Brandeis University Hillel has voted to exclude the campus chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace from becoming a member group. JVP advocates for a just resolution between Israelis and Palestinians, and is the only Jewish group on campus denied inclusion. Hillel based their decision on partisan political considerations: namely, JVP’s support for consumer boycott of illegal Israeli settlements goods. Hillel claims to be the pluralistic center of Jewish student life, yet this decision imposes an ideological litmus test for participation in campus Jewish life.

It is critical for the future of Israel that Jewish communal institutions foster the expression of different visions of how to implement peace with the Palestinians. Otherwise, an emerging movement of young Jews will be forced to choose between their values and a narrow, political interpretation of Judaism. If Hillel wishes to remain the true umbrella organization for the whole Jewish community, they must open the conversation about Israel.

Hold Hillel to its mission and tell them to include Jewish Voice for Peace:

Sign our Petition at www.includejvp.org

Thank you,

Brandeis Jewish Voice for Peace
jewi...@brandeis.edu

About JVP:
Jewish Voice for Peace is the only national Jewish organization that provides a voice for Jews and allies who believe that peace in the Middle East will be achieved through justice and full equality for both Palestinians and Israelis. With 27 chapters, a Rabbinical Council, 100,000 online supporters and an advisory board composed of many of the leading Jewish thinkers and artists of our time, Jewish Voice for Peace is the country’s fastest growing grassroots group dedicated to promoting a US foreign policy that respects the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians to peace and self-determination. www.jvp.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next time, lets take the Harvard route.

On the eve of the first ever Israeli Occupation Awareness Week at Brandeis, Jewish Voice for Peace and Brandeis Students for Justice in Palestine are proud to present their self-published magazine supplement to the week.

With contributions from Liza Behrendt, Renana Gal, Lev Hirschhorn, Madeleine Stix, Jon Sussman, and Paraska Tolan, this zine brings grassroots activism back to its origins, the printing press!

There are articles on the separation wall, the refugee crisis, housing demolitions and more!

Click here to download.

It’s a pamphlet entitled: The Past Didn’t Go Anywhere: Making Resistance to Antisemitism Part of All of Our Movements by April Rosenblum. The pamphlet is 32 pages long, but it’s an easy and fast read that I really think is worth it. Myself I am a left-wing student of Jewish History and have found this pamphlet highly informative, interesting and useful.

The right wing frequently likes to claim that opposition to Zionism and opposition to Israel’s policies is simply anti-Semitism in disguise. For those of us who are critics of Israel and are active Jews this can be very frustrating. Also frustrating however is when we attend demonstrations that are mostly ideologically in line with our views, only to find ourselves intimated by some real anti-Semitism. We dare not challenge it, lest we be accused of being like those right-wingers who simply paint everyone with that broad brush.

A lot of the problem lies in the fact that people assume all forms of oppression look somewhat alike. Anyone can clearly see that Jews in America have quite a lot of privilege. Most of us are white and upper-middle class. We are overrepresented, proportionally speaking, in politics, business, media, and other fields that have significant impact on society. If we try to compare the experience of Jews in America to blacks in America, it is quite clear who has more privilege in most circumstances.

But not all oppression works the same; oppression against blacks clearly works to deny privilege and power to blacks, but oppression against Jews relies on the fact that Jews have power and privilege in society. Throughout European history, the Jews have been attacked for having “too much power.” To be able to point at that fact that Jews have power in society does not disprove the existence of anti-Semitism. On the contrary, it proves that anti-Semitism has the potential to be just as alive and well as ever.

For me, the most important point to take away from this pamphlet is the fact that the ruling class uses anti-Semitism as a shield. They use it as a tool to misdirect the working class. This was true all over Europe for centuries. In medieval Poland, there were no such things as citizens, everyone, Jewish and non-Jewish were subjects of the szlachta, or noble class. The non-Jews were used as peasants, while the Jews were assigned to roles like tax collecting, rent collecting, toll collecting, money lending, inn keeping, and other such occupations. To the peasants, who probably never saw the nobles who ruled them ever in their lives – Jews were the face of power. It is not too surprising then that for hundreds of years Poles believed Jews had too much power in Poland – even in the post-Holocaust era when there were hardly any Jews at all! Even today in Poland, figurines and paintings of Jews counting money or holding moneybags are quite popular – they’re sold as good luck charms.

We must remember that many pogroms so distinctly remembered in Jewish History were actually peasant uprisings. Peasants, fed up with their situation, taking their anger out on the visible face of power, rather than the real oppressors. In that sense, anti-Semitism worked, it stopped people from overthrowing the ruling classes by channeling their anger onto someone else.

Anti-Semitism should serve as a reminder to everyone on the left that it is too easy for us to make enemies with people we really should be in solidarity with. We see other manifestations of this phenomenon in different forms today in America – poor white people are pitted against poor black people who are pitted against Latinos and gays. In Israel-Palestine we see this too – we see two peoples, both victims of capitalist oppression locked in conflict. Racism, homophobia, xenophobia, anti-Semitism: these are all simply ways to keep people from really seeing what is causing their problems (hint: its capitalism) and then uniting in solidarity to fix it.

Anyway, this pamphlet has a lot of information and a lot of ideas and tips about how leftists should deal with the question of anti-Semitism. A must read for all leftists.

In a previous post, I discussed how critical it was to change the Union to make it a less self-important body. While the changes recommended the Constitutional Review Committee fall short of where I’d like – they certainly do take some interesting and important steps forward.

Some highlights:

Legislation

The changes propose the elimination of the Senate as we know it, and instead replace it with two separate bodies.

The first is called “The Assembly.” Unlike the Senate, which currently has over 20 members, the Assembly has just 13 members – 2 per class, 2 at-large, 1 TYP, 1 midyear, 1 “Representative for Historically Underrepresented Races” (more on this mouthful later).

While thirteen members certainly make for a smaller body, it’s still quite large. This may be ok though, I am not sure yet. The most significant thing to notice about this new Assembly – that I see – is that it is largely stripped of any real power. The function of chartering and recognizing clubs is no longer a function of the legislative branch, and thus the only “real” power they have is to pass legislation – which never actually happens.

Its one step shy of fully eliminating this body, which is what I advocate for. I think in the long run, maybe even after just one year of trying out this “Assembly,” people will see its uselessness and eliminate it entirely. Or maybe it will be a success – having been stripped of all real power, it will serve as a brainstorming, idea-generating arm of the Union. That would be nice.

