Innermost Parts

Last week Jordan Rothman promised us a “return to controversy”. Well, he kept good on that promise:

Social justice is stupid. There, I said it, and it feels good. Surrounded by the legions of deluded Brandeisians, using this term almost as much as they speak Hebrew or complain about Sherman, I am now finally happy to write about the imbecilic nature of this concept. This ideal is talked about frequently at our university, and is even one of the four pillars of our institution. Many try (most in vain) to classify all manners of activity as promoting “social justice,” while others self-righteously point out that they are defenders of this “noble” ideal. What is actually quite comical is that none of these “guardians” are fully aware of what the term actually means. The concept is ambiguous at best, and many are content to blindly pursue the tenets of this nearly nonexistent ideal.

I am, of course, completely opposed to almost all that Jordan said in that article, and I think his concept of Social Justice as “slavery” is dangerously whack. That said, I do applaud his bold move to stand for his beliefs, because I know and he knows he’s going to take some flak for this. “I may not agree with what you have to say, but I applaud your right to say it” and all that.

I actually agree with Jordan that Social Justice is a pretty ambiguous term. Then again, so is “conservatism” or “love”. Personally, I find it enlightening that the Hebrew word for Charity, tzedakah, has the same root letters as the word for Justice, tzedek. Then again, Charity is a mistranslation:

the nature of tzedakah is very different from the idea of charity. The word “charity” suggests benevolence and generosity, a magnanimous act by the wealthy and powerful for the benefit of the poor and needy.
[snip]
In Judaism, giving to the poor is not viewed as a generous, magnanimous act; it is simply an act of justice and righteousness, the performance of a duty, giving the poor their due.

To me, Social Justice is realizing that “the system” doesn’t always treat everyone in society fairly. We as individuals and as a society have an obligation to give a hand up to those hurt by the economic structure we have set up. Social Justice is about realizing that we are all brothers and sisters, descendants of Noah.

I am my brother’s keeper. That is what Social Justice is all about.

This last semester I’ve been working on a class project for my Sociology class to plan a Hip-Hop concert for Social Justice in Somerville. The class, Community Structures, Youth Subcultures, is a community engaged learning class that asked students to check out subcultures in Boston, Waltham and at Brandeis

My group, the Boston group, worked with an organization in Somerville called Centro Presente, a Massachusetts-based immigrants rights center. The concert we were planning was to be used to raise money for their after-school program, Pintamos Neustros Mundo (We Paint Our World). It was also to be used as a location for Centro Presente to unveil its newest campaign POLI.C.E, which was meant to raise awareness about the link between the local police forces and the I.C.E. (Immigration and Customs Enforcement).

The event, scheduled for tomorrow evening, has been canceled by the Somerville police, twice. On Monday, Blake Hyatt, one of the people in charge of planning the event, announced that the Somerville Police deemed the concert a security risk and were thus announcing that it cannot be held at its original venue at Somerville High School.

Tonight, Blake sent out this Facebook message to concert attendees:

Hi All,

As you all know, this past Monday we had to switch venues due to pressure from the Somerville Police department over what they referred to as permitting issues. We moved it to Cambridge, into a different venue and a different district. Today, we received a phone call informing us that the Somerville Police department had pursued the issue, pressuring the Cambridge Police to cancel the event. Despite the fact that we had the support of the Cambridge Police, Somerville eventually pressured enough officials, and the Cambridge Police caved. We’ve spent the day since trying to find a way around it, but there’s no way out.

There is very little information as to why the Somerville Police might have gone so far out of their way to do this, and at this point their motives seem very questionable. We will continue posting updates as the case goes on.

We’re very sorry for this turn of events, and send our sincerest apologies for any inconvenience it may have caused. Thank all of you for your support.

Best,
Blake Hyatt ’08
Hip-Hop for Justice Co-Coordinator
bhyatt@brandeis.edu

Quite sketchy if you ask me. This was a totally harmless concert planned by a bunch of students at Brandeis and a few cool kids from Somerville. Hardly a security risk. Not only did Somerville Police run the concert out of their town, but they also ran the concert out of existence. Was it really a security concern? Or was it that they don’t want the POLI.C.E. campaign to get noticed? Sketchy business. A semesters worth of work (and money) wasted.

All commenters must now provide valid email addresses (will not be publicly displayed), as well as a poster name that is either a.) a real name or b.) not something silly. This precludes names like “truth”, “ollie”, “brandeis”, etc. Who determines whether a name is silly, you ask? Sahar and I do.

This is to prevent the declining quality of discussion we have witnessed recently… maybe if people cannot hide behind the cloak of anonymity they will form more reasoned thoughts.

update: Sahar here. I suggest you guys register an account, using “dashboard” link. The reasoning here goes along the lines of “If you have something to say, be confident enough in what you have to say to put your name alongside it”

::::::UPDATE 2::::::

After much deliberation with the Student Union E-Board, I have been convinced that a run-off cannot happen. Apparently, at the top of the first ballot it explicitly stated that no run-off would be held and that the first would be the final vote. To change policy now would set a dangerous precedent for after-the-election rule changes.

For this reason and THIS REASON ALONE, I do not think we can call for a run-off any longer. However, the fact that so many students voted for the solar panels is great. This means we can show the administration that this is something many students care about and would spend even their own student activities money on.

::::::ORIGINAL POST::::::

So the votes have been recorded from yesterday’s election, and the weight room proposal has won by 0.7%. The results are posted below.

Special Funding Request:
– New Weight Room in Gosman Athletic Center: 496 (37.43%)
– Solar Panels for a Brandeis Building: 474 (36.77%)
– Renovation of Chums: 139 (10.49%)
– Brandeis 10-Member Delegation to Rwanda: 91 (6.87%)
– Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI) Free Testing: 46 (3.47%)
– Radio Transmitter for WBRS: 34 (2.57%)
– Peace and Social Justice Week: 26 (1.96%)
– One-Day Carnival: 19 (1.43%)

It disturbs me to see that more Brandeis students voted to build a new weight room than for such proposals as solar panel construction, a delegation to Rwanda or free STI testing. In large part, I think this can be attributed to the athletic community’s get-out-the-vote effort (who would’ve thought!).

