Author: Adam Hughes

In response to the outcry over the recent decisions made by the administration and the Board of Trustees on issues such as the Rose Art Museum and study abroad, President Reinharz himself has consented to a completely open forum for all students to be held today, Wednesday, January 28th, at 11am in the Hassenfeld Conference Room in Upper Sherman.  This is everyone’s chance to ask Jehuda where the transparency has been and what other drastic cost-cutting measures might be in the works that we don’t know about.  I highly encourage everyone to attend and to be prepared with questions.  If for some reason you cannot attend, feel free to leave a question in the comments space or to post it on bbcc@lists.brandeis.edu, and someone will make sure it’s addressed.  Opportunities like this happen very rarely, so again, please come if you can and show the President that the voices calling for a role in this crisis are unified and growing.

The original press release from Student Union Director of Communications Jamie Ansorge is below the fold.

Continue reading “Forum with Jehuda Reinharz Today at 11am!!!”

Sorry we’re running behind schedule, but here they are!

Senator for the Transitional Year Program
> Rank Candidate Votes %
> 1 Terrence Johnson 3 75.00
> 2 ABSTAIN 1 25.00
>
> Senator for Massell Quad
> Rank Candidate Votes %
> 1 Nipun Marwaha 75 49.67
> 2 Narayan Wong 68 45.03
> 3 ABSTAIN 8 5.30
>
> Senator for East Quad
> Rank Candidate Votes %
> 1 Sara Enan 78 55.32
> 2 Edward J. Tanenbaum 59 41.84
> 3 ABSTAIN 4 2.84
>
> Senator for Castle Quad
> Rank Candidate Votes %
> 1 Nathan Robinson 23 50.00
> 2 Sahar Massachi 20 43.48
> 3 ABSTAIN 3 6.52
>
> Senator for Charles River
> Rank Candidate Votes %
> 1 Chenchao Lu 22 78.57
> 2 ABSTAIN 6 21.43

I was recently invited to the Facebook group ‘Millennium Student Initiative @ MyMSI.org‘, the first step of what looks to be a very promising attempt to unite area campuses and harness student activism on a wide scale.  Their mission?

Millennium Student Initiative (MSI) is a national student-led campaign that aims to increase global consciousness and citizenship among students by raising $1.5 million for a Millennium Village. Millennium Villages are the flagship initiative for Millennium Promise, an organization that aims to combine scientific and local knowledge to simultaneously combat a range of issues, including hunger, disease, inadequate education, the lack of safe drinking water and the absence of essential infrastructure — to assist communities on their way to sustainable self-development.

This seems like a very worthwhile endeavor for several reasons.  First, it was created and led entirely by Brandeisians, several of them good friends of mine.  I applaud my schoolmates for taking the initiative to lead such a far-reaching project, and they certainly deserve the support of the entire Brandeis community.  Also, their goal is long term economic development, creating the kind of change necessary not just to help poor people but to lift them out of poverty and to open new markets in the global economy.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it represents a concerted effort to connect activists across campuses, a promising development that will set the groundwork for projects of even greater scale in the future if done correctly.  The idea of uniting students from different universities is one that has become very interesting to me.  It offers a level of participation and media attention for our causes that is impossible to achieve if we confine ourselves to the Brandeis campus.  Sahar and I have discussed several projects with the intent of furthering cross-campus political interaction, so there will hopefully be more to come when the school year starts.  Until then, it’d be great to hear any ideas people have in this direction.

A great first step would be to create a successful Millennium Student Initiative, so if you’re not one of the 500+ people who have joined on Facebook, I strongly encourage you to do so here.  For more information on the specific strategies MSI intends to employ, contact Kaamila Mohamed (kaamila@mymsi.org) or Daniel Acheampong (daniel@mymsi.org).  The group already has a fledgling website up, and I think we can expect to hear much more from them in the upcoming year.  Kudos for the strong start guys, and I look forward to helping.

On June 9th, überprogressive Congressman Dennis Kucinich submitted 35 separate articles of impeachment to the House of Representatives calling for the removal of George W. Bush from office (follow the link to read them). From Bush’s well-publicized offenses (Article III, Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War) to his less widely reported crimes (Article XXX, Misleading Congress and the American People in an Attempt to Destroy Medicare; Article XX, Imprisoning Children), there is an airtight case to be made that Bush has been guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and that American lives have been lost because of it.  However, Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly said that impeachment is off the table, and Kucinich’s articles are now languishing in the Judiciary Committee.  I called my representative, the excellent Rosa DeLauro, to see if there was any chance impeachment hearings would actually take place.

