Category: Uncategorized

Thoughts on the Rose Committee’s Interim Report

“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.

The report, which was released to the entire Brandeis community last Thursday, is just a preliminary document detailing the progress the committee has made towards compiling its final report, which will be released in early fall.  I recommend reading the whole thing, as there’s a lot to chew over (everyone with a Brandeis e-mail address should have received it on Thursday; if you didn’t get it/already deleted it, we’ll have it uploaded as soon as I can figure out how to use our media library you can find it here in PDF form).  The following are just some quick thoughts on points I found particularly important:

  • Legally, there is absolutely no reason why we can’t continue to operate a public museum even after sales of art work.  Why was there so much misinformation about this?  Why did I hear so often that keeping the Rose open was impossible if we sold even part of the collection?  Why didn’t the University immediately correct these statements?  They must have done some research into the legal issues involved, right?  It’s a testament to utter failure of the message control over the Rose that not only was our course of action completely incorrect as initially announced, but that we couldn’t even get simple, critical facts like this correct.
  • That being said, selling art for any reason other than to purchase other art is a huge taboo in the museum and art communities.  Of course, we already knew this.  However, now that we have clarified that the Rose itself isn’t going anywhere, it’s time for the art world to meet Brandeis halfway here.  Our message now is actually refreshingly frank and fair.  The facts are simple: the University as a whole is more important than the Rose; if the University fails, the Rose goes down with it; we are doing everything we possibly can to avoid selling any artwork; but if worst comes to worst, we will do as we must to maintain the Brandeis we know and love.  If the members of art community tries to dispute any of this, they are leaving their area of expertise, which is art, and trying to outdo university administrators at university administration.  If they instead approach us as allies with a vested interest in how we survive our time of crisis, we can come together to find the least damaging and most acceptable solution, and the lessons we learn and the bonds we form will keep a situation like this from ever occurring again.  Until the dogma of “art sales are bad, period” is abandoned, we are losing our only chance to make the best of this situation.
  • The Future of the Rose Committee is remaining neutral on the core matter of selling art to raise funds, and I couldn’t applaud them any more for it.  Their stance will disappoint some people.  However, they are not avoiding this important debate; they are merely ensuring that it occurs in its proper setting, among the entire Brandeis community.  By ceding the chance to become partisans with the platform they were given, they are strengthening their position as unbiased researchers,  and the debate which will occur will be more informed for it.

Overall, the report is a great summary of what we know so far, and it will be a valuable tool to counter the negative propaganda which is still hounding us.  My personal thumbs up goes out to the Committee, and I look forward to reading the final report.

What Bill Ayers Tells Us about Student Autonomy

Before my title deceives you, I unfortunately missed Bill Ayers’ lecture on Thursday, and I have no idea what he talked about.  He might have brought up the idea of student autonomy; chances are he didn’t.

The event itself, however, sure told us a lot about the freedom we enjoy as Brandeis students — and it showed us that our administrators are dedicated to keeping it that way.

Imagine you’re Jehuda Reinharz.  Your university has taken a series of PR hits in recent months, some of them undeserved, and is now fighting an image of financial insolvency and betrayal of key donors and the art community as a whole.  You are facing a decreased applicant pool while needing to accept more students than ever.  It is absolutely critical that you do as little as possible to alienate your recently accepted students while they decide if they want to spend the four most critical years of their lives paying your tuition.

In the middle of all this, a group of students wants to invite a controversial speaker to your campus.  Not just any controversial speaker.  This is a man who public opinion has labeled an unrepentant murderer and terrorist.  A man whose name was recently plastered over the national news in discussion of whether his acquaintance alone should disqualify someone from assuming the United States Presidency. You know that his speaking at your school will cause a minor uproar.  You’ve seen it happen at a nearby university of similar reputation, to the point where they canceled his appearance.

Predictably, the comment pages of the local newspapers soon fill with vitriol.  The worst stereotypes of your university are dragged up and rehashed over and over.  One website even publishes the names, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses of you and your fellow high-level administrators, presumably causing your inbox to fill with angry, ignorant screeds.

Would you still allow the event to continue?

The administration really got in the students’ corner on this one and proved their commitment to allowing us autonomy and educational freedom.  Their public comments struck exactly the right tone — that Brandeis does not endorse Ayers’ actions, but that they believe in giving us access to a wide range of viewpoints, and, implicitly, that they will not interfere with our ability to plan our own events through established channels.  Even those who protested Ayers must realize the courage and respect for students that underlaid the administration’s singing off on the event.

It’s possible that Ayers’ appearance has already discouraged some prospective students from enrolling at Brandeis.  It’s also possible that those who take offfense to Ayers would never have considered a school like Brandeis in the first place, and that our defense of principle over petty criticism will impress the prospectives enough to work in our favor.  Either way, the administration deserves a round of applause for this one.

Why not send Jehuda an e-mail telling him how you recognize and appreciate the university’s stance towards student autonomy?  I’m sure it’ll be a nice break from the “OMG OMG HES A TERRERIST U PINKO COMMIE SCUM!!!!!!11″ spam that’s sure to be clogging his B-mail.

