community could be better represented.

5:16: Ansorge will ask a question based on racial representation, which he objected about, BUT it asks how many African American students are on the Senate, and there is one: Kamerin, the Racial Minority Senator.

5:14: Gray says that the only thing that can override the constitution is public opinion. Also that he can bring a group of officials together for change to the constitution, and he would be happy to start discussion for Klionsky and McElhaney.

5:11: McElhaney: “It isn’t as if racial minorities are not given adequate representation in the Senate.”  Also, “As a white person here, am I secured that I am given adequate representation in the Senate?” Gray thinks so. And he also thinks that there’s a difference between representation for a minority and a majority. Gray says racial minorities “don’t feel they get what the university could provide for them.”

5:08: Gray is explaining why the Senate positions are most often filled by non-racial minorities is a structural problem, he says it’s institutional before Ansorge objects again and his objection is sustained. McElhaney asks Gray what the RMS is for. Ansorge questions the Justices over Gray’s right as a witness. Kagan: “He’s required to answer questions”.

5:07: McElhaney: “Do you think that a white person can represent all white people?” Ansorge: “Objection, Jason isn’t an expert on racial representation!” Kagan turns McElhaney’s question down because it’s a legal argument, I think.

5:05: McElhaney is asking how many Senators are racial minorities. “Do you think that there is a problem with racial minorities being elected to the senate?” He clarifies, and Gray answers that he thinks there are structural barriers to elections… “just because there are South Asian students on the Senate” doesn’t mean that… I think it was that all racial minorites feel their voices heard.

5:03: Gray is reading the clause on clubs that says there can’t be discrimination of any kind… Gray says that RMS exclusion is not discriminatory due to the options available for everyone.

5:02: Gray says questions of constitutionality doesn’t deal with university, federal, or local policy; McElhaney says it it can be. Gray says all questions of constitutionality are referred to in the UJ… and Klionsky and McElhaney are challenging constitutionality.

4:59: Gray says that his actions must be in accordance to the constitution, but the R and R aren’t under his perview, which is the difference between enactment and enforcement. McElhaney is asking if Gray if there is an obligation of the Student Union to declare the RMS position unconstitutional. YES OR NO. Gray asks if he can give a nuanced answer, and he can: the Union can’t deal with the R and R, but can if they’re told to by someone with authority.

4:55: McElhaney: “Are we suing you, Jason?” Gray: “It’s unclear”. He’s also explaining the parts of the constitution that say Gray is not responsible for enforcing things in the R and R, only the constitution. McElhaney: “You’re not responsible for enforcement, but you are responsible for enactment?” OMG WHY DID THEY CHOOSE DIFFERENT WORDS? McElhaney asks Gray to stop explaining when he’s trying to explain the difference/similarity.

4:54: Ansorge has to prove that Gray is an expert of the constitution so the UJ can affim him as one, even though he’s required to enforce it.

4:52: Ansorge is asking Gray about the supremacy clause’s history (the supremacy clause deals with the idea that the Union follows laws but isn’t responsible for enforcing them); Gray says he can’t be held legally accountable by the attorney generals of both MA and the US. Everyone laughs.

4:48: They’ve decided that the process doesn’t need to be explained in the court since it’s in the constitution. Ansorge moves on. Gray is an expert of the constitution! Ansorge can’t ask questions over who can hear violations of non-union law. Gray says that if the dean required him to do something, he “would have to listen to him”. In cases where something might violate the R and R, Sawyer would come directly to him and talk about it.

4:45: Ansorge argues that the UJ can force the president to do something…. I didn’t catch McElhaney’s argument (sorry sorry sorry), but Kagan is inclined to agree. Ansorge says it isn’t democratic for the UJ to hear the case. The UJ is deciding whether his question to Gray about altering the constitution is relevant or not.

4:44: Gray, after lots of debate over Ansorge’s questions and an awkward pause: “Should I just answer the question?”

4:41: Jason Gray is on the stand. Ansorge: “Are you the student union president, Jason?” His duty is to run the government as an orginization, and he might have said “guide” in there somewhere, too. Also, he’s supposed to uphold the constitution, according to the constitution. Ansorge asks him about the constitutional review process, presumably because Gray could have altered the constitution himself and the “public interest” could be aided if the decision could be made outside the UJ.

4:38: McElhaney’s asking questions. I wish he could stand up so I can see him. Registering as a racial minority requires the check of a box, according to Chattergee, and says “I guess” when McElhaney asks if somebody can just make something up. Ansorge: “Objection, she’s not an expert on the Union Constitution”. Kagan: “Your objection’s…. untimely.” His objection that Chattergee can’t answer questions on whether someone is a minority or not is sustained; somebody pats Ansorge on the back.

4:36: Kent has stepped down from the witness stand. Chattergee, Union Secretary is up. Ansorge asks her questions, providing the e-mail from her to Klionsky denying him the ability to run as evidence. The e-mail says that Klionsky couldn’t run for the RMS position because only members of a racial minority can do so. Also, it’s the university’s job to decide who runs for the position or not.

4:34: Kent says there are sanctions (requirements) and reccomendations, which are based on “what we hope”. She says that if legal information is needed, someone could question Sawyer, and….? I missed who people could contact, but it probably wasn’t the UJ.

4:31: Kent’s describing UBSC orientation due to Justice Kagan’s request. Kagan also asks if Jason Gray were guilty  (“responsible!”) in a trial through the UBSC, what they would do. They would determine after a trial with the general council; everyone would make suggestions for the sanction and discuss it… Kent says their range for the sanctions run from “no sanction” to “expulsion”.

4:26: Ansorge up. Kent reads a part of the R and R that the university should try to prevent harassment. McElhaney up.  Kent: “Aw, I thought I wasn’t an expert.” There’s confusion over his question, which is asking if the UBSC is the only orginization that can judge whether a violation of the Rights and Responsibilities has occurred. Kent says that it is.

4:23: McElhaney asking more questions. Kent repeats that individuals and series of individuals can hold cases. Over and over again, because she keeps getting asked the same question.

4:22: Kent says that the general council of the university deals with legal issues; the UBSC and the general council are seperate entities but often work concurrently.

4:20: Ansorge asking questions again. Kent says there is a tradition in the USBC to not allow people to hold a referral against an organization like the Student Union. Sawyer (the dean) and Lemar (??) review these cases. Kent says there’s nothing specific in the R and R that prevents people from holding a case against something like the Student Union.

