B R A N D E I S U N I V E R S I T Y ' S C O M M U N I T Y N E W S P A P E R T H E H O O T . N E TA P R I L 2 4 , 2 0 0 9

VOL 5, NO. 25

Art is at the Bernstein Festival

Diverse City, page 8

Sportz Blitz: Talking NFL draft, hockey and Brandeis sports off the Beaten path: Hop over the Grasshopper in Alston

IN THISISSUE:

Talking with award winning professors

Features, page 6

AUDIO @ THEHOOT.NET

UJ hears case on RMS constitutionality

BY ALEX SCHNEIDEREditor

PHOTO BY Danielle Wolfson/The Hoot

HUDDLE: Union Judiciary members deliberate during the trial about if they will hear arguments about alternative means of resolving the Racial Minority Senator issue at the trial on Wednesday.

RMS role ignored in UJ case

BY ARIEL WITTENBERGEditor

The Union Judiciary’s decision to hear the case Klionsky and McElhaney v. Stu-dent Union yesterday sparked much debate about whether or not the position of Racial Minority Senator (RMS) is necessary for minority involvement in student govern-ment or if it is a form of reverse racism.

At the trial, where Gideon Klionsky ‘11 claimed that his inability to run for the RMS seat as a white student was harass-ment and therefore unconstitutional under the Union Constitution, the debate focused on whether or not the position should be dismantled.

However, the trial glossed over the back-ground of the position or what responsi-bilities the RMS holds.

The RMS position was created in the 1993-1994 school year. Prior to the cre-ation of the position, there had existed an Executive Board position for Director of Community Relations that was responsi-ble for reaching out to the racial minority community but the position holder was not

See RMS, p. 3

Rose supporters question legitimacy of committeeBY ARIEL WITTENBERG

Editor

Director of Brandeis’ Rose Art Museum Michael Rush announced that he did not recognize the university’s Committee for the Future of the Rose as legitimate at a town hall discussion about the future of the Rose yesterday evening.

“I do not recognize you as a legitimate committee [because] this supposed at-tempt at openness and dialogue is only happening because of the disaster that was Jan. 26 and the international outcry that followed,” he said.

The committee was created in March with the charge of “exploring options” for the future of the Rose in response to the media storm the university faced when they announced they would be closing the museum on Jan. 26.

The town hall meeting last evening came after university Provost Marty Krauss’ an-nouncement on Friday that the museum would remain open through the summer. In order to remain open, the current ex-hibit at the Rose will be extended until May 17 and another exhibit of the museum’s permanent collection will open on July 22.

Only three of the six current Rose staff members will stay on at the Rose, not in-cluding the Museum Director Rush, or the Educational Director.

Rush told the committee, “this is not openness for openness’ sake. This commit-tee was founded in the scuttle in the after-math of that disaster,” he said.

Rush added that on Jan. 26, both he and the Rose staff were only informed of the decision to close the Rose one-hour before the university sent out a press release to

the larger community. Similarly, he said, his staff only heard about the new “inter-im” state of the Rose over the summer one hour before Krauss sent an e-mail to the Brandeis community.

“This is total repetition for us and our staff,” he said.

Rose Family member Meryl Rose agreed with Rush and asked the audience of about 70 community members and 10 commit-tee members if “nothing was wrong with the Rose before Jan. 26, why do you feel the need to change it now?”

“Why don’t you try and undo the damage you have done and renew the contract with the museum’s director?” she continued.

Rose added that because the museum has no money coming in and all fundraising ef-forts have been halted, the museum is in ef-fect “dead.”

“A museum is supposed to be a living

breathing thing with art being exchanged all of the time,” she said. “This is a slow death that has already started. The muse-um will turn into a warehouse for old art just as soon as May 17 rolls around.”

While Provost Krauss later explained that it is natural for the museum to have periods between exhibits with no special exhibits, Rush later told the Waltham Daily News Tribune that traditionally, these pe-riods last “for no longer than three weeks” as opposed to the scheduled period of over two months.

Since Krauss’ announcement about the interim state of the Rose, the museum has issued an official statement on its website accusing the university of participating only in “bare bones protection of the mu-seum.”

See ROSE COMMITTEE, p. 4

New legal interpretations for Rose Art surface

BY ARIEL WITTENBERGEditor

When the university’s Board of Trustees’ authorized the closing of the Rose Art Muse-um and the sale its 7,183 piece collection, one of the first questions raised by the Brandeis and art worlds was the legality of the univer-sity selling the museum’s art for the univer-sity’s profit.

Since the authorization broke to the media on Jan. 26, there have been many different interpretations concerning the issue of legal-ity—however, Provost Marty Krauss’ e-mail announcement of the reopening of the Rose after a three-month hiatus in July has opened a whole new can of debate.

While at first it was thought that the mu-seum must close in order for the university to profit from the sale of its art, according to Meryl Rose, a member of the Rose family, the conditions under which the money to build the museum were given prohibits the univer-sity from using the building as anything other than a public museum.

“In Edward Rose’s will he specifically states that the money must go toward a public art museum at Brandeis, that it must be the only museum on campus, and that while there can be ancillary buildings for student art centers at Brandeis, the Rose building cannot be used for that purpose,” Rose told The Hoot in a phone interview. “The Rose building must remain a public museum.”

This initial misunderstanding about the

See ROSE LEGAL, p. 4

The Union Judiciary heard the case of Klionsky and McElhaney v. Student Union at a proceeding on Wednesday that sought to answer whether the Student Union Con-

stitution allows for the positions of Racial Minority Senator (RMS) and Racial Mi-nority Representative to the Finance Board (F-Board). Over the four and a half hours of the trial, the courtroom became both tense and emotional as the two sides dis-

cussed issues of race relations at Brandeis.In the complaint filed with the case, peti-

tioner Gideon Klionsky ‘11, who declared himself to be both white and an Ashkenazi Jew at trial, explained that he had tried to sign up to run for the position of RMS, only to be turned down by Secretary Tia Chat-terjee ‘09.