Andy Hogan, Our New President

Today is Andy Hogan’s second full day on the job as Student Union President, and despite this high-profile position, I feel he’s still something of an unknown quantity to much of the student body, much more so than Jason Gray was last year.  There are several reasons for this: the Presidential race was much less competitive and low-profile than last year’s, Andy has only been a Union officer for one year, and his work has been much more organizational than Jason’s very public advocacy for the Student Bill of Rights.  However, in a very short period of time, Andy has quietly built up a stellar Union resume.  Last fall, he handily won the North Quad Senate seat despite running as a sophomore in a mostly freshman quad.  In just one semester of work, he impressed Jason Gray enough to be named Director of Community Advocacy.  And last month, he won the Union Presidency by over 350 votes.  His talents and character have already changed the Brandeis community for the better and are quickly gaining wide recognition; however, for those who still don’t really know Andy or who would like to know him better, I’d like to give a quick introduction to our new Union President.

I should start by saying that I’m far from an unbiased source.  Though I felt that being off campus made it appropriate for me to refrain from public comment on the spring elections, I was personally very happy to see Andy win.  But my relationship with him is much deeper than mere Union politics.  Andy has been one of my best friends since our first few weeks at Brandeis.  We joined (and subsequently left) TRON together, played together on countless intramural sports teams, served together on the Squash club E-Board, served together on the Union Senate, roomed next to one another, shared music, been repeatedly mistaken for brothers, and generally shared some of the best times I’ve had at Brandeis.  He was my campaign manager during my run for the Vice Presidency, and I still credit my victory more to him than to anyone else.  So yeah, I kinda like the guy.  But I also know him very well, and looking as objectively as possible, I can say that I think he’ll make an excellent leader for the Student Union.

Innermost Parts is an activist community, so it’s of particular importance to us that Andy has established himself as a leader on activist issues in the Student Union.  One of his first major projects was planning the Combating Hate Fundraiser, which broke all attendance expectations and raised over $2,000 for a black church that was burned in protest of Barack Obama’s victory.  He followed that with another successful fundraiser for rape victims in the Rwandan genocide.  On a more Brandeisian level, he played a huge role in launching and running the Clubs in Service program, and he helped dorm-storm with Student for Environment Action to raise awareness of water-bottle reduction.  He’s the only Union officer I’ve seen to devote a page of his campaign website just to explaining his views on the importance of social justice at Brandeis.  Clearly, he intends to make these issues a focal point of the Union’s work next year.

Andy is particularly dedicated to the Union government’s role as an advocacy body, and one of his primary focuses is on bringing the Union’s work to every student.  In this way, I see his mentality as a natural successor to Jason’s core value of increased student involvement, both within the Union and in the entire Brandeis community.  He was one of the first senators to join the new Senate Outreach Committee, and he was one of its most active members, drafting the Stall Street Journal and planning events targeted at spreading awareness of the Union’s work to freshmen.  Critically, he views outreach as a tool for generating student feedback, not as a self-promotion gimmick.  He gave us the cell phone amplifier in Usdan in response to numerous student complaints, working successfully with administrators to improve student life.

His plans for next year come naturally from these concerns, and I’m very excited to see some of them implemented.  I’m particularly impressed by his ideas in the long-overdue area of club collaboration reform, which will create an online system for booking spaces and discussing co-sponsorship, making event planning quicker and less expensive.  Andy also wants to improve methods for instantaneous student feedback on Union projects.  Discussion boards have been very effective at generating diverse ideas from the whole community for the CARS subcommittees, and there is no reason why they cannot be used on a Union level as well.  He remains committed to starting and expanding environmentally-friendly projects like Deis Bikes, and his planned social justice identity forums will inspire discussion on the many ways this pillar of Brandeis is interpreted in the community, ultimately creating connections for socially responsible programs where none currently exist.

This past year has been unprecedented in the scope and importance of the Union’s successes, largely because of Andy’s contributions.  I expect Andy Hogan’s leadership to make next year just as productive as this one has been.

Leeyat Slyper Sworn In

For those of you who follow such things, the Elections Commission changed its mind on who won the Union Judiciary elections, and Leeyat Slyper was sworn in as the fifth Justice during Wednesday’s inaugurations.  Regardless of what you think about the interpretation of the elections rules, I can’t see anyone complaining too much about this; she clearly wanted the position when no one else did.  Congratulations, Leeyat! (and Justin, Matt, Judah, and Neda!  and everyone else who was sworn in on Wednesday!).

Thank You, Jason Gray

If you’re a regular reader of Innermost Parts, you probably already know how I feel about Jason Gray.  Getting to know him over the past year has been a complete pleasure and an honor for me, and I cannot repay my debt of gratitude for all he has done for me.  As a newly elected Vice President with little formal Union experience, I relied on his leadership to become comfortable on the Executive Board.  During the fall semester, his guidance never failed to point me in the right direction to accomplish the goals I had in office.  And when I realized that I wouldn’t be able to remain at Brandeis in the spring, his compassion and friendship gave me the strength to choose the path that was best for me, even in the most difficult moments.  But his influence this year extended far beyond me;  it’s safe to say that every student at Brandeis has profited from his peerless talents and genuine concerns as President of the Student Union.  With yesterday’s spring inaugurations, Jason’s term leading the Union has come to an end, and I want to take a quick moment to summarize all he has meant to the Brandeis community.