4:18: There’s a dispute over where this case should be held, and against who. Kent says Tia Chattergee, who sent the e-mail to Klionsky that denied him from running for the RMS position, or anyone else involved in the Senate could have been listed in the case, but outside of the R and R, the USBC couldn’t deal with anything in the constitution.

4:15: Kent says that the UBSC find people regarding specific instances, and they also go through R and R to see if there are any changes they should make due to legal issues. She says she’s here to make it clear that the UJ is not hear to make claims based on the Rights and Responsibilities. If Klionsky felt personally victimized by an individual or several individuals, Kent says, he could go to the UBSC.

4:12: Ryan’s asking questions now. Ansorge: “Objection, she’s not an expert of the constitution!” McElhaney: “Just answer my question.” Kent: “I thought that I was.” McElhaney is rephrasing the question a lot. “Do you have expert testimony on the constitutional issue in front of the issue?” Kent: “No.”

4:10: “The UJ has no jurisdiction over the rights and responsibilities…. and the UBSC has no jurisdiction over understanding the Student Union Constitution.” She says people can interpret it, though.

4:07: Jess Kent is on the stand, Ansorge asking questions. She’s involved in the UBSC, which hears cases regarding violations of the Student Rights and Responsibility. She says the UJ deals with the constitution and general council; the University Board of Student Conduct deals with rights violation. She says only the UBSC is able to make decisions on violations of the R+R; and that the UBSC creates their own sanction based on a trial and the dean approves it.

4:06: Klionsky says that it would be dishonest to lie about one’s minority to run, like “saying you’re Native American.” Ha. He both identifies as white and Ashkenazi.

4:02: McElhaney is asking questions again. Klionsky says that the position prevented him from participating fully in an extracurricular activity, which means discrimination. Ansorge gets up and asks him about his previous racial minority status… Klionsky says that “such things don’t stick in my head”, and that admits that if he had registered as a racial minority, which he can be registered as, he would be able to run.

3:59: Kipnis is asking questions now. Klionsky says he was registered as a racial minority, which surprised him. He didn’t go before the administration or student board of conduct, just student union process. He also didn’t go to any of the senators representing him to address this.

3:58: Klionsky says there are lots of options for people to ask their senators for help on racial issues, white or no. Also, he “comes from the land of Obama”.

3:56: Gideon Klionsky is our first witness; he’s attempting to run for the position. He put his name on the candidate’s list last year; several days afterward he sent an e-mail to the commissioner asking if he would be allowed to do so; he was not due to racial qualifications. So he filed the petition. He says he feels “there is racial tension on campus, but doesn’t understand the position of a racial minority senator… why race is a protected class, for example sexual orientation… why there isn’t one for all the other protected classes such as the example.”

3:51: Kipnis is up for the defense. Says the burden of the plaintiff that the position is contradictory to the constitution. He says that McElhaney and Klionsky’s rights are not violated by the constitution. I didn’t do this speech justice, so I’ll quote the snark blog, which I don’t completely endorse, you guys, even though I’m quoting it for info: “Is the RMS position discriminatory? No. This position is constitutionally mandated by some clause. The University Rights and Responsibilities are kindasorta not really applicable to this situation. So what do we do? Huh? Ryan is not being interfered with or prejudiced against, they could have run for other shit [my words, not his]. The RMS is intended to deal with racial issues at Brandeis. This type of advocacy is necessary. Cool people like Kaamila will talk about this later. Debate is good, but the UJ is not the proper forum for this, because the Union is not responsible for University policies. Deal with the UBSC for that shit. Someone from the UBSC will talk later, too.”

3:49: McElhaney says it’s prejudice for a Senator to walk down the street and think “constituent” “non-constituent” based on the color of their skin. He says it’s a big problem and sits down.

3:47: Ryan McElhaney is starting. He says he doesn’t think there’s any reason to “choose any person over any other person due to the color of their skin.” Sigh. “It’s not fair.” Three major points: 1.Exclusion=discrimination problem, 2. UJ can deal with this case, 3. Problem is systemic and rooted in greater problems at the university and Senate.

3:46: It’s been fifteen minutes, and Justice Julia isn’t here yet, but she’ll be here shortly, according to Justice Kagan. But we have quorum and we’re starting!

1. Reports:

During his executive report, Student Union President Jason Gray announced that the Student Activities Fund has been uncapped. This means the mandatory 1% of tuition channeled into the fund will now correspond to current tuition levels, which have increased in recent years.

Gray also referenced the recent e-mail from the Rose Committee requesting students for imput. Gray urged senators to encourage students to participate in both the upcoming town hall, the comittee’s forum on myBrandeis, and e-mails to the committee. Gray also said that due to the information he’s been given, he believes a few Rose pieces must be sold to fill budget gaps.

Gray also addressed the allegations made in Hoot reporter Ariel Wittenberg’s recent piece titled “Senators Question Politics of Union Presidential Race“, which implies Gray is attempting to manipulate the presidential race. Gray said Wittenberg’s piece is “poor journalism”, and went on to argue that the  article draws attention from the needs of students, instead focusing on “playing politics”.

“[Sometimes we] need to step back and re-prioritize,” he concluded.

Director of Community Advocacy Andy Hogan plugged the  fire safety event occurring this Wednesday and Thursday.

Senator for the Class of 2012 Supreetha Gubbala promoted the God Sleeps in Rwanda event, which will be Tuesday at 7:00 in Levin Ballroom.

Senator for the Class of 2010 Amanda Hecker promoted the 5k Charity run.  This event was granted a SMR worth about 700 dollars last week.

2. Club Stuff

Gen Ed was granted a Provisional Charter.

Students Crossing Boundaries were provisionally recognized.

A few potential de-charters were tabled, since Sung Lo Yoon was absent.

3. Sundry

Brooks, in one of his many attempts to establish order: “Try to refrain from superfluous motions.”

Senator for East Quad Jenna Rubin motioned for another damn Executive Session before the Senate could discuss Rubin’s proposed bylaw, which would prevent candidates from providing political incentives to their supporters. Wittenburg probably has the same opinion of Executive Sessions that I do: she shouted, “Objection!”

The Executive Session passed, and lasted about five minutes. A senator told me the Senate didn’t discuss anything but the contents of the bylaw, which is unsurprising, since the bylaw is required to be tabled for next week’s meeting. I wouldn’t be surprised if another Executive Session frustrates the press next week: Rubin seems intent on keeping the bylaw’s debate private.