Her response came in the mail yesterday, and it killed any lingering hopes I had that the House would hold Bush accountable for his crimes.  DeLauro acknowledges the illegality and incompetence of the administration’s dealings with Iraq and interrogation programs.  She then outlines Kucinich’s case and the current status of the articles.  However, when it comes time to take a position on them, she hedges:

Although this Administration’s term is coming to an end, you can be sure that I will continue to moniter the president’s policies and actions.  I will use every opportunity in the coming months to encourage real oversight of the federal government and to hold accountable any member of the Bush administration who has engaged in wrongdoing.

We will soon have a new president and administration and it is my hope that this new administration will work with Congress to enact real reform and find solutions to the issues we are currently facing as a nation.

What this amounts to is that while Rep. DeLauro might take up the impeachment cause if it actually reaches the House floor, she will not make any special effort to shepherd it through the Judiciary through co-sponsoring it or publicly supporting it.  She is content to merely let the clock run out on the Bush term and to hope the next president does a better job.

I am of two minds on this.  I believe it is imperative that Congress not create a precedent of failed oversight that could lead to further violations by future administrations.  However, I am enough of a pragmatist to realize the political risks of pursuing impeachment.  Unfortunately, the Republican attempt to remove Bill Clinton from office was so petty and politically motivated that I fear ‘impeachment’ had become synonymous with ‘power grab’ in the minds of many people, and an attempt to remove him from office would serve only to tarnish the Democratic brand in what is otherwise a potential year of realignment.

Ultimately, while I would love to see impeachment proceedings held, I’ve become resigned to the fact that too may representatives share DeLauro’s point of view for it to happen.  While the tendency among the netroots has occasionally been to demonize anti-impeachment Congresspeople, I believe there are far more important measures of performance.  It would be very hard to find a significant vote where Rosa DeLauro has broken with the progressive community, and I feel very fortunate to have her as my representative.  Yes, I disagree with her on this issue, but she and I are still on the same side against the Bush agenda, and I would be willing to sacrifice even the chance of holding Bush accountable in exchange for more representatives like her.

Yesterday, volunteers for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign held over 4,000 Unite for Change events across the country to lay the groundwork for the campaign ahead.  This emphasis of community organizing has become par for the course for the Obama campaign and stands out as one of the hallmarks of Obama’s entire career.  Focusing on grassroots development will not only help Obama win in November but will pay dividends for Democrats in down-ticket races across the country and will build the party’s base in a way that will pay off for years to come.

I attended the Ansonia for Obama event, and I was very pleased to see a lot of enthusiasm from the supporters I met.  Ansonia, Connecticut is a small city of approximately 20,000 people bordering my hometown of Seymour.  Like Seymour, it’s located in the region known as “the Valley”, a working class industrial area significantly poorer than the upper class Amity region to the immediate east.   As the factories leave, Ansonia has been unusually successful at revitalizing its downtown with small businesses, particularly antique stores.  Politically, Ansonia is influenced by nearby New Haven. a hotbed of progressive activism in the state.  Democrats outnumber Republicans by about 2.5-to-1.  However, this support has not historically translated to the national party.  In 2004, John Kerry only defeated George Bush by a margin of about 4,000-3,200, and the Democratic primary turnout of 47% was among the lowest rates in Connecticut (Hillary Clinton won the city by almost a 2-to-1 margin).

Only four other people were at the meeting; however, despite the low turnout, we were able to lay plans for action that could pay big dividends come November.  Most of the discussion centered around getting visibility in the local media and setting up voter registration drives at community events.  We hope to particularly focus our registration efforts on Ansonia’s substantial, largely poor African-American population, a group suffering from very low turnout rates and a lack of attention from area politicians.  Ansonia is exactly the type of city in which a strong voter outreach effort could provide incredible results.  If we can unify the party and reach out to the disenfranchised, the demographics are such that we could capture a huge groundswell of support for Obama.

I strongly encourage everyone to seek out their local Barack Obama groups and find out how you can get involved with the campaign.  These local efforts make a huge cumulative difference.  If you can’t find a group, then start your own; Ansonia for Obama is living proof that you don’t need many people at this se of the game to set the framework for an election season of effective activism.

As Sahar mentioned, he and I just attended the Personal Democracy Forum, a conference devoted to examining how the latest technology will impact politics and how the internet’s power can be harnessed to further one’s political cause. The main lesson I learned can be distilled into one simple sentence: the internet is a very powerful tool.

Now this is common knowledge; you would need to have been a complete hermit for the past ten years not to recognize the incredible extent to which the internet has revolutionized every aspect of our lives. So let me rephrase that statement give you a better sense of exactly what I now understand: the internet is a very, VERY power tool.

