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.

6 comments on “Write-in and vote NEDA EID for Justice to the Union Judiciary at 12AM!”

  1. Jon Says:

    I don’t think it’s fair that Neda gets to advertise her campaign on innermostparts while the other candidates (both balloted and other write-ins) don’t have the same access to share their message.

    I thought it was very appropriate for this website to send out questionnaires to get to know all of the candidates and to later post their responses (as was done during the special elections earlier this semester). I wish this website and the posters would stick to this fair methodology in the future and prevent candidates with special access from promoting themselves on this site.

  2. Mike Says:

    There were a few quotes from Neda’s post that stood out to me:

    “If you want change and representation, you must rally.”

    -Change from what exactly? I wish candidates would give more specifics about the change they’ll bring to a job rather than hearing this extremely cliche line over and over again.

    “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.”

    -While I completely agree with the first sentence, the second sentence is worrisome. Emotions should never be a part of the judicial system…judgments need to be made on the basis of legal reasoning and facts, not emotions. One could argue that Plessy v. Ferguson (which said that separate but equal institutions for African-Americans and Caucasians is perfectly okay) was decided on the basis of emotions of prejudice against African-Americans…is this the decision-making philosophy we need in the student union?

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

    -Unique perspectives are great, but making decisions not based on facts and legal reasoning is again very troubling. Judging on the basis of some vague principle of “well-being” is inherently subjective and depends upon what you consider to be “well-being”. Many people think that it’s the well-being of the United States to ban gay marriage in order to protect the “family unit”…does that mean that judges should ignore individual rights and facts in order to make a judicial decision that they feel keeps in mind the “well-being” of the US? OF COURSE NOT. Judicial decisions should always be objective according to facts and the law, and not based on subjective views of “well-being”.

  3. Adam Hughes Says:

    Jon — Innermost Parts has been endorsing and supporting candidates that have worked with it and its causes for as long as it’s been around, and Neda certainly fits the bill. I’ve benefited from that myself. We’ve never pretended to be “fair” in the sense that we’re ideologically driven, and that has applied to elections in the past as well. And we’re hardly alone in this sense; the Justice publicly prints endorsements, and many clubs endorse and send e-mails over their list-servs recommending a particular candidate.

    That being said, I really liked the questionnaires, and I’m glad to hear that you found them helpful and desirable as a reader. We may change our policy on elections in the very near future, and your feedback is greatly appreciated and will be taken into account.

    Does anyone else have an opinion on this matter?

  4. Adam Hughes Says:

    Mike — I think by “channel your emotions into judicial action”, she meant that people should be free to petition to the UJ. Notice how she’s addressing students as a whole in that sentence.

    Also, it’s a pretty big leap to say that making decisions for the community’s well-being is equivalent to ignoring facts and legal reasoning. The rules governing the Student Union exist for the community’s well-being in the first place, and the entire legal system depends on those rules being fact-based. Because of this, a ruling in the community’s best interest is by definition one that is in accordance with facts and the law.

    Check out the ruling of Tansey v. Herman (discussed in the most recent front-page post) to see what happens when the community’s well-being is ignored in favor of a selective, strictly literal interpretation of the law.

  5. Avi Says:

    Adam, Having personally done the questionnaires I feel that it would be beneficial for innermost parts to institute them for every election this way Brandeis can view the candidates takes on a variety of issues. Also with questionnaires innermost would not be forced to tie itself with one candidate so that it can do the most good. Lastly I do not think it appropriate for UJ candidates to be posting a blog such as innermost. UJ candidates are not allowed to receive endorsements in their elections and by posting on this blog it can be viewed as violating this rule. Additionally endorsing a write in candidate gets into murky water. (see Brooks v. Schuster and Rutrick)

  6. Rachel P Says:

    Avi, I think you’re ignoring a foundational component of Innermost Parts, which is that it is not officially affiliated, funded, or endorsed by Brandeis University in any way. This is merely an opinion blog put up by students at Brandeis. It discusses issues of the Brandeis Campus. But it can’t violate rules it is not required to obey. Innermost Parts is not a club (receives no money from F-board) and you’re not going to see any links to the blog on the Brandeis website.

    I recommend to Jon, Mike, and Avi that you take a look at the kind of work Neda’s done on campus. Then you can see that Neda is someone incredibly invested in Justice. Neda is president of Muslim Student Alliance. She was one of the main planners and speakers at the “JAM: Jews and Muslims” open dialogue that benefitted both groups of students in a very open and honest discussion of religious groups on campus. This summer Neda’s interning at a courthouse in Canton, MA, which will deal mostly with probate and family law.

    Personally, I think Neda is the perfect candidate for UJ because she’s not running as someone to gain experience or prestige in any way. She is not running because she has a specific agenda or mission. She is running simply because she is a concerned Brandeis student who sees that many students are frustrated with the system in place and she is willing to put in a lot of time to ensure that all trials are fair and all voices on campus are being heard.