The Senate also procedurally tabled a few SMRs, including the SMR granting over 3,000 dollars to the Midight Buffet. The SMRs will be reviewed next meeting.

Before Jason Gray’ announced his decision not to run for president next term, he swore newly elected East Quad senator Jenna Rubin ’11 and North Quad senator Alex Norris ’11 into office.

Senator for the Transitional Year Program, Terrence Johnson, is withdrawing from Brandeis University since he has recieved a full scholarship from Clark Atlanta University.

“My leadership skills have grown… it has been a great honor,” said Johnson of his experience in the Senate. Johnson worked with COWGEE, the Social Justice Committee, and DFA. “This is something that will impact my life.”

Giselle Casillas, a prominent member of the Pluralism Alliance, was confirmed as the non-senate chair of the Diversity Committee.

Andrew Brooks introduced a bylaw requiring the Chief of Elections to provide due notification to students for each election, in response to the belated press for the recent emergency election for North and East Quads.

2. Club stuff

The Academic Leadership Alliance was provisionally recognized after a brief debate over whether or not they had a duality of purpose.

The Senate also debated circumstances surrounding a standard procedure for dechartering inactive clubs.  This semester, clubs were added to the dechartering list due to failure to answer Senator for the Class of 2009 Sung Lo Yoon’s e-mail asking why their club did not need funds this semester.

“They didn’t respond to my fucking e-mail,” Yoon said, describing his decision to add the Turkish Student Association and other otherwise active clubs to the list of clubs to be dechartered. “Sorry for swearing, I’m tired.”

Throughout the debate, several senators said clubs can be re-chartered easily. Senator for Castle Quad Nathan Robinson expressed concern that certain clubs, who are active but have not responded to Yoon’s e-mails, will be de-chartered without their imput.

The motions surrounding this vote were indecipherable: Senators couldn’t determine whether they were voting for moving the previous question or actually moving the previous question or suspending the rules to de-charter all clubs at once or blah blah blah. The motion was tabled due to disagreement and, presumably, confusion.

3. SMRs

Four Senate Money Resolutions were significantly discussed this meeting, and three were passed:

A. A SMR granted $141.50 toward 1500 door hangers indented to inform undergraduate students about methods to increase their involvement with the Student Union. This was an Emergency SMR.

B. A SMR granted $205 toward food for a “Meet the Senators ‘DeisBikes Launch Event”. This was an Emergency SMR.

C. A SMR granted $136 toward a lockbox intended to store helmets for the ‘DeisBikes program. Senator for Village Quad Andrew Rhodes’s attempt to add $5 to the SMR failed. This was an Emergency SMR.

D.  Senator for the Class of 2010 Amanda Hecker proposed an SMR which would grant $720 toward a 5K Charity Run co-sponsored by the Student Union, Waltham Group, and the Running Club.  Hecker said each participant will pay two dollars, and the money will go to about three charities. Hecker said Waltham Group needed this money immediately. Several senators expressed their concern with the similarity of the event to the now unconstitutional Ayers/King SMR: Hecker is speaking alone for a club she was involved in before joining Senate, and she attempted to network through clubs and the Union since F-Board did not grant Waltham Group enough money for this event.  The Senate voted against giving the SMR Emergency status, before it was tabled until next meeting. Straw polls taken to measure the future vote were mostly undecided.

4. Reports

Treasurer Max Wallach said the $900 from the Ayers-King SMR is back in the discresionary account.

Director of Community Advocacy Andy Hogan says he’s working on the take your professor to lunch program, which will happen after break. He also said the improved cellphone reception in lower Usdan is “going to happen”, and that “the guy said sometime next week”. Hogan is also planning an outreach for disconnected freshmen in Polaris, to get freshmen’s voices heard.

Senator for the Class of 2012 Akash Vadalia reported that the Midnight Buffet should cost $3308.01.

“My stomach is in a knot right now,” Gray said at this week’s Senate meeting, where he first announced his decision. “For me this year serving as the Union president has been an honor. I’ve been reminded this year how important it is for… all of us to be engaged in the process of this university.”

Gray said he felt the Union has moved toward meeting his campaign goals, which included increasing Union involvement and improving services on campus. “I’m confident in the future of this Student Union,” he said.

Several senators complimented Gray before moving on.

“It’s been an honor to serve with you, ” said the Senator for the Transitional Year Program, Terrence Johnson. “I couldn’t ask for a better president.”

Gray said he will continue to be a presence in the Union next year, as a mentor and source of advice. “We still have work to do,” he said.

Members of Alterman’s council are Senator for Massell Quad Nipun Marwaha and Union Director of Communications Jamie Ansorge. Hirschhorn and Melman’s council consists of Senator for Castle Quad Nathan Robinson and previous Director of Community Advocacy Ryan McElhaney.

Several members of Innermost Parts are debating at the moment whether to let Sahar have his own snarky liveblog, in addition to my “straight” post. I’m not sure whether that will happen or not. Hirschhorn is saying, “We have relationships to maintain.” UPDATE: It’s happening, in comment form. Check it out.

The following paragraph is very tentative: according to DFA member Carrie Mills, the security costs for the event are so excessive (over $3,000), Ayers will not be able to speak at campus, the event possibly relocating to Back Pages Books or another off-campus location. If this is the case, the Senate money will be used for renting transport to the off-campus location, according to Mills. Hopefully this will be cleared up during the trial. UPDATE: Carrie cleared this up in a comment to this post, which says “the exact costs are $8,560 for security and we won’t be moving the event off campus as we aren’t sure whether or not F-Board funds can go to off-campus events.”

Now for the trial.

8:10: Court adjourned! The decision will be out ASAP! Hope you enjoyed my coverage, thought it was fair, etc. Comment about incorrect name spelling, misheard facts, etc.

8:07: Melman’s discussing recusal now, repeating the argument that F-board members are different than Senate members in terms of objectivity. He says he voted for the SMR not just for DFA, but for his constituents and the community. He also says that the precedent that refusing this SMR would set would limit the Senate’s involvement too much.

8:03: Melman is still going. The event has many other sponsors besides DFA and SDS. He further discusses how Union members discussed Student Union involvement. He says in the future, resolutions will include the Student Union’s tentative involvement. Melman says there’s more transparency because it was covered in the news and discussed in public. He also says there was plenty of debate for the SMR.

8:02: Alterman has to go. Kudos!

