The Pricing Carbon Conference took place on Wesleyan University campus in Middletown, CT, November 19-21st. The event was co-hosted by Wesleyan’s newly established College of the Environment and the Price Carbon Campaign. Partners in the Conference included the Climate Crisis Coalition, Citizen’s Climate Lobby, Carbon Tax Center, Future 500, Progressive Democrats of America, and our very own Students for a Just and Stable Future.

SJSF held its Student Conference of the Parties during workshop sessions and overtime, diligently amending, debating, and deliberating on our final product: a Declaration to be sent to our leaders at the international Conference of the Parties in Cancun, Mexico next week.

The process of creating the declaration filled me with a sense of empowerment and renewed dedication to complete our part in the solution. The declaration consists of 3 parts: the first, a picture of climate change -– a view of the alarming state of the world we will see unfold if we continue on the road before us; the second, a commitment on our own behalf to act in very specific, deliberate ways to lead us to a clean energy future; the third, a strong and sincere call to action that we demand from our local, state, and world leaders. I give extra kudos to the students who worked on the first of the three parts; the first read-through of their revised version sent goose bumps through the room.

The Pricing Carbon Conference itself was fascinating. Key note speeches were given by James Hansen, leading Climate Change scientist, and Bill McKibbon, founder of 350 movement. The conference focused on the immediate necessity of pricing CO2 emissions. Speakers and attendees reflected a shift in the majority support in terms of pricing carbon options; while the Cap & Trade method was discussed, most prominently supported was the method of Fee & Dividend. Under Fee & Dividend, a fee would be placed on products based upon the inherent carbon costs of their production, and then the full amount of the revenue (or a majority percentage, if so decided) would be returned to the consumers by way of a check/electronic deposit. The revenue money would be returned evenly to all consumers, and so those who consume less carbon-intensive products will end up saving money, while those who consume more may lose money in the end.

A sincere thanks to everyone who made this conference possible and to the organizers who invited SJSF students to attend! I look forward to SJSF working alongside the other sponsoring organizations in building up the fight against climate change!

-Rachel Soule

You can view the declaration and add your name to the signatories list at: http://justandstable.org/blog/

This comes to mind when thinking about last week’s election and some of the conversations that I had about the election with some of my less politically minded friends.

When questioned about how they were voting, many simply replied with sentiments such as “oh, I’m a democrat, I’m just voting for whoever the democrat is.”

There is something about that mentality that rubs me the wrong way.

While I understand the idea of identifying heavily with a party, I cannot imagine having so much faith in an institution that I let it decide my vote, which I have always been taught is my most direct and effective tool to affect national politics.

I feel like in theory, parties are intuitive.

They give us the ability to associate and identify with likeminded people who share common values and opinions with ourselves.

But, at some point, human nature kicks in and our desire to define ourselves by the group that we are associated with takes over.

What once might have given a forum to conversation and learning among likeminded people now serves as an excuse for people to throw their political weight around without exerting any intellectual effort.

This is, of course, a generalization, but I have had enough of the aforementioned conversations to convince me that if this phenomenon is not common among voters now, it will increase as current young voters take the political reigns.

This is the original blog post that inspired me to think about this topic and eventually write this post.

This article makes an analogy that political parties are like ice cream carts.

It argues that the party system currently functions by pressuring its consumers to subscribe solely to one party (or brand of ice cream, think Ben and Jerry’s and Haagen Dazs). When, in reality,

It’s a model which is meant to predict which ice cream cart you choose out of two, not one that’s meant to persuade you to buy an ice cream if you don’t want one.

Yo. This makes so much sense.

Both types of ice cream are there if I want them.

Generally I prefer Ben and Jerry’s but if there is a day where Haagen Dazs is what I need, then you can bet that I am going to get Haagen Dazs.

I am sick of people telling me that I have to choose what type of ice cream I want and then stick to it for the rest of my life or else I risk earning such career ruining nicknames as flip flopper.

The moral of the story is that party loyalty isn’t always all that it’s cracked up to be and that-in my eyes-it’s better to make your own decisions based on the issues as opposed to party lines.