Jason told me once that, more than anything else, he wanted his legacy to be as an advocate for student rights and a promoter for student involvement.  “It’s about you” was his campaign slogan, and he never forgot to represent every viewpoint in each project he took on.  When many students were complaining about the service they received at the health center, he convinced the administration to give the center a through review, one which led to a number of substantive improvements.  When the student body opted to use the SAF rollover money for the creation of a new weight room, Jason not only consulted student athletes to determine what how we could purchase the most effective equipment, he made sure to find space for the dance groups which were displaced, and he fought to ensure that all students had equal priority to use it.  When the budget crisis hit and students felt left out of the decision making process, Jason fought to put students on all the newly formed committees, and he successfully planned town hall forums and informational meetings to give every student a clear picture of our finances and a voice in our future.

But his influence was also felt in far more subtle ways.  As leader of the Union government, Jason created an environment where every officer felt capable of leading his or her own projects.  ‘Deis Bikes happened thanks to the incredibly hard work of the eight-member Special Task Force on Bicycle Sharing, but their job was made easier because Jason would solve any logistical problems that came up with the administration.  When both the Coalition for Food Services Reform and the University Dining Committee were working to solve problems in dining, Jason helped to iron out the groups’ differences and to coordinate their efforts to achieve meaningful changes.  It was not rare for him to spend over eleven hours a day in meetings and on other Union work while still attending classes and staying on top of his schoolwork.  And not only did he always serve his mandatory Union office hours, he would frequently serve them in Usdan or in the Shapiro atrium so he could open himself to as many students as possible.

These accomplishments only scratch the surface of everything he achieved as Union President.  Proof of his success can be seen in the universal acclaim he received.  His praises have been sung publicly by trustees and administrators, activists, campus publications, athletes, and his fellow Union officers.  He has, in many ways, changed the way we perceive the Union on campus and ushered in a new level of student involvement in every facet of the University.  And while he has left the formal power structure of the Union government, I’m sure that he will continue to serve as an active voice for the causes he believes in next year.  Thank you, Jason, for all you have done for me and for Brandeis, and I know that I’m just one among the many who recognize what you have meant to us.

Why Is Ayers Being Connected to the Death of Officer Walter Schroeder?

A persistent theme of the criticism Brandeis as a whole (and DFA/SDS in particular) have received as a result of Bill Ayer’s visit is the purported connection between the Weather Underground organization and two Brandeis students, Katherine Power and Susan Saxe, who murdered a police officer during a 1970 bank robbery. The assertion of a connection has been made by, among others, Michael Graham and Cliff Kincaid. Conservative radio host Michele McPhee is going so far as to use this connection as a pretext for a protest at Brandeis this Thursday, the day of Ayers’ visit.

However, this connection is not supported by evidence. The proof which Graham et. al. use to support their conviction is either nonexistent or misleading. While the murder of Officer Schroeder was and is tragic, Ayers and his organization were not involved. Rather, it seems that the effort to link Ayers with this murder is politically motivated, seeking to exploit the Schroeder family’s tragedy to rile conservative outrage.

Although the FBI formerly considered Power and Saxe members of the Weathermen, they have since rescinded that designation. Dan Kennedy of Media Nation has a great post examining the evidence for an Ayers-Power-Saxe connection, and finds nothing. He points out that the main source for Graham’s contention is an FBI webpage on the Weather Underground, which mentions Power only to say that a “Photo of Katherine Ann Power was removed because she was inaccurately associated with the Weather Underground”.

Continue reading “Why Is Ayers Being Connected to the Death of Officer Walter Schroeder?”

Who’s on Our New UJ?

There’s a debate in the comments of the election results post over who exactly won the Union Judiciary race.  This is a complex situation, and there’s a lot of confusion surrounding it.  I’ve looked at the election rules, the Constitution, and the vote totals as thoroughly as I can, and here are five scenarios on the election results to consider:

Scenario 1. What should happen: “Mandate” should be defined as being chosen by over 50% of the voters. Currently, it appears to be calculated as getting over 50% of the total votes, which is absolutely nonsensical because it’s impossible to get a mandate in a multi-seat election. In that case, Justin, Matt, Judah, and Neda received mandates, and, since Leeyat was chosen by over 10% of the voters (NOT votes), there should be a final round consisting of just her and abstain.

Scenario 2. What should happen otherwise: Article IX, Section 9 6 of the Constitution, which trumps the election rules, should take hold, and the five students with the most votes should be seated. Since Justin, Matt, Judah, Neda, and Leeyat all got more votes than abstain, they should all be seated.

Scenario 3. What should happen under the elections commissioners’ flawed and unconstitutional interpretation of the elections rules: Seeing as no one got over 50% of the vote, all candidates that got over 10% should go to a final round, as long as the final round ballot would be different than the first round ballot. Since this would be the case, there should be a final round consisting of Justin, Matt, Judah, Neda, and abstain.  See how messed up this is?

Scenario 4. What did happen: Justin, Matt, Judah, and Neda were all declared winners since they got over 10%, and Leeyat lost because she didn’t. I can’t find ANY reading of the Constitution/elections rules that supports this position.

Scenario 5. What will happen: Fucked if I know. I just can’t figure what the elections commissioners could possibly be thinking. Why is there always some kind of mistake in determining the results?

Course Evaluations are due soon..

So it’s that time of year. The Provost’s office wants us to fill out our course evaluations, and will bribe us with the prospect of prizes if we do so.

Online course evaluations are underway and only 27% of students have completed all of their course evaluations. Last semester 70% of students completed all of their evaluations and we would really like to beat that this semester.

Please help us make that possible by logging onto Sage (https://sage.brandeis.edu/) and completing your evaluations before they close on May 1st at 9:00 a.m. — this Friday! (This deadline cannot be extended.)