As in, so powerful that the revolution it has brought so far is child’s play compared to what the next few years will bring.

As in, so powerful that even if you think you already knew this, you still have absolutely no idea how vast the shift in politics will be. I doubt that anyone really does.

Needless to say, there’s a lot more to this idea than just that, and over my next few posts, I’m going to explore some of the ways the internet can be applied to further political and governmental goals, not only on a national scale but also at Brandeis and through Innermost Parts. The conference provided much food for thought, and I hope to apply some of the ideas presented there to improve the way in which our site functions. The speakers were excellent; highlights included Arianna Huffington’s smackdown of corporate media, former John Edwards blogger Tracy Russo’s searing condemnation of John McCain’s technological naivety, and Jonathan Zittrain and Mark Pesce’s insightful commentaries on the possible dangers of internet politics.

The moment that best summed up the entire conference, however, came courtesy of Elizabeth Edwards. It wasn’t in anything she said (though I was pleased to hear that Obama offered to make her a large part of his health care team). It was how she said it, or more accurately, the way in which she addressed the audience.  Edwards was supposed to have attended the conference in person, but stormy weather in North Carolina prevented her plane from taking off.  As little as five years ago, this might have made it impossible for her to address the group; however, due to the wonder of Skype, we were able to see and hear Mrs. Edwards from her home in Chapel Hill.  The technical problems were minimal and easily solved, and we even got a cameo appearance from John Edwards as he returned home.

More than anything else, this demonstrated the reality and potential of hyperconnectivity, the developing state of interaction in which all people can be instantly connected to each other or to any piece of public information at the click of a button.  This is a revolution beyond any in human history since the birth of long distance communication, and its applications will be monumental in every facet of our lives.  Those of us in college right now are the lucky ones given a front row seat to this transformation, and while certain aspects of it may be daunting, I can’t help but feel anything but excitement.  We are entering an era in which every significant problem humanity faces will be solvable, and while there’s no guarantee that we will actually take the steps necessary to solve them, we can rest assured that the information needed to discover who exactly is holding us back will be more and more readily available.  So specifics and cautions will come later, but for now, take a moment to think about the paradigm shift to come and to marvel at a future where anything is still possible.

At least, to all you Brazilians out there. June 27th is Mixed Race Day, a holiday celebrated in Brazil, perhaps the most racially diverse nation in the world. More info (unfortunately in choppy English) from the Brazilian Multiethnic Movement:

The date, June 27, is a reference to the twenty-seven mixed-race (“mestiço”, in Portuguese) representatives elect during the 1st Conference for the Promotion of Racial Equality, occurred in the City of Manaus, State of Amazon, Brazil, from April 7 to 9, 2005, and also to the month of June, in which a mixed-race woman, after systematic opposition from anti-multiracial Black groups, was registered as the only Multiracial representative in the 1st National Conference for the Promotion of Racial Equality, occurred in Brasilia, from June 30 to July 2, 2005, promoted by Government of Brazil. The Mixed-Race Day (“Dia do Mestiço”, in Portuguese) was made a official date of the City of Manaus on January 6, 2006. On March 21, 2006, in the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the Mixed-Race Day became an official date of the State of Amazon; on October 6, 2006, of the City of Boa Vista, in the State of Roraima and on October 9, 2007, became an official date of this State. The Mixed-Race Day pays homage all those who possess multiracial or multiethnic origin. It occurs three days after the Day of the Caboclo, the first mixed-race Brazilian.

Even though we don’t officially celebrate it in any way, this year’s Mixed Race Day is particularly important for us in the United States. For the first time in our nation’s history, a man born from parents of two different recognized ethnic groups (according to our US Census) is the front-runner to become our next president. Regardless of one’s politics, everyone should recognize that this represents the progress we’ve made on racial issues from the days when such an individual would be widely referred to as a “half-breed” or a product of “miscegenation” or “amalgamation”. If that’s not convincing enough, consider that when Barack Obama was born, his parents would not have been allowed to marry legally in several states; it wasn’t until 1967’s Supreme Court Case Loving v. Virginia that the final anti-miscegenation laws were overturned.

I strongly encourage any Brandeis student of a mixed racial background or who is interested in issues surrounding mixed heries to check out Brandeis’s Mixed Herie Club (disclosure: I’m the treasurer of the MHC).

Time to send some kudos over to my former blogmate.  Alex Norris has a very insightful piece up at Upon the Gears about the backlash against the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that executing child rapists is unconstitutional.

