Brandeis has too many clubs. Too many meetings. Too much stress.
Brandeis also needs unity – there aren’t many clubs, organizations, events, or identities that appeal to the broad campus. That’s why the various publications have so much sway, by the way.
But in trying to bring unity, traditional attempts have often tried to create a new club – more meeting, more stress.
Is there a better way?
I’m very interested in created a united progressive community at Brandeis. But are more meetings the answer? We said no, and instead of trying to create an umbrella organization that relies on delegates from existing clubs, we are trying to make a “hub” that has dedicated members working on creating infrastructure.
That’s cool, but that still creates more clubs, more meetings, more stress.
We need stress-free, easy ways to accomplish the following goals:
– build a progressive community on campus
– build links between activist clubs
– build infrastructure.
How can we do that? I have some ideas, what are yours?
Nicholas Kristof and I do not see the world—and America’s role in it—in the same way. I have sometimes expressed my disagreements with his opinions vociferously (vociferousness is my business). But in yesterday’s The New York Times, he quotes two sentences that I recently wrote—one of them genuinely embarrasses me, and I deeply regret it.
The embarrassing sentence is: “I wonder whether I need honor these people and pretend they are worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment, which I have in my gut the sense that they will abuse.” I wrote that, but I do not believe that. I do not think that any group or class of persons in the United States should be denied the protections of the First Amendment, not now, not ever. When I insist upon a sober recognition of the threats to our security, domestic threats included, I do not mean to suggest that the Constitution and its order of rights should in any way be abrogated. I would abhor such a prospect. I do not wish upon Muslim Americans the sorts of calumnies that were endured by Italian Americans in connection with Sacco and Vanzetti and Jewish Americans in connection with communism. My recent comments on the twisted Koran-hating reverend in Gainesville will give evidence of that. So I apologize for my sentence, not least because it misrepresents me.
Or has he learned nothing?
The other sentence is: “Frankly, Muslim life is cheap, especially for Muslims.” This is a statement of fact, not value
I’m not really sure how to respond to this as an organization (Justice League). Do we focus on the positive, or on how Peretz doubled down on his contention that Muslim life is worth less than other life?
Your thoughts appreciated