As an added incentive, prizes will once again be raffled off to students who complete all of their evaluations. Raffle prizes include the following:
* $15.00 iTunes gift card (3 available)
* $25.00 Barnes and Noble gift card (6 available)
* iPod Shuffle, 4GB (1 available)
* iPod Touch,16GB 2nd generation (1 available)

You’re not eligible to win until you complete all of your course evaluations.

It’s a good cause and gets you free stuff (possibly) so why not?

Preliminary Elections Results

Hey, we don’t have the official email from Diana yet, but the election results are trickling in.

First off – Neda Eid has been elected as Justice to the Union Judiciary. So has Judah A. Marans, Matthew Kriegman, and Justin Pierre-Louis

Asa Bhuiyan and Rami R. Abdelghafar are the new Senators at Large, Nipun Marwaha and Mark A. Zager are the new Senators for 2012. Michael J. Weil has been elected to Senator for 2010.

Jenna Rubin and Jourdan Cohen are battling it out to be the 2nd Senator for Class of 2011. That other guy won the 1st spot. I forgot his name. Can you remind me? Michael Newborn won the Senatorship (of 2011) in the first round.

Continue reading “Preliminary Elections Results”

Bill Ayers Town Hall Meeting Tonight!

Excited about Bill Ayers coming to campus? Angry? Annoyed? Confused? Apprehensive? The two student groups responsible for bringing Ayers to campus, Democracy for America and Students for a Democratic Society, will be holding two town hall-style meetings, where any member of the Brandeis community can express feelings, ask questions, and partake in an open conversation about the meaning of Ayers’ visit. Representatives from the Brandeis faculty will attend to offer a different perspective. All opinions are welcome!

7:00, Monday night, Lown Auditorium, Rabb

Commencement Speaker

The recipients of honorary degrees at this year’s commencement were announced on Friday. (Was Brandeis trying to make sure this didn’t get noticed? WTF?)

Although I was at first disappointed to hear that the keynote speaker  at my commencement would be the current mayor of Newark, NJ, after reading his bio, his wikipedia page, and watching the trailer for the 2005 documentary Street Fight about his campaign to become mayor of Newark, I became excited to hear what he has to say. Booker is a community organizer who, as a politician and outside of politics, has done some really brave shit to prove his commitment to do what is best for the people of Newark. I hope that he will impart to us during his speech, some of the wisdom that he has gained along the way. Also, he knows President Obama personally and is a vegetarian, so he must be a cool guy.

Oh, and we’re also giving an honorary degree to Rajendra K. Pachauri, the guy who received the Nobel Prize along with Al Gore in 2007, and awesome choreographer Bill T. Jones. Good job Brandeis!

Thank god I don’t have to listen to Thomas Friedman or Bill Schneider!

UJ Finds for Student Union!

Win for the Brandeis Community!

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.

Continue reading “UJ Finds for Student Union!”

UJ Declines to Hear Case on Electoral Eligibility

The Union Judiciary just sent out an e-mail denying certiorari (declining to hear) a case brought by Henry Schleifer, a former write-in candidate for next year’s UJ.  Henry had formed a Facebook group to campaign for the position despite the fact he’s currently studying abroad.  However, because his term would technically begin next Wednesday during spring inaugurations, he is ruled to have violated Article IX Section 2 of the Union Constitution, which states “To be eligible to run for an elected Union office, a student must be… Studying on the Waltham campus for the entire period in which s/he will hold office.”  This decision was made by Tia Chatterjee on the basis of a precedent set in Tansey v. Herman in a 2002 UJ case and upheld on precedent by this year’s Judiciary.

Tia did the right thing by upholding the accepted interpretation of the law, but the fact that this precedent exists at all can only be described as fucking stupid (though even more explicit phrases might be appropriate as well).  Much of the justification for the decision in Tansey v. Herman is no longer applicable under more recent study abroad rules, and I find it to be pretty weak in any case (the entire decision can be found here in PDF form).  It seems that the Constitution has been changed in the time since the decision to make the “studying on the Waltham campus” requirement a little more apparent, but there’s still a very good case that the current interpretation is not what was originally intended.  Tia is quoted in the complaint as saying “Seniors who are quad senators violate that section too. terms for quad senators run from september to september. currently the quad senators for Village, Ridgewood, Mods, Ziv, Off campus and Charles River are all seniors. [sic]”  The Village and Mod Quads are for seniors only; under this interpretation, there is NO ONE who is eligible to represent either in the Senate.

I wish that the UJ had decided to hear this case and challenge precedent, especially considering that there aren’t enough balloted candidates for the five open spots, making it unlikely that anyone would really object.  The quickest way to change the policy from here on in would be to launch a challenge to one of the six aforementioned senators, a challenge which the UJ would be forced to accept for consistency’s sake.  I don’t suggest doing this without that particular senator’s consent; it would be unfair to make a senior who’s about to graduate go through the hassle of defending their seat for just one Senate meeting.  However, if one of those senators did agree, it would be a nice way to end their Union careers by helping to change this foolish precedent.

As it is, juniors studying about during their spring semester are prevented from serving in Union government positions for the final two years of their Brandeis career merely because of the 10 or so days they miss, which, because they fall during finals, are very rarely active days for the Union in any case.  I think most people would agree with me that that just isn’t right.

The full text of the complaint and the order denying certiorari are below the fold.

Continue reading “UJ Declines to Hear Case on Electoral Eligibility”

Write-in and vote NEDA EID for Justice to the Union Judiciary at 12AM!