At trial, Klionsky reiterated his claims, stating, “this is discrimination based on race.”

“All the people who are eligible [to vote for the position of RMS] have these five [senators] in addition to the RMS,” he add-ed.

In his opening address, Ryan McElhaney ‘10, who represented Klionsky, concurred. “I don’t think positions should be decided by race,” he said, later adding, “it’s not fair and it’s not right.”

The Student Union, represented by lead council Jamie Ansorge ’09 along with Na-than Robinson ’11 and Matt Kipnis ’11, dis-agreed on multiple levels.

The Union argued first that the venue chosen for discussing the position was not appropriate. In his opening, Kipnis reiter-ated this point, noting that the Union Con-stitution is up for review in the fall, at which point the entire student body would be able

See UJ, p. 4

PHOTO BY Max Shay/The Hoot

2 The Hoot April 24, 2009

N E W S

Steering committee recommendations anger members of departments with revolutionary roots

BY ARIEL WITTENBERGEditor

The recent recommendations by the fac-ulty senate’s Curriculum and Academic Restructuring (CARS) Committee to turn the American Studies, Classical Studies and African and Afro-American Studies (AAAS) departments into interdepart-mental programs have sparked controversy through out the university’s students and faculty.

The news that there is a consideration of making AAAS and American Studies departments is particularly upsetting to students and faculty involved in the de-partments given the departments’ unique significance in the Brandeis community.

In 1969 a group of 60 to 75 black students occupied Ford Hall after issuing a list of ten demands for the university’s administra-tion at the time.

The first demand was “An African Stud-ies Department with the power to hire and fire. This means that the committee must have an independent budget of its own,”

according to an article published on January 14 1969 in the Justice found in the university archives.

The take over lasted 10 days, during which white students held a sympathetic sit-in at the Bernstien Marcus administra-tive building, and ended with the promise of the AAAS department.

While no department at Brandeis has the ability to hire or fire their own faculty—the deci-sion to hire is left up to the Dean of Arts and Sciences and faculty members are technically not al-lowed to be fired, according to Dean of Arts and Sciences Adam Jaffee—the idea that the univer-sity would disperse the depart-ment into an interdepartmental program 40 years after the take-over represents “skewed values” on behalf of the university, AAAS major Nathan Robinson ’11 told The Hoot.

“These students took a huge risk, they risked expulsion and ar-rest in the take over,” he said. “And their number one reason for tak-ing that risk was to start this de-partment. This recommendation,

if put into place, would be directly revers-ing a promise to students.”

Tim Hickey (COSI) of the CARS com-mittee said at a town hall held yesterday evening surrounding the recommenda-tions that the committee “took Ford Hall into consideration and discussed its role in the department’s history when making this recommendation.”

“But we decided that making it an inter-departmental program would strengthen the major and therefore decided it was worth it,” he said.

Robinson, however, disagrees.“You can argue that an interdepartmen-

tal program will strengthen the program,” Robinson said, “but the history of this de-partment makes that an irresponsible and disrespectful decision. There is no way to separate what the department is now or will be and the circumstances under which it was created. Ford Hall is a crucial factor in what the AAAS department is today.”

While the American Studies department at Brandeis does not have such a rich his-tory of protests, Stephen Whitfield (AMST) would argue that the department does have

a revolutionary past.American Studies, as a discipline, was

first founded in the mid to late 1930’s at Harvard University as a field that com-bined American history and literature.

After the Second World War, however, the field of American Studies was revolu-tionized by Brandeis Professor Max Le-rner, who broadened the scope of the field to include social sciences and humani-ties—an addition Whitfield said is par-ticularly important for understanding the American culture during the Cold War of the 1950’s.

“Lerner shaped the understanding of America in terms of culture…in a way that echoes Alexander de Tocqueville,” Whitfield said. “He made American Studies at Brandeis pioneering and exem-plary in the field.”

After the publishing of Lerner’s book American Civilization in 1957, universi-ties around the globe changed the way they studied American Studies to “imitate what Max Lerner pioneered,” Whitfield said.

This national and international acclaim led to the transition of the American Stud-ies program into a department in 1970.

Whitfield believes that to change Amer-ican Studies back to a program after al-most 40 years of existing as a department would be “a repudiation of an extraordi-narily rich heritage of visionary teach-ing as well as significant scholarship and would deprive our department of its in-tegrity and autonomy.”

The CARS committee did not respond to questions of whether they had consid-ered Brandeis’ American Studies depart-ment’s history in making their recom-mendation, however, Jaffe stated at the town hall that “being transitioned into a program is not a demotion. It is an at-tempt to strengthen the programs.”

Whitfield argues that “were we reduced to the status of a program the department could not fulfill our educational mission, which is anchored in this history of a community of like-minded teachers and students whose approach is multi-disci-plinary.”

“We are very proud of our majors who have in various forms…shown a great sensitivity to American culture,” he con-tinued. “ We like to think that their ac-complishments owe something to the way we taught these students.”

PHOTO BY Danielle Wolfson/The Hoot

CARS: Prof. Tim Hickey (COSCI) listens to students’ grievences at a Town Hall on Wednesday about the CARS Committee’s recommendations.

Development uses new media to fundraise

BY ARIEL WITTENBERGEditor

In the wake of Brandeis’ economic crisis, the university announced in March that the Department for Development and Alumni Relations are going would focus their gift raising efforts on obtaining money for fi-nancial aid.

Integral in Vice President of Institutional Advancement Nancy Winship’s plan to raise funds is use of the Internet for the actual fundraising initiatives and in com-munity building efforts.

“We live in a different world than five years ago,” she said, “we need to start using the new technology before we even finish with the old.”

The Department for Development and Alumni Relations has begun sending out e-mail message appeals for donations to their e-mail list of over 28,000 potential donors, in addition to calling potential donors through Phone-a-Thon. Additionally, each donor has an online giving page on the Brandeis web site where they can log in and verify how much money they have previ-ously donated, or how much more money they have left to donate in their pledge.