The decision, reached by a narrow 5-4 majority, ruled that execution was not a proportional response for rape and so violated the cruel and unusual punishment prohibition of the eighth amendment.  Naturally, government officials were infuriated by the idea that they would no longer be allowed kill people.  Amateur exorcist and faith healer Bobby Jindal vowed that authorities in his state would “evaluate ways to amend our statute to maintain death as a penalty for this horrific crime”, leaving no doubt to his complete commitment to undermine our nation’s highest court (between demon expulsions, Jindal moonlights as the governor of Louisiana and potential running mate for John McCain).  Even the deep partisan divides of presidential politics can be overcome when some killin’ needs to be done, as CNN reports:

Republican Sen. John McCain called the ruling “an assault on law enforcement’s efforts to punish these heinous felons for the most despicable crime.” Democratic Sen. Barack Obama said there should be no blanket prohibition of the death penalty for the rape of children if states want to apply it in those cases.

So are our elected officials nothing more a pack of bloodthirsty vigilantes, Alex?

The short answer: no. Our lawmakers are no thirstier for death than we are, as I realized when I thought for a moment. They are thirstier for something that is much more to their benefit. I’m talking, of course, about votes. Everyone wants to be popular. Sometimes, an easy way to make yourself popular is to play the role of a defender of justice and children. How does one cultivate this role? Killing people nobody likes.

I completely understand how sick and disgusting the crime of rape is, and I am horrified at the thought of a child having to suffer from it.  Anyone who would assault a child in this way deserves a very lengthy prison sentence and psychiatric counseling.  But the death penalty is the most counterintuitive solution to violent crime that I could imagine.  We’re going to prove our objection to murder by killing?  We’re going to demand all of our elected officials use the state to continue the cycle of violence?  The only reason capital punishment exists is to satisfy our desire for vengeance, an irrational relic of our primitive past.

I think we all can agree that it takes a warped, sickened mind to commit sexual violence against a child.  But how do our progressive values support killing a criminal because of their mental illness?  Yes, we need harsh prison sentences for these predators to dissuade copycat crimes.  Yes, we must ensure that anyone whose mental problems are so great that we cannot prove medically beyond any doubt that they are no longer a threat to children will never be released from psychiatric confinement.  But we must never forget that despite their heinous actions, even the most disturbed criminals are still human and are victims themselves.  And while the illness that victimizes them may in some cases be so great that they cannot function in normal society, that does not preclude their humanity and the chance that, through prison work programs and similar institutions, they can eventually redeem themselves as contributing members of society.

It takes no strength for a politician to support the execution of a rapist; it merely takes a good ear for public sentiment.  The true strength of character comes from those politicians who can overcome the visceral reaction to the most heinous crimes and the overwhelming public opinion and still find a way to advocate for the rights of the guilty, the most reviled and powerless in our society.

We have to look past our rage at these people and think about what this is doing to our humanity as a nation and as individuals. If we consider the difference between life in prison without parole and a death sentence, which one can we be prouder of? What if, as a nation, we could say “The United States of America does not kill.” [sic] That would be a day that all patriots could take pride in.

On November 4th, Massachusetts voters will be choosing more than just a President (and a Senator, and a slew of state and local officers). As one of 24 states with provisions for public initiatives, Massachusetts allows all of its citizens to act as lawmakers, and the AP reports (via Blue Mass. Group) that three separate questions appear to have qualified to go before the voters in 2008. To make the ballot, an initiative needs 11,099 signatures from registered Massachusetts voters; once it qualifies, it only requires a majority of votes cast to pass. The catch is that it does not pass as a new law but only as an official instruction to the legislature compelling them to vote in a certain way. I imagine that the legislature feels strong political pressure to follow the wishes of their constituents when expressed in such an official manner. However, I’m not sure what the actual record of successful initiatives being turned into law is, and regardless, it seems like an awfully shifty way to give citizens the guise of empowerment while withholding any actual authority from the public. (Edit — Upon further review of Massachusetts election law, this isn’t actually the case. If the measure gets the majority of the votes, it automatically becomes law, provided its supporters amount to more than 30% of the total number of voters.)

So what are these initiatives, and are any of them good ideas?

The first would end the Massachusetts income tax, and while the siren call of fewer taxes makes this one look tempting, I think it would be an unreservedly bad idea. The initiative would not lower taxes in any way, and lawmakers would assuredly just find a different source of income to replace it. One option would be to dramatically increase the property tax. BMG commenter MichaelBate outlines two reasons why this would be a bad idea:

1. Property taxes are highly regressive. The value of someone’s property is very poorly related to ability to pay, especially for retirees who may have a nice home but not much else, including no job and not much income.