Also, the weight room had no other proposals competing for its target audience. The socially-minded community, meanwhile, had 4 proposals to deal with, which certainly split the vote away from solar panels, the second-place finisher.

This is why we need a run-off election between the top two proposals. This would ensure that the winning proposal expresses the will of as much of the student body as possible. Unfortunately, there is almost no time left to hold such an election, and it seems unlikely that any will be held. So we need your help. We’re organizing a coalition and petition to push for a run-off, but we don’t have any time.

Join the facebook group. More to come.

When I heard that despite all the efforts to spend the money from the SAF this semester, we still had $100,000 more in rollover than we did at the beginning of the semester, I saw a great opportunity.   That rollover told me that after all of the great events on campus, all of which were free this semester, we still had more money than we needed.  I hoped that we could recognize the very comfortable material conditions we enjoy on this campus and use the money towards a cause more important than ourselves.  My initial proposal was that we could use the funds to sponsor one African per undergraduate student for a whole year.  We could do so through the UN Millennium Village project.

The Millennium Villages seek to end extreme poverty by working with the poorest of the poor, village by village throughout Africa, in partnership with governments and other committed stakeholders, providing affordable and science-based solutions to help people lift themselves out of extreme poverty.

I’m not a member of Positive Foundations, the group on campus working towards the cause of achieving the Millennium Development Goals, but I emailed their group leaders with my idea.  They liked it, but said that they were focusing on getting funding for a trip to Rwanda.  A noble idea as well, I believe, but the trip would only benefit 10 Brandeis students and the trip’s impact on either Rwandans or Brandeis students would be limited, in my belief.  In the end, I decided not to submit my proposal because I wanted to respect the plans of Positive Foundations.

A few days ago I heard that SEA had drafted a plan to provide solar power to the campus.  They went through the work to consult campus administrators to come up with a realistic proposal and advertised it over Facebook.  While such a plan would mostly help Brandeis lower its energy bill, it would also teach students the importance of renewable energy, tell the greater community that Brandeis values sustainability, and help to (however small) alleviate the problems of climate change.  I backed the proposal wholeheartedly.

It’s now been voted upon, and Brandeis students have chosen to refurbish the weight room.  Last time we choose to build a game room in Usdan.  I would say that our record is pretty poor–Brandeis students care very little about making change in the world and care way too much about themselves.

Today is May 1, the real labor day, a.k.a. International Workers’ Day

The middle class exists due to the organized labor movement. We owe organized labor our gratitude and support. Just as unions work to better the lives of all workers, not just unionized ones, we too salute every hard-working man and woman in America and abroad.

If anyone from BLC has something to say we’re interested in your take.

.

.

.

.

Continue reading “May Day”

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.

If I had a million dollars, I’d buy you a house.

If we had $100,000 dollars, we could buy us:

– Brandeis 10-Member Delegation to Rwanda
– New Weight Room in Gosman Athletic Center
– One-Day Carnival
– Peace and Social Justice Week
– Radio Transmitter for WBRS
– Renovation of Chums
– Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI) Free Testing for approximately 300 students
– Solar Panels for Brandeis Building

We should build Solar Panels.
The office of the Treasurer sent out the following announcement:

IMPORTANT NOTE: Please bear in mind that this is an one-time opportunity only. This type of voting will NOT occur in the future. Therefore, it is our strong recommendation that students choose a one-time investment that will be sustainable and benefit the student body and the community for years to come.

(emphasis mine)

Of these options, only Solar Panels, a Weight Room, antenna for WBRS, and renovating Chums will benefit the student body for any length of time. While ideally the school should pay for all of these, I contend that only Solar Panels and renovating Chums will benefit the broad Brandeis community. Given the choice of the two, I definitely want Solar Panels, especially since renovating Chums costs much less than 100 grand. Therefore, my original endorsement still stands: Go Go Gadget Panels!

Vote here.

I recieved an email from newly appointed Chief Justice Rachel Kagan early this morning. Basically, it says that the UJ will hear Brooks’ case before the end of the semester, probably tomorrow. It also names Kaamilla and Noam as defendants in addition to Nelson Rutrick in his capacity as elections commissioner.

Both Brooks’ original compaint and the UJ response are below.
Continue reading “BREAKING: UJ decides to hear Brooks’ case”

On Friday, April 11, then-Student Union President Shreeya Sinha wrote a campus-wide email soliciting ideas on how to spend the approximately $100,000 it had accumulated in roll-over funds.

Well, the proposals have been submitted, and we’ll all be able to vote on how to spend the money from noon today to noon Thursday.

While I won’t know what all the submissions will be until students receive the official email at noon, I do know what three of the submissions will be:
– Build a weight room.
– Install Solar Panels on the roof a prominent building on campus.
– Fly 10 students to Rwanda.

I think each of these proposals has strengths and weaknesses, but I propose that, out of these three options that we know about, solar panels are the best option. They provide a benefit to the campus and environment in terms of less energy costs and less pollution, they are semi-permament fixtures that will serve the community in years to come, and they serve as an important signal and symbol that Brandeis is getting serious about this whole Global Warming thing.

In a few years, imagine bragging “So your campus has some tunnels? That’s nice I guess. Us? Oh, our campus isn’t that special. Unless you count the Solar-Powered-Castle! f’zyeah!”
Continue reading “Solar Panels at Brandeis?”

Sorry to be a hypocrite and add another post on this tired and beaten subject, but some clarifications on stuff people seem to be confused about…

From the Student Union Bylaws:

Should a candidate be disqualified during balloting, the election shall be voided and a new election for that position shall be held. Should a candidate be disqualified after balloting has been completed, a new election for that position shall be held if the disqualification affects the outcome of the ballot.