“Even five years ago this is information that these donors would have to wait for the hours between nine and five to get,” Winship said. “Now, if a donor wakes up at three in the morning and decides they want to donate to Brandeis, they can.”

Winship however, is quick to ensure stu-dents that Phone-a-Thon—which is a stu-dent-run phone bank for university gifts—is not going anywhere.

“You never know which mode of com-munication is going to elicit a response from a donor,” she said. “There are some donors who would rather get an e-mail than a phone call every day of the week, but there are others who don’t even have e-mail.”

Even more important than internet or phone-based solicitations is “face to face contact,” Winship said.

“The traditional ways [of getting dona-tions] still work, especially with our older alumni,” Winship said. “But now we are concerned with how to reach out to our younger alumni as well.”

Associate Director of Development Leigh Creveling said that the Department keeps track of which modes of communi-cation individual alumni respond to for future use.

Winship said that the e-mail messages asking for donations have, for the large part, received a positive response from alumni, at least in part because it cons er ves paper.

“ Y o u know, in a green w o r l d , people are concerned with the en-vironment,” she said. “Some peo-ple think letters are a waste, and we’re a uni-

versity based in social justice, so we have to make sure we are very sensitive to these feelings.”

In addition to having online avenues for giving, The Department for Devel-opment and A l u m n i R e l a t i o n s has been w o r k i n g on online community b u i l d i n g , with the hope that if the alumni c o m m u -nity is more connected to the uni-versity, they

will be more compelled to make donations.Most recently, the department has

launched a website called BConnect—an online community for alumni to commu-nicate with each other.

BConnect, which was launched last April and already has roughly 6,000 reg-istered users, features an online directory of alumni which allows alumni to update their contact information on the internet; online reunion information; updates on what their fellow classmates are doing; and a search by profession feature that allows alumni to find people in a given field.

Each alumna has their own username and password to the site, and the informa-tion on the site is not “googleable.”

Creveling said that a plan is in the works to make a BConnect application on face-book to make communication easier for alumni.

“You know, now a days people log onto facebook and they just stay there all day,”

Even five years ago this is in-formation that these donors

would have to wait for the hourse between nine and fice to get...Now , if a donor wakes up at three in the morning and decides they want to donate to Brandeis, they can.

- Nancy Winship

she said. “This way, when you’re connected to all of your other friends, you’re also con-nected to us.”

Another part of the Development De-partment’s effort to increase the connection between alumni and campus is “webinars.”

With “webinars” professors give semi-nars broadcast online to logged in alumni. The first “webinar” was taught by Prof. Stephen Whitfield (AMST) about whether President Barack Obama was a populist or an elitist.

After the “webinar” alumni were able to ask Whitfield questions, which he also an-swered live.

The “webinar” is posted on Brandeis University’s youtube channel, which has 52 subscribers.

All of this is in an effort to make the alumni feel more connected to the campus, Creveling said. “The Brandeis network is not just about being on campus,” she said. “It’s so much more.”

April 24, 2009 N E W S The Hoot 3

Earth day celebrated through student activismBY ROBIN LICHTENSTIEN

Staff

PHOTO BY Max Shay/The Hoot

The Spring Into Activism fair recon-vened on Thursday in honor of earth day in order to raise awareness of different ac-tivist groups and causes on campus after being postponed Wednesday due to rain.

Students for Environmental Action (SEA) and Positive Foundations (PF) headed the event where activist clubs were invited to cook up some homemade food for a fundraising buffet. The proceeds will be divided equally among the participat-ing groups.

Students paid five dollars to buy a plate they could load with food, however, SEA offered discounts if students participated in SEA’s campus clean-up and beautifica-tion initiative in honor of earth day.

SEA’s beautification initiative “removed invasive species in the wetlands behind the Heller School and replanted native ones,” SEA President Matt Schmitt ’11 said.

About five students participated in the clean up.

While the fair started off strong with student bands and a capella, the crowd was thin due to poor weather.

Event organizer and PF member Cecelia Watkins ’11 explained that the event was, “more to network and raise awareness of our causes,” rather than a huge fundraiser.

Her sentiment was echoed by members of other clubs present. “It’s more about participating in the activist community,” said Eco-Rep Bruce Strong ’10, represent-ing facilities services, as he handed out ice cream. The ice cream was donated by Ara-mark as a pat on the back to the campus for raising our recycling rate to 16 percent.

Other groups were selling t-shirts and bracelets to help raise money in addition to the money raised by the admission price. STAND, the student led division of the Genocide Intervention Network, had postcards for students to fill out and send to President Obama urging him to make Darfur a priority in his administration.

“I think its good,” said Rachel Pulin-thitta ’10 while tabling for the Global

Aids Campaign selling t-shirts and offer-ing bruschetta. Pulinthitta continued, “you don’t always have activist groups together like this.”

Despite the small turn out, many of the participating groups seemed to appreci-ate the opportunity to communicate with each other and have their names and causes broadcast. One group, the Activist Resource Center, wants to be a constant source of networking for activist clubs, be-yond events like the Spring Into Activism Fair. Nathan Ross ’11 explained, “we work to help activists communicate and be more effective.”

Ross also pointed out that while there

might not have been a huge student turn out, the event was proof of the strength of the activist community. “There is a specific community,” he said, “there is a lot of over-lap [in club members].”

Maia Fejgin Stamieszkin ‘11, tabling jointly for the Vegan Club and Students for a Democratic Society, said, “there is defi-nitely a sense of a pretty cohesive group of people…and groups overlap in the issues we address,” said Stamieszkin.

Stamieszkin’s co-tabler Mariel Gruszko ’10, put it succinctly, “[the event] was more about participating in the activist commu-nity.”

ACTIVISM: Members of Brandeis’ Positive Foundations table at the Student Activism Fair in honor of Earth Day on the great lawn yesterday.

required to be a racial minority. While the University Archives do not

have any documents explaining the reason for the switch from an open, appointed Ex-ecutive Board position to an elected Senate position, the position was created at a time where the nation as a whole was forced to rethink its race-relations in the wake of the Rodney King trial in Los Angeles and the race riots which followed.