Chartering and Recognitions

The power to charter and recognize has instead been given to a new body, the “Club Support Board” which will be comprised of 9 members. One from each major “club category” and one from the Executive Board. Each of the 8 elected representatives to the club support board will be elected by and from the entire student body.

This is a really interesting idea. It makes the Union a lot more “Democratic” in that suddenly everyone has to vote for as many as 12 different representatives (2 class, 2 at-large, 8 for the support board) at a given time. What I wonder is if there are actually eight people interested in running for this board – and how well they will represent their supposed ‘constituents.’

The Judiciary

The Union Judiciary has been changed to a “Student Judiciary” and the new language actively encourages the SJ to promote mediation as a tool of conflict resolution, rather than the current ‘mock trial’ approach. I like the language change – I believe that this language is actively trying to make the UJ less of a joke. I have no idea if it will actually work – but it’s a start.

Racial Minorities

For both F-Board and the Assembly, the position of member for Racial Minorities has been changed to “Representative for Historically Underrepresented Races.” The name change doesn’t seem to do a lot for me, but the significant change here is that anyone can run for the position. Voting is still only open to self-declared ‘Underrepresented Races.” Personally I’m just glad the position wasn’t eliminated – opening it up to anyone seems like a fairly reasonable compromise.

Secured Organizations

Not a lot of change here, the big news is the official securing of SSIS and SEA. Noticeably, the committee did NOT recommend securing The Hoot.

Voting Systems

One interesting development, I assume thanks to the influence of Sahar, is that the committee recommends implementing Instant Runoff Voting for all Union Elections – to spare students and candidates of the burden of voting twice in a three-day period. I don’t particularly feel like explaining the concept here, but it’s a pretty cool idea and it makes things a whole lot easier for everyone involved.

One problem? The new potential wording of the constitution doesn’t seem to address how to deal with write-in campaigns. The current constitution makes it quite easy for a write-in candidate to win on the second ballot – all they need to do is get 10% on the first and they become official. Such a system, I believe, would be impossible with IRV (unless someone knows how this might work – I’m curious to know).

Constitutional Review

In this self-referential category, the committee attempts to work out some of the problems that emerged from forming the committee this year. None of them address the most serious concern – that the constituents represented on the committee are actively invested in maintaining the status quo (for instance, the Justice gets a representative on the committee, and the Hoot doesn’t… and notice which newspaper didn’t get secured). This is a serious problem, but I did not expect this committee to actually deal with it, since they are clearly invested in maintaining it!

Club Sports

This is a fairly minor change with no real major implications. Essentially, the new constitution actively acknowledges the relationship between the Union and Athletics on the issue of Club Sports – without changing it. That’s ok, it works pretty well right now.

Vice President

Also, we’ll no longer vote for a Vice-President, instead that will be an internally elected position – effectively merging the current roles of “Executive Senator” and “Vice-President’ into one. Not a big deal – unless the President dies or resigns.

My Verdict?

Good changes. Not great, but good. If you ask me for my vote on this constitution as a whole – I would definitely vote for it. There are a lot of things that are missing still, but I suppose that’s the result of a lot of compromise. But the new proposed system looks significantly better than the current broken ‘government’ that we have now.

For those who have not yet seen the news, the results are in from the special election. We’re headed for a run-off election for Secretary… and Diana Aronin is by far the favorite to win. That’s right, in a giant “Screw You” to the Student Union – as the Facebook group dedicated to her write-in campaign proclaims – students overwhelming support reinstating the impeached Secretary.

I want to recap what has happened over the last two months in case you haven’t been following the news (though I’m sure if you’re reading this it means you have). During finals week, when everyone else was concerned with important things like finals, eleven Senators got together and impeached the Secretary. Why? Because of an internal technicality – she didn’t put an amendment for a vote within the constitutionally allotted period of time.

The amendment would have changed the constitution to add a midyear Senator to our already enormous Senate. Sounds reasonably Democratic – the midyears were the only population on campus that didn’t get to vote for their own Senator to represent them. So why didn’t Diana put it up for a vote?

Two main reasons why putting it up for a vote would have been highly illogical. Firstly, it was common knowledge at the time that come Spring 2010, the midyears would indeed have their own Senator, the Village Quad Senator. In fact, as of last week’s election, the midyears do indeed have representation on the Student Union Senate. Congrats Albert Feldman ’13!

Secondly, the constitution is currently undergoing a “Constitutional Review Process” (more on this later), which theoretically means there was already a vehicle in place to work out these various kinks in the constitution. Why bother the Student Body with a slew of emails for a vote they don’t care about (and doesn’t matter) when the whole thing might just get scrapped in a few months anyway? Sounds like a pretty good decision NOT to put that amendment up for a vote if you ask me.

But the Senate, being the self-important sack of shit body that it is (I was in it once, I know), even after receiving a nice apology from Diana and a promise that the amendment would be put up for a vote, decided to flex its invisible muscles and impeach her anyway. Thereby making a giant issue out of a non-issue. Thanks Jenna Rubin!

What the Senate probably didn’t realize is that the act of impeachment is inherently an anti-Democratic action. Back in the spring, voters elected Diana Aronin to be their secretary. That is to say, they decided they theoretically wanted her to serve out her entire term. In impeaching her, the Senate decided that her offense was so terrible, that they were willing to overturn the will of the student body.

Now to be fair, I don’t think anyone actually really cares who the secretary is. Diana was obviously not a spectacularly good secretary (that would be impossible, its basically just a bureaucratic job) nor was she a bad one. No one really cares, the secretary sends emails out every week – and for most of the student body that’s the only interaction they ever have with the secretary. I’m sure any of the other candidates for Secretary back in the spring or even in this special election would have been fine… and no one would have cared.

So if no one cares, then why are voters excited about voting for Diana as a write-in candidate! Because they hate the Student Union – and basically everyone knows that writing Diana in would be a big “Fuck You” to the Union. It’s a symbolic vote against the self-importance that has come to represent the “Student Government.”

I was a member of the Student Government for about a year and a half. I spent a year on the Senate (a waste of time) and then half a year on E-Board (which was very interesting). The Senate does nothing; they have absolutely no power. Their one main function, chartering and decharting clubs, could be accomplished without much difficulty by a monkey. Yet for some reason they meet for several hours every Sunday arguing amongst themselves.

Generally speaking, the Executive Board of the Union actually does pretty good work. I saw it myself; the people who sit on it spend hours and hours a week dedicated to ensuring that Student interests are represented in the daily functioning of the University. The work is not very glamorous, and because all of it is done in secret, no one really knows that it’s even going on.