8:00: 4 hour mark! Melman’s final statements. Melman says the Ayers event could be both a club event and a Union event. He lists the club SMR precedents again, in favor of a loose interpretation of “Union project”. He says that the event counts as a Union project in any case.

7:59: This SMR goes against financial transparency? I’m not sure if this could be viewed as a transparency issue. But Alterman says it’s worth noting that the resolution was passed because of the senators who were club leaders, and made up the 2 vote difference when this SMR was passed. Alterman’s done.

7:51: Hirschhorn is off, closing statements! Alterman repeats the argument that privileges shouldn’t be given to Hirschhorn and Melman, and that Union involvement is too limited to fall within the bylaw. He says the F-board should give projects to this. Alterman also says this was for a club, which is illegal. He also thinks that the SMR precedents are irrelevant to the case. I have clearly checked out of this trial.

7:48: OMG OMG Ansorge asks whether people in the room who asked Hirschhorn to not recuse were involved in DFA, but only asks about Kay, and cuts Hirschhorn off when he mentions me. McElhaney said I was not a member of DFA or SDS, which I am not. Ansorge says it was speculation. Blah blah blah it’s irrelevant, they’re not calling me to the stand, thank God. I have a sacrosanct non-biased rep to maintain. Hahahahaha, not really. My career is doomed!

7:45: Was there any other Union involvement that Hirschhorn and Melman? Hirschhorn says no. Ansorge is discussing vote recusal again. Hirschhorn recused himself “because Alex told me to.”

7:44: Hirschhorn describes how he’s discussed the event in recent days with Jason Gray. Marwaha’s objection that this occurred after the SMR vote was overruled.

7:43: Ansorge asks Hirschhorn “what hat” he was wearing: DFA member, senator, or SJC chair? Hirschorn says, “I was wearing lots of hats.”

7:40: Hirschhorn voted against the Winter Gala SMR because he didn’t know people under 21 could attend the event; he also said it was a lot of money, and that it was “kind of going to booze”.

7:37: McElhaney’s done, time for Ansorge’s questions. Hirschhorn says that the forms filled out for the jumpstart meeting did not mention the Student Union because they had not given money yet.

7:35: Hirschhorn is our last witness, finally! McElhaney brings up a SJSP grant for to bring King to campus, due Feb 5., 2009. This was introduced far before the Ayers/King SMR, presumably mentioned to prove that outreach occurred? DFA and SDS always wanted to involve the Student Union, according to Hirschhorn.

7:32: Gruszko says she didn’t speak to Gray after that call. Gray said he thought the event was a good idea, but was he involved? No, besides suggesting panelists, says Gruszko.

7:30: Gruszko tells Marwaha that she called Gray two days before going to F-board. She says she never really expected the F-board to give them money for Bill Ayers… she said several of them didn’t know who he was. They came to the Union at the time they did because that was the time they knew they needed money, before they booked the space. Gruszko says that was part of their outreach.

7:27: Muriel Gruszko is now on the stand, being questioned by Robinson. She says she’s Treasurer of SDS because they can’t receive funds without a treasurer. She’s explaining the reasons for Ayers to come to campus. She says she called Jason Gray up about the student/professor panel about the Ayers event, which is supposed to include some Senate members.

7:22: He went to the Senate to attain funds because he couldn’t get enough from the clubs involved. We got it. Now Ansorge is asking Birenbaum about the Ayers SMR. I think he’s saying the Ayers SMR and the Open Mic SMR are different because Melman and Hirschhorn were the only submitters and were a part of the Senate?

7:16: Robinson calls Jason Henry Simon Birenbaum to the stand, who worked with the Brandeis Open Mic series. The club wanted to bring a speaker to campus, and $150 was requested from the Senate. This money was received under a unanimous vote, according to Birenbaum.

7:14: Melman was “out of the Social Justice Committee loop”.

7:13: Melman says that when he wrote an e-mail to Alterman, the SJC weren’t presently involved in the SMR, but he assumed they would be. The e-mail was sent March 4.

7:11: Marwaha “can read correctly,” according to Melman. Kagan: “Alex, please. Don’t be glib.”

7:10: Marwaha brings up the camping in Vermont quote again. Melman describes: the DFA would like to visit DFA headquarters in Vermont. If the DFA were given the amount of money they wanted for Ayers/King, they would be able to go.

7:07: Melman said that 1,500 dollars was requested for Ayers, in addition to other events. Including King. Marwaha and Melman are squabbling a bit over whether he’s answering questions. Melman says that DFA decided that $400 was to be given to the Ayers event.

7:07: We’re going over the SMR again. I could probably recite it at this point. But probably not, don’t ask me to recite it.

7:06: Marwaha is up to ask Melman questions: “Do you recognize this?” Melman: “Yeah, I wrote this.”

7:03: Rothman asks if every single project helped by the Senate counts as a Senate project. Where does Melman draw the line? Melman says that if it involves the entire community, it does. Questions about this are stopped because Kagan thinks we’re done here.

7:01: Three hour mark! Melman says that at no point was the Ayers speaker supposed to be a club-only project. He also says that the Senate was not involved, but the money-giving made them involved.

6:58: Vote recusal again. Melman says that there’s a difference between F-board members and senators. He says that since senators are inherently biased (given endorsements, etc). “F-board members are supposed to give objective decisions, Senate members are supposed to give subjective decisions.” Kagan says the F-board comparisons have been done before.

6:57: Kagan has to repeat her request for McElhaney to repeat his question three times. Melman is positive that the clause doesn’t render the SMR unconstitutional.

6:55: Alex Melman to the stand! McElhaney is asking Melman if he is an expert. Expert expert expert. Melman says he’s reasonably familiar with the constitution.

6:52:

6:49: More minor questions for Shulman, but Judah has pizza. Can’t… concentrate….

6:47: Ansorge is questioning Shulman if she didn’t hear anything but discussion regarding the Ayers event as a social committee project before the SMR was submitted. She says she did.

6:46: “The Advocates”, according to Shulman, were aided by the Senate in booking a room, which cost money.

6:44: Meryl Shulman to the stand. Robinson questions her. Shulman is a co-chair of the Social Justice Committee, but not a member of DFA or SDS. She says that there was discussion during a meeting about Ayers involvement.

6:42: Gubbala thinks this was “definitely” a Student Union project. She sits down.

6:40: Alterman is asking Gubbala if Melman and Hirschhorn did it for personal gain. Melman speaks sarcastically out of turn. I missed the rest of Alterman’s questioning, but Robinson called it speculation and it was sustained.