The RMS is a senator elected to the Stu-dent Union Senate by students who have registered as racial minorities with the Reg-istrar. In order to run for the RMS position, a student must also have declared them-selves as non-Caucasian to the Registrar.

International students are not eligible to run or vote for the position of RMS re-gardless of what race they identify with. Spokesperson for the Registrar Andrew Marx wrote in an e-mail to The Hoot that “race and ethnicity data is collected on international students but the data is ex-cluded for reporting purposes because we follow the standards required by the federal government.”

He added “the Registrar’s Office is not responsible for determining international students’ eligibility for voting on the Stu-dent Union positions.”

Any student can, however, change their race with the Registrar’s office regardless of their phenotype.

In fact, two years ago, Jon Kane ’10, who

is ethnically Caucasian, ran for the posi-tion by changing his race to “other” in the registrar’s office. Kane, whose candidacy received mixed reactions in the racial mi-nority community, lost.

Kane declined to comment on his candi-dacy.

Currently, five senators represent all students regardless of race: two senators at large, two class senators and one quad senator.

Racial Minority students are eligible to vote for all five of those senators and also for the RMS.

While neither the Union Constitution nor the Union Bylaws give any guidelines for how the RMS should operate differently from their fellow senators, because of the unique guidelines laid out for who can run for the position and for who the constitu-ents are, the RMS is largely seen as an advo-cate for racial minorities in both the Union and the greater Brandeis community.

Traditionally, RMS has served as the stu-dent representative to the Provost’s Diver-sity Steering Committee, which examines race relations at the university and is re-sponsible for conducting surveys on racial diversity.

Currently, the position of RMS is held by Kamarin Lee ’12 who was not called to tes-tify at the trial on Wednesday.

Lee told The Hoot, however, that his po-sition has also been used as a vehicle for dialogue to take place within the Union about racial issues, saying that “a student

who experiences racism might not feel comfortable going to a non-racial minority senator and telling him or her about it.

JV Souffrant (TYP), who hopes to run for the RMS position if the UJ does not choose to dismantle it, agreed, saying that “a lot of people think of racism as occurring in the rest of the world but not at Brandeis, so they might not think that a racial issue at Brandeis is an issue unless they’ve experi-enced it themselves.”

“When I walk back to my dorm at night, there are people who step aside as if they are afraid of me because I am a black male,” he said. “I know what it feels like to be dis-criminated against.”

While Ryan McElhaney ‘10 and Klionsky argued during the trial that white students could be receptive to hearing about issues concerning race, Souffrant said in an inter-view, “that’s not the point.”

“You can say you are open to hearing about racism on campus, but if your race deters victims of racism from talking to you, then the position isn’t working,” he said.

During the trial, neither side brought up the possibility of allowing students of all races to run for the position and then allowing only the racial minority commu-nity, to decide who they felt comfortable representing them.

Out of the 22 senators on the Union Sen-ate, nine, including the current RMS, iden-tify as a racial minority.

RMS (from p. 1)

History of Racial Minority Senator position explained

donation of the museum building itself can be traced to the fact that no member of the university administration attempted to look at the museum’s gift records prior to the ini-tial authorization, Museum Registrar Valerie Wright told The Hoot in February.

Since the initial decision, the administra-tion has begun reviewing the documents re-lating to the Rose, which resulted in the dis-covery of Edward Rose’ will.

Krauss’ e-mail announcement of the re-opening of the Rose described an interim conditions under which the Rose will re-open on July 22 which are that the Rose will exhibit artwork from its permanent collection; that three out of six members of the Rose staff will stay on; and that the Rose staff will be without a Museum Director or Educational director.

This interim existence of the museum as laid out by Krauss has been called “the bare bones protection of the museum” by Brandeis in reaction to pressure from the Massachu-setts State Attorney General’s office, in a state-ment on the Rose Museum’s website.

Spokeswoman for the Attorney General’s office Emily LaGrassa told The Hoot that Krauss decided to e-mail the community about the interim state of the Rose after “we were alerted by members of the museums Board of Overseers who were worried that the university was moving forward with the closing of the museum.”

LaGrassa said that upon hearing the Over-seer’s concerns, the Attorney General’s office asked the university what their plans were and were informed that a draft of Krauss’ e-mail was being written.

The Attorney General’s office did read over the e-mail before it was sent out.

As far as concerns over the sale of art, La-Grassa said that in the event that once the university has decided to sell a specific work of art, the Attorney General’s office would have to review the sale and determine if it was allowed under the conditions that it was given to the museum.

While selling the museum’s art for the prof-it of the university is considered unethical by the American Association of Museums, it is not illegal as long as the art is not a restricted donation because while the Rose is self-fund-ed, it is affiliated with the university and is not a separate 501C3, John Lee, Chair of the Mu-seum’s Board of Overseers told The Hoot in a phone interview.

“The Board of Overseers is not a fiduciary board,” he explained.

Provost Krauss, who made the decisions regarding the interim state of the museum, would not comment on the allegation that the decision surrounding the conditions of the museum are simply a way to placate the Attorney General.

Meryl Rose told The Hoot that the univer-sity administration is “trying to do everything they can to make this happen quietly.”

“They want us to go away, but we aren’t go-ing anywhere” she said.

According to Rose, there are “a number” of donors to the museum who are consider-ing taking legal action against the university regardless of whether or not their gifts had restrictions on them.

“There are people who donated art and money to the museum under the under-standable assumption that their donations would be to the museum, not the university,” she said. “Now that the university is doing this, people want their gifts back.”

“A museum is bound by certain ethical standards that donors expect to be held,” Rose continued. “You do not sell art—pieces of our culture—to mend a shortfall in other areas. What they are doing is hideous.”