Yet even though the E-Board does good work, the entire Student Union as a whole is completely out of touch with the student body. While I was there on the Union, I kept on hearing people ask the question over and over and over again “what do students want?” The whole purpose of the Union is to represent students, so it’s going to be pretty ineffective if they don’t know the answer to that question. That’s why the Union is so obsessed with surveys (not that they are a bad thing).

The real answer to the question, and the reason why nobody cares to vote in Union elections, is that the students want to see the Student Union actually do something besides masturbate. The only good work the Union does is all behind closed doors, and the only thing that students ever see is stupid shit like this secretary controversy.

When people say something along these lines to a Union insider, they will usually argue and defend the Union. Then they come back to the Union office and ask again, “what do students want?” I saw it over and over again in my year and a half in the Union.
It is truly unfortunate that this is the state of our Student Union. The concept of a Union is amazingly cool, and it’s awesome that Brandeis’ Administration actually listens to what the Union says. We learned last year during the budget cuts crisis that having a powerful Student Union is an incredibly useful tool for students. Jason Gray was really effective at making the Union something that students can respect. While Andy Hogan has certainly done a good job in his dealings with administrators, he hasn’t been nearly as effective at winning the respect of the student body – which ultimately culminated in this recent crisis.

Lots of students have good ideas for how to make this school better, but the current system only discourages them from participating. Anyone who wants to float an idea first has to deal with the insane (and incredibly stupid) politics that accompany being in Student Government. They have to deal with all the people who are only interested in padding their resumes, and thus feed off controversy. The current system is completely broken and only makes Brandeis students look like a bunch of idiots.

We can change the Union though and make it something worthwhile. As I mentioned earlier, we are currently in the process of reviewing the Union Constitution. This process is highly problematic due to the fact that the people who get to sit on the committee are the ones who most benefit from maintaining the status quo… not to mention the entire process is being conducted behind closed doors. However, with that said, it still represents a great opportunity to make the Union an institution that actually has the respect of the Student Body.

The first thing that needs change is that we need to get rid of the Senate. In fact, we need to get rid of any position with a title that reeks of self-importance. Like the Union Judiciary for instance… The fuck is that??? The Student Union is no place for a pretend court! The business of the Executive Board needs to be moved into the public eye, and the whole system needs to get a lot less hierarchical.

The election results should be a wake-up call to everyone on the Student Union –especially the Senate. The student body is telling you what they want, and they want you to change.

Justice Richard Goldstone is one of the most credible sources on the matter of War Crimes. He’s investigated crimes in South Africa, Rwanda, the Balkans and other hot-spots of violence. If anyone knows what a war crime is, it’s Justice Goldstone. To further add to his credibility as a neutral investigator, he is a long-time Zionist. Yet this man was pitted against a “pro-Israel” speaker – putting him in the uncomfortable position of being “anti-Israel,” which he most certainly is not. Just two weeks ago Dan Meridor was allowed to speak uncontested by a speaker from a different narrative – Goldstone should have been afforded the same respect. I am certainly not opposed to discussion and debate, but this event lopsided the discussion. No Palestinians were invited to speak and thus the Palestinian narrative was excluded from this event.

This is what we were protesting. Taped to our shirts we had the names of both Israeli and Palestinian civilian victims of the Gaza War. We stood silently – for just a few moments to let the audience know our discontent.

Though I myself was not harmed or attacked in anyway – many of my fellow protesters were physically violated for their peaceful protest. One protester commented that after she sat back down, the person in front of her repeatedly pushed their chair back against her. Another said that she was repeatedly slapped lightly by her neighbors. Yet another said that while standing she was shoved and her hair was pulled. This is most certainly a disturbing use of force, and in my mind takes away any sort of moral high-ground the right-wing might have gained from us being ‘rude.’

All of this makes me think. We live in a world where culture dictates that when we feel ‘wronged’ it is acceptable to use violence to make things right.

I have a lot of sympathy for the people of Sderot who lived in terror due to the rockets fired by Hamas from Gaza. When Israel invaded Gaza this winter – it did so to put a stop to the rocket fire. It did so under the assumption that it is acceptable to use force to right a wrong. Whether or not the invasion of Gaza did temporarily stop the rocket fire, but it did nothing to bring about a long term peace.

Hamas and other terrorist organizations fall into the same problem. They feel wronged by Israel and then think it is acceptable to use violence to make things right. Sixty years of on-and-off war has proven that this method does nothing – it hardens your enemies hatred of you and leaves behind a trail of dead civilians.

The people of Israel are scared and angry. The people of Palestine are scared and desperate. Both sides must come to realize that a failure to recognize how they have wronged the other and the use of violence will only prolong the conflict. Regardless of whether or not Israel acted ethically in Operation Cast Lead, the invasion angered Palestinians and destroyed their already weak economy, infrastructure, and usable farmland. The people of Gaza have nothing, there is very little work, very little food, very little to do. It does not surprise me that many of them turn to terrorism.

As a proud Zionist, I am determined to see the State of Israel survive this conflict. The use of force is simply a short-term strategy for creating an uneasy peace. To end the conflict, Israel must work to improve economic and living conditions in the West Bank and the Gaza. The first step is to lift the crippling economic blockade of Gaza. They must withdraw all settlements from the West Bank and East Jerusalem so that Palestinians can also have the right to self-determination. Though many may claim that these actions are counter-productive to Israel’s short-term security (they are not), in the long-run they are absolutely critical to creating a lasting peace.

Both the Israeli Government and the Palestinian people must cease using force as a means to achieve change. It cannot and will not work.

This is why I stood up today – to protest the use of violence. In using force against us, the right-wingers who opposed us achieved nothing. Yes, we were antagonistic, but we stood up for what we believed in and then peacefully sat back down.

http://my.brandeis.edu/survsimp/one?survey_id=4831

The last question is a space for us to say what we would like to see. Thomas from the Brandeis Labor Coalition suggests:

where it asks “what’s important to you” say: the job security of dining hall workers! Show ‘em Brandeis students care about the people who cook and serve our food.

What else do we want? Another dining location? More locally grown food? More vegan options???

Fill it out!

The meeting will be held from 2-3 PM in SCC 313.

This is a great opportunity to help shape the JBS and the future of the University.

