“Good morning Anita Hill, it’s Ginni Thomas. I just wanted to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology sometime and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband… So give it some thought. And certainly pray about this and hope that one day you will help us understand why you did what you did. O.K., have a good day.”

The Times reports that after a week of deliberation, Hill turned the message over to the Brandeis police, believing it to be a prank, due to the timing (7:30 on a Sunday morning) and the overall oddness.

Only Prof. Hill and Justice Thomas know the reality of what transpired at the EEOC, of course, so I can’t possibly judge the merit of Hill’s original accusations. None of us can. But I do have a few thoughts, based on what can be known:

1. It’s nice to see Brandeis in the newspaper again.
2. I think it’s time Anita Hill was finally left alone to get on with her career. The disgusting and relentless pursuit of her that started in 1991 and seemingly never ends, sends a very poor message to other potential victims of sexual harassment who may be debating whether or not to speak out. This holds no matter what the truth of the original incident was.
3. Virginia Thomas can’t possibly have any proof of whether Hill’s allegations were true, other than her husband’s devoted love, so why cause a confrontation?
4. And why do it at 7:30 on a Sunday morning?

This story is very strange indeed. But I think the best way we can react is to NOT THINK OF ANITA HILL AS THE WOMAN CLARENCE THOMAS MAY HAVE SEXUALLY HARASSED, AND START THINKING OF HER AS A RESPECTED SCHOLAR. We must manage the attention we pay to these cases in a way that does everything it can not to ruin the life of the victim, lest every other victim remain silent.

If you can’t tell, the Anita Hill case has been a sore spot of mine for a long time. I don’t like it that her accusations weren’t taken more seriously, and that Thomas wound up on the court. And I don’t like it that she can’t get past the incident and live a normal life.

Oh, and for those curious, my personal Top Five list of infamous (at least in the eyes of the Establishment) Brandeis alumni is: Angela Davis, Katherine Ann Power, Susan Saxe, Jack Abramoff, Aafia Siddiqui.

My compatriot and classmate Oren Nimni and I have written a book. It is entitled Blueprints for a Sparkling Tomorrow: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream It can be examined here, at Amazon.com, where it is currently the #117,529th bestselling book.

I post this here because the book is mildly political, though it is “radical” only in the sense that it rejects civilization outright. It is a book of meditations on contemporary human problems, and proposed solutions to those problems. A deeply introspective and professional work, it comes with a glossy cover and a number of well-placed footnotes.

And so, for just $11.99, you get 236 pages of intelligent discourse and witty retorts. As you read, you will slide lithely toward the Future, and while your tomorrows may or may not sparkle, you will certainly emerge from the book having read it.

There is not yet a law requiring you buy this book, but I strongly recommend you do so. And all those who write reviews will be given complimentary pastries. (This only applies to intellectually honest reviews. Reviewers who spew accusations and falsehoods will go pastry-less)

Frederick Lawrence came to GW Law as dean in August 2005. One of the nation’s leading civil rights experts, he is the author of, Punishing Hate: Bias Crimes Under American Law, which examines bias-motivated violence and how the United States deals with such crimes. He has written widely in the areas of civil rights crimes and free expression.

In 2004, he was a member of the American delegation to the meeting of the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) on Enactment and Enforcement of Legislation to Combat Hate-Motivated Crimes and in 2009 he delivered the keynote address to the OSCE meeting on hate crime law enforcement. From 2003 to 2006, he served as chair of the National Legal Affairs Committee of the Anti-Defamation League. Dean Lawrence also has performed in Carnegie Hall, Lincoln Center, and the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts with the New York Choral Society.

July 8, 2010

Members of the Brandeis Community,

It gives me great pleasure to announce that, at its meeting today, the board of trustees unanimously and enthusiastically elected Frederick M. Lawrence, dean and Robert Kramer Research Professor of Law at the George Washington University Law School, to succeed Jehuda Reinharz as the eighth president of Brandeis University starting Jan. 1, 2011.

President-elect Lawrence is widely recognized as one of our nation’s top civil rights experts. He has written eloquently about a broad range of important legal and constitutional issues and is the author of “Punishing Hate: Bias Crimes Under American Law.” Fred also has co-authored a number of Supreme Court amicus curiae briefs, including the brief on behalf of civil rights groups in Virginia v. Black (2003) concerning the constitutionality of Virginia’s cross-burning statutes. He has served as chair of the National Legal Affairs Committee of the Anti-Defamation League and is a trustee of Williams College, his alma mater. From 1988 to 2005, he was a member of the faculty and academic administration at Boston University School of Law, and in 1996 he received Boston University’s Metcalf Award for Excellence in Teaching, the highest of the university’s teaching awards.

Fred impressed the members of the board with his strong record of academic scholarship and administration, as well as personal ideals and professional accomplishments that reflect the values of Justice Louis Brandeis and the university’s commitment to social justice and social action. In his meetings with trustees, faculty, students and senior officers, Fred demonstrated a strong commitment to liberal arts education and a clear understanding of and appreciation for Brandeis’ unique character, its Jewish heritage and its mission, which he aptly characterized as a “research college and a teaching university.” The board also noted his record of effective fundraising, both in this country and abroad.

Fred has a warm and winning personal style and a long record of engaging effectively with faculty, students, alumni and members of the extended communities with which he has worked. He is an outstanding successor to President Jehuda Reinharz, and I know that all members of the Brandeis community join with me in welcoming Fred Lawrence to this very special university.

Sincerely,

Malcolm L. Sherman
Chair, Board of Trustees

To read the full announcement and a profile of Fred, watch video interviews, leave a welcome message and more, please visit http://www.brandeis.edu/new-president/

I’ve put together a list of living people I wouldn’t mind having give the address for my class. I think we should have a little chat about them. Submit your own suggestions!