ROSE LEGAL (from p. 1)

New legal issues surface for Rose Art Museum

4 The Hoot N E W S April 24, 2009

Economist Dr. Gregg Mankiw, Ambassador Charles Dunbar and Dr. Stuart Altman gathered at Brandeis University last night to discus President Barack Obama’s progress in the economy, inter-national relations and healthcare reform during his first 100 days in office.

The discussion was moderated by Prof. Peniel Joseph (AAAS), who explained to the crowd of over 180 community members that the tradition of discussing a president’s first 100 days in office began with President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933 when he start-ed the New Deal.

Joseph mentioned that Obama, who will reach his 100th day on Apr. 29, like Roosevelt, faces an extremely complex financial crisis in his first 100 days in office.

Mankiw, who is a professor of economics at Harvard University and former Chairman of Presi-dent George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, said that the Obama administration faces a crisis with four key elements—the housing bubble, securitization, bank failures, and the leveraging and borrowing previously done by banks.

Mankiw said that the nation was caught off guard by the fi-nancial crisis because “we hadn’t thought to ask what happens if house prices fall.”

to discuss the necessity of the RMS position. In addition, later in the trial, outgoing Union Presi-dent Jason Gray ‘10 testified that he believes holding future town-hall meetings would be one way to receive student input on the future of the RMS. “What’s cool is that as students at Brandeis, we actually have the opportunity to get it right,” he said.

Gray, who has spoken in favor of the RMS in the past, added, “I have found it to be true that white students feel better represented and more secure with their repre-sentation than black or minority students on this campus.”

The second argument of the Union was that the Univer-sity Board on Student Conduct (UBSC) ought to be the only body that hears cases regarding non-conformity with the Brandeis Rights and Responsibilities hand-book and, more specifically, the clause therein on racial discrimi-nation. Jess Kent ’09, who sits on the UBSC, clarified this issue, ex-plaining that the UBSC should be the one to resolve issues of racial discrimination. Further clarifying this point in the legal arguments section of the trial, Ansorge made clear that the issue of racial dis-crimination was “outside the au-thority of the Union government.”

Klionsky disputed this fact, cit-ing the “supremacy clause” of the Union Constitution that read, “this Constitution shall be enact-ed in accordance with all federal, state, and local laws, and Univer-sity policies, but the Union Gov-ernment shall not be responsible for the enforcement of such laws and policies.”

Arguing in the complaint that “the early placement of this clause” gives the clause greater value, Klionsky argued it should “invalidate contradictory por-tions of the Constitution.”

In his testimony, Gray made clear that while those in charge of University policies – and spe-cifically Dean of Student Life Rick Sawyer – have “the power to turn off the lights in the building,” al-luding to the fact that they have ultimate say over enforcement of university policies, “I am not re-sponsible for enforcement of such laws and policies.”

A final issue brought up at trial by the Union was that the RMS position does not discriminate against non-racial minorities and that, in fact, “there is good reason for having these positions and there are people who value them,” according to Robinson.

The Union called J.V. Souffrant TYP ’09, who affirmed the neces-sity of the RMS position: “It is very important to the racial minority community...it’s the voice of the racial minority community.”

Souffrant added that racial mi-norities “have gone through so much in the history of Brandeis,”

alluding to incidents such as the Ford Hall demonstrations in 1969. “They deserve more,” he said.

At one point, Souffrant was asked how he would feel if the RMS were eliminated. “I will tell you from my heart,” he said. “The racial minority community would be in an uproar. Without this posi-tion, our voices will not be heard.” Upon finishing this statement, the audience in the room applauded.

After McElhaney cross ex-amined Souffrant in a weighty exchange on racial tensions at Brandeis, Justice Julia Sferlazzo ’09 apologized to those in atten-dance. “I want to apologize right now for that…I want everyone to feel that there shouldn’t be hurt in this room.”

Aside from presenting the im-portance of the RMS, the Union argued that the position did not harm Klionsky in any way. In his legal arguments, Ansorge re-minded the court that there was “never any hostility or aversion shown toward Ryan or Gideon.” In his closing, Robinson added that the RMS position does not meet the requirement that dis-criminatory practices “unreason-ably interfered with [Klionsky’s] educational opportunity.”

Regardless, in his closing, McEl-haney argued that “in reality, rac-ism is wrong no matter how it is cut.” He made clear that he felt the position should be suspended pending review.

Issues of FormatIn a break from past precedent,

the Union Judiciary changed the format of the case to better meet the needs of the trial at hand. As described by Chief Justice Rachel Graham Kagan ’09, “the structure of the trial will be somewhat dif-ferent than in past instances to allow for the input of those with an interest in the case who are not named parties.”

Indeed, after witness testimony, both sides were allowed to make legal arguments of no more than ten minutes. Afterwards, legal ar-guments for both sides were made by members of the community. Amicus curiae briefs were also submitted as part of the case.

Issues of RecusalThe Union motioned for the

recusal of Justice Jordan Roth-man ’09 on account of statements he has written in The Hoot about diversity on campus. Rothman re-fused to recuse himself, writing, “I would like to say that I NEVER publically or privately ruminated over my opinions on the Racial Minority Senator position.”

Rothman added, “Should Scalia recuse himself from a case simply because there may be a Conserva-tive outcome in his opinions? Of course not.”

Rothman also pointed out that Justice Sferlazzo chaired the Sen-ate’s diversity committee last year, but was not asked to recuse her-self.

UJ (from p. 1)

Justices weigh constitutionality of RMS position

Speakers grade Obama on first 100 days

BY ARIEL WITTENBERGEditor

“It hadn’t happened in a long time, since the 1930s in America, and when it had happened glob-ally it was far away, like Japan in the 1990’s.” he said.

Mankiw said that Obama has been using three methods to fix the financial crisis, attempting to use financial, monetary and fiscal stimulation to alleviate the reces-sion.

He continued to say that Obama’s fiscal stimulus package has come under the most criti-cism because the public is wor-ried about whether or not it will raise spending.

While the Obama administra-tion’s forecast for how the nation will bounce back from the reces-sion is “too rosy” for Mankiw’s taste, he did say that “it’s going to get worse before it gets better, but this is no 1930s.”