From the Union Constitution:

The Union Judiciary may order an election to be re-run if it finds that the Constitution or other elections rules have been violated so as to unfairly negatively impact the campaign of one or more candidates, or if an election rule itself is found to have unconstitutionally negatively impacted the campaign of one or more candidates. An order to re-run an election must be issued within five academic days of the original election.

So the best Andrew Brooks can hope for is a new election, which I would hope he recognizes will be exceedingly difficult for him to win (and which will be necessarily drawn out to next year?!?). Regardless of what the UJ decides, I find it difficult to believe many, if any, people’s vote was swayed by the statements he deems libel. SImply put, it seems like he just isn’t wanted by his constituency anymore…

But let him do as he will.

So some folks doing a journalism project made themselves a blog. Welcome!
It’s called “Unto Its Innermost Parts“? Scandal!

You know what they say, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery; looks like our influence is spreading.

Seriously though, welcome y’all. U-IP, as I call them, is the web presence of a radio show. They review notable events on campus and give a summary report, as far as I can tell. I know some of the creators – Kalynn, Pat, Claire, Kara. They’re cool people; hopefully they’ll make this a success.

One problem, though. They registered the name “innermostparts” on youtube. Not cool.

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”

I’m sitting in the Senate meeting right now and the new Vice-President Mike Kerns has just announced that Noam Shuster will not be allowed to swear in as Senator-at-Large

Andrew Brooks has filed an injunction against Noam Shuster asking that she be not sworn in. The former UJ has accepted the injunction and has left the final decision up to the next UJ and Noam cannot be sworn in for at least five days. Brooks is accusing Shuster and her campaign of slandering Brooks on this website and possibly elsewhere. For the record, we would like to state that nothing published on Innermost Parts was written, approved or influenced by anyone but its stated authors.

More information to follow in the coming days.

John Ashcroft gave a speech at Knox College the other day. Then came the student question and answer period. It is instructive to see how the students there dealt with him:

Chalking Stairs! This looks just like Rabb.

Clever.

As to the questions, I’ll quote a few – Continue reading “How Knox College dealt with a War Criminal”

Tonight is the first night of Passover, and I’m with the Hirschhorn family in Philadelphia. My mother’s brother, Larry, is an alumnus of Brandeis University; he now works as a high-priced business consultant here in Philly. I’m spending a few nights here before moving onto New York with Liza. My cousin Dan Hirschhorn, Larry’s son, is also an alumnus of this fine institution.

Unlike Larry, who went here in the 1960s, Dan graduated just last year. In his junior year, he was the editor-in-chief of the Newspaper of Record at Brandeis University, The Justice.

At dinner tonight, we discussed, at length, Brandeis politics and future careers. He mentioned in passing that while at The Justice he did a story on race relations at Brandeis that had gotten him fascinated in the issue of discrimination. I decided to snoop through The Justice‘s records to see what I could find.

Here is the the main story he wrote, and the two sidebars (equally fascinating) can be found here and here.

The thesis of the set of articles is that Brandeis’ institutions designed to promote diversity and inclusivity are partly responsible – along with racism – for the segregation and racial tensions at the University.

Dan argues that as minority students feel unwelcome by the majority white community at Brandeis, they turn to people who have similar experiences in institutions like the Intercultural Center, the Posse program and TYP. It creates an environment of self-segregation.

“‘The way our campus is, people that are not of the majority feel like they need to find their own community because they don’t fit in,’ said Christina Khemraj ’09, the Student Union’s senator for racial-minority students.” Continue reading “Self-Segregation and Racial Identity at Brandeis”

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??”

Hey all. Innermost Parts will be on a break until school starts again (the monday after this one). Expect lighter posting, etc.

Oh, and happy Pesach / Break.

So, as you know, I was at the Ed Markey address last Sunday. Someone recently asked me what I thought of it. Here’s what I had to say:

So first of all I want to say that I respect Congressman Markey a lot. He’s great on Net Neutrality, general Telecommunications policy, and the environment. I don’t remember disagreeing with much, or any, of his speech. I applaud his realization that we can grow the economy and protect the environment at the same time. Furthermore, his characterization of India and China, and how we had to tell them to stop polluting carbon from a position of having done so already as spot on.

Ed Markey clearly gets it. That said, I did have some questions for him and some disagreements. During the question and answer period, he briefly remarked on realizing the goal of an electricity network where every can use renewable energy and sell it back to the grid. I wish he would expand on what plans are in place to make that happen.

During the question and answer period, someone else asked about Nuclear power. I think Markey had a very smart answer – it’s investment bankers, not politicians, who killed nuclear power. Then again, it would be more truthful to note we have a policy frowing on new Nuclear plants until we find a way to deal with nuclear waste (that’s better than Yucca mountain). To be clear, that’s a good thing. Nuclear power brings a lot of problems, including the fact that increasing nuclear power worldwide increases the risk for weaponized nuclear proliferation.
Continue reading “Reflections on Ed Markey”

Here are the numbers for the statistics-lovers out there.  Congratulations to all the winners.  I’ll leave the interpretation and commenting up to you.  Enjoy!