-Germaine Greer
-Harold Koh
-Barbara Smith
-Eleanor Holmes Norton
-Robert Coover
-Dave Andrews
-Uri Gordon
-Ed Sanders
-Anthony Romero
-Gore Vidal
-bell hooks
-Cornel West
-John Barth
-Janet Biehl
-Duncan Kennedy
-Slavoj Žižek
-Angela Davis
-Nadine Strossen
-Pete Seeger
-Tariq Ali
-Mark Green
-George Galloway

Of course, if we think the selection of Michael Oren means that we should be as extremely politically controversial as possible, we could lobby for Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, and Noam Chomsky.

But my personal absolute favorites from the list are Germaine Greer and Cornel West. I definitely want someone colorful and fiery. Anyway, we really need to get on this, or else the administration will give us someone insipid like George Stephanopoulos or Wolf Blitzer. Or maybe they’ll stick their finger in our eye again and bring Alan Dershowitz.

It is our position that the use of geodesic domes must be radically expanded, both on-campus and nationwide.

https://sys.brandeis.edu/voting/menu/9655

There is also an unopposed election for UCC rep on there.

I encourage everyone to vote on this very important decision. I’ve said my piece against the amendment, so I will not spew my views further. But you really ought to vote on this, no matter which way you lean.

I don’t like this at all. Firstly, I think it’s morally reprehensible to prioritize the sort of small improvements suggested on the Facebook over the livelihoods of Brandeis workers. Our university is in the midst of a particularly precarious financial time, and the administration has gotten rid of staff in addition to announcing a reduction of faculty by 10%. This money could save a job. I think it would be utterly despicable to spend more money on bicycles and Pachanga (which are already very well funded), when we could rally to save the livelihood of a Brandeis worker. Shame on SEA for prioritizing politics over people.

I also think this is an unfair way of pushing an agenda. All clubs have the same pool of resources to draw from, yet SEA is greedily attempting to squeeze more money out of students. Yes, I know, I know, Mr. Waizer, they’re not the ones on the board, and it’s independent. But it’s their proposal. In fact, the official summary linked to above bears ONLY the names of SEA members. And we all know what club’s members will have the best qualifications for a seat on the new board. It’s independent on paper, sure, but the entire proposal is being created and lobbied for by SEA, and serves their club’s purposes.

$7.50 may not seem like a vast amount, but it’s hardly negligible, and if other factions pick up on this method (as they should, if it works!), we might see a deluge of new fee plans. And why should the Environmentalists get money and the Labor people not? Why shouldn’t we have a special fund for the anti-genocide people or the AIDS groups or the Zionists? We can’t allow proponents of various causes to start levying their own fees on students, else we will erode the entire purpose of a communal fund. We really must get everyone out in force to vote NO on Monday. The fee should be optional or should not exist at all.

Somehow Sahar missed the most interesting story in this week’s Hoot, so here it is:

William Murphy, a 23 year old former Brandeis student (who did not graduate) apparently robbed a bank in Longmeadow, stealing $300,000 and storing the money at the Russell Street house of several current Brandeis students who are on the baseball team. The robbery occurred March 25th, and was allegedly carried out by Murphy and his younger brother. Also, the two were reportedly dropped off near Brandeis by a friend directly after the robbery.

More information in this week’s Hoot and at MassLive.com. As a reminder, this is not the first time a Brandeis student has robbed a bank.

Left to right: Thomas and William Murphy

A couple of curiosities present themselves. Does anyone around here remember William Murphy? He would’ve been a senior. If so, did he seem like the bank-robbing type? Also, did the baseball bats come from his friends on the baseball team? Are we about to see more arrests? Also, am I allowed to use this as yet another reason to hate the baseball team?

As it turns out, the Department of Labor has laid out six criteria for determining whether an internship can be legally be unpaid. The internship must:

1. Give training similar to what would be given in a vocational school or academic
educational instruction, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the
employer.
2. Be for the benefit of the intern.
3. Not replace regular employees with interns.
4. Give the employer no immediate advantage from the activities of the trainees/interns (and on occasion the employer’s operations may actually be impeded)
5. Not guarantee the interns a job at the end
6. Feature a mutual understanding by employer/intern that the intern is not entitled to wages for the time spent in training.

If all of these elements are true, the intern is not considered to be in an “employment relationship” with the employer, and need not be compensated. As you will notice, though, the standards are fairly strict, especially the “no immediate advantage” section. Nearly all internships carry some advantage for the employer, or else they wouldn’t be offered. The section is present because the guidelines were devised with vocational training rather than internships in mind, even though they apply to both (I have replaced the word “trainee” with “intern” in my use of the guidelines, to make it more applicable here).

The bottom line is that generally, unpaid internships by for-profit employers tend to be illegal. If you have accepted one for the summer, or are considering accepting one, know that your employer will be in violation of federal wage laws if you are not compensated for your time. You can file a wage complaint with the Massachusetts State Attorney General’s office here, or contact the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage & Hour division here or at 1-866-4US-WAGE. And if you know that a for-profit employer (do keep in mind that these regulations only apply to for-profit companies, as non-profits can be volunteered at) is offering unpaid internships through Brandeis, it might be a good idea to talk to someone at Hiatt.

The exploitation of students desperate for work by corporations is not only reprehensible, but illegal. I’m glad state regulators are on the case, but we need to assist their work by finding these activities where they exist.

The Ethics Center has uploaded the video of November 5th’s Richard Goldstone event. Watch and learn here.