Dunbar, who spoke about the nation’s foreign policy, said that while he realizes that “given our current financial crisis, economic policy comes first,” he believes that the Obama administration has taken many steps in the right direction in terms of foreign rela-tions.

He continued to say that a lot of the steps Obama has taken have been purely rhetorical, but that they have still been meaningful, citing Obama giving his first tele-vision interview to the Arab net-work Al Arabia.

“That was a very smart move on his part,” he said. “It doesn’t do anything policy-wise, but it

creates a warm and fuzzy sort of atmosphere for future negotia-tions.”

Dunbar did say, however, that Obama’s preliminary talks with Cuba have signaled a “new begin-ning” that could manifest itself into substantial change.

Dunbar also said that in the coming years, Obama would have to prove to the national commu-nity that “he’s tough enough and can knock heads.”

Altman, who helped write Obama’s healthcare plan, said that Obama’s health care reform plan seeks to provide universal cover-age while decreasing the growth in spending and increasing the quality of care by filling in the holes between private and public health insurance.

Altman said that Obama’s plan, for the most part, mimics the Massachusetts health care plan that Governor Deval Patrick has implemented.

Altman said he was worried about whether or not the plan would pass through congress, however, because while Obama is advocating that the government “put off the debate on controlling spending until everyone has cov-erage, Washington wants him to reduce spending now.”

All three panelists agreed that while Obama has made some changes, it is still too early to re-ally define his presidency.

As Dunbar said at the begin-ning of his talk, “100 days does not a presidency make.”

Bra

ndei

s B

rief

s

Research Portal Unveiled

The Student Union and the Office of the Dean of Arts and Sciences announced over break the launch of an Un-dergraduate Research Portal. The Portal will serve as a research guide for undergraduates and can be found on the experiential learning website: http://www.brandeis.edu/experientiallearning/forstudents/research.html.

Ayers to speak at BrandeisAfter months of scheduling issues, former Weatherman

Bill Ayers will speak at Brandeis in the SCC auditorium at 9 p.m. on Thursday, April 30. Tickets are only availible to members of the Brandeis community and are on sale at Usdan.

PHOTO BY Max Shay/The Hoot

April 3, 2009 The Hoot 4

Established 2005"To acquire wisdom, one must observe."

FOUNDED BYLeslie Pazan, Igor Pedan and Daniel Silverman

Alison Channon Editor in Chief

Ariel Wittenberg News EditorBret Matthew Impressions EditorChrissy Callahan Features Editor

Kayla Dos Santos Backpage EditorAlex Schneider Layout Editor

Jodi Elkin Layout EditorMax Shay Photography Editor

Leon Markovitz Business EditorVanessa Kerr Business EditorDanielle Gewurz Copy EditorMax Price Diverse City Editor

Senior EditorsJordan Rothman, Zachary Aronow

The Hoot welcomes letters to the editor on subjects that are of interest to the general community. Preference is given to current or former community members. The Hoot reserves the right to edit any submissions for libel, grammar, punctuation, spelling and clarity. The Hoot is under no obligation to print any of the pieces submitted. Letters in print will also appear on-line at www.thehoot.net.

The deadline for submitting letters is Tuesday at 8:00 p.m. All letters must be submitted electronically at www.thehoot.net. All letters must be from a valid e-mail address and include contact information for the author. Letters of length greater than 500 words may not be accepted.

The opinions, columns, cartoons and advertisements printed in The Hoot do not necessarily represent the opinions of the editorial board.

The Hoot is a community student newspaper of Brandeis University. Produced entirely by students, The Hoot serves a readership of 6,000 with in-depth news, rel-evant commentary, sports and coverage of cultural events. Our mission is to give every community member a voice.

SUBMISSION POLICIES

Failing at common sense

As we close the year, the edi-torial board of The Brandeis Hoot is confused. Our ad-ministrators are smart – they

have graduate degrees and letters after their names. And yet, they seem to have a prob-lem reading. Throughout several months of dialogue about the Rose Art Museum, the administration has changed its position multiple times as it continues to stumble across new evidence regarding what they may and may not do with the building and the art.

First, the museum was to be closed and the art sold. Then, university President Jehuda Reinharz, in the face of mounting

public opposition, told us that the museum would not be closed but would instead be ‘integrated more fully into the academic mission of the university.’ A needed trans-lation was never provided. In the midst of this media fiasco, it became clear that there were a variety of legal hurdles in the uni-versity’s way, all of which would be strin-gently enforced by the Massachusetts At-torney General. Thereafter, a committee was formed.

Recently, Provost Marty Krauss an-nounced that the museum would reopen on an interim basis in July due to pressure from the Attorney General. Edward Rose’s will specifically states that his money must

be used for a public art museum, not a classroom space and not a gallery. While it is possible for some art to be sold, the mu-seum cannot be closed. It is inexcusable for the administration and the Board of Trust-ees to have overlooked crucial legal docu-ments when making a decision about the museum. Quick action without thought is counterproductive.

The administration has dragged the en-tire campus into months of debate about options that don’t even exist because it failed to do its homework. In spite of ad-vanced degrees and expertise, administra-tors displayed resounding failure in one subject: common sense.

E D I T O R I A L

Putting race on trial

Wednesday, the Union Judiciary heard a case in which the petition-ers claimed that the

Senator for Racial Minority Students and Finance Board Representative for Racial Minority Students positions violated the Union Constitution because only a stu-dent registered as a minority with the Registrar may run or vote for the offices.

That this case was filed is no surprise. This year and two years ago, white stu-dents attempted to run for Senator for Racial Minority Students. And last year, The Hoot reported that the position’s le-gality vis a vis Title VI of the 1964 Civil

Rights Act was in question.After these concerns were brought to

light, the Union created a committee to discuss equal representation. How-ever, no particular pronouncements on the RMS position were ever shared. The Union and the administration dropped the ball on the issue last year. And now, it has reared its head again.