The Student Union is in dire need of your help.

There are five positions for the Justice to the Union Judiciary and only three people are technically running. As a voter, you can select up to 5 people. Seniors can also vote.

Since my start at Brandeis University, I’ve attended two Union Judiciary trials and I am now more than willing to help.

This year particularly has been tough for students within the Judiciary proceedings.

I ask you, now, to please help yourself by voting for me as a write-in candidate.

If you want change and representation, you must rally.

After today’s trial, I feel it is imperative that students, whether a racial minority or majority, not withdraw from the system.
Instead, learn to endure difficult situations and channel your emotions into judicial action.

I am tired of complaining; it is time to take charge and restore Brandeis’s social integrity and justice system.

My Academic Path:
I am an English major and a Legal studies minor.

As your Justice to the Union Judiciary:

I will provide an unique perspective and always make decisions with the well-being of Brandeis’s community in mind.

I URGE YOU NOW,
TAKE BACK YOUR UNION ON SUNDAY AT 12AM.

ON SUNDAY, THE 26th, FROM 12AM- 11:59PM
GO TO:
http://union.brandeis.edu/elections/SP09-2/uj#
WRITE IN AND VOTE NEDA EID.

This is getting hilarious…

So… apparently everyone feels the need to weigh in on the Ayers event next week. I just found this article, apparently written by Adolf Hitler (correct me if I’m wrong, but he’s dead, right? Bill Graham suggested we try to line him up for next semester though).

Anyway, here’s the link: http://www.rightsidenews.com/200904234491/culture-wars/former-terrorist-bill-ayers-to-speak-at-brandeis-college.html

And here are some of my favorite excerpts:

What Ayers has to do with ‘freedom’ in any form is a mystery for anthropologists of the future to figure out, as Ayers and his wife are quite open about their Communist leanings.

[…]

By the way: does it seem like Ayers is trying to get out of house a lot these days?

But if you were married to the despicable shrew Bernadine Dohrn, you’d be heading out on weekly road trips too.

The article also includes a series of telephone numbers for various Brandeis administrators. Hitler urges his readers to “politely express” their views on the Ayers lecture to Jehuda and Co.

That’s all for now, goodnight guys!

Liza Debates Michael Graham from WTKK

On Thursday, April 23rd, our very own Liza Behrendt debated talk show host Michael Graham on WTKK. She did a damn good job, I’d say.

Click here to listen.

Quite frankly, Graham’s focus on Officer Schroeder is entirely inappropriate on this topic. I can get into this later, but if he’s looking for an ideological fight on this issue, he can come find me.

Funny how Graham considers himself an aficionado on the Weather Underground enough to tell Liza that she made up her own facts. Well done, Michael Graham.

Finally, to answer Michael Graham’s question, no amount of bombs should revoke an individual’s freedom of speech.

Highlights from the Ayers article comment sections!

As some have mentioned, the comment sections to the Globe and Herald pieces about the Bill Ayers visit are an absolute comedy goldmine. There are a lot of them, though, and sifting through them takes time. So here are some of the more amusing ones. Post your personal favorites below!

“When will Brandeis invite Charles Manson or Jeffery Dahmer? Is Dahmer even still alive? Does anyone think Brandeis would invite Miss California. Fat chance. This not a free speech issue. It does show the charactor of Brandeis.”

“My sister was an intelligent, thoughtful, logical, caring person. Then she went to Brandeis, earned a degree and is no longer intelligent, thoughtful, logical, or a caring person. She lost her family over it…but she was ready fo UC Berkely.”

“I think that it’s disgusting that Brandeis is willing to bring this person into our community. There is an elementary school right next to Brandeis every time the university brings in someone with a colorful background they not only put their students in potential danger but an entire school that has nothing to do with their university. Shame on you for not looking out for the community or asking for their unput!” Continue reading “Highlights from the Ayers article comment sections!”

Friend of the Court Testimony: UJ Trial Regarding RMS and RMF-Board Positions

Hey everyone monitoring the trial,

I was asked to post my comments for the court. Here they are:

My name is Kay Cook. I’m a sophomore.  I’m from Virginia, and I identify as white.  I’d like to speak not only for myself, but on behalf of the progressive non-racial minority community.

I’d like to say first that I support the existence of racial minority seats on the Senate and F-Board.  Even as a white student, I oftentimes feel isolated from the Union.  I have witnessed Senators raise their voice against students speaking their mind at Senate meetings.  And there’s no point in personal privileging yourself, these are just my observations.  This past Sunday at the Senate meeting I heard comments from Senators that I would deem as racist in nature.  I was personally offended by these comments, particularly one that directly mentioned a dear friend of mine.  The meeting made me feel extremely emotional, disappointed, and angry, and I wasn’t even a member of the community being discussed.  I can’t even imagine how difficult it could be to relate to these bodies (that is the Senate and the F-board) as a racial minority, especially considering the tense environment that race-related issues seem to encourage at Brandeis.  Even if there happen to be members of the racial minority community on the Senate or F-Board for a given term, I feel it’s important to not only guarantee minority representation, but to have representatives who are solely responsible for minority advocacy.