6:39: Lots of laughing! I missed the reason since I was trying to figure out which meeting was which.

6:36: More confusion about which meeting Gubbala is talking about. I don’t know which meetings “1″, “2″, and “3″ were which, but one was before the SMR were submitted, and two were after.

6:36: Alterman asked why the Social Justice Committee was not included on the SMR. Robinson and McElhaney say that this is speculative. It is sustained.

6:33: Gubbala IS a member of the Social Justice committee. She’s being questioned by Alterman. Brooks testified that the SMR was not discussed at a particular time that Gubbala says it was. Meh.

6:32: Gubbala said that there were people in addition to Melman and Hirschhorn, including herself, who supported them voting for the SMR.

6:30: Gubbala is a very quiet speaker. She says she was interested in helping with the event, as well as the other 2012 sanator, Akash Vadalia.

6:29: Senator for the Class of 2012 Supreetha Gubbala is on the stand, being questioned by Robinson. She figured the Union was involved from the Social Justice Committee meeting. I assume she’s a member of that committee.

6:27: The Judiciary is asking Behrent clarifying questions. She says that if the DFA had all of their funds, they would have still collaborated with the Student Union.

6:26: Behrent is a very strong witness; she’s clear enough so nobody on either side could put words in her mouth. She says she discussed the Union involvement with Hirschhorn with her as a member of DFA and Hirschhorn as a member of the Senate.

6:23: Behrent has not attended the Social Justice committee, and Ansorge questions how she knew the Social Justice Committee would be involved. She responds that Lev is the chair, and the DFA was coordinating with them.

6:22: Behrent talks about the resources the Union might give, which she says is mostly “intellectual.” Ansorge tells her she’s on oath. Behrent says, “You think I’m lying?”

6:20: Ansorge questions Behrent, who says that there had only been discussion at the time of Union involvement, so it would have been presumptuous to put Union involvement on the SMR itself. There’s an interesting silence, before someone laughs.

6:18: Marwaha objects because he doesn’t take her testimony? Or questioning whether the Senate is actually involved? Kagan says he can question how MUCH the Senate is involved according to Behrent’s testimony.

6:16: Behrent is up. She yells “CUNT!” on request from McElhaney(she’s involved in Vag Mon), and then compliments Robinson on his watch when he questions her. Awww. She’s describing DFA’s planning process, which was supposed to involve multiple organizations and the entire community, according to Behrent. Behrent said there’s lots of planning to be done, in terms of professors to be a part of the panel, and how the Social Justice Committee was working on it.

6:13: Ansorge’s line of questioning is very short and deemed “irrelevant”.

6:11: Robinson is back up with a witness, Annie, who is a sophomore. Don’t know her last name as of yet. She was involved in the Prospect Hill project and the SMR, in which she says no Senators were involved.

6:10: Jordan Rothman, Judiciary member, wants to ask the petitionary about the SAF amendment, which has something to do with clubs. Kagan says we’re moving on.

6:09: No food break but Judah is ordering a pizza. I don’t need to mention this, but I’m excited. About the pizza.

6:07: Sahar did NOT elect the clerk! Now there’s general chaos. Is there a thirty minute food break, for real?

6:06: Muriel Gruszko, an audience member, says the trial is “an ocean of inanity”.

6:03: We might go to a dinner break, but Hirschhorn says his side’s witnesses have time constraints. Sahar offers getting people food! And Liza Behrent, witness, gives the justices her bagels.

6:00: More-or-less two hour mark! Ansorge: “Andrew has already been established as an expert of the Student Union.” Brooks says it’s very well possible that previous SMRs violated this bylaw, but that the past doesn’t matter. After some minor chatter I missed, Brooks is down!

5:58: Ansorge asks Brooks what precedent the Ayers SMR sets. There’s lots of discord from everyone over whether the case is over past precedents or future precedents. Are we having fun yet?

5:52: Ansorge asks Brooks to read the Winter Gala SMR’s list of contributors, which includes Jason Gray. McElhaney later asks him whether the vote for the Gala SMR occurred when only 21 and over members were allowed to attend, which is true-ish. Kagan finds this irrelevant.

5:51: Ansorge is asking if people in the room during the SMR vote “seemed” like members of DFA. Objection from Hirschhorn and Melman’s side for that point is sustained.

5:47: McElhaney is talking about Prospect Hill SMR. He’s going on about Brooks as an expert. Expert expert expert. Ansorge says “I’m more of an expert… and fucking students were involved.” The court goes “Ohhhhhhhhhhhh.”

5:44: McElhaney is asking Brooks if the SMR reads that the money is just for the speakers and not to the club directly. Brooks says, “Can you repeat that question?,” then, “Technically, that’s the way it’s worded… it goes to the club, though.”

5:43: People have been talking for the past minute, I don’t know what the issue is.

5:42: Kagan thinks it is irrelevant, because Ziv Quad’s vote is not heard when Brooks does not vote. Very good point.

5:40: McElhaney asks if there were constituents of Melman and Hirschorn were there. I was there! And I was very passionate about my vote being heard! But Brooks thinks that’s irrelevant. I’m not hurt, I swear.

5:36: Brooks think that recusals are most important for senators when money is involved, and is not specific about other votes.

5:35: McElhaney: “What is the purpose of the Student Union government?” After some confusion, Brooks says “Several different branches…”, and continues on what F-board is for. McElhaney specifies he wants to know the general purpose. McElhaney: “Do you think this speaker would benefit Alex and Lev’s constituents?” Brooks: “Honestly, I don’t think they would.”

5:34: Brooks does not know whether the Senate was involved in the Winter Gala before the SMR. Brooks was involved in the project beforehand, but Brooks is not sure whether that meant the Senate as a whole was involved.

5:33: We’re talking about the Winter Gala now, to which about 1,500 dollars was allocated by SMR.

5:32: McElhaney is questioning Brooks. He’s asking about club endorsements for senators, which Brooks has received. “I act on all clubs and all constituents whether they’ve supported me or not,” says Brooks.

5:29: Ansorge asks how long Brooks has been involved with the Senate. Supposedly forever. Repeats that Hirschhorn and Melman were the only Union involvement in the Ayers SMR. Social Justice Committee-related SMR was Union related, according to Brooks. Hirschhorn is chair of the SJ Committee.