But before I get into this, I want to talk a bit about being informed. For me, being informed means that you have to be proactive about how you take in and process information. You need to question everything, all the time. While this can be confrontational or petty, at times it’s important to perpetually challenge your ideas.

This seems obvious, but most people vastly overrate their ability to be unbiased. As anyone who has taken a psychology or philosophy class can tell you, humans are exceptional in their ability to see what they want to see. Most of us are hypocrites, but that’s alright, at least for me. I accept it and move on, and so should you. But make sure that you are constantly aware of the information around you and remember that it is your job to separate the wheat from the chaff. It is incredibly simple to discover a wealth of information with access to a search engine. So if you care about a cause, you should care enough to do a few minutes of research about it. Be an informed participant in the communities you care about.

An informed public is vital for our future. Information is the heartbeat upon which social justice thrives. The vast majority of the injustices in the world are a result of someone somewhere not having the right information or the proper context. This is why it is important to have free discourse of information, especially in a society in which our ability to communicate and speak freely is being increasingly trampled on.

Stepping off my soapbox, let me say that it is incredibly easy to know about a problem but much harder to act on it in an effective way. You always have to be constantly weighing your ability to make a difference for your cause. You have to understand when your presence does no good or even hinders your cause. When you have limited support, you need to hedge your bets and be conservative about your actions. Activists are not celebrities, and there is such a thing as bad press. As an activist, your function is to challenge preconceptions, and so by being incautious you risk turning people permanently away from your cause, because people are slow to admit that they are wrong, and slower to admit it when they feel they are under attack. You need to be patient, informed and, most importantly, understanding of other people. In my experience I only make significant, lasting progress on anything when I go about it in a careful and deliberate way.

I guess the takeaway here is that as an activist, you need to understand your interests, your limits and never overextend yourself. If you can do that, I can’t imagine it’s possible to do anything but make progress for your goals. Finding and understanding your interests is the easy part for most activists. It’s learning to convince other people in a way that does not alienate them from your cause that’s the really hard part. I’ve certainly found people in my face pushing a cause I’ve never had reason to care about, and I would hazard a guess that most of you have at some point in your life.

Sahar gave me a short lecture on doing “good” – promoting good causes – versus doing “well.” Doing “good” is about social justice and always doing the right thing. Doing “good” is great but I find that if I can’t do something “well” first and foremost, I never end up doing anything at all.

That’s why I was extremely happy to see the following advertised in the latest BrandeisNow newsletter which I so generously read through and am updating the activist calendar with, so you don’t have to (unless you want to that is). Basically, it’s an annual exhibition of artwork by faculty and staff from the Brandeis community who make art (and the category is very broad), organized by the Office of the Arts.

I think you should encourage teachers and staffworkers you know to submit their work, and show them your support by attending the exhibit once it goes up, in the middle of November!

Are you an artist or fine craftsperson outside of your 9 to 5 occupation?

The Office of the Arts invites you to exhibit artwork in JustArts, the annual exhibition of faculty and staff work in the Dreitzer Gallery in Spingold Theater Center, November 16-23.

To submit work, fill out the online form here by November 5.

Work in all media is eligible: painting, sculpture, jewelry, fiber, photography, sound installation.

Last year’s exhibition showcased art by 35 talented artists who work in every corner of Brandeis, from the mail room to the chaplaincy to athletics, and academic departments including politics and theater. See the video here.

Questions? Contact Ingrid Schorr, Office of the Arts, at ingr...@brandeis.edu or 781-736-5008.

The military’s 17-year old Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy prohibiting openly gay people from joining themilitary was deemed unconstitutional by U.S. District Court Judge Virginia A. Phillips in September, when it came up in the case of Log Cabin Republicans v. United States. Phillips’ ruling ordered the government “immediately to suspend and discontinue any investigation, or discharge, separation, or other proceeding” started under DADT, according to conservative news source Baptist Press.

The Baptist Press reported that “Under the Pentagon’s latest directives, recruiters are not allowed to ask candidates whether they are homosexual as part of the application process, but if a candidate volunteers such information and otherwise qualifies under normal recruiting guidelines, the person’s application can be processed.”