Judgment of the Court:

This Court was unable to come to any majority opinion, meaning that no single decision or rationale gained the support of a majority of the Justices. When such a situation occurs, we issue a plurality opinion, which has been explained thus: “When a fragmented Court decides a case… the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds” (Marks v. United States).

In judgment, this Court finds for the Respondent, the Student Union.
Held by Associate Justices Julia Sferlazzo, Judah Marans, and Matt Kriegsman

We direct the Secretary of the Student Union to hold the election for Racial Minority Senator as soon as possible in accordance with the Constitution.
Held by Associate Justices Julia Sferlazzo, Judah Marans, and Matt Kriegsman, and Chief Justice Rachel Graham Kagan

We further direct the Student Union President to ensure the constitutional review process scheduled for next academic year address the issue of positions that may only be held or voted for by registered racial minority students.
Held by Associate Justices Judah Marans, and Matt Kriegsman, and Chief Justice Rachel Graham Kagan

Associate Justices Julia Sferlazzo, Judah Marans, and Matt Kriegsman find in favor of the Student Union.

Chief Justice Rachel Graham Kagan finds in part for the Petitioners, but agrees in the judgment of this Court.

Associate Justice Jordan Rothman finds in favor of the Petitioners, Gideon Klionsky and Ryan McElhaney.

Concurring Opinion by Associate Justice Julia Sferlazzo:

This case should not have been heard by the UJ. It should have been dismissed. While the RMS, position can help the community to engage in important and meaningful discussions about race, ethnicity, identity, and discrimination I do not believe the UJ provided the best forum. While in actual government the judicial branch does hear these types of cases, as an undergraduate student body, we do not have any superior knowledge or skills to offer. None of the justices have degrees in constitutional laws nor are we scholars of race and sociology. Thus, we cannot provide any more valid arguments or thoughts than the rest of the community. While we are an elected body, the issues that this case brought about far exceeded the scope of our expertise. The trial could not adequate gage student opinion or the needs of the community. A better way of dealing with the issue would have been a series of open forums and town hall meetings. Particularly because in a trial there is always a winner and loser. In the context of this issue, there is no clear, winner, or loser. In issues such as these, we should not be on two sides of a debate. Rather, we should be engaging in discussions so that we can move forward as a collective and unified group. A trial does not, and did not, provide enough room for meaningful discussions growth, learning, or solutions. Furthermore, the much larger problem associated with the trial was not addressed. Clearly, the Brandeis community is in need of some sort of changes and discussions about race in general. There are institutional problems that must be addressed that go beyond the position of racial minority senator.
I would love to attend a school in which there was not a need for a racial minority senator. However, I do not go to such a school. Furthermore, I do not have the power or knowledge to perceive when the need for the position will no longer exist. The position should only be removed or changed when the constituencies of those positions feel they no longer need or want the positions to exist. It is not my place to make that decision. Thus, I believe the position should continue to exist as it currently does.
I would urge both the upcoming student union government, as well as the administration to address these issues in the coming years. The constitutional review in the upcoming academic year would provide an important opportunity to engage in such discussions. I hope that these open forums will happen as a joint venture between the union government and the administration. Furthermore, in the trial it became quite clear that racial minority students felt the position was important. Thus, forums next year should not only focus on if the positions are discriminatory or necessary, but why racial minority students feel they are not well represented by the union. If, in future years, there is a decision to change these elected positions, it should be made in conjunction with real solutions for addressing the issues of race and the needs of racial minority students on this campus. To simply remove or change the position without finding a better solution would be very damaging to the Brandeis community as a whole and exacerbate racial issues on campus.

Associate Justice Julia Sferlazzo

Concurring Opinion by Associate Justice Judah Marans:

This case raises some fascinating and complicated issues regarding jurisprudential theory as it pertains to the interplay between two potentially competing judicial bodies in a school environment. The two bodies in question – the University Board on Student Conduct (UBSC) and the Student Union Judiciary (UJ) – were each designed to oversee a unique set of issues. The UBSC is “a student, faculty and staff panel that hears select cases of alleged student misconduct,” such as, for instance, allegations of discrimination, and was created by official University policy. The UJ is a body consisting only of students that resolves non-disciplinary issues in the Student Union government, such as, for instance, questionable legislation passed by Student Union Senate, and was created by students; it is independent from university administrative matters. The UJ is charged with interpreting the Student Union Constitution, and the UBSC generally rules on alleged violations of the Rights and Responsibilities handbook.

The petitioners challenge the Constitutional validity of the Student Union government positions of Senator for Racial Minorities and Racial Minority Finance Board Member. They allege that the existence of these positions is a form of reverse discrimination and thus violates University policy prohibiting racial discrimination. The petitioners quote section 7.4 of Rights and Responsibilities, which states that conduct is discriminatory when it “has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with a person’s education… [or] participation in extracurricular activities and student organizations.” Because they cannot run for or vote in these elections since they are not registered as racial minorities, they claim that these positions unreasonably and discriminatorily interfere with their participation in the Student Union government.

It appears at first glance that to rule on this claim is out of our jurisdiction. The UBSC, and not the UJ, generally deals with these kinds of claims of violation of University policy. However, art. I, § 3 of the Constitution throws the jurisdictional distinction between these two bodies into disarray. It reads: “This Constitution shall be enacted in accordance with all… University policies…” Therefore if a Student Union matter violates University policy, it can be seen as unconstitutional. In this sense the UJ has the indirect authority to effectively rule on Student Union matters that relate to broader University policy. Accordingly, if the discrimination referred to in Rights and Responsibilities encompasses reverse discrimination, then the positions in question are indeed unconstitutional.

The petitioners are thus asking us to not just reference the discrimination clause in Rights and Responsibilities; they are asking us to take a bold step in actively defining it. They are not just asking us to incorporate a basic and clear-cut rule of University policy and through the vehicle of art. I, § 3 apply it to student union matters; they are asking us to interpret a crucial and complex legal term and claim jurisdiction to change a big part of student life. I would be willing to do the formers and not the latters. The issue of reverse discrimination is one of the great Constitutional issues of our time – in fact on the very day of our trial the Supreme Court heard a landmark case about this issue, in which it, the most supreme judicial body in this country, is going to define something that we, a group of peer-elected undergraduate students, was asked to define – and it is something that I am hesitant to attempt to do here. To define the scope and application of reverse discrimination here is a serious matter, and even though we have the authority to take part in such an undertaking, I will not exercise that authority because I simply do not feel qualified to do so. One of the witnesses at the trial asked this court to admit its limitations, and I hereby do. I do not believe that we necessarily lack the understanding or authority needed to be able to issue a finding such as Chief Justice Kagan’s or to actively rule on the matter as Justice Rothman did, but I acknowledge that it is, I believe, prudent to limit ourselves by refraining from doing either of those.