Certainly, issues of representation and diversity are on students’ minds. And while the UJ is an important venue for resolving issues related to the Union, it is not always the best venue for hashing out contentious issues.

As was seen Wednesday, the trial creat-

ed a tense atmosphere in which racial mi-nority students were put on the defensive by challenges from white counsel before a white judiciary. This is not to indicate that the counsel or the judiciary behaved prejudicially; yet it demonstrates the alienating effects this trial may have had for members of the minority communi-ties on campus.

It is in all of our interests, white, black, Jewish, and other, to address issues of discrimination and inclusion on campus in ways that do not marginalize certain groups of people. If we as a campus com-munity are going to move forward, we cannot put race on trial.

F E A T U R E S6 The Hoot April 24, 2009

David Rakowski, the Walter N. Naumburg professor of composition, is the 2009 recipient of the Jeanette Lerman-Neubauer ‘69 and Joseph Neubauer Prize for Excellence in Teaching and Mentoring. The award is given to the faculty member who is not just “an exceptional teacher, but also one who has had a significant impact on students’ lives as a mentor, advisor, and friend.

Rakowski earned his bachelor’s degree at the New England Conser-vatory and his MFA and Ph.D. from Princeton University. Before joining the faculty at Brandeis in 1995, he taught at Columbia and Stanford Universities.

Rakowski chaired the music de-partment at Brandeis from 2004-2005 and currently serves as the undergraduate advising head for the music composition track as well as advisor to many minors and senior theses candidates.

Rakowski has been a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in music twice and among numerous other awards has received the Rome Prize, the Barlow Prize, and awards from the Ameri-can Academy of Art and letters.

Chrissy Callahan: Congratula-tions! First off, what does winning this award mean to you?

Peter Kalb, Assistant Professor of Contem-porary Art on the Cynthia L. and Theodore S. Berenson chair, is the 27th recipient of the Michael L. Walzer ’56 Award for Teaching.

This award is handed out to a tenure track faculty member who “combines superlative scholarship with inspired teaching.”

Kalb received his bachelor’s degree from Oberlin College before receiving Ph.D. from The Institute of Fine Arts at New York Uni-versity. He began teaching at Brandeis in the fall of 2006 after teaching at Ursinus, Middlebury, Hunter and St. Francis Colleg-es, and the New School and Pratt Institute.

Kalb is a member of the Committee for the Support of Teaching, and is a senior thesis and departmental adviser. He’s also a contributor to Art in America and a con-sulting editor for Janson’s History of Art.

Art at the Turn of the Millennium, Kalb’s latest book, will be released soon.

Chrissy Callahan: Congratulations! What does this award mean to you and how does it feel to be recognized?

Peter Kalb: It’s been very nice; it’s been very flattering to hear. It’s students who nominate you and when they told me [I won], [Adam Jaffe] also read off some of the statements that some of the nominat-ing students made and also some state-ments from the course evaluations, so those are familiar. But it’s great to hear that people actually like taking your classes.”

CC: This award “combines superla-tive scholarship with inspired teach-ing.” How does it feel to be recognized not only as a good professor but also as a friend and mentor to students?

PK: Again, it’s flattering [because] I think of the courses as not just ending in the classroom, so it’s definitely nice to have. We spend a lot of work to make you feel like you’re comfortable and it’s a learn-ing environment and that you know these classes can be an opportunity for you all to be creative, so if that’s carried out, which it seems like it is, that’s great.

From students to professorsProfiling the winners of 2009 teaching awards. By Chrissy Callahan, Editor

CC: In their nomination of you, a lot of students mentioned your tough grad-ing practices. One said, “He’s a tough grader but honestly I got so much out of his class that grades became secondary.” Is this something that you strive to teach your students in the classroom as a part of your role as mentor?

PK: Yeah, obviously that’s a pretty exciting comment to get; you don’t get that many of those. But I mean it’s art, the grading process really should be beside the point. Obviously it’s also college so it’s not beside the point. But yeah it’s great if people are getting your mate-rial because it means something and because they’ve gotten something out of it or are mak-ing something with it that is apart from the grades.

CC: So you have a book coming out soon. Can you tell us a little bit about it?

PK: It’s a history of contemporary art. It covers material from the 1970s to the pres-ent and charts the [history of] contempo-rary art having a lot of focuses particularly in New York but also in London and then becoming increasingly global and inter-national in the last 15-20 years. It’ll be a textbook…it covers a lot of artists; it’s not a specialized project.

CC: Is there one life lesson you strive to teach your students?

PK: I don’t know if there’s one. I guess one of the things that I would hope comes out of these classes is that art and culture is theirs and that if they go to a museum that they will consider themselves a part of the intellectual traditions and the artistic tra-ditions that we’re talking about in class. I mean you don’t remember that much from a class. I stayed in school and kept teaching, and still I look back on college and I don’t remember details from my classes. But I do remember having the feeling that this was something that was mine, that I could engage with outside of those classroom ex-periences… That’s what it’s about. It’s about students taking this and doing whatever they want with it.

PHOTO BY Max Shay/The Hoot

Student Praise

“I have left his classes feeling more confident as a student and as an in-dividual. He is endlessly patient and

always willing to help us improve. His office door is always open.”

“I have never seen a professor so ef-fectively (make) a 60-person lecture class feel like an intimate seminar.”

“He is continuously cited by art history majors, minors, and other

students as one of the most knowl-edgeable and most engaging pro-fessors at Brandeis. No matter how much knowledge you bring to one

of Professor Kalb’s classes, he pushes you to learn more and to think dif-

ferently, and is incredibly invested in students’ individual growth.”

David Rakowski: I wasn’t ex-pecting it and I wasn’t compet-ing for it so one, it means it’s a big surprise and number two, I guess it means that I’m doing what I’m supposed to be doing.

CC: This award is given to the professor who is both an excep-tional teacher as well as one who has had a significant impact on students’ lives as a mentor. What does it mean to you to be recog-nized as not only a good profes-sor, but also a friend or mentor?