Yesterday, Oct. 20, the Department of Justice responded to this ruling by submitting an emergency request to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asking that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell remain until the appeals process for the case is over. The Log Cabin Republicans (the plaintiffs in the case) have said they intend to file written opposition to this request, but according to MetroWeekly, “No oral arguments are expected at the Ninth Circuit for consideration of either request.”

Stay updated while the debate continues.

***Update: As reported in NPR, “A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday temporarily granted the U.S. government’s request for a freeze on the judge’s order.” However, “it was unclear what effect the temporary freeze would have on the Pentagon, which has already informed recruiters to accept openly gay recruits and has suspended discharge proceedings for gay service members.” So, the military seems to be in a state of confusion as to which orders to follow.

Legally, they should not be accepting openly gay people at the moment, although they were mandated TO allow them to sign up for a brief period. During this period Lt. Daniel Choi, and undoubtedly other openly gay men and women, re-enlisted, presenting a question of what will happen while the case is waiting for appeal. (Lt. Daniel Choi came out publicly on the Rachel Maddow Show in March 2009, and was then honorably discharged under DADT. He has since been active in the fight against DADT, and served as the Grand Marshal of the 41st Annual New York LGBT Pride March this summer. He re-enlisted in the US Army on October 19th.)

I hope many of you have read this article in the Hoot by Bret Matthew. He discusses the very scary and imminent decision for admissions to begin using a “need sensitive” policy when admitting new freshman next fall. This decision is against the integrity and values of Brandeis. I applied here early decision because I felt this school had a powerful dedication to justice and to its students.

There only reason I am attending Brandeis now is because of the “need blind” policy. Without the tremendous scholarships I have received, I would be at a state school without any of the amazing opportunities I have received here at Brandeis. For many of my friends, this has also been their experience.

As responsible students of Brandeis, we can not allow such detrimental changes to be made! We must stand up proud of the Brandeis tradition, accepting all students who match criteria, no matter their financial status. In order to maintain our educated and caring student body, in order to maintain our diversity, in order to bring about new ideas and actions for future generations, we must accept the best possible students who apply. The brightest minds don’t always come from the deepest pockets, and we need to continue to celebrate freedom of education.

Brandeis is far from the only campus to feature bike-sharing — in fact, a recent USA Today article shows that we’re part of a growing movement across the country. Nearly 90 American universities have adopted similar programs, many that dwarf our small 12 bike fleet. My favorite:

In 2008, faced with a parking crisis, the University of New England in Biddeford, Maine, raised parking permit fees and began to give away free bikes to freshman students who promised not to bring cars to campus, university spokeswoman Kathleen Taggersell says.

Since then, the university has given out 530 bikes and, as a direct result of the program, turned a 95-space parking lot into a basketball court with a river-view tent for university events, Taggersell says.

Maybe we don’t have the money to do that now, but coupling free bicycles with a increase in parking fees would be a simple and very effective carbon tax that I think the majority of the student body would support.

The Drury University program also jumped out at me, particularly because of how it’s funded. The Drury student body agreed to pay a sustainability fee of $20 per year, much like the Brandeis Sustainability Fund we voted for last year. We already have bike-sharing, but Drury shows that this relatively minor contribution can go towards green initiatives that benefit the entire community.

Speaking of the BSF, the deadline to apply for funding is October 12th, so if you’ve got that awesome idea you’d love to see become reality, check out the BSF website for application instructions. Environmentalism doesn’t have to be chore; it can be as easy as riding a bike.

But, frankly, Muslim life is cheap, most notably to Muslims. And among those Muslims led by the Imam Rauf there is hardly one who has raised a fuss about the routine and random bloodshed that defines their brotherhood. So, yes, I wonder whether I need honor these people and pretend that they are worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment which I have in my gut the sense that they will abuse.

Peretz published these vile words in a September 4th column about American attitudes towards Muslims. This is the most shocking passage, but the whole thing is worth reading, if you can stomach it. Basically, Peretz posits that, despite polling evidence to the contrary, there is a vast reservoir of anti-Muslim sentiment among Americans. Furthermore, this hatred is completely justifiable because Muslims apparently do not care about the terrorist actions carried out by the fanatical fringes of their faith community. The article is one of the most disgusting pieces of writing I’ve seen from a supposedly serious journalistic source.