Indeed one of the fascinating things about the judiciary branch is the concept of judicial self-restraint. It has the ability, within certain limits, to determine its own level of influence. While we do have the jurisdiction to hear this case, whether or not we will act on it is another matter. Even though we do have the authority to issue a statement on the Constitutionality of the positions in question, I will not join Justice Kagan in so doing. And even though we do have the authority to issue a ruling either upholding or dismantling the position, I will not join Justice Rothman in his ruling. But I emphasize that I do so due to an exercise of caution, and not as a result of an analysis of the positions themselves. This court unanimously agrees that we have authority to issue each of the opinions that we published; I dissent in that actually doing so is not the most proper and effective way to deal with this case. As such I am exercising judicial self-restraint.

It really is fascinating that the judiciary branch can (and here actually wanted to, and in fact even requested to) hear arguments on whether or not it should be considering the very case that it decided to give itself chance to consider. To be sure, prior to the trial we even informed counsel that one of the legal issues we wanted discussed was how much judicial-restraint, or lack thereof, we should exhibit. We asked counsel to discuss “the limitations of the UJ’s authority after hearing this case.” And I find that, as the respondent argued, we should limit ourselves significantly.

I did personally agree with our decision to grant certiorari because I believe – even in the face of pressure from an emergency Senate resolution, influential Student Union officials, community leaders, and others alike, to dismiss the case – that the voice of the petitioners deserves the chance to be heard in our adversarial system of justice. While it is true, as Justice Julia Sferlazzo points out, that none of us “have degrees in constitutional laws nor are we scholars of race and sociology,” then let the respondents convince us of that. When on the fence between deciding to hear or to not hear a case, I believe it is important to err on the side of not ignoring or quieting the voice of the petitioners. As discussed above, one of the brilliant things about the judiciary system is that we can grant certiorari to in part hear arguments on whether or not we should even be ruling on the case we decided to hear.

We should have heard the case. But that does not mean however that I cannot admit, after hearing the case, that I am not qualified to, or that I do not believe it is fitting to, rule on the Constitutionality of the positions in question. It is true that the UBSC has no jurisdiction to hear this case. We are the ones who do. But just because we may make a decision about these positions does not mean that we have to. I dissent from Justice Kagan’s opinion in that I do not partake, due to an exercise of judicial self-restraint, in the finding that the positions are unconstitutional. And I clearly dissent from Justice Rothman’s decision to suspend the races for these positions. I concur with Justice Kagan (and Justice Sferlazzo) that we should choose “to respect the official amendment process and the constitutional review procedure that is slated to occur next academic year,” but without doing anything more, including issuing a verdict, as Justice Kagan does, that seems to be a purely theoretical illegality.

In addition, I am concerned that by stating that the positions of Senator for Racial Minorities and Racial Minority Finance Board Member are unconstitutional but without ordering a consequent revision, this court potentially makes itself vulnerable by lessening the primacy of its findings. If the Constitutional review process ultimately decides, by keeping as they stand now the relevant parts of the Constitution, that these positions actually are Constitutional, then that process will be effectively overruling that finding. Thus its publication can weaken the court’s authority by essentially stating that, although we have the prerogative to determine constitutionality of such matters, we do not necessarily have the ultimate authority to do so.

I must emphasize that this is not to say that I either agree or disagree with Justice Kagan’s finding that to allow “any student, regardless of race, to run for these positions… would effectively address the contradiction that currently exists,” or that I agree or disagree with the ultimate validity of Justice Rothman’s ruling. It means that I am exercising judicial self-restraint and will do nothing – either take action or even issue such a statement on the Constitutionality of the positions – other than allow the democratic system to follow its natural course of action. That the judiciary branch has the option to do such a thing is one of its remarkable aspects, and I believe that I am appropriately applying that judicial option.

This does not mean that the trial was a waste of time; it means that, by granting certiorari, we allowed a legitimate intellectual tug-of-war to take place, and that I am in effect ruling in favor of the respondent, as opposed to not ruling at all, in that I was persuaded by the Student Union’s push for us to let the issue resolve itself through a venue other than the UJ. (As such it is irrelevant to analyze any issues with the Senator for Racial Minorities and Racial Minority Finance Board Member regarding potential discrimination. The merits of these positions have no effect on my legal view of this case.)

There is another option, other than relying on the amendment process, to be considered. The Student Union President can see to it that the student body and the administration can team up to create a committee to deal with this issue. That would set a great precedent of an instance of collaboration and balance, sorting out the complicated issues regarding jurisprudential theory discussed above vis-à-vis this particular case.

As such, I concur with the decision to not dismantle the positions and to not suspend the races for their election. However I do so, and I believe that we should not express a finding on the legality of the positions in question, not based on the merits themselves of these positions but instead out of an exercise of caution. As such, although I concur in our judgment to not take action, my view of how it is most proper to exercise our judicial authority here differs from that expressed by each of the justices who did not sign on to this opinion. Justice Kriegsman and I stand in the majority with Justice Sferlazzo in finding for the Student Union.

On a personal note, I feel compelled to say that witnessing the honesty, expressiveness, and courage of both parties to this case was moving. I would also like to say that working with my colleagues on the court this past year has been an invigorating and gratifying experience that I have never before had.

Associate Justice Judah Marans

Joined by: Associate Justice Matt Kriegsman

Opinion Dissenting in Part, Concurring in Judgment by Chief Justice Rachel Graham Kagan:

The Petitioners in this case, Gideon Klionsky and Ryan McElhaney, presented many questions and arguments to this Court that I believe have a great deal of merit. Though many of my fellow Justices have declined to respond to these substantive issues—which is wholly within their rights—I continue to believe that it is the role of this Court to address them directly.

I

Many questions have arisen about the Union Judiciary’s authority to hear a case that in any way references University policy as laid out in Rights and Responsibilities. Pursuant to Article V, Section 1 of the Student Union Constitution, the Union Judiciary “shall have jurisdiction in disagreements…between the Union and a member of the Union, on the constitutionality of any Union Government legislation, decision, or action, [and] on any and all other questions of constitutionality within the Union.” However, while the Student Union Constitution governs the functioning of the Union and all student clubs, unlike the United States Constitution, it is nowhere near the highest authority that these bodies must submit to.