5: 27: Ansorge asks Brooks what the debate was like, since Melman and Hirschhorn decided not to recuse themselves during the debate, after numerous straw polls that informed them it would be “very close”. “I wouldn’t say there was a sudden flip to whether they would participate,” said Brooks.

5:25: Nobody recused from the SMR vote but Brooks. Melman and Hirschorn didn’t have to recuse themselves, supposedly. Brooks: “I can’t force anyone to do anything”.

5:24: Brooks is reading certain lines. I can’t figure out why at this point.

5:23: Brooks will read his statement. Kagan asks if there’s anything in particular Ansorge wants to question him about.

5:22: We’re deciding (well, the Judiciary is) whether Brooks’ required omitted vote is relevant to the case.

5:22: We’re back!

5:22: Judiciary member Judah: “We’re all here, we’re all reading Innermost Parts.” Hirschhorn: “We’re staying out of this.”

5:20: There’s lots of guffawing from the bloggers and Andy Hogan in front of me over the “snarky” liveblog. Awwww. I’ll read it later.

5:14: 5 minute break! Time to soothe my inevitable carpel tunnel!

5:13: Judiciary is trying to determine whether Melman and Hirschhorn not recusing their vote from their own SMR was constitutional or not.

5:11: Kagan says that Melman and Hirschhorn’s personal motivations tipping the vote enough to pass the SMR is “irrelevant”.

5:10: Brooks says he never votes despite his status as Senator, which is true. Conversation turns to vote recusation.

5:07: Ansorge is asking lots of questions leading to whether this is truly a Union project. Melman and Hirschhorn were the only senators involved in the SMR.

5:05: Brooks reads SMR. Ansorge asks what “whereas” means. I can’t figure out why, either from too much typing or something else.

5:04: Andrew Brooks is up!

5:00: Melman is “re-re-cross”ing. Wallach doesn’t seem to know much about the Senate, but he “is sure” the Senate has granted SMR money to clubs before. Marwaha objects again.

4:59: Wallach didn’t think the 900 was worth for an event he “didn’t think was possible.” Choon isn’t here, so we can’t verify anything. D’aww.

4:57: Wallach uneasy with Ayers SMR; thinks senators should back out of SMR since e-board members do not vote in cases for clubs they are in.

4:56: Wallach doesn’t remember the SMR he supposedly approved that Melman places in front of him. Kagan says it’s still evidence.

4:54: According to Wallach, he doesn’t remember if any clubs have asked for SMRs in the past, as well as a specific example Melman mentions with a club called  “The Advocates”.

4:53: Melman up to question Tresurer Wallach. Apparently the submitted evidence (old SMRS) can’t be deemed accurate by Wallach.

4:51: Reading the Constitution. This is fun. Marwaha asks if money can be allocated to clubs. Says Wallach, “No, funds are supposed to be used for student government”

4:48: Wallach describes purpose of F-Board. Where is this going? Everyone is still deciding whether this evidence is still permissible to use. I don’t even know what exactly the evidence is.

4:46: Hogan down, Student Union Tresurer Max Wallach up. Marwaha asks: “What are constitutional requirements for Student Union Treasurer” Wallach: “I have to be elected.”

4:44: McElhany asks Hogan some questions about previous planning. Kagan says Hogan can step down. Some questions first, Hogan says “At the moment my job there is very broad.”

4:41: Ansorge is questioning Hogan again. Was the event supposed to be a collaboration with the Student Union? “No,” says Hogan.

4:38: McElhaney is addressing Hogan as an expert on jumpstart presentations when he has been to two meetings, and keeps insisting over objections and a bang of the gavel. He wants to know if the statement was preliminary or not.

4:34: As McElhany questions Hogan, Marwaha objects that the case is about overturning a false precedent rather than determining what the precedent is. I’m pretty sure that’s what he meant. Says Judiciary Rachel Graham Kagan, “You can bring that up in your closing statements.”

4:30: Witness: Andy Hogan, current Director of Community Advocacy. No mention of the Student Union on a document recording a February jumpstart meeting with DFA for bringing Ayers to campus, a day after the SMR was submitted.

4:29: McElhaney: “Are the DFA minutes reliable?” Witness: “No.”

4:28: The witness, Shanna?, reads aloud the plans to bring Ayers to campus in the DFA minutes, which do not include mention of the Union and a reference of using possible excess Ayers money for camping.

4:25: Ansorge is questioning a witness, a DFA member. She is looking at the officer list on DFA’s Facebook page, which includes Melman and Hirschhorn.

4:21: There’s some confusion about witnesses and evidence, the judiciary is waiting to decide how that works until it’s time for witnesses.

4:20: Robinson says SMR was for the event, not for the club.

4:15: Robinson is up. He says the Ayers SMR was intended to be a Union project and a community event. Robinson also says there is a long tradition of giving Senate money to club projects. He says the precedent of voting against this SMR would be too limiting for Union involvement.

4:11: Alterman says there was no substantive Union involvement in the event planning, even after the allocation of funds, and says Melman and Hirschhorn’s status as senators and DFA executive board members gave them an unfair advantage. He says it’s a bad precedent.

4:10: Pre-trial is over and we can begin! Everyone shuts off cellphones.

I like to think Rothman and Innermost Parts happen to reserve public complaining for different things. Innermost Parts typically directs its frustration towards unnecessary wars, lack of financial transparency, and what its writers feel are questionable administrative decisions. Rothman prefers tackling the peace room, drunk environmentalists, and excessive protesting. We’re just different, right?

Rothman is too flippant about the impact of the administration’s decisions on Brandeis’s environment. Students are organizing for meaningful causes, including the preservation of the Rose Art Museum, an influential institution, and access to information concerning where our money is going and how administrative decisions will affect our lives. It’s not like we place “SEITAN NOW!” signs all around Usdan once we’ve realized fake meat options on campus have been reduced.

Rothman also binds protesting to the 1960’s as if activism is some tired anachronism. I’m pretty sure protesting has occurred in pretty much every decade. They serve a particular purpose petitions and meetings can’t imitate. Effective demonstrations help the administration match names on a petition with a mass of frustrated people. The “sexy photos” of protests published in the newspaper generate media attention and spread the word. Protests are publicity, and they’re effective. If they weren’t, Rothman wouldn’t have been bothered enough to write a word about them.

Lastly, Rothman made a factual mistake worth correcting: I know Lev Hirschhorn, Alex Melman, and Nathan Robinson all voted against the Executive Session last month. They were also the senators I remember organizing/attending the staff meeting protest. I doubt hypocrisy can be exposed with this protest and these senators, but something can definitely be said about the discourse between the entire Senate and the administration.