2. Taxing property creates an incentive for overdevelopment… City and town officials are forever trying to increase the tax base, leading to more and more sprawl and ever higher density of buildings.

Making seniors homeless and promoting urban sprawl are not OK in my book. The other option would be to raise the sales tax, which would have even more regressive results. Cost of living expenses, already increasing with the slow economy, would become even more stifling for the poor, as necessities like food, clothing and gasoline become more expensive. If that’s not convincing enough, you just need to be a little more self-interested; a higher sales tax would impact college students. We’re a low-income group, and I know I don’t have the spare change to shoulder a tax burden that would be lifted mainly from the wealthy. Governor Deval Patrick publicly called out the elimination of the income tax as “a dumb idea”, and I have to agree with him. Income tax reform is always a good discussion to have, and I’m not saying Massachusetts’s current tax structure and rate are perfect (I honestly have no idea), but the income tax is the best vehicle for progressive taxation, and repealing it could be an economic disaster for the working class.

The second initiative would ban greyhound racing in Massachusetts. Animal cruelty is always inexcusable, and under the conditions that racing dogs currently suffer through, greyhound racing amounts to nothing more than legalized torture. The Committee to Protect Dogs, the group behind this initiative, has the facts:

• The dogs are kept in cages barely large enough to allow movement for over twenty hours a day.
• They face incredibly high rates of injury — over 800 over the past six years in just the two operating racetracks in Massachusetts.
• The kennels are hotbeds of disease, and the dogs are fed raw meat deemed unfit for human consumption.
• In one disturbing (and admittedly somewhat amusing) incident, several years ago a dog at Wonderland Greyhound Park twice tested positive for cocaine (why were they giving the dogs coke tests in the first place?!?!).

Eight years ago, a similar initiative was defeated by a narrow 47%-48% tally, and I strongly hope that this one gets the last few points necessary for passage.

The third initiative would decriminalize possession of less than an ounce of marijuana. Jailing people for victimless crimes like smoking a joint wastes government money and ruins the lives of blameless individuals. Marijuana is not chemically addictive, has much milder long term effects than alcohol or tobacco, provides medically proven health benefits, and cannot lead to overdose. You don’t need to agree with marijuana use to see that the taxpayer expense for prosecuting these “crimes” is completely unnecessary.

In the United States, the ballot initiative has shown itself to be a powerful tool for political action both negative (numerous same-sex marriage bans) and positive (all six states proposing minimum wage increases passed them in 2006). However, empowering the citizen is always a good thing, and I hope Massachusetts’s initiative laws are strengthened in the coming years. In the short term, all Massachusetts voters have a chance to make their voices heard on three key ideas (two good, one bad IMHO), and I encourage everyone to educate themselves and make informed choices on these issues as well as on the candidates on Election Day.

Democracy for America, the political action committee founded by Howard Dean following his 2004 campaign for president, recently held a competition to award scholarships to deserving progressive bloggers to attend Netroots Nation, the leading political convention for online progressive political activists.  Prospective attendees submitted biographical profiles to the DFA website, and visitors to the site were able to vote on the applicant they felt most deserving.

The results are in, and I’m thrilled to announce that InnermostParts will be well represented at Netroots Nation in the person of our co-founder, Sahar Massachi.  Sahar has earned front page recognition at Blue Mass. Group, Massachusetts leading progressive blog, and the right to rub elbows with luminaries of the progressive movement like DailyKos’s Markos Moulitsas Zuniga and MyDD’s Jerome Armstrong.

Take a look at Sahar’s application, and you’ll see how deserving of the honor he is.  As a sophomore in college, his resume already includes a Academy Fellowship at the Roosevelt Institution and the directorship of the National Committee for the Draft Lawrence Lessig movement.  Anyone familiar with Innermost Parts’s history knows the dedication Sahar has put into making this site function and grow and the breadth and acuity of his political knowledge.  I’m honored to continue working with him to expand the progressive movement at Brandeis and beyond, and I heartily congratulate him on this achievement.

Brandeis’s website is trumpeting a new set of college rankings released by the Center for College Affordability and Productivity (CCAP) that has our little ol’ school rated No. 21 among national universities in the United States. And while I typically look at these ranking systems with a skeptical eye, this one is designed to give much more weight to academic results and student satisfaction — in short, the things that actually matter.