Dear Candidates,
The winners of the Associate Justice of the Union Judiciary race are as follows:
Judah Marans, Danielle Shmuelly, Julia Sferlazzo, and Rachel Graham Kagan.
The winners of the Senator-at-Large race are as follows:
Noam Shouster and Justin Sulsky
The winner of the Senator for the Class of 2009 race:
Eric Alterman
The winners of the Senator for the Class of 2011 race:
Lev Hirschhorn and Alex Melman

Thanks to all candidates who participated.  Please contact elections@lists.brandeis.edu for questions or contact uj@lists.brandeis.edu if you wish to appeal any decisions that the commission has made in the decision making process in this election.
Thanks,
The Elections Commission

Poll menu: Student Union SP08-2 Final
Report date: Fri 18 Apr 2008 00:01 EDT
Poll menu: Student Union SP08-2 Final (all campus)
Report date: Fri 18 Apr 2008 00:01 EDT
Associate Justice of the Union Judiciary
As at poll close: Thu 17 Apr 2008 23:59 EDT
Number of voters: 716 • Group size: 3251 • Percene voted: 22.02
Ranked by votes
Rank    Candidate       Votes   %
1       Judah Marans    351     49.02
2       Danielle Shmuelly       313     43.72
3       Julia Sferlazzo 302     42.18
4       Rachel Graham Kagan     292     40.78
5       Zachary Handler 245     34.22
6       ABSTAIN 126     17.60

Senator-at-Large
As at poll close: Thu 17 Apr 2008 23:59 EDT
Number of voters: 895 • Group size: 3251 • Percene voted: 27.53
Ranked by votes
Rank    Candidate       Votes   %
1       Noam Shouster   447     49.94
2       Justin Sulsky   399     44.58
3       Andrew Brooks   367     41.01
4       ABSTAIN 124     13.85

Poll menu: Student Union SP08-2 Final (2009)
Report date: Fri 18 Apr 2008 00:01 EDT
Senator for the Class of 2009
As at poll close: Thu 17 Apr 2008 23:59 EDT
Number of voters: 198 • Group size: 794 • Percene voted: 24.94
Ranked by votes
Rank    Candidate       Votes   %
1       Eric Alterman   115     58.08
2       Dani Baronofsky 50      25.25
3       ABSTAIN 33      16.67

Poll menu: Student Union SP08-2 Final (2011)
Report date: Fri 18 Apr 2008 00:01 EDT
Senator for the Class of 2011
As at poll close: Thu 17 Apr 2008 23:59 EDT
Number of voters: 300 • Group size: 791 • Percene voted: 37.93
Ranked by votes
Rank    Candidate       Votes   %
1       Lev Hirschhorn  147     49.00
2       Alex Melman     121     40.33
3       Naomi Cohn      107     35.67
4       Lexi Kriss      105     35.00
5       ABSTAIN 34      11.33

Tonight was a great victory for progressive activism at Brandeis University. Andrew Brooks didn’t lose because he’s a bad person. Andrew Brooks didn’t lose because he’s not popular. Andrew Brooks didn’t lose because “lies” were written about him on Innermost Parts. Andrew Brooks lost because the Brandeis community wants change. You don’t have to be an avid reader of the Justice and the Hoot to know that the Student Union was a mess this year. Tonight the Student Body placed the blame on the head of our esteemed Senator at Large, Andrew Brooks.

Of course, Andrew Brook is not entirely responsible for the mess in the Student Union. Far from it, he’s just a small part of it. The real blame belongs to every member of the Student Union. When one or two Senators or Executives causes problems, the Union should not let those problems prevent action. This year the Union needed leadership to ensure that partisanship, pettiness and play-politics would not get in the way of taking action for Students. The Union failed.

Elections have taken place, the students have spoken, and they want a change. I firmly believe that Jason Gray and Mike Kerns can and will take the Union in a new direction, and as a newly elected member of the Senate, I hope to take part in this new Union. This isn’t a matter of liberals versus conservatives; it’s a matter of people who want to take real action versus people who want to play with politics and power. Lets not get excited because Alex, Noam (whom I barely know, but I have only heard wonderful things) and I are progressives. That doesn’t really matter; I believe that conservatives can accomplish wonderful things in the Senate. No, lets get excited because Alex, Noam, and I are people who want to take action.

On another note, elections are still not over. In fact, less than half the Senate has been formed. This fall elections will take place to elect quad Senators, Senators for the class of 2012 and the TYP Senator. I doubt that tonight is the last we’ve seen of Andrew Brooks (anyone know his living plans for next year?). We need to ensure that candidates who want to take action and transcend petty politics fill these seats. With that in mind, I am announcing that I fully support Sahar Massachi, founder of Innermost Parts, for Castle Quad Senator.

I look forward to working with everyone in the new Student Union next year.

This just in – Student Events will now return to the previous arrangement of getting its funding through the Student Union F-Board. Looks like those Student Union protests had an effect after all. I wonder what behind-the-scenes work went into this…

This is excellent news – a reminder that we have power, if we organize well and use it.

We did it!

Please welcome your newest Senators at Large – Noam Shouster and Justin Sulsky!

Also please welcome the senators for the class of 2011 -Lev Hirchscrom and Alex Melman.

We did it – an upset victory at Large and solid progressives in Senate of 2011.

(Remember, voting starts (and ends) today. Vote for Noam, Alex Melman, and Lev Hirschorn. They are all pretty awesome people.) I’ll try to keep this as the top post all day: new content below

Noam Shuster is a 22 year old Israeli woman. Why is she, then, a freshman at Brandeis University? Because she’s spent her post-high school life volunteering, doing community service, taking classes at the New York Film Academy. Oh, and what else? Touring Europe giving lectures:

The pair are in England on a lightning two-week marathon lecture tour sponsored by the British Friends of Neve Shalom in an attempt to explain to anyone who will listen how their unique and extraordinary mini-society works – and how they believe that, at a time of complete deadlock in the Middle East, the type of co-existence their village practices is the best way to ensure peace.

Neve Shalom, where they live, is situated directly between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, and is inhabited by 50 families – mixed between Jewish Israeli and Muslim and Christian Israeli Arab – learning, living and coexisting together. For Noam and Ranin, aged 22 and friends since they were small children growing up in Neve Shalom, or Wahat al-Salam as it is known in Arabic, such coexistence is completely natural – and the conflict that exists in the society outside completely alien.

