(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.
Hi, it’s Justin Sulsky.
I’m really excited to see all this excitement surrounding the Union election and I want to thank you all for adding some drama into what seemed like a low-key election.
With that said, I just wanted to correct some misrepresentations on this blog so you can make a truly informed choice.
1. I proudly voted for the resolution calling for more endowment transparency. It passed unanimously.
2. As coordinator of the housing advisory board, I gave Mike Kerns the green light to take the gender neutral housing project as his own baby because he and the Social Justice Committee had such extensive work done on the issue and it was his baby. When Rich, the ResLife director, asked us for feedback, the housing advisory board told him we had no problems with gender neutral housing.
3. There’s no doubt Kaamila has been an outstanding senator. I have great respect for her. But please read my project reports too http://union.brandeis.edu/senate/reports.php?pid=247
I have been working very, very hard for a better Brandeis by advocating on different committees and planning great quad events. I worked with ResLife to address the issue of upper-class CAs not doing enough to be involved with their residents. I brought lox to Einstein’s bagels, which has been very popular. Shreeya named Kerns and I at her state of the union of representing “advocacy at its best.”
In conclusion, I love being on senate not because of self-interest but because I love being involved and serving other members of the community.
This experience has been tremendously humbling and should I be fortunate enough to return to the senate I pledge to do more to be in touch with all of the diverse members of the community. I’m not going to apologize for the stands I’ve taken because that would be ridiculous. I’m not a panderer. I stand up for what I believe is right.
In the words of Andre Gide, “It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for something you are not.”
Thank you all again for keeping this cycle interesting! I appreciate people realizing that I’m not some type of monster. I love Brandeis. I love the friends I’ve made here and I just want to continue serving you all.
No they don’t. Not at all, have you talked to people around this campus. They may look like Brandeis students, but they do not share the priorities of the student body.
Andrew Brooks and Justin Sulsky absolutely represent members of this campus, and anyone who doesn’t see that has been given quite a liberal dose of blindness.
I have nothing against Justin Sulsky and Andrew Brooks personally; in fact, I think their records are strong when it comes to addressing minor student complaints. However, I also think that they are completely tone deaf when it comes to activist issues and addressing the general progressive social justice sentiment on campus. I therefore stand by my posts as originally written; their representation has been horrible, their attitudes towards activism are backwards, and the Israel resolution is rather infamous. I understand the need for a certain amount of censorship in a very public forum like this, but I still want it known that I do not back down from the sentiments I expressed initially.