The Constitution itself acknowledges its own limitations in its first Article, entitled “Supremacy.” Section 3 explains, “This Constitution shall be enacted in accordance with all federal, state, and local laws, and University policies, but the Union Government shall not be responsible for the enforcement of such laws and policies.” These are the higher authorities under which the Student Union Constitution exists and is ultimately subsidiary to. This clause also absolves the Student Union of personal responsibility if any of these higher policies are unknowingly violated.

However I believe that Article I, Section 3 does not preclude this Court from examining certain constitutional issues with reference to these higher policies. As the Respondents pointed out, the University Board of Student Conduct (UBSC) is solely responsible for ruling on violations of Rights and Responsibilities. We have not sought to usurp that high undertaking, nor do I believe we have. Instead we have used our understanding of University policy to address a Constitutional question.

The Respondents suggested that Mr. Klionsky and Mr. McElhaney might have brought their case before the UBSC to seek relief, but this court disagrees. As Jess Kent, a member of the UBSC explained, that body provides a mechanism by which the petitioners could seek redress from an individual or group of individuals, not an organization or the Constitution itself. Nor is the UBSC able to address any issues of constitutionality. Because UBSC cases are brought against individuals, the only possible sanctions, as I understand them, are disciplinary ones. If Mr. Klionsky and Mr. McElhaney had brought a case before the UBSC and the individuals had been found responsible for a violation, their personal and academic records might have been compromised and the reason for the case itself—whether or not the positions reserved for racial minority students are constitutional—would remained unaddressed. To the best of my knowledge no mechanism other than the UJ currently exists within this university by which students may challenge a portion of the Constitution, despite the fact that that document is clearly subordinate to University policy. Therefore, I believe that we have the authority to hear and decide on this case.

II

The core issue of this case is one very difficult to discuss and address in any adequate manner. Racial issues are always delicate and in some ways they become even more sensitive on the Brandeis campus. Here such discussions must take place in the atmosphere of tension between our commitment to social justice or inspiring takeover of Ford Hall and the racist incidents—from The Justice to Gravity Magazine—that have too often occurred in recent years.

By all accounts this Court has heard, the racial minority community regularly feels excluded from certain parts of campus life. At some point in the last 20 years (the date itself has been contested and many different reports have been made to this Court) the positions of Senator and F-Board Member for Racial Minority Students were created to give greater voice to minority concerns and opinions. These positions, particularly it seems the Racial Minority Senator (RMS) with its potential for concentrated advocacy, are truly valued in the racial minority community. Before I give my opinion on the constitutionality of the two positions in question, let me first say that I believe very strongly that there is a compelling interest in the continued existence of these two positions.

The case at hand challenges these positions as being discriminatory to students not registered as racial minorities in two ways: such students may neither run for either of these positions, nor vote in either of these elections.

The Petitioners contend that these positions are discriminatory under Section 7.4 of Rights and Responsibilities. Therefore, they allege, a constitutional contradiction emerges between the positions themselves and the supremacy clause (Article I, Section 3), which places the Constitution in a subordinate role to the University policies.

I do not believe that it is discriminatory under Rights and Responsibilities’ Section 7.4 to deny a student the right to vote for the positions of RMS and RM F-Board Member. That section states that conduct may be regarded as discriminatory when it “adversely affects a person’s employment or educational opportunities… [including] participation in extracurricular activities and student organizations.” I think that the right to vote in this particular race does not rise to the level of interfering with Mr. Klionsky or Mr. McElhaney’s “participation in extracurricular activities and student organizations.”

However, I do believe that the prohibition against a non-racial minority running for one of these positions is in conflict with this section of Rights and Responsibilities. While Mr. Klionsky may run for any of five other Senate positions open to him, as many have pointed out to this Court, the RMS position is different than any other. A student wishing to seriously engage on race issues with the student body, including but not limited to the racial minority community, or the administration, would be able speak with special authority on such issues if elected by the racial minority community alone. More than any other person on campus, the RMS can be said to speak for that entire community, not just specific sections or segments.

I hasten to remind the community that the opportunity to run does not in any way mean that a student who is not a racial minority can win without over 50% of the votes from the racial minority community. Thus allowing any Brandeis undergraduate or TYP student to run would only serve to give the racial minority community more choices about who they believed could best represent them.

The Respondent argued during its case that no change to either position is needed because any student, regardless of their actual race, may without challenge register as a racial minority student. Such an incident has even happened in the recent past. This in fact is one of the principle reasons why I feel compelled to decide as I have. Essentially this line of reasoning suggests that because a loophole exists that any student may exploit, the rule is not bad. If anything, this line of reasoning shows that the racial minority community could already face an election where one of the candidates is racially Caucasian and merely lied in order to be classified as a racial minority.

I hope that the Student Union President will bring these concerns to the University Administration and request an objective investigation of these claims. Under Section 7 of Rights and Responsibilities it states, “It is the University’s responsibility to help prevent harassment and discrimination from occurring, to pursue concerns of which it is aware, to objectively investigate concerns, and to take immediate and appropriate action to remedy issues of harassment and discrimination.” Now that students have raised these concerns it is the University’s self-appointed duty to respond and the Student Union’s responsibility to pursue an answer.

For the reasons enumerated above I hope that the Student Union will choose to advocate a position allowing any student, regardless of race, to run for these positions while keeping the voting closed only to those students registered as racial minorities. I believe that such action would effectively address the contradiction that currently exists.

Regardless of the Petitioners’ suggestion that this Court has the ability to strike down a portion of the Constitution, I have always wanted to respect the official amendment process and the constitutional review procedure that is slated to occur next academic year. However, I hope the Student Union will pursue measures necessary to bring these positions in line with the rest of the Constitution and the University’s Rights and Responsibilities. In the meantime the election for RMS should be held as soon as possible.

Therefore I find for the Petitioners, Gideon Klionsky and Ryan McElhaney. In this holding I dissent in part, though concur in judgment with the majority of the Court.

I sincerely hope the Student Union will go farther than this Court has mandated.

Respectfully,

Chief Justice Rachel Graham Kagan

Dissenting Opinion by Associate Justice Jordan Rothman:

Although I agree with my fellow Justices that this court had the authority to hear the recent case before the Union Judiciary, I have different opinions about the hearing than the majority of Justice on the UJ. I therefore would like to humbly submit this dissenting opinion in order to relate these beliefs and fully convey the reasoning behind my dissent in the case Klionsky and McElhaney vs. Student Union

I. I would first like to state that I approached this case without any biases or conflict of interests. Although I may have made public statements as to my opinions about race issues, I have never publicly or privately ruminated over the Racial Minority Senator position. I, like my fellow Justices, only brought my ideological beliefs, lived experiences, and other expertise to trial, and it is upon this background and the evidence presented in court that I based my reasoning in this case.