So Noam toured Europe lecturing the Jewish community on how she, an Israeli, could have a Christian Arab best friend, and her experiences growing up in a genuinely peaceful and mixed community. More than just talk about how great things could be, Noam has also spent great effort taking action to create positive change: Continue reading “Noam Shuster is wicked awesome”

This post is part of a series that addresses the physical aspects of our campus, specifically the history and the current state of Brandeis University architecture and planning.

I think I can safely say that almost all Brandeisians agree on at least one thing: the Castle is really cool. Many of us have explored its rooms and passages, and some of us have even gotten lost in them. It’s the only still-standing building I know of that existed before Brandeis was founded. Usen Castle is on the National Register of Historic Places, and while almost all other buildings on campus will likely face destruction at some point in the future, the Castle is almost certainly here to stay.

Unfortunately the Castle has undergone a lot of changes over the years, mostly for the worse. I’d like to tell you about one of these today.

Between the two gates is a long, thin stone wall with red crenelations on top. On the interior side of the wall you can see through the windows that there’s a long room with a lot of junk in it. One day the door was open, so I walked in for a moment to take a picture.

From my research at the University Archives, I learned that this area between the gates used to serve as a reading room, complete with study corrals and cubbies for students to work and store their things. The room had an intimate feel, with a warm light from the lamps on each desk and the shimmer of a beautiful mosaic tile ceiling. It has since been closed and forgotten.

So, let’s do a before and after:

Some areas of the Castle have legitimate reason to be closed: many spaces contain asbestos, which could be hazardous to students’ health. I don’t believe that this area suffers from that problem, because it looks like it’s actively being used for storage. So why can’t students enjoy this space today? I would love to study there. This is just one of the Castle’s lost treasures.

I urge the administration to restore some of the Castle’s lost glory through renovating this space and making it usable for our great students once again.

In the end, my initial opposition to Brooks/Sulsky came down to this: It seems that they believe that their mission in the Senate is to improve the material quality of life of students, to bring lox to Einsteins, to organize Midnight Buffets, etc. I believe a Student Union senator has a much greater mission than that. A Senator must fight for Brandeis values. A Senator must fight for student safety – no arming campus police. A Senator must try to heal the very real divisions on campus. A Senator must try to hold Brandeis’ actions to its rhetoric.

Now, though, I’ve found another reason to be very critical of the two. To them, this election is about more than the issues. They take it as a personal affront, to themselves and everything they stand for, that anyone would dare run against them. What we’ve seen with this campaign is an unrelenting assault on Reason and Democracy. They have painted Noam with the colors of a serial slanderer and clothed themselves in a mantle of pure, innocent, lambskin. I’ve seen numerous reports and examples either Brooks or Sulsky complaining about being wrongfully attacked: a challenge to their incumbency makes them victims of some sort.

Justin Sulsky’s sign says it all – “because hard work should be rewarded”. Brooks/Sulsky consider this position a reward. I consider the position an opportunity. A position in the Senate is an opportunity to stand up for Brandeis values, an opportunity to shape the dialogue and heal the rifts on campus, an opportunity to pro-actively bring about big changes, like Endowment Transparency, or Gender-Neutral Housing, an opportunity to prevent another Mamoon from being disowned by Brandeis without due process or reasonable cause. A position in the Senate should not be a trophy for badgering Einsteins into carrying Lox; it should be a promise to the student body that you will advocate for their concerns, but also present them with a more perfect Union.

(update – I’m assured that, in fact, they aren’t.)

We’ve been receiving reports all night of a mass email sent by Justin Sulsky on behalf of himself and Andrew Brooks. They’ve used blind-carbon-copy, so we don’t know where they got email addresses of all these people.

Now, this is just unsourced speculation at this point, but the question must be asked: Where did they get all these email addresses? Because if they used their positions to gain access to these emails, then that’s probably illegal.

As to the content of these emails, they basically paint a picture of two Senators who rubberstamp worthy projects such as Endowment Transparency and Gender Neutral housing, while themselves taking the lead on small-bore projects like Spring Shuttles and Midnight Buffet. I agree with this characterization. Activists like our very own Alex Melman and Lev Hirschhorn (themselves both running for Student Union Senate) did all the work regarding Endowment Transparency. Activists like those in TRISK, along with Mike Kerns, brought us Gender Neutral Housing. I don’t think Sulsky and Brooks should pat themselves on the back too much for “supporting” either of those initiatives when all the work they did amounted to little more than voting the right way.

breaking news – Mamoon Darwish is back on the Brandeis campus, and he says that he’s allowed on Brandeis property . He’s in Shapiro Campus Center right now, surrounded by joyful students. Go meet him!

More on this story as it develops…

update: Mamoon says he is in some sort of disciplinary probation at the moment.

update 2: Mamoon was acquitted on all charges, on appeal. His statement: “Two months of my life gone, and I didn’t even do anything wrong.” He also is under housing probation.

One year ago today, 33 people died on the campus of Virginia Tech University – Seung-Hui Cho, a severely disturbed victim of mental illness, and the men and women he killed in their dorms and classrooms.

I just came back from a moving vigil organized by my friend Kay, a Virginia native whose friend died in the shootings. It was a sobering experience to listen to Kay and another speaker talk about the grief they felt upon learning of the senseless deaths of people they had known and cared about. As I looked around at the friends I love listening with me, I could hardly grasp what I would feel if the same were to happen to them. The smiling photos of the victims spread across Chapel’s Field were indistinguishable from the faces I see walking up the Rabb steps every day, and as we listeners were told of their little quirks and aspirations – how one baked a cake for his studying friends, how one loved to run track, how one loved to stick her tongue out in photos – it really hit home that these were folks just like you and I. Except that we are lucky enough to keep making those little moments that are worth remembering, while theirs have all passed.

