Feya Hillel an organizer of the Silent Protest, 2010 Senate Candidate (and, in the interest of disclosure, a friend of mine) sent out the following message:
Hey guys,
the 2 ppl running for senator at large this year are the same people that i talked about in the demonstration, denying my Palestinian identity!!
that’s why i decided to add Noam Shuster as write-in candidate!!!here are the instructions:
go here
http://union.brandeis.edu/elections/SP08-2/atlarge#
scroll down and click “vote now”
pick senator at large again
check the left side of the screen and click “submit new candidate”
add Noam Shuster
you will get a msg saying this candidate is already added, confirm that and vote for her
Andrew Brooks and Justin Sulsky are two dinosaur reactionaries in the Senate. They are the embodiment of those people who “treat Student Union Senate as Mock Government Club”. They are simply self-interested roadblocks to progress. I believe that the two announced candidates – Andrew Brooks and Justin Sulsky, do not represent the values of Brandeis University, especially a commitment to Social Justice. In my mind, they are symbols of the failure of the Student Union Senate to live up to its purpose and full potential; I heartily endorse Noam Shuster as a write-in candidate for Senator at Large.
Andrew Brooks will always be remembered (by me, if no one else) as the man who stuck the metaphorical shiv into Kamarin Lee, and bizzarely called Kamarin a racist for being offended by someone else’s remarks. (update – Andrew claims The Justice misquoted him. I take him at his word)
update: Turns out Lisa Hananiya sent out that message accidentally from Feya’s account.
update x2: Innermost Parts contributor Adam wants me to share the idea of writing in Kaamila Mohamed as the second Senator at Large candidate.
update x3: Struck a few phrases that were too over-the-top, added a few new ones (in italics). I’m sure Andrew and Justin are fine people and I mean no offense to them personally, we just have differing visions as to the role, values, and intended function of the Student Union Senate.
re: Kamarin, afaik, he was venting to what he thought were his friends, and was betrayed by someone he trusted. Could his comments be hurtful? Yeah. Was he being malicious? I think he had legitimate causes to be hurt himself and was trying to explore his feelings. So I don’t think any party distinguished themselves in that episode. People tell me it’s water under the bridge by now and I agree with them.
I believe that the Student Union has a purpose beyond increasing the quality of life on campus, and there I think I disagree with Justin and Andrew. Like Lev, I don’t think they are bad people – I find it very classy that Justin came on the site and made his case, for example.
The main focus, however, should be Noam’s strengths as candidate and a person. She really is a cool person.
If any freshman actually remember the hypnotist at the beginning of the year. Brooks was actually at that event and was hypnotized on se. He was the “Time is Money” guy.
I don’t dislike Brooks and Sulsky as people. I’ve met both, they’re both pretty nice guys actually. Brooks is pretty funny, Sulsky is really sweet. I don’t like them as Senators though.
It looks like a victory for the writes in, as threshold was not reached.
From Justin Sulsky Facebook.
Justin Sulsky
is proud to be the most supported candidate for at-large! let’s do it again thursday!
I agree with Ollie on this too, I don’t think Brooks was over the top on criticizing Kamarin about that. It was a very hurtful statement, imo.
As for brooks and sulsky, I don’t get all the hatred focused on them. I mean I know this site is about progressive ideas and such but I honestly think that the union isn’t mainly about liberal or conservative ideology. It is simply an organized structure for the student body to use to address their concerns with the administration. I think people are losing that idea, and thats why I supported Brooks and Sulsky. They may not be the most liberal guys around, but they know how union works and will address problems around campus and thats what the union is supposed to do.
I’m sorry but I have to stand by Ollie on this series of comments. After being called a racist myself and being threatened to be kicked off campus for the Gravity incident, I was extremely outraged when absolutely nothing was done about Kamarin making that statement. THAT, in itself, makes a pretty hardcore statement about the state of our freedom of speech on campus. I pity all those fools who don’t understand my issue with this.
Well it’s good to know there are lots of bigots (racists, anti-semites, self-hating jews, take your pick) on this campus.
I stand by Kamarin. Many people I have talked to, of various backgrounds, have supported what he said.
Yes, I recall that ad-homimen attack.
I just want to correct my earlier quote of Kamarin. I misremembered it. Anyhow here is Kamarin’s offending remark: “Asher’s idea of the African Club is full of ignorance by believing racial stereotypes and sounds like something that would come from a White, Jewish Middle-Class Conservative.“
I think the reason why Brooks called Kamarin a racist is because of a remark by Kamarin being dissmisve of the opinion of Asher Tanenbaum by calling it something that a “white, middle class, jew would say.” I don’t know that just seems a tad bit bigoted to my ears.
I wrote in Aaron Voldman. He would make a superb senator (if only he had the time).