Second, I recognize the power that white privilege holds in today’s society, even on Brandeis’s campus.  The existence of racial minority positions in the Union in no way make me feel disenfranchised or discriminated against.  Racism is a systematic process that endeavors to make individuals feel inferior.  Even though these positions have the potential to piss some white students off or motivate them to complain that it’s unfair, racial minority representation does not make whites feel inferior.  The elimination of the positions, however, DOES have the potential to make the racial minority community feel inferior.  I feel Brandeis’s responsibility to protect against racism supersedes its responsibility to defend against discrimination.  As I said before, I do not feel disenfranchised.  I choose to identify as white.  Out of respect for the racial minority community, I would never seek to vote or run for a racial minority position.  I imagine that if I did not accept white privilege, and if I did feel personally discriminated against that I would simply change my identity on sage so that I could vote or run.  This does remain an option within the current restrictions.  In this way, white privilege deniers have the opportunity to voice their opinion without eliminating the positions and thus alienating the racial minority community.

Third and finally I do not feel this is the proper venue to debate this issue.  White students cannot determine the significance of these positions for the racial minority community.  Seeing as a Constitutional Review is schedule for next fall, I think it would be more appropriate to wait in order for the student body as a whole to discuss race relations on campus.  After greater consideration any alterations to racial minority representation can be voted on by students and enacted with a 2/3 majority.  Eliminating the Senate position in particular now, could undermine efforts to thoroughly consider the role of racial minorities during the Constitutional Review seeing as the Senate  plays its own crucial role in the process.

The Brandeis Jewish community has taught me that as a non-Jew, I cannot comprehend the Holocaust in the same way as a Jewish person does.  Similarly, I accept that I cannot understand racism in America in the way that a member of the racial minority community does.  I urge this body to admit these limitations and to allow the racial minority community to decide the issue of minority representation for themselves.

For the sake of the future of the entire Student Union government and for peaceable race relations on campus, I beg the court to side with the Union.

 

****

Also, thank you to those who testified on behalf of the union and everyone who came out to support the defense. 

Liveblogging Klionsky and McElhaney v. The Student Union

I’m waiting for another UJ trial to begin, only this time we’re in the Shapiro Art Gallery and have a magnificently grey view of the rain and the science complex. Nobody is here yet, but I have a feeling it’ll be way too crowded about ten minutes from now.

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

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

Now for the trial.

Continue reading “Liveblogging Klionsky and McElhaney v. The Student Union”

SnarkBlog: UJ 4/22/09 Edition

So, as promised, here is your (not-so) friendly neighborhood snarkblog. Unfortunately, Carrie can’t be here right now, so its just me for the time-being. She might come later, and Mike Laderman and Amanda Hoffman might join in as well.

UPDATE: So, since the software Sahar gave me isn’t working, all snark will be presented to you via comments

UPDATE 2: I would just like to point out again that this is the SNARKblog. For legitimate liveblogging of this trial, see Emily’s coverage, which should be up shortly.

CARS meeting today, tomorrow

There’s a meeting today for students to respond to the CARS committee report. There’s another meeting tomorrow. Here’s the info:
April 22 5-6 p.m. Admissions Office in Bernstein Marcus (presentation room)
April 23 6-7 p.m. Admissions Office in Bernstein Marcus
April 27 5-6 p.m. Admissions Office in Bernstein Marcus

The UJ trial is happening at the same time today, but please show up at least tomorrow or something. Just a friendly reminder.

Trial Today

For those interested. Klionsky and McElhaney v. The Student Union will take place today at 3:30 in the Art Gallery.

I won’t be there myself, but I’m certain that innermostparts will be there to liveblog it.

Are we about to test the Separation of Powers?

It’s possible that I’m overthinking this, but I think we might be about to be entangled into a separation-of-powers style showdown at the University.

According to the writ granting cert to the Union Judiciary trial today (on the constitutionality of a (Union) constitutionally mandated Racial Minorities Senator, henceforth RMS (in the Union Senate))*, the petitioners (aka the prosecution aka those arguing against the position of RMS) base at least part of their opposition to the RMS position on the Universityhandbook on Rights and Responsibilities.

Now, the UJ is in a bit of an odd position here. They explicitly granted cert** for an argument based partially on the Rights and Responsibilities. Yet, right now anything dealing with the Rights and Responsibilities is dealt through the Administration. If the court tries to “grab power”, as it were, by trying to claim jurisdiction over the student conduct process, I don’t think the Administration will be pleased. Likewise, if their gambit works, then perhaps the Union Judiciary will spend its future sessions ruling on student plagiarism, drug use, fire safety, parking violations, and all other activities covered by the Rights and Responsibilities handbook.

I think the UJ is already in a tricky spot by granting cert explicitly on the University Handbook, but if they base their ruling off it in any way, we might just see a showdown at high noon between the Deans of Student Life*** and the Union Judiciary.

Continue reading “Are we about to test the Separation of Powers?”

Why haven’t more students taken advantage of the CARS Process?

So the CARS Committee report came out. There are some unpopular proposals in there – cutting the AAAS, Classics, and American Studies Departments, and cutting the 4-year BA/MA Programs are the most dramatic.

People are quite upset. They really care about the future of academics at Brandeis. Then what explains the rather tepid response to the structures put in place to gather community ideas/opinion before the publication of the report? The discussion forums are mediocre in size and the second Budget Cut Town Hall had less than 100 students attend.

So, after we fought so hard for some structures of democratic process, why were they rather unused?

I don’t think there is any one true answer. It’s probably a combination of intimidating complexity, the lack of knowledge of what the committees were discussing the whole time, lack of an organized effort to get people to comment, a feeling of disempowerment, and many other factors.