I cannot really find the words to draw some lesson from the deaths of those who never asked to be heroes, but I want to leave you with an image I found particularly moving. As the vigil went on, the wind grew harder and began to blow out the candles set for each victim. Yet as soon as a candle went out, there was always someone ready to relight it. Candle after candle was extinguished, but the people working were always faster, until finally, for a brief moment, all the candles were lit again. As dusk came on, the vigil ended and I startted to walk back to my dorm. But for as long as I was able to see, some candles continued to burn, their flames flickering in a darkening night.

It meant something to me. If it does for you too, take a moment and reflect on those lost in Virginia Tech. Remember how lucky you are to be alive and have people who love you. Pledge to do something great for the world – for the 32 victims who no longer have the opportunity. They deserve it.

Every Tuesday morning I read through The Justice in order to stay current on campus affairs. One of the issues I’ve been following is the Student Bill of Rights, proposed by Jason Gray, Union President-Elect. Jason is a good friend of mine, and he’s revealed that the Student Rights and Responsibilities is long on responsibilities but severely lacking on rights. You can find a working draft of the bill here. In The Justice‘s weekly summary of the Student Union’s activities, they wrote,

Director of Union Affairs Jason Gray ’10 reported that Union members did not collect enough signatures to make the April 30 vote on the Student Bill of Rights an official referendum. He said the vote would instead count as an unofficial opinion poll.

I was very surprised by this news. Together with the title “Vote on Student Bill of Rights will be an unofficial opinion poll,” it sounded like the Student Bill of Rights had already failed!

While factually accurate, I believe that, as stated and without further explanation, this report is misleading. As I understand campus wide votes, a group of students will seek to pass a referendum in order to get official recognition by the Student Union to their specific issue. If the petition doesn’t receive enough signatures, it isn’t likely to receive serious consideration by the Student Union Senate and Executive Board. The thing about applying the “unofficial opinion poll” vs. referendum in the case of the Bill of Rights is that it came from the Student Union itself, so one can assume that the Union will take the vote seriously no matter how many signatures they collect.

Also, unlike other student referendums, the Student Bill of Rights needs to be approved by the administration in order to carry any legal authority. Approval by students or by the Senate means close to nothing. Jason Gray and other Union members have a lot of negotiating work ahead of them, but by no means has the Student Bill of Rights failed in any way.

The Elections Commission sent me these preliminary results. I encouraged them to make students more aware that they can obtain these numbers and also to post them on the Union website.

Senator for the Class of 2009
As at poll close: Tue 15 Apr 2008 23:59 EDT
Number of voters: 186 · Group size: 794 · Percene voted: 23.43
Ranked by votes
Rank Candidate Votes %
1 Sung Lo Yoon 99 53.23
2 Eric Alterman 88 47.31
3 Dani Baronofsky 37 19.89
4 ABSTAIN 14 7.53
5 Dianne Ma 1 0.54
5 Matt Hope 1 0.54
7 Frank Golub 0 0.00

Poll menu: Student Union SP08-2 Primary (2010)
Report date: Wed 16 Apr 2008 11:29 EDT

Senator for the Class of 2010
As at poll close: Tue 15 Apr 2008 23:59 EDT
Number of voters: 282 · Group size: 841 · Percene voted: 33.53
Ranked by votes
Rank Candidate Votes %
1 Paul Balik 140 49.65
2 Rebecca Wilkof 123 43.62
3 Feya Hillel 107 37.94
4 ABSTAIN 22 7.80
5 Nicholas Brown 1 0.35
5 Kayla Sotomil 1 0.35
7 None 0 0.00

Poll menu: Student Union SP08-2 Primary (2011)
Report date: Wed 16 Apr 2008 11:29 EDT

Senator for the Class of 2011
As at poll close: Tue 15 Apr 2008 23:59 EDT
Number of voters: 337 · Group size: 791 · Percene voted: 42.60
Ranked by votes
Rank Candidate Votes %
1 Lev Hirschhorn 139 41.25
2 Lexi Kriss 99 29.38
3 Naomi Cohn 95 28.19
4 Alex Melman 93 27.60
5 Joshua Mandell 86 25.52
6 Stephanie Cohen 18 5.34
7 ABSTAIN 13 3.86
8 Noam Shuster 4 1.19
9 Kaamila Mohamed 2 0.59
10 Kaamilla Mohammed 0 0.00
10 Ori applebaum 0 0.00

Poll menu: Student Union SP08-2 Primary (all campus)
Report date: Wed 16 Apr 2008 11:29 EDT

Senator-at-Large
As at poll close: Tue 15 Apr 2008 23:59 EDT
Number of voters: 1023 · Group size: 3251 · Percene voted: 31.47
Ranked by votes
Rank Candidate Votes %
1 Justin Sulsky 411 40.18
2 Andrew Brooks 392 38.32
3 ABSTAIN 274 26.78
4 Noam Shuster 112 10.95
5 Kaamila Mohamed 53 5.18
6 Kaamila mohammed 41 4.01
7 Kayla Sotomil 9 0.88
8 Noam Shouster 8 0.78
9 Noam Schuster 5 0.49
10 Noam S 2 0.20
10 Kamilla Mohammad 2 0.20
12 Noam Shuster and Kaamila Mohamed 1 0.10
12 Noam Chuster 1 0.10
12 Sung Lo Yoon 1 0.10
12 Keyla sotomil 1 0.10
12 Kaamilla Muhammed 1 0.10
12 Noam Schuester, Kaamilla Mohammed 1 0.10
12 Dan Newman 1 0.10
12 Naom 1 0.10
12 Ayal Weiner Kaplow 1 0.10
12 Adam Barish 1 0.10
12 Jordan Suchow 1 0.10
12 Sam Packer 1 0.10
12 Alex Trott 1 0.10
12 Anyonebut BrooksPlease 1 0.10
12 Josh Mervis 1 0.10
12 Justin Backal-Balik 1 0.10
12 Divya Vangala 1 0.10
12 Aaron Voldman 1 0.10
12 Hana Nagel 1 0.10
12 Michael Martin 1 0.10
12 Sarah Linet 1 0.10
12 Timothy Kane 1 0.10
34 A 0 0.00
34 Andrew Gluck 0 0.00
34 Julia Sferlazzo 0 0.00
34 Kam 0 0.00
34 Kamil 0 0.00
34 Kamila m 0 0.00
34 Kamilla 0 0.00
34 Kamillah 0 0.00
34 Nosm Shuster 0 0.00
34 Robbie Schwartz 0 0.00
34 Your mother 0 0.00