New Majors

Most questions about the two new majors revolved around the Business Department. Responding to concerns over whether the social justice component would remain in the Business major, Ben Gomes-Casseres, Business Department chair, said the major’s core courses would include social context and ethical dilemmas as a part of the discipline. Gomes-Casseres also said there is a “business and society” track majors can choose which will have fewer courses on finance and administration. He also stressed that the major will be integrated into the liberal arts, which he said would make it different from other business majors.

“People who want to take 20 courses [of just business] will not like this program,” Gomes-Casseres said. “[This program will draw a] different population from those who go to business administration.”

When asked if current students could major in Business once it’s set up, committee members said it was hard to say, and that the major will probably not up and running until 2010.

As for the Media, Communications, and Society Major, Journalism Program Director Maura Jane Farrelly said the current Journalism Minor would be included in one of the tracks for the new major, and that two of the other tracks will not have the same requirements as the journalism track.

The Justice Brandeis Semester

Starting with the class of 2014, this program will require all students to devote one of their eight required terms to one of four experiential learning options: study abroad, intensive summer programs, fall/spring programs for groups of fifteen to twenty students supervised by an adviser, and a one-on-one solo project with an adviser. It is the committee’s intention to pilot this program as soon as summer 2010. There might be an opportunity then for any existing students to enroll.

The summer programs will last 10 weeks and are distinct from the existing summer school, which will continue. Committee members said the summer program will help midyears accelerate their study so they can graduate with their class. Midyears will not be required to take eight semesters to graduate. In response to inquiries on whether other students could graduate early using the Justice Brandeis Semester, committee members balked and said the overall goal of the program is not to take semester off or graduate early.

Financial aid during this experiential learning semester will be available normally, though adjusted due to reduced tuition costs. Though scholarships are available during the summer, using scholarships three semesters in a row might be problematic. Committee members did not detail these problems but said they would try to “figure it out”.

This new program will also open summer study abroad to Brandeis financial aid. Jaffe said that many study abroad programs will count for financial aid, but not all.

Jaffe stressed that the faculty will already be working more, with the student population increasing by 400 and the faculty population decreasing by 10%. Though he said that the experiential learning commitments would aggravate that problem, the committee has no sense of how much.

In response to concerns that requiring eight semesters of attendance would turn off prospective students, Jaffe said it is not uncommon for the university’s peers to also require eight semesters. He stressed the importance of making the program mandatory, since it’s difficult to allocate resources to an optional program when it’s unknown how many students will commit to it. However, Jaffe did project that several hundred students will choose the study abroad option.

Other Points

Jaffe said the 400 student increase will generate something over 6 million dollars a year in additional revenue, and that these new academic programs should draw more applicants so as to not compromise selectivity.

“The creation of this program will be part of the arrows to put in admissions’ quiver,” said Jaffe. “…The alternative is to reach balance through cuts, which we don’t want to do. Don’t think it’s possible to bring that extra 100 [students] without doing extra things.”

He also said that CARS is still preparing cost analysis for the creation of these new programs. Jaffe said the Justice Brandeis Semester and Communications Major will have to be accommodated within the 5 million dollar reduction of faculty expenditures. The Business Department, however, which has different kinds of courses, will be funded out of proceeds of additional revenue.

Provost Marty Krauss mentioned possible Gerstenzang Library cuts, according to a report by Adam Ross, Chair of the Provost’s Advisory Committee. Ross recently spoke to Krauss about her goals for the CARS committee. Jenna Rubin, chair of the Dining Services Committee, also spoke, mentioning plans to purchase a 24-hour kosher vending machine.

Directly after President Jason Gray encouraged the Senate to embrace transparency since senators demand the same from the administration, the Senate voted 9-10 in favor of an executive session, which requires all press and non-senator observers to leave the room until the session is over. It was implied that impeachment charges were discussed during this session.

Outside of this private session, new senators were sworn in, the Senate recognized/chartered a few clubs, and individual senators gave their Senate reports for the week. Details after the cut.

1. Committee Chair Reports

Provost Marty Krauss mentioned possible Gerstenzang Library cuts, according to a report by Adam Ross from the Chair of the Provost’s Advisory Committee. Ross recently spoke to Krauss about her goals for the CARS committee.

Krauss claimed the science library might be reorganized to add classrooms to the lower floor while the main floor continues to store books, according to Ross. Ross also said the registrar claims the new science building will alleviate part but not all of the science department’s needed classroom space.

Ross said that the faculty is “very enthusiastic” and willing to put forth solutions for academic restructuring, though lukewarm towards the optional third semester term. Skeptical faculty are concerned with how their breaks from teaching for research will be spaced, according to Ross.

Krauss also said that scholarship sizes will be maintained and that the next incoming midyear pool might be increased to deal with new housing shifts, according to Ross. Increasing the number of midyears might help solve the housing problem if some first years decide to shave off their first semester once the voluntary summer session is put into place.

Ross said that in an effort to encourage transparency, he will increase the Provost’s Advisory Committee ‘s meetings with Krauss to twice a month.

Jenna Rubin, coordinator of the Dining Services Committee, also spoke, mentioning plans to purchase a 24-hour kosher vending machine. Rubin said that the committee aims to improve the dining service website to include information that isn’t easily available to most students, such as reasons for allowing only certain items in meal purchases.

2. Executive Reports

New Director of Community Advocacy Andy Hogan said that he and the Department of Public Safety are looking at opportunities for fire safety outreach, in light of the twelve students who were fined for fire code violations after winter break. Hogan said that he “doesn’t know what’s next”, but wants to hold another fund-raising dinner in the future.

President Jason Gray talked to senators about their constituents’ perception of the budget crisis. Gray, Senator for Massell Quad Nipun Marwaha, and Senators for the Class of 2012 Supreetha Gubbala and Akash Vadalia determined that an outreach program geared toward first-years might help them feel more informed, since many first-years don’t know what to do other than sit and watch.

During his report, Gray also spoke about internal Senate affairs.

“I feel really uneasy in this room for the first time this semester,” Gray began, before revealing that some senators have made impeachment charges against others during recent weeks.

Gray encouraged Senate members to openly discuss internal issues, especially when Senate members demand transparency from the administration.

“Everything should be public,” said Gray. “Be sure [you're able to] stick by what you’re saying.”