Matthew Yglesias points out to a related phenomenon:

There was an assumption, at one time, that you could make government more democratic and accountable by, in essence, multiplying the number of elected officials.

In retrospect, I think this was based on flawed logic and faulty assumptions that forgot to account for the fact that people have a limited amount of time they’re realistically going to spend monitoring public officials. If you live in New York City you’re voting for the President of the United States, two United States Senators, one member of congress, the Governor, the state Attorney-General, the state Lieutenant Governor, the state Comptroller, a mayor, a District Attorney, a city Comptroller, a Borough President, and a city council member in addition to a variety of state and local judges. And that’s entirely typical for the United States. Add a school board member into the mix and the situation gets even more out of control.

The result of this sort of process is the absence of meaningful accountability rather than its presence. The result is that special interests—the people with strong self-interested motives to pay attention—wind up exerting wildly disproportionate influence.

Were all the CARS subcommittees, events, online forums, (as well as the established centers of power – Student Union, Administration, Faculty, etc) part of this phenomenom? Power is so widely dispersed that people don’t know where to start their scrutiny.

Again, though many factors likely contributed to this lack of democratic process, I think one big one was the closed nature of the CARS committees themselves. The General Population, for example, did not know that the CARS committee was looking for departments to cut, and therefore couldn’t provide any constructive criticism until after the fact. Even for less dramatic issues, it’s hard to participate in discussions and add your voice when you have no idea what the conversation currently is. I hope this problem is addressed in the future.

CARS Committee Report – First Steps

So you’ve read the CARS_Report.

Perhaps you have some thoughts on the matter? First off, write/submit them here: CARS committee report response

Here’s what else you can do, care of still-President Jason Gray:

In the midst of the financial situation that we face, we have an opportunity to be a part of the process of making significant change to our University.  The recommendations are not final.  As you read the report, note what you like and what you don’t, and then please sign up to attend one of the feedback forums to make your voice heard before the Provost makes final decisions.

Sign up at http://my.brandeis.edu//survsimp/one?survey%5fid=4589

The forums in the Admissions Office in Bernstein Marcus are at the following times:

Wednesday, April 22  5-6 p.m.
Thursday, April 23  6-7 p.m.
Monday, April 27  5-6 p.m.

Hope to see you there.

Even if you don’t have a specific question, please go to at least one meeting. It’s very important that enough people show up so that we can have an authentic discussion that includes broad swathes of the Brandeis community. If you usually don’t go to these sorts of things (or know people who don’t), you’re especially urged to come.

We fought hard to get these sorts of forums and opportunities for feedback. Time to actually use them.

Statement from Dr. Ronald Walters, 1st Chair of the Brandeis African-American Studies Department

After finding out about the CARS proposal to transform the AAAS department into an interdisciplinary program, I emailed Dr. Ronald Walters, who was hired as the first chair of the department after the Ford Hall protests in 1969.  He sent me a lengthy response, which appears below. It’s a powerful statement, and everyone should read it. He carefully responds to the CARS argument that an interdisciplinary program will be more effective than a department, and gives a bit of historical perspective on the study of AAAS at Brandeis.

Mr. Robinson: I am exceedingly sorry to hear of the new recommendation of a faculty committee to turn the existing Department of African and Afro-American Studies into an interdisciplinary program. As the founding chair of that Department, it strikes me as somewhat incongruous that the University want to enhance the marketing of its academic program as one related to Social Justice, while dismantling its Department related directly to that pursuit. Moreover, the argument is headlined with the thought that “whatever the historical situation, it is clear today that an interdepartmental program is not an inferior status.” The “historical situation” that brought me to Brandeis from Syracuse University in 1969 is relevant to the modern culture of the Department because it is a foundational case where African American students overcame institutional racism to force an unwilling University to create the space for the development of an entity that could voice and teach their history and culture. Thus, the dismantlement of the Department will also dismantle much of the significance of Ford Hall as that historical beginning to students in that setting today.

Of course, institutional reorganization, on its face, is often an opportunity for administrators and their supporters to do something they have wanted to do for some time and new circumstances present them with an unique economic rationale for doing it. So, I would be wary of the view that because other interdepartmental programs have flourished, African and Afro-American Studies will also do well. In short, while I understand the economic urgencies that all of our institutions face at this moment in history, I do not believe that the elimination of a few small academic units will save the University real financial resources.

Continue reading “Statement from Dr. Ronald Walters, 1st Chair of the Brandeis African-American Studies Department”

CARS Commitee Proposes Eliminating African-American Studies Department

1969b

Black students at the occupation of Ford Hall in 1969 lobbying for, among other things, the creation of an African-American Studies Department

As if black students didn’t have enough to be pissed off about at the moment (what with an all-white Union Judiciary deciding the fate of the racial minority senator position), the Cirruculum and Academic Restructuring Steering (CARS) Commitee recommended today that the African and Afro-American Studies department be eliminated and transformed into an “interdisciplinary program” instead. Current AAAS professors would be reassigned to other departments, although they could still focus in AAAS.

CARS cites the small number of AAAS majors (“just 7 in AY 2007-2008”), and the small size of the faculty (five) as justification for its recommendation. They point out that “This year… when three AAAS faculty members had the opportunity to go on research leave, there were only two department faculty members remaining at Brandeis.” Of course, neither of these reasons actually make a case for shutting down the department. CARS concedes that “although AAAS graduates relatively few majors… average enrollment in its courses is strong.” So the lack of faculty speaks more to a lack of commitment by the university to the department than to any weakness of the department itself. I’ve mentioned this problem before, the most obvious example being the University’s letting go of Prof. Wayne Marshall (you can still sign the petition at savewayne.org!).