Justice of the Union Judiciary
As at poll close: Tue 15 Apr 2008 23:59 EDT
Number of voters: 958 · Group size: 3251 · Percene voted: 29.47
Ranked by votes
Rank Candidate Votes %
1 Jordan Rothman 506 52.82
2 Danielle Shmuely 392 40.92
3 Judah Marans 376 39.25
4 Julia Sferlazzo 356 37.16
5 Rachel Graham Kagan 323 33.72
6 Zachary Handler 284 29.65
7 ABSTAIN 157 16.39
8 Bojan Rajkovic 2 0.21
9 Jonathan Pincus 1 0.10
9 Elisette Weiss 1 0.10
9 Emily Moignard 1 0.10
9 Sarah Ibrahim Enan 1 0.10
9 Alex Trott 1 0.10
9 Michael Bohen 1 0.10
9 Charles River 1 0.10
9 The Rt. Hon. Justice Steven N. Sasmor, Count of East Quad 1 0.10
9 Justin Backal-Balik 1 0.10
9 Rufus Wainwright 1 0.10
19 Daniel Baron 0 0.00
19 Dustin Smith 0 0.00
19 Sahar Massachi 0 0.00

Poll menu: Student Union SP08-2 Primary (RMS)
Report date: Wed 16 Apr 2008 11:29 EDT

Senator for Racial Minority Students
As at poll close: Tue 15 Apr 2008 23:59 EDT
Number of voters: 171 · Group size: 643 · Percene voted: 26.59
Ranked by votes
Rank Candidate Votes %
1 Kamarin Lee 130 76.02
2 ABSTAIN 38 22.22
3 Adonis Watkins 2 1.17
4 Jon Kane 1 0.58
5 Athena 0 0.00
5 Denise 0 0.00
5 Gabe 0 0.00
5 Gabriel 0 0.00
5 Kaamila 0 0.00

Finance Board Member for Racial Minority Students
As at poll close: Tue 15 Apr 2008 23:59 EDT
Number of voters: 166 · Group size: 643 · Percene voted: 25.82
Ranked by votes
Rank Candidate Votes %
1 Adonis Watkins 94 56.63
2 ABSTAIN 40 24.10
3 Aarish Sheikh 29 17.47
4 Adriel Orozco 2 1.20
5 Rev. Jonathan A. Kane 1 0.60

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.

I have been pondering activist coalitions at Brandeis for a while, so it’s with great anticipation that I pass on the info for this event:

Spend some time with Nobel Peace Prize nominee and leading African American, lesbian social justice activists as she is at Brandeis this Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday.

Carter will be giving a keynote speech and workshop on Wednesday from 6:30-8 in the ICC Swig Lounge on the topic of creating coalitions to achieve progressive change and developing transformative models of organizing that connect race, class, culture, gender, and sexuality identity.

Outside of the speech and workshop, she is available for coffee or food dates, group lectures, club meetings, or question and answer sessions. To schedule time while she is on campus, please contact Scott Frost (sfrost@brandeis.edu)

Where: Swig Lounge
When: 6:30-8pm

Many people have a habit of comparing any activism today to that of the Sixties, and finding our generation lacking. Yet, as Danny the Red tried to tell us, forget 1968: it was wonderful, but it’s over.Conditions are very different today, and trying to use the organizing models and tactics of the earlier age only plays into the hands of the establishment, which by now has figured out how to deal with 60’s -era protests. I believe, but cannot prove, that one reason that campus activism today is dissimilar to that of the past is due to the great fragmentation on campus. We have so many activist clubs that even dedicated members of the activist community, such as myself, can be caught unawares by stellar work done by other student organizers. Yet that’s the problem – there is no real activist community. Hopefully this talk will help us learn how to start fixing that.

That’s right. You can even schedule time with Mandy Carter(!) for your club. FMLA has already gotten into the act (7pm Thurs).

Thanks to Jessica Stearns for the tip.

Thanks to a combination of Lev, facebook, and word of mouth, we have the results:

Remaining candidates – (winners in bold)

• 2011: Alex Melman, Lev Hirschhorn, Lexi Kriss, Naomi Cohn
• 2010: Paul Balik, Rebecca Wilkoff
• 2009: Sung Lo Yoon, Eric Alterman, Dani Baronofsky.
• Judiciary: Julia Sferlazzo, Jordan Rothman, Rachel Kagan, Judah Marans, Danielle Shmuelly, Zachary Handler
• F-Board: Adonis Watkins
• Senator for Racial Minorities: Kamarin Lee

and now, the race you’ve all been waiting for….

• Senator at Large: Justin Sulsky, Andrew Brooks, and Noam Shuster.

Kaamila, I am told, didn’t make the cut by only 8 votes. Too bad.

Congrats to the winners, condolences to the losers.

A special congrats goes to Lev and Alex for making it to the next round for 2011, but also for Noam Shuster, who, though a write-in candidate, will be on the ballot of the final round of elections.

It’s currently 1:15pm. The first round of Student Union Elections officially ended over one hour ago, yet I still haven’t received any results.

I have been very disappointed with how the Union has made no effort at transparency in this election cycle. The votes are counted via computer software, so we should be able to receive immediate results after the polls close (if not in real time, like real U.S. elections!). Instead everyone but the candidates has to wait until one of the newspapers or one of the candidates publishes the results they receive privately via email. I hope that the elections commissioner will make a better effort in the second round, but I’m not feeling too optimistic.