The most widely used and well-known college rankings are put out by U.S. News and World Report. Despite their popularity, the rankings serve more as measures of prestige than as actual indicators of academic quality. They heavily weigh criteria like alumni giving and financial resources, categories that are not necessarily correlated to overall academic performance (though they can be indicative) and that put relatively young schools like Brandeis at a disadvane. They also tend to put great value on the quality of incoming classes with metrics like applicant acceptance rate and percene of freshmen graduating in the top 10% of their high school class. While these are indicative of a more accomplished incoming student body, they say nothing about the college’s actual performance. High performances in all of these categories make a university look elite, thus guaranteeing it even more donations and wider pools of applicants. Thus, the highest ranked schools reap the benefits of a cycle that makes it very difficult for lower ranked schools to rise.

How does the non-profit CCAP try to avoid these problems? Its director, Richard Vedder, explains the methodology in Forbes magazine:

Our measures begin with student evaluations posted on Ratemyprofessors.com, a nine-year-old site with 6.8 million student-generated evaluations. We look at college graduation rates (as does U.S. News). We also calculate the percent of students winning awards like Rhodes Scholarships and undergraduate Fulbright travel grants. For vocational success we turn to Who’s Who in America. Though imperfect, it is the only comprehensive listing of professional achievement that includes undergraduate affiliations.

Their criteria are geared towards measuring actual results. The inclusion of Rate My Professors data introduces statistical uncertainty through potential sampling bias, but it also gives actual students a hand in determining how well their college performs. Overall, their model comes much closer to measuring what students searching for a school really want to know.

Does that mean that CCAP has created the definitive guide to judging colleges? Of course not. I think most students are interested in more than just a number when it comes to choosing which school to attend; I know that Brandeis’s combination of location, sensitivity to social issues, a different cultural environment, and a strong academic reputation made it the school for me regardless of whether it’s number 21, 31 (its U.S. News and World Report ranking), or anywhere else. For students who are interested in such rankings, they’ll probably turn to the more famous News and World Report numbers, and if they really want to attend a school with an “elite” reputation, that guide will serve them better anyway. Vedder himself admits that his system is imperfect, so I think it mostly shows that making a definite ranking system is an exercise in futility. That being said, CCAP’s heart is in the right place, and overall, they do a pretty good job. I would recommend CCAP’s rankings as one of many tools for anyone going through the applications process, though the reasons for a college’s position are more helpful than the school’s actual net rating. As for Brandeis’s performance, twenty-first is a very strong showing, and I think the administration is justified in doing a little bragging about it.

Or would you rather have them keep going on about imitation butter?

In case anyone missed it, today the California Supreme Court ruled that a statute limiting marriage to a man and a woman was unconstitutional, legalizing same-sex marriages in the state. Previously, only Massachusetts allowed gay marriage, and today’s action will hopefully represent a key turning point in the battle to eliminate institutionalized discrimination based on sexual orientation.

I strongly encourage everyone to learn what the status of same-sex couples in their home state is (this map, courtesy of Wikipedia, comes in handy). Aside from California and Massachusetts, seven states and the District of Columbia recognize some form of civil unions or domestic partnerships, a good step forward but still uncomfortably reminiscent of the “separate but equal” legislation that darkened race relations until the Civil Rights Act. The Defense of Marriage Act mandates that the federal government does not recognize any same-sex marriages, even those in MA or CA, thus denying all federal benefits of marriage from any gay couples.

Hi everyone, I hope you’re all looking forward to a great summer, and thank you so much for reading Innermost Parts and making us more successful in our first full semester than any of us thought possible.  Over the past few days, I’ve been talking to Sahar about what our summer posting schedule should look like.  I’m perfectly willing to keep posting new content at a regular rate over the summer, but we question whether anyone will be as interested.  So I’m posing the question to you, our readers.  What directions do you think Innermost Parts should move in over the summer, and will you keep reading?  Any ideas or suggestion would be great; I’ve got a few ideas myself that I think could turn out to be intriguing.

Once again, have a great vacation everyone, and I’ll see you all in August!

So I spent my Saturday affirming four separate times that I did not, in fact, call someone a dinosaur. Yeah, it was one of those days…
Continue reading “Reflections on the Trial”

I just talked with Union Judiciary member Jordan Rothman, and he tells me that Andrew Brooks’s appeal is going to be heard on Saturday at 1:30pm.  The hearing will be open to the public, so I encourage anyone interested in the outcome of the election to attend and hear the arguments both sides make in their most complete form.  Updates with info on location or anything else will come as they’re released.

I have always been of the firm belief that the moment an activist movement or presence begins to be taken seriously is the moment at which it begins to be attacked. Therefore, the entire Innermost Parts community owes a big thank you to Andrew Brooks for validating our site and its mission.