II. I would first like to agree with my fellow Justices about the fact that we had the authority and standing to hear this recent case. The UJ remains the only effective body that Klionsky and McElhaney could have utilized to seek redress. According to Article VI of the Student Union constitution, we have purview “Between the Union and a member of the Union. On the constitutionality of any Union Government legislation, decision, or action. On any and all other questions of constitutionality within the Union (emphasis added).” The claimants in this trial could not go to the University Board of Student Conduct because there they could not sue the Student Union as a whole, but merely individuals within the institution. Furthermore, because Article I of the Student Union Constitution states “this Constitution shall be enacted in accordance with all federal, state, and local laws, and University policies,” we can certainly take these rules (including Rights and Responsibilities) into account when making our judgments.
.
III Perhaps the main difference in opinion between myself and my Brothers and Sisters on the court is in interpreting Rights and Responsibilities. Article 7 Section 4 of that document states, “harassment whether sexual or based on an individual’s protected class status (race, color)…is a form of discrimination and will not be tolerated. It is regarded as harassment when the conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with a person’s…participation in extracurricular activities and student organizations (emphasis added).” In my eyes, in order for the Racial Minority Senator position to be struck down it must do two things. One is that this position must be discriminatory as defined above and two is that the benefits of allowing possible aforementioned discrimination do not outweigh the costs. I believe that the RMS position violates both of these conditions for the following reasons.

A:  The RMS position is clearly discriminatory. For one, it is only accessible to members of the racial minority community, and in essence, bases its main qualifications for office not on the content of one’s character, but on the color of one’s skin. The exclusivity of the position certainly has the effect of “interfering” with one’s “participation in extracurricular activities” because, although a White student can run for other positions in the Union, the RMS position is not (for all intents and purposes) accessible to Caucasians. Furthermore, it seems that this position is also discriminatory because it gives minority students more opportunities to run for office than the rest of the undergraduate community. Whereas Klionsky and McElhaney could only run for 5 senate positions, RM students can run for 6, and this seems to constitute unequal treatment.

B:  But simply establishing that a position is discriminatory does not necessarily mean that it should be eliminated. The aforementioned position must also be demonstrated to be “unreasonable.” For a variety of reasons, I believe the RMS position to be unnecessary. For one, it has been said that without this position, minorities would never get a voice in the SU Senate. This does not seem to be the case, as 11 of the current senators, nearly half of that body, come from racial minority backgrounds. It was also said in court that this position allows a unique avenue for programming on racial minorities issues, and distinctly allows for advocacy on topics important to the racial minority community. This does not seem assured, as really anyone could register to run for the position, and even an affluent White student can be the RM Senator. Overall, it seems that there are many avenues for minorities to gain positions in the Student Union without this Senate seat, and the frameworks of the position (mainly the capacity for anyone to run for it) show the weakness of any argument conveying the unyielding capacity of this Senator to advocate for minority issues.

IV. I would also like to note that there were a lot of other issues brought up in this case that were irrelevant to the constitutional interpretations at issue. Other avenues that the Student Union could take to ameliorate any constitutional contradiction (i.e. amendments and constitutional review) did nothing to address the current constitutional problem at hand. Furthermore, the slippery slope argument that if you agree with an RM Senator, than we should have to create a slew of other positions like GLBT Senators, Conservative Senators, etc. did nothing more than show the apparent ridiculousness of the RMS position, without addressing statutory injustices. Additionally, in the end, the mammoth number of amicus briefs and personal testimony relating the importance of the RMS to racial minority students did little to argue against the fact that this position is discriminatory. These issues and a number of other arguments were not largely factored into my decision, as they were at best only tangentially related to the trial.

V. I also disagree with this court as to what the UJ should do to ameliorate the constitutional contradiction as illustrated by McElhaney and Klionsky’s case. I believe that two parts of the constitution contradict each other. Mainly, I assert that you cannot have a Racial Minority Senator and a requirement that all organizations act in a non-discriminatory fashion. The Student Union Constitution gives the UJ much power in resolving constitutional issues and Article IV Section 10 of that document states “The Union Judiciary shall have the power to specify any and all measures appropriate to the execution of its decisions (emphasis added).” I feel that the only way to be just to all parties involved in this case, and to all communities on campus, is to suspend the RMS position indefinitely until some other mechanism (like an amendment or constitutional review) can correct the constitutional contradiction. This would allow the community, through discussion and democracy, to decide how best to address this issue, and disallow a discriminatory action from continuing. It does not overstep the bounds of the UJ’s power, but merely ensures that others, with the proper authority, are allowed to address the issue while an injustice is not perpetrated in the meantime.

VI. Finally, I would like to say that it has been a pleasure to work with various individuals on this case, and with my colleagues throughout the year.

A. Ryan McElhaney ’10 presented an absolutely fantastic case, and dealt with the criticism and social pressure that his position might have generated with poise and grace. For this he deserves much respect and acknowledgement. I would also like to commend all of the other members of counsel, witnesses, and friends of the court who made this trial an enriching and productive affair. Without everyone’s help, the recent proceedings could never have been as civil and effective as they certainly were.

B. Additionally, I would like to thank former Associate Justice of the Student Union Judiciary Danielle E. Shmuely ’10, Chief Justice Rachel Graham Kagan ‘09 and my current Brothers and Sister on the court for a fantastic academic year. Working with all of you has been an amazing experience, as our interactions have been productive, fun, and enlightening. My colleagues are all bright, passionate, courteous, and completely dedicated to resolving some of our community’s toughest issues. I can think of no other students who could better serve the community than these Justices, and I am extremely proud to have been a member of this court.

Overall, I think any unequal opportunities and distinctions based on race are discriminatory, and therefore believe that the Racial Minority Senator position to be in violation of university policy. I think that reasoning otherwise is valid, but nevertheless desire to convey my dissent in the case Klionsky and McElhaney vs. Student Union.

Humbly Submitted

Jordan Rothman ‘09
Associate Justice, Student Union Judiciary

On Thursday, April 30th, Bill Ayers, Professor of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago and co-founder of the radical anti-war group, The Weather Underground, will speak on social justice movements and lessons from the anti-war movement. The event will be held in the SCC Theater, and doors will open at 8:30.  An open question and answer session will follow.