I sent a message to elections@brandeis.edu expressing my concern. Hopefully they’ll respond and I can publish the results here. I shouldn’t even have to do that–the elections commissioner should send the results to students via the all-campus list serve at 12:01pm.

Tomorrow is the anniversary of the Virginia Tech massacre.

There will be a candle-light vigil held at Chapel’s Field from 7-8pm.

On April 16th, 2007 Virginia Tech was the site of the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history. A total of 32 people were shot and killed, in addition to the shooter who later took his own life. The events at Virginia Tech have affected universities nationwide. The tragedy is important to commemorate, as it helps us to appreciate the freedoms we, as a university community, fight to protect.

A vigil to remember the victims will be held Wednesday evening. Assuming the weather is nice, we plan to hold it outside on Chapels Field. Please bring your thoughts to share about Virginia Tech or about non-violence on university campuses.

If you plan to attend, or even if you can’t make it, please wear maroon and orange (VA Tech colors) on Wednesday in commemoration of the tragedy.

This event is organized by Kalynn Cook (and, if I understand correctly, Shanna Rifkin) and sponsored by Democracy for America. More info on the facebook page.

The VA Tech tragedy hits us all in different ways. Whenever I think of the event, I remember the long posters/papers that students at Brandeis, and other colleges (I was touring Universities at the time) signed and sent to Virgina Tech.

The Waltham-based Daily News Tribune has already written an article about the vigil –

A year ago Wednesday, Kalynn Cook’s childhood friend was killed when Seung-Hui Cho opened fire on the Virginia Tech campus.

To mark the first anniversary and to remember her friend, Erin Peterson, the Brandeis freshman from Sterling, Va., planned a candlelight vigil for tomorrow night.

“I’m from northern Virginia and I came up here for school. When it got to be April I knew that the one-year anniversary would be coming up. I looked at the Brandeis calendar of events and I noticed there wasn’t anything scheduled,” she said. “I decided to talk to some of my friends who happen to be involved in student activism. They suggested I host an event myself.”

Cook said she contacted the student organization Democracy for America, which helped organize the event.

Starting at 7 p.m. tomorrow, students will read a biography of each person killed in the massacre, hold a prayer service and conduct an open forum to discuss the deadliest shooting rampage in U.S. history.

The article goes on to discuss the shootings and Brandeis’ response to them. I agree with Lev, it’s too bad the Daily News Tribune avoided mentioning that the DFA-sponsored coalition Students Opposing the Decision to Arm opposed the arming of campus police.

It is obvious to me that Brandeis seeks to destroy Modernism on its campus. In architecture there is the so-called “50 year rule” which says that after 50 years a building will be harshly criticized as unsightly, a monstrosity, etc. Considering that many of Brandeis’ buildings were constructed in the 1950s during what is called the Modernist era, we’re starting to hit the 50 year mark where people strongly dislike the styles of Brandeis’ buildings. Take a look at this map of campus, complete with dates of construction:

I think you’ll find the rule to hold true with your personal preferences. You strongly dislike Massell Quad (1952), Sherman Hall (1959), Goldfarb Library (1965), Rabb Quad (1961) and the oldest parts of the Science Center (1956-1958). However, Usen Castle (1928), the oldest building on campus, is beautiful, and Farber Library (1984), the Mailman House (1972), and Ziv Quad (1980s) aren’t so bad. For me, the 50 Year Rule is a very interesting concept that says a lot about human nature. We like the things from the years around our grandparents’ birth, hate the things from the years around our parents’ birth, and aren’t sure about the things from around the years of our birth.

Nowhere have I seen the 50 Year Rule more clearly expressed on Brandeis Campus than in the Olin-Sang American Civilization Center. One day I arrived at my politics discussion section on the second floor a few minutes early. After I sat down I noticed that one of the ceiling tiles was missing, so I got up and checked it out. I saw the well-known waffle-block ceiling found across campus, but that wasn’t all. To my amazement, I viewed through the hole a beautiful arched frosted glass skylight, the light shining through.

Modernism Revealed

The Light Shines Through

Normally I don’t find connections between my love for Brandeis, architecture, and progressivism, but in this case I do. Progressives don’t believe in erasing the past, we believe in embracing it and fitting it to meet today’s and tomorrow’s needs. Our university sought to hide elements of Modernism, ironically in the effort to modernize classrooms with new lighting, carpet, and “normal” ceilings. Even though progressives may not like the America of the 1950s, that doesn’t mean we see history in black and white, right and wrong, modern and old-fashioned.

(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.

The Globe just did a feature focusing on Sam Vaghar and Seth Werfel, specifically regarding the Millenium Campus Network.

Don’t tell Sam Vaghar that today’s generation is apathetic.

At 21, the Newton North High School graduate and senior at Brandeis University is the executive director of a growing nonprofit organization dedicated to tackling the planet’s major problems. The Millennium Campus Network, which unites organizations from a number of Greater Boston schools, is entirely run by its student members.

Vaghar and Brandeis sophomore Seth Werfel, a New York City native, founded the network last August. The group is preparing for its inaugural Millennium Campus Conference to be held next weekend at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge. The event has booked several notable speakers, including former senator John Edwards; R&B artist John Legend; and Ira Magaziner, who was a senior policy adviser to President Bill Clinton.

Holy Crap that’s impressive. (h/t arcblog)

One issue I’m struggling with lately is the idea of campus and off-campus focused activism. Much of my attention is held by the events and initiatives that are focused on campus. Yet there’s a thriving ecosystem of more globally-focused groups as well. We really need to combine these two communities. Among other things, that’s what we founded Innermost Parts to be – a place for progressives of all types – from Positive Foundations, SEA, AHORA, what have you, to all have a place to talk and so forth.

Innermost Parts is maneuvering to reach that third phase in our development where we can really tackle that goal of a more connected community. If you have any suggestions, comments, or even want to be in the know/help out in this effort, contact me at