Seriously, one would think that after failing to break 40% of the vote as an incumbent in a two-seat primary election in which you are one of two candidates, having your complaints about libel dismissed without punishment by a duly elected third-party elections commissioner, and going on to lose by 80 votes on the final ballot would be enough to convince you that your constituents have decided in a fair election that they want someone else doing your job. However, that would only be the case if you have any respect for the democratic process.

Unfortunately, former Senator Brooks seems to lack that respect, so before Noam Shuster can take her rightful place on the Brandeis Student Union, we will have to deal with the injunction Brooks filed with the Union Judiciary to have this election invalidated. It is my firm belief that this case has absolutely no merit and that Union Judicial precedent shows that there is no reason why this injunction should not have been dismissed immediately. Continue reading “Libel”

Interesting debate shaping up on DailyKos right now.

When faced with the dilemma of a Democratic Party imperfect from a progressive perspective, the reaction of most progressives seems to be to work within the Party to bring about needed change rather than to reach out to a third party. In recent years, improved organization among progressives has made this strategy effective in some cases. Strong primary campaigns have resulted in the nomination of outsider candidates superior to their institutional counterparts (Ned Lamont in ’06, Steve Beshear in ’07, Donna Edwards in ’08), and as a result, the Party is beginning to refocus itself on its progressive roots rather than the centrist “New Democrat” philosophy which led to Congressional losses throughout the ’90s and set the framework for the conservative domination of all three branches of government from 2000 to 2006. Continue reading “Let’s Go Green Party??”

We did it!

Think about this for a minute. We squared off against a pair of entrenched Union insiders, both of whom were listed on the ballot, with a freshman candidate and a grassroots group founded just hours before the election. Yet we still were able to pull together more than enough of the vote to ensure Noam Shuster ballot access for the final round. When it looked like our options for a progressive alternative in the at-large race were entirely non-existent, we pulled together as a community and now have a great opportunity to elect an amazing candidate to represent us.

There are two reasons for such a stunning and unexpected success. The first is the incredible burst of activism that we saw over the course of the past day. I have never experienced anything more inspiring at Brandeis; we pulled together everyone on campus who was disenchanted with the Union as it is and rejected the reactionary mentality that has gripped too many of our representatives for too long. Moving forward to the final round, we now have an incredible community of volunteers prepared to spend their time and energy making fliers, doing dorm-storms, designing a website, and writing messages and e-mails. And we’d love to have more people; anyone interested in volunteering should get in touch with myself or the campaign through Facebook, e-mail (athughes@brandeis.edu), or in person (or just leave a comment). You all owe yourselves a round of applause for this unprecedented victory.

However, none of this would have possible without Noam herself. She has proven to be the right person to lead this movement and win this election. Her passion for positive representation was the genesis of all we have seen in the past two days, and her optimism that change was possible made us all believe. It has been a great pleasure to get to know her better through this campaign, and I am thankful that I can now call her my friend. Her bio from her official campaign website gives some indication as to what makes her such a special individual:

I grew up in a village called Neve Shalom~Wahat al Salaam- the Oasis of Peace- the only community in Israel where Israelis and Palestinians choose to live together and build a harmonious community. I came to Brandeis as a Slifka Co-existence Scholar. The program chooses peace activists in Israel to be students at Brandeis and continue coexistence work.

She is exactly the type of person I would be proud to call my senator.

I would be remiss, however, if I were to fail to address the voting outcome for our other endorsed candidate, Kaamila Mohamed. In many respects, her campaign was doomed from the start; it only began to get off the ground after voting started, when many activists had already cast their ballots. However, it is a mark of the strength of our activism and the immense campus-wide respect for Kaamila that we finished just eight votes shy of number required for final round ballot access. Almost 100 people answered our call and wrote in Kaamila’s name, and the coordination between her campaign and Noam’s helped us claim at least one victory; the Vote Kaamila movement was definitely not in vain. I continue to hold out hope that she will opt to run for a Quad senator spot next year, for I know the Union will lose much without her involvement.

Still, considering how highly the deck was stacked against us, yesterday was nothing but an astonishing success. We have proven that the progressive activists on campus have the power to unite and make themselves heard, and we placed an excellent candidate on the ballot. There will be much more hard work ahead before we can claim victory in this race, but the primary results have made me more confident than ever that we can do it.

(bumped and edited slightly for tone- Sahar)

As Sahar mentioned in the previous post, a grassroots movement has been started to impact the Senator-at-Large election by writing in Noam Shuster in place of backwards reactionaries Andrew Brooks and Justin Sulsky. To this movement I would like to add one of my own: another campaign focused on writing in Kaamila Mohamed for the other at-large seat.