Unfortunately, it’s also par for the course for Peretz, who has made bigotry a cornerstone of his career as a journalist. Earlier this year, he gave us this gem while writing about the War in Iraq:

Frankly, I couldn’t quite imagine any venture requiring trust with Arabs turning out especially well. This is, you will say, my prejudice. But some prejudices are built on real facts, and history generally proves me right. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

In another column, he informs us that:

…Palestine will be a wretched society, cruel, belligerent, intolerant, fearing, with no real justice (or justice system), and no internal peace.

To me, Peretz’s connection with Brandeis is an embarrassment, not a point of pride. Using his name to promote Brandeis is a betrayal of our values and can only serve to repel the type of student that we should be trying to attract. However, this bond also gives us the unique opportunity to call out Peretz from his home, to join together as a community and forcefully reject his brand of demagoguery. That’s why members of the Brandeis community are circulating a petition and calling for a public apology from Peretz. Visit www.fromBrandeistoMarty.com and add your voice; if we get 500 signatures, we’ll send it to the New Republic and demand that Peretz retract his call to hate.

Our university was founded to combat persecution against an underpowered religious minority. Marty Peretz may not appreciate what that responsibility means, but most of us do. Sign the petition; say no to Marty, and yes to Brandeis.

The Elaine and George Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism is Brandeis’s vehicle for restoring the power of a truly free press.  The Institute will celebrate it’s birthday next month, marking six years as the nation’s first investigative reporting center housed at a university.  Its directors are well aware of the trials facing the news industry; the Institute’s website states that it was founded “to help fill the void in high-quality public interest and investigative journalism—and to counter the increasing corporate control of what Americans read, see, and hear.”  As technological advances change the way we access news, it’s important that the voids that traditional news outlets leave are filled with well-trained, ambitious muckrakers.  Rather than killing investigative journalism, the online revolution can be a restorative purge — and the Schuster Institute puts Brandeis at its forefront.

Just like the University, the Schuster Institute is built around the pillar of a commitment to social justice.  Its major projects involve exposing governmental and corporate abuses, freeing wrongly-incarcerated prisoners, and uncovering gender inequalities in society.  While it’s important that they avoid bias, journalists can maintain objectivity without losing their conscience, much like biologists who employ the scientific method while developing medications.  I’ve always considered the pursuit of truth to be a desirable end in it’s own right, but it can also be the means to building a better society — perhaps our most important goal as a species.

In short, I believe that journalism has the potential to do almost limitless good in the world, and I’m proud that Brandeis approaches it with such seriousness and humanity.  But the news is only useful if it reaches people and inspires them to action, and I’d like to help in whatever way I can.  So Innermost Parts is going to start an effort to publicize Schuster Institute reports on campus and explore ways that Brandeis’s awesome activist clubs can work to address the issues they raise.  You can check out the Institute’s archives here, and check here for opportunities to work directly with the Institute.

Therefore, it’s disheartening to hear of the double whammy that mental health patients have suffered as a result of the recession.  A new study from Brandeis’s Dominic Hodgkin reports that state and local mental health services have been substantially cut in the past few years; meanwhile, the difficulties of living in a recession economy have caused demand for mental health services to increase.  These effects have been seen on a global as well as national scale.

If all this seems self-evident (of course recessions lead to spending cuts!), then check out the press release for more details or read Hodgkin’s full study in the International Journal of Mental Health.  While the conclusions are grim, it’s always great to see Brandeis researchers contributing to understanding global issues, and I hope that Hodgkin can play a small role in finding a solution to the mental health crisis.

The Boston Herald reports that Brandeis has just signed a contract with Sotheby’s, a famous auction house, to explore options for raising funds by leasing artwork from the Rose.  Does that mean we’ve finally dodged the bullet of selling off the collection it took us decades to acquire?