TICKETS WILL GO ON SALE TONIGHT 4/20 AT THE DFA COFFEEHOUSE (9:30-12 PM in Chums), AND WILL BE AVAILABLE ALL WEEK IN USDAN.  The tickets will cost $5, are open to the Brandeis community ONLY, and require a valid Brandeis ID to purchase.  A total of 230 tickets will be available.  Email MGRU...@BRANDEIS.EDU if you cannot buy them in Usdan, or if you are unable to pay the ticket price.

In the week prior to Ayers’ visit, DFA and SDS will hold two town hall meetings featuring a panel of Brandeis professors, for an open discussion of Ayers’ political and social implications in the U.S. and on this campus: at 7:00 in Lown Auditorium on Monday (4/27) and Wednesday (4/29).

This event is sponsored by Democracy for America, Students for a Democratic Society, the Brenda Meehan Social Justice Grant, and four academic departments: Peace, Conflict and Coexistence Studies; Education; History; and Social Justice, Social Policy.

We are writing to you to ask that the case regarding the Senator for
Racial Minority Students be dismissed.

We feel that the position of Senator for Racial Minority Students
plays an important role in the minority community at Brandeis. This
position allows for the voices of minority students to be heard
through a person with which the community feels comfortable. People of
color on this campus are a small community with some unique needs, and
without a position in place to serve them, those needs would probably
not be met. Through representation, the racial minority community at
Brandeis can better be active participants in the larger Brandeis
community.

We think that a discussion of these important issues in the student
body should take place, but we do not believe that a UJ case is the
proper venue in which to do so. This case in no way represents the
voices of the racial minority community. By suing the elections
commission, this case does not provide an outlet through which the
community of people of color can make their voices heard. It is
important that the minority community, as those most affected by a
decision about this position, be active participants in such
discussions. This position should not be disbanded without
consultation of the racial minority community.

Thank you for taking into consideration the voices of the racial
minority community of Brandeis University.

Kaamila Mohamed
Class of ‘11
Co-President, Brandeis Black Student Organization
Founder and Former President, Mixed Heritage Club

JV Souffrant
TYP ‘09

Jason Gray
Class of ‘10
Student Body President

Taisha Sturdivant
Class of ‘11
Black History Month Co-Coordinator, Black Student Organization

Virginia Ramos
Class of ’12
ICC Rep, AHORA

Marie Zazueta
Class of ‘11
Former E-Board Member, Mixed Heritage Club

Tanya Kostochka
Class of ’11
Co-President, Japanese Students Association

Jung Oh Ham
Class of ‘11
Former webmaster, Korean Student Association
ICC Staff

Shaina Gilbert
Class of ‘10
TYP Senator of 2006-2007
Executive Director of Women of Color Alliance (WOCA)
Co-President of Brandeis Black Student Organization

Ariella Silverstein-Tapp
Class of ‘09
Co-President, Adagio Dance Company
Co-President, HIPnosis Dance Team

Christina Luo
Class of ’11
Former Treasurer, Mixed Heritage Club

Liane Hypolite
Class of ‘10
E-Board Member, MLK and Friends

Beckie Choi
Class of ’11
Former Vice President, Korean Student Association

Lisa Hanania
Class of ’11
President, Brandeis Students for Justice in Palestine
President, Arab Culture Club

Jillian Rexford
TYP Class of ‘09
Operating Director, Women of Color Alliance

Kayla Sotomil
Class of ‘10
Culture X Coordinator

Kenta Yamamoto
Class of ‘10
Co-president, Japanese Student Association

Stephanie A. Karol
Class of ‘12
President, Mixed Heritage Club

Alex Luo
Class of ‘11
Former Secretary of the Mixed Heritage Club

Celebrating racial diversity does not accomplish its stated mission of bringing greater perspectives and experiences to intellectual discourse. One way in which it fails is that not all members of racial minority groups have different backgrounds simply due to their race. Blacks as well as Whites can come from the inner city, just as members of all races can hail from differing walks of life. It is therefore unfair and inaccurate to believe that minorities have a different perspective simply due to ethnicity. Furthermore, even if an increased perspective was present, I have no idea how it would benefit the community. It is not like open debate on monumental issues occurs regularly in the classroom or around campus. Nor is it as if cultural values and perspectives make an impression upon our intellects through osmosis. I fail to recognize any benefits from interacting with people of different racial backgrounds, as I have little to gain and do not see how this benefit can be conveyed.

I think he’s wrong, but that’s beside the point. As a Justice, Jordan will have the power to cast a deciding vote on the issue of whether or not the positions of Racial Minority Senator and F-Board representative can exist. Though I cannot find any public comment from Jordan on the positions themselves, his Hoot columns clearly show that he believes ‘racial diversity is pointless.’ He has already made his beliefs obvious and public and thus should recuse himself from the case.

This is problematic on so many levels. Whatever you feel about the position of the Racial Minority Senator the fact that the UJ, a body comprised of five white individuals, can dismantle the position without any input from the student body is outrageous. To make it worse, the parties most affected by the potential ruling, racial minority students, have absolutely no say in the process. The named respondent in the case is the Elections Commission, which probably doesn’t give a damn about the position to begin with. This case is subverting the Democratic process and allowing five white justices to decide the fate of representation of racial minority students.

The merits of the case are a different issue altogether. Any student can register, or even change their registration, with the University to ‘Other’ if they so please and can run for the position of Racial Minority Senator. Will a white person who runs for the position be judged and mocked? Yes, probably, and deservedly so, but they still have a legal outlet to pursue the position if they please.

In addition, having the position does not ‘discriminate’ against white students. It simply gives a spot on the Senate specifically for a community that has distinct needs. They might try to argue that racial minority students have unfair representation, but so do lots of other groups of people on campus. Ridgewood, for instance, is heavily over-represented in the Senate. There are just 150 people living in Ridgewood, and they have one Senator in the Senate. East, where 400 people live, also has just one Senator. No one is claiming this is discrimination against East quad residents.

But ultimately, that is unimportant. Maybe the position is outdated and needs to go. I’m not convinced that it is the best way to ensure minority voices are heard on campus. But I am positive that this UJ case is a sham. I don’t think Brandeis students will stand as an all white judiciary eliminates the representation of students of color. We need an open exchange, a democratic dialogue, about how to best represent minority voices, and this is not it.