Sahar has already done a great job discussing the horrible job of representation that we have had to suffer through courtesy of Brooks and Sulsky, so I feel no need for any further comment in that direction. Instead, I would like to focus on Kaamila’s stellar record of service as this year’s North Quad Senator and the reasons why I feel she embodies the progressive change we need at Brandeis. A quick look at Kaamila’s project reports, available here, reveals an incredible dedication and consistency in a progressive direction. Among the clearest examples of this are:

• “I worked with Mike Kerns this week on a resolution asking for a committee to assure transparency in this university’s financial investments.”
• “I have been attending the weekly Social Justice Committee meetings. We’ve been working on gender-neutral housing (plans for a forum on this topic in the works) and hope to provide mini-grants for social justice projects.”
• “I have been in touch with the Brandeis Labor Coalition about restarting work on the sweatshop free clothing initiative.”

This is just a small sampling of the incredible diversity of projects Kaamila has been involved with; feel free to examine her record for yourself. Compare this with Justin Sulsky and Andrew Brooks’ horrible records (I know I said I wouldn’t, but I just can’t help it!):

• Authoring and co-sponsoring the infamously divisive and unsuccessful Israel 60th birthday resolution.
• Authoring and being the only two senators to vote for the ridiculously partisan American flag resolution. (correction – only Sulsky authored this resolution)
• Doing absolutely nothing about almost every key progressive issue like endowment transparency and gender neutral housing (at least, to judge by their project reports).

Kaamila has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that she is one of the hardest working and most dedicated individuals on this campus, and I can’t imagine anyone who would have a better chance to take one of these seats. I don’t know Noam as well, but I worked with her briefly on a theater project last semester, and I am convinced that she has the drive and work ethic necessary to be a vast improvement over both Sulsky and Brooks. I strongly encourage everyone to vote for both of these candidates; it will take only 10% of the vote excluding abstentions to earn them a spot on the final round ballot. If we pull together as an activist community and support both Noam and Kaamila with our votes and our word-of-mouth, we can do something unprecedented and replace two ineffective and seemingly uncontested candidates with clear examples of the type of progressive activist on which the Innermost Parts community thrives.

Facebook: Write in Kaamila Mohamed for Senator-at-Large, Vote Noam Shuster

Update: The 10% threshold for final round ballot access means that every vote for Kaamila or Noam counts the same as 9 votes for Justin and Andrew. Therefore, every vote makes an enormous difference and gets us much closer to our goal. Please, PLEASE make sure you not only vote before midnight tonight but you tell ALL of your friends to vote too. Once on the final ballot, Noam and Kaamila can put up posters and use Union resources. This can definitely happen, and it will be a truly great victory for us, but only if we get every single vote possible. Again, make sure you tell everyone who is eligible to write in Kaamila Mohamed and Noam Shuster.

For those who are interested, Shreeya Sinha, President of the Brandeis Student Union, is giving her State of the Union address at 6:30 pm tonight in the Shapiro Campus Center Atrium. According to an inside source (the Facebook event page), we can expect that:

The speech will be about the Union’s accomplishments and future plans, including the current rollover situation, our finances, collaboration with the Administration, the protest, the implementation of firearms, the Student Bill of Rights, and other large issues currently facing our campus.

I can’t promise that I’ll be able to make it, but I’ll try. For those who can’t be there, the Student Union website hosts some old State of the Union speeches; their coverage seems to be pretty sporadic though, so I wouldn’t expect this one to be up in a timely fashion. If you can make it, feel free to use this as an open thread to discuss any initial reactions, disagreements, whatever.

Hello everybody! My name is Adam Hughes, and I am happy to say that I have joined Innermost Parts as a contributor. I’m really impressed with what Sahar and Loki have done with this site in the few short months it has been active, and I’m very excited to become a part of this great progressive forum at Brandeis University. My political activities and passions are very much in line with theirs, but I also hope to bring a fresh perspective on some important campus issues.

I hope to cover a broad range of topics in my posts, but there will be several areas to which I will devote the most attention. First, as an E-Board member of the Mixed Herie Club and a representative to the Brandeis Intercultural Center, I am very interested in diversity issues, particularly in the campus’s often laughable attempts to promote tolerance (the Hindley situation comes to mind). In addition, I am a fledgling columnist with the Brandeis Hoot, and I will try to discuss some of the more controversial articles that appear in it (like Jordan Rothman’s).

I will not, however, post much content dealing with national politics; I already have a site of this nature, Upon the Gears, which I co-founded and administer with Bret Matthew and Alex Norris (and which I naturally recommend you visit regularly). I look forward to writing here at Innermost Parts, and I hope you appreciate what I have to say.