3. Executive Session

Directly after President Jason Gray encouraged the Senate to embrace transparency, the Senate voted 9-10 in favor of an executive session, which requires all press and non-senator observers to leave the room until the session is over. I was unable to record who voted for and against the motion.

4. Other Points of Interest

Senator for Ridgewood Quad Aaron Finegold, Senator for Village Quad Avi Rhodes, and Associate Justice of the Union Judiciary Matthew Kriegsman, all recently elected through special elections last week, were sworn into their respective roles.

Sarah Enan, previously the senator for East Quad, has officially resigned. Dates for a special election are to be determined.

Clubs recognized for this meeting include a Danzan Ryu Jujitsu organization and Project Noor, while Students Organized Against Racism were granted a charter.

The Senate passed Executive Senator Andrew Brooks’ bill to disallow candidates in Union elections from establishing their own mobile voting stations while requiring the elections commission to set up neutral electronic voting locations, which will encourage students to vote.

Senator for Castle Quad Nathan Robinson said the ‘DeisBikes program now owns nine bikes. The program has recently selected two mechanics and plans to open the rental service in late March, according to Senator for Charles River Chenchao Lu.

5. Things you can do

• Rubin said she has a meeting on Thursday with Dining Services administrators. If you have anything you’d like to ask them, send your questions to either Rubin or your Senator.
• Attend Thursday’s town hall on academic restructuring in Upper Sherman from 4:30 to 6:30.

I missed the last Senate meeting due to an unfortunate time change. If you’d like to catch up, read last week’s Senate Log for The Justice.

Ivester explained his reasons for terminating the site on the JuicyCampus blog: “JuicyCampus’ exponential growth outpaced our ability to muster the resources needed to survive this economic downturn, and as a result, we are closing down the site as of Feb. 5, 2009,” he wrote. In the same post, Ivester pretended he doesn’t know anonymity and exposure cause people to start spouting normally unacceptable sentiments.

“While there are parts of JuicyCampus that none of us will miss – the mean-spirited posts and personal attacks – it has also been a place for the fun, lighthearted gossip of college life. I hope that is how it is remembered,” Ivester wrote.

All Juicy Campus posts will disappear once it shuts down, IPs will remain private, and Ivester is planning his “next big website”, according to a post in the JuicyCampus blog titled “Shutdown FAQs”. I wonder if this new website of his will include a virtual ruler, so visitors can actually measure their own egos as opposed to merely massaging them.

Inevitably, a small number of students will initially believe this occurrence is worse than the week we thought the Rose would die. I also predict these students won’t be too vocal about it. They will have one stupid, burning question: “Where can inquiring students gather what they must know about the world? Who is or isn’t gay, a dominatrix, ugly, or endowed with a spectacular ass? Come on, Ivester, think of the drunk freshmen. This weekend, thanks to you, they will add their salty tears to the vomit in their frat’s toilets. NOBODY wants to clean that shit up. ”

Their despair cannot last long, since there’s a JuicyCampus copy lurking around the corner. All traffic to JuicyCampus will be redirected to College ACB (Anonymous Confession Board), according to the “Shutdown FAQs”. College ACB does not currently have any posts on its Brandeis page. This is likely to change rapidly.

Students crammed into this week’s Senate meeting as Rick Sawyer, Vice President for Student Affairs and Dean of Student Life, and Maggie Balch, Associate Dean of Student Life, answered questions. Sawyer and Balch were invited by Student Union President Jason Gray to address student unrest concerning the 5 million dollar deficit in this year’s budget. Though Sawyer and Balch responded to questions about recent controversial decisions including the status of merit scholarship portability and allocation of Village living space, students seemed mostly concerned with continued budget cuts that will inevitably fall under the Department of Student Life’s jurisdiction.

Details behind the cut.

“It was all about us in the first wave of cuts,” Sawyer said, claiming that his department’s first budget decisions involved cutting staff. “We tried to make cuts as to not affect students’ daily lives…. but students will start to feel it next year.”

Sawyer said some staff might be reduced from full-time status to part-time. Other expenditures the administrators plan to axe include the yearly student planner and program supplements such as complementary food. Balch also said Orientation Leader and Community Advisor training will occur before the year is over as opposed to before the start of fall semester, which she said was an opportunity to pool resources between various clubs’ training sessions.

Sawyer and Balch also defended their department’s decision to deny merit scholarship portability to students studying abroad. Sawyer attempted to debunk the assumption that the university generally gains money from their current system, which requires students to pay full tuition while the university takes full responsibility for academic expenditures overseas.

Sawyer told the crowd that before Brandeis transitioned to this payment system “four or five years ago”, students had to apply and fund their study abroad independently, meaning that students who went abroad used to be the only people who could afford it.

“There’s a huge deficit in the program,” Sawyer said. “For every student that goes abroad, more often than not, we have to pay out more than we took in. You have to remember, right now the US dollar is rock bottom… if not portability, we’ll have to cut something else.”

Balch explained the Department of Residence Life’s plan for Village space allocation, which attempts to solve two longstanding issues at once. Placing all students studying abroad in the spring into one living area allows ResLife to place incoming midyears into vacancies without alienating newcomers from their peers, according to Balch.

“Our greatest challenge is housing midyears,” Balch said. “We’re trying to balance a bunch of different things together. If that doesn’t work, we’ll regroup.”

After a student observed that the library does not kill their lights after closing, Sawyer and Balch said that if any student sees something they find blatantly wasteful on campus, they should e-mail Mark Collins about it. The administrators could not answer many questions about faculty or other questions relating to Academic Services. Sawyer, however, said that academic life must be restructured rapidly for the changes to be useful. He was optimistic about the results.

“I don’t think [Academic Services has] much choice,” Sawyer said. “They can’t… take a couple of years to get there. They need to start moving right now. When things improve, and when the endowment grows again, some things might get returned. These don’t have to be changes in desperation: let’s make them really strong decisions that attract and excite people.”

Both Balch and Sawyer were open to the idea of transparency and student involvement, but did not budge in their conviction that the economic downturn is too extreme to make decisions outside a small group of administrators.

“I like students,” said Balch. “I like to hear what you have to say… but sometimes I have to put on my administrator hat. Sometimes tough decisions need to be made, and there can’t be any debate on it.” Sawyer agreed.

“I’m obliged to be your advocate,” he said. “There are already structures in place where students should have imput. But in the end, administrators will be held responsible.”