The vote by Reinharz and Brandeis trustees Jan. 26, 2009, to sell the art remains in force. Asked whether selling the art remains a possibility for the Waltham-based university, [Brandeis spokesman Andrew] Gully said: “Yes, because the vote remains. But the intent is clearly at this point to explore nonsale options. Clearly you wouldn’t be selling anything while we were exploring those options.”

Why are we still considering selling artwork?  Didn’t we hear in March that the University had already developed a plan to balance its operating budget by 2014?  Board of Trustees Chair Malcolm Sherman certainly seems to think so.  In a letter to the Herald published on July 19th, Sherman reaffirms the 2014 plan and assigns a different purpose to the potential art transactions:

Now we are exploring options we hope will allow the university to retain ownership of the Rose collection while generating funds for: financial aid; state-of-the-art academic, research and residential facilities; faculty compensation that long ensure excellence in teaching.

Sherman’s letter is disingenuous from the beginning.  He claims that the original Herald story “presents an unfair picture of the university’s fiscal situation”, then goes on to recite the exact same facts that the article mentioned.  The question that Sherman needs to answer is: Has the value of artwork from the Rose been calculated as part of our plan to balance our operating budget or relieve our structural deficit?  If the answer is yes, than Brandeis’s financial solvency is based on leases or sales in an uncertain market that may be illegal anyway.  Our financial future is much more shaky than the administration or Board of Trustees would have us believe, and it is really Sherman and Jehuda Reinharz who are guilty of stretching the truth, not only to the Herald but to the entire Brandeis community.  If the answer is no, then our continued attempts to seek profit from art prove that we’re just as poor caretakers as we’ve been accused of, and no rational art aficionado should have any reason to give us so much as a preschool watercolor painting ever again.

Art expert Raymond Liddell sure isn’t buying what Sherman and Gully are selling.  In his letter to the Herald from July 21st, the former museum administrator and university professor raises some tough questions:

The Rose Art Museum story gets curiouser and curiouser (“Thorny situation for Rose Museum,” July 11). It’s clear that Brandeis has not disavowed its decision to sell the Rose collection which has made it a pariah. It’s clear that Brandeis is trying to buy time and hoping the story will go away. It won’t. It’s not clear why Sotheby’s, whose primary business is selling art, is involved. It’s not clear what sort of museum Brandeis envisions for the future without a director. If it walks and talks like a duck . . .

Liddell has the credentials to know what he’s talking about (and not only because he borrows the language I used to describe Brandeis last week).  He clearly believes that Brandeis is already planning on selling artwork or even completely getting rid of the Rose, and I have to admit he makes a persuasive case.  The worst part for Brandeis is that the people who are suing us think so too:

“Lending art is something museum directors do, and Brandeis fired theirs,” said Jonathan Lee, chairman of the Rose Board of Overseers, who filed suit July 27, 2009, to block the initial sell-off plan. “So it seems a little wacky to have a sales agent do this for you. The kind of revenue expected for lending art is quite small.”

Meryl Rose, representing the Rose family in the lawsuit, said: “Well, it’s ridiculous. It’s just obfuscation so people will think they’re not selling art. But they haven’t taken that off the table.”

Maybe if we sell enough art, we’ll eventually be able to recoup our legal fees!

Last year, a report from a university committee prompted me to write the following:

“BRANDEIS IS NOT CLOSING THE ROSE AND SELLING ALL THE ARTWORK.” Words and italics from them, bold and caps from yours truly.  If you’re going to take anything from the interim report of the Future of the Rose Committee, make it that.  We’ve sat and listened as the Rose first was closed, then open for the semester, then for part of the summer, then the whole summer, then open indefinitely.  Finally, we have an absolutely definitive statement from a body that’s spent lots of time researching this very issue that the Rose is not going anywhere, and, in fact, that we’re bound by donor agreements to keep the Rose Art Museum open by that very name.

After hearing so much spin and backtracking over the course of just that one semester, I now realize I was naive to take any statement on the future of the Rose at face value.  I’d say that it’s time for the University to be completely forthright with us, with the donors, and with the public on the future of the Museum, but even if they did tell the full truth, how could we believe them?  We’ve spent such a long time with last week’s innuendo becoming next week’s policy that I’m not even sure it’s worth trying to ask for answers anymore.  My only advice those concerned about the Rose’s future is to visit the Museum and to do it as soon as possible.  You don’t know when your last chance will come.