Continue reading “CARS Commitee Proposes Eliminating African-American Studies Department”

Bill Ayers Tickets Go On Sale TONIGHT (4/20)!

To the Brandeis Community:

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 MGRUSZKO@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.

Racial Minority Community Submits Amicus Brief

Dear Justices,

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

Jordan Rothman Must Recuse

On August 29, 2008, in a column entitled “Celebrating Racial Diversity is Pointless” Jordan Rothman, Justice of the Union Judiciary wrote in the Hoot:

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.

Injustice to Racial Minorities

For those who saw the announcement, Ryan McElhaney and Gideon Klionsky are suing the Elections Commission for prohibiting white students from participating in the election of the Racial Minority Senator and Racial Minority member of F-Board. Astonishingly, the Union Judiciary has agreed to hear the case against the Elections Commission.

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.
Continue reading “Injustice to Racial Minorities”

A Challenge to the Racial Minorty Senator and F-Boarder

bumped -Sahar

Woah. I don’t have time to comment on this just yet.

But breaking news, the UJ has agreed to hear a case on whether or not the positions of Senator for Racial Minority Students and F-Board Representative for Racial Minority Students are inherently discriminatory.

A fascinating case. I’ll offer my full commentary when I’m not writing a paper. The full text of the order granting cert is below.

Continue reading “A Challenge to the Racial Minorty Senator and F-Boarder”

Will Brandeis Get a Mystery Gift?

Colleges across the country are getting mysterious donations numbering in the millions of dollars from secret donors.

NPR:

A mystery is unfolding in the world of college fundraising: During the past few weeks, at least eight universities have received gifts totaling nearly $45 million, and the schools had to promise not to try to find out the giver’s identity.

Now, while I definitely wish that Brandeis would receive some anonymous angel donation, I appreciate that the money is going to colleges such as Norfolk State University, University of Iowa, University of Southern Mississippi, and so on.

I don’t have the time to round up smart people pithily making this point, but I think it’s pretty obvious that a 4 million dollar donation to a State University is significantly better for society than paying Harvard 4 million dollars to name a building after you. It’s great that schools who actually need the help the most are getting it.

Which reminds me:
An angel concerned about funding higher education where it needs help should consider the Washington Monthly College Rankings:

this guide asks not what colleges can do for you, but what colleges are doing for the country. It’s a guide for all Americans who are concerned about our institutions of higher learning. Are our colleges making good use of our tax dollars? Are they producing graduates who can keep our nation competitive in a changing world? Are they, in short, doing well by doing good? This is the guide that tells you.

The most recent rankings I could find are from 2007. In terms of the social benefit it produces, Brandeis is a measly 98

Anyways, kudos to these colleges. Hopefully Brandeis is next in receiving “miracle savior money.” We need it, after all.

The Midnight Buffet — Is It Worth It?

At their last meeting, the Union Senate passed SMR S09-14, which provided funding for this semester’s Midnight Buffet, which will be held on April 29th.  The resolution called for $3650.10, and that total was apparently amended upwards to $3750 during the meeting.

The resolution itself is noteworthy for being over a thousand dollars lower than the traditional $5000 granted from the Senate’s operating budget for the Midnight Buffet.  The decrease was made in deference to the cap on the Union Activities Fee, and I’m pretty sure the additional money was or will be transferred to the F-Board to distribute to clubs during emergency request meetings.  This is a good gesture on the Union’s part to ease the substantial decrease in programming forced upon many clubs, but it’s still less than many people wanted.  While $1250 helps a little bit, the full $5000 would have helped even more.  Should the Midnight Buffet have been canceled in light of the F-Board’s decreased funds?

Those who have argued for cancellation point not only to the SAF but also to the economy in general, claiming that it’s irresponsible to spend so much money on a frivolous event (the Justice editorial page endorsed this perspective).  Clubs could use the money for more substantial events than what North Quad Senator Alex Norris calls the Union’s “Bread and Circus” event.  Giving the whole $5000 to the F-Board would open more of the SAF to the entire student body and take away from the amount that only the Senate has discretion over.

Proponents of the Midnight Buffet point to the event’s universal appeal and long tradition as a campus-wide celebration before finals.  Students deserve a reward after a semester’s worth of work and need something to alleviate the stress of finals.  I’ve heard many people describe the Midnight Buffet as one of their favorite events at Brandeis, and it always draws a huge crowd.  $3750 wouldn’t amount to much money when you consider how many clubs would be asking for a piece of it.   In addition, the Midnight Buffet is mandated by the Union bylaws, and changing the bylaw would make canceling the event a more complicated process than merely not funding it.

While I’ve always enjoyed the Midnight Buffet in the past, I think sacrificing it would be a small price to pay for the benefits of opening more money to the cash-starved clubs.  However, I accept that mine may be the minority opinion, and I ultimately think the event should be funded at the discretion of the student body as a whole.  In the future, I’d like to see the Midnight Buffet removed as a requirement from the bylaw; instead, I think the Senate should engage in more outreach and polling to determine on a semester-by-semester basis if the event is something the community truly wants.  The money being used comes from everyone — it’s only fair that everyone should have a voice.