That’s right.  Brandeis’s Great Place is the very spot the Board of Trustees wanted to get rid of.  And how many frickin’ buildings does Carl Shapiro have to buy before he gets his own Great Place?

Waltham is actually very well represented on the list; in addition to the Rose, four other Waltham sites earned recognition.  They are:

• Gore Place — The “Monticello of the North”, once home to former Massachusetts Governor Christopher Gore and currently hosting an active farm.
• Charles River Museum of Industry and Innovation — Located in what were the engine and boiler rooms of Francis Cabot Lowell’s textile factory, which was named the fourth most important development to shape America by Life magazine in 1976.
• The Robert Treat Paine Estate — Also known as Stonehurst, a house designed by famous architects Henry Hobson Richardson and Frederick Law Olmsted that serves as one of the earliest examples of modern architecture.
• The Lyman Estate — Built in 1793 by a Boston merchant, now includes a greenhouse complex that contains exotic plants from around the world.

I’ve often heard that the typical Brandeis student doesn’t have much connection to the Waltham community (the awesome work of the Waltham Group and Clubs in Service program notwithstanding).  I know I don’t; I’ve hardly seen any of Waltham besides the BranVan route.  So I’m going to take this as an opportunity to get acquainted with some of the local history and culture.  Over the next semester, I want to arrange trips to see each of our five honorees (including a walk-through of the Rose), and I hope anyone who’s interested will join me.  Each site is open to the public (a condition of being named on the list), and each is less than three-and-a-half miles from the Brandeis campus — we’ll make them bike trips.

If anyone has any other great ideas for exploring Waltham, share them in the comments.  If you want to help plan these trips, or just want to know when they’re scheduled, send me an e-mail at athu...@brandeis.edu.

Searches for “Lawrence, Frederick” and “Lawrence, Fred” on OpenSecrets.org revealed three contributions from an individual by that name employed at Boston University during the period in which President-designate Lawrence worked there (1988-2005).  I think it’s safe to say that they’re all from the guy we’re looking for, particularly since one of them specifies the donor as a “Professor of Law”.  They are:

• $250 on 7/27/92 to Bill Clinton (D)
• $2,000 on 9/20/00 to DNC Services Corp (D)
• $500 on 10/27/04 to DNC Services Corp (D)

It looks like Lawrence isn’t a major political donor, but he’s batting 1.000 for Team Blue so far.  It’s hard to read anything into his current six year period of inactivity; not only has he done that before, but I can think of plenty of reasons why the head of a law school in Washington, D.C. might want to remain publicly neutral on questions of politics.

I have to admit that I find it comforting to know that Lawrence’s sympathies appear to lean Democratic.  It supports my hope that he’ll pursue strong progressive policies for the University, and it could signify that the run of Democratic luminaries that Brandeis has brought to speak while I’ve been here (Bill Clinton, Carl Levin, Howard Dean etc.) will continue with institutional support.

[C]ells that are showing the very earliest signs of cancer start to have errors in the DNA replication process. To fix this, the cells use a number of methods to repair the damage, one of which is known as gene conversion.

Gene conversion repairs the break in the DNA strand by using an almost identical sequence from elsewhere in the cell’s DNA, providing a template from which the original strand can be reconstructed. Although this was once thought to be a mostly error-free process, the new study actually suggests it leads to a far greater number – about 1,400 times the usual amount – of DNA mutations than would otherwise be expected. Once these mutations affect the various genes that provide the cell’s ability to control its own growth, the cell quickly becomes cancerous.

Thus, tumors form where there was once healthy tissue.  Understanding this process is the first step in determining how to correct it and slow the rate at which healthy cells become cancerous.  Congratulations to Dr. Haber and to Wade and Minlee for publishing this important study and for working to ease the pain and suffering of so many people.  As an undergraduate, I find it easy to forget that Brandeis is a research institution as well as a school.  It’s gratifying to remember that so much positive work is being done at our university.