DR: Well I’m glad someone is noticing. I think we should all be doing that and in fact I think we all do do that, on the faculty.

CC: In their nomination of you, one student wrote “Professor Ra-kowski is the king of awesome-ness. He makes everything about theory exciting and fun.” How im-portant is it to you to make your subject area fun for students?

DR: When I took theory in col-lege it was really boring so I didn’t think it should be boring for any-one else. Our students have to take theory and it can be a boring subject if taught the way it was taught to me. One fun thing about teaching is making what used to be a boring subject interesting or at least interesting to students

who are r e q u i r e d to take it if they’re mu-sic majors.

CC: So how do you try to make the class fun for stu-dents?

D R : When they have to do c o u n t e r -point exer-cises which can be re-ally dull, I have com-petitions…and the stu-dent who has the best exercise as voted by other students gets a really dumb prize. One student got a bag of fake flies, some of the students got candy, things like that. Or other things like finding things that I hear on the radio that have some-thing to do with what I might be talking about in a music theory class.

PHOTO COURTESY OF David Rakawoski

Student Praise

“Professor Rakowski is the king of awesomeness. He makes everything about theory exciting and fun.”

“His classes are the highlight of my week. It is clear that his students always come first, and that he is a teacher because he really wants us to understand and love

music as much as he does.”

CC: You’ve taught at Brandeis since 1995. How do the students at Brandeis and the personal in-teractions you’ve had with them on such a small campus compare to the other schools you’ve taught at before?

DR: Well there’s certainly a lot more attention for undergradu-

ates at Brandeis than at the other two schools I’ve taught at. I think that the undergraduate teaching mission is a lot more specifically put to you when you’re hired [at Brandeis] than it was at Columbia and Stanford, where I taught. And I think the students have a wider

Peter Kalb

David Rakowski

See RAKOWSKI, p. 7

April 24, 2009 F E A T U R E S The Hoot 7

Bruce Foxman, professor of chemistry, is the 23rd recipient of the Louis Dembitz Brandeis Prize for Excellence in Teaching.

Foxman began teaching at Brandeis in 1972 as an Assistant Professor after receiv-ing his Bachelor of Science from Iowa State University and his Ph.D. from MIT. Before coming to Brandeis, Foxman studied as a postdoctorate at the Australian National University.

To date, many of Foxman’s articles have appeared in the journals of American Chemical Society, Organometallics and Inorganic Chemistry. He heads a research group on solid state chemistry and teaches Honors General Chemistry, Advanced Inor-ganic Chemistry and X-Ray Structure De-termination.

Foxman now serves as the Undergradu-ate Advising Head and Senior Research/Honors Coordinator for the chemistry de-partment.

Chrissy Callahan: Congratulations! What does this award mean to you and how does it feel to be recognized?

Bruce Foxman: It’s wonderful because the students are why we are here. It’s one of the few things that makes me get up in the morning and want to come in here. The undergrads in particular, they’re just a wonderful group…I’ve always enjoyed teaching and I actually do a lot of research work as well. I enjoy the teaching and I think that either one without the other leaves a vacuum in my mind. So I get to polish my understanding of science by go-ing in the research lab whenever I get a chance but I get back to the real world by teaching.

CC: In their nomination of you, a lot of students mentioned your accessibility out-side of the classroom. How important is it to you to be more than just a teacher; to be a mentor?

BF: I think that’s one of the most impor-tant things; we should all be doing that. You may have noticed my door is open and if you look on the way out, I broke the clos-er so that it doesn’t close. If I want to close it I can, but most of the time if it’s closed, I’m not here. So students will wander in and the worst thing I can say to them ‘Oh I I’ve got this thing that’s due this afternoon. Can you come back at two instead of see-ing me now?” But I want them to be able to come in, and the worst case scenario is I am a little busy right now, but I can tell them that as opposed to shutting the door.

Mentoring is really the second part of your question. Really again, [it’s] a very fun thing that a professor can do and par-ticularly if one has children, you had some practice on messing that up with your own kids and my view of things is that having children has really helped me be a bet-ter mentor for students that come by… If a student comes by and asks a question, I always like to find out a little bit more about them…it helps me understand what their needs are likely to be and where I can help….It’s good to get to know the students who are in your class and who you’re ad-vising.

CC: Would you say you’ve been able to

ADVER TISEMENT

-Showtimes-

Embassy Cinema16 Pine Street Waltham, MATelephone: (781) 891-0911

April 24 – April 30 only

Title Rating Friday Sat - Sun Mon - Thurs

THE CLASS PG-13 (3:50)6:40

(3:50)6:40

(2:00) 7:30

ADVENTURELAND PG-13

(1:20)(4:20)7:109:45

(1:20)4:207:109:45

(2:30)(5:00)8:00

SUGAR R

(1:10)(4:10)7:009:40

(1:10)4:107:009:40

(2:20)(4:50) 7:50

SUNSHINE CLEANING R

(1:50)(4:40)7:309:55

(1:50)4:407:309:55

(2:50)(5:10)8:20

STATE OF PLAY PG-13

(1:00)(4:00)6:509:35

(1:00)4:006:509:35

(2:10)(4:50)7:40

LYMELIFE R

(1:30)(4:30)7:209:50

(1:30)4:307:209:50

(2:40)(5:00)8:10

OBSERVE & REPORT R (1:40)

10:00(1:40)10:00

(5:10)

COMING SOON X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE on 5/1TYSON on 5/1

range of interests at Brandeis. They were pretty concentrated in music [at Stan-ford and Columbia] but at Brandeis all the students in my classes seem to be doing everything, especially theater. I didn’t have students at Stanford and Columbia that were interested in theater at all.

CC: Several students also mentioned your accessibility outside of the class-room. How important is it to you to be available to students outside of class?

DR: They certainly know how to get in touch with me and often on my syl-labi I give them my home phone and they can call me at home if they need to. That doesn’t happen very often, thankfully. But they also know that if I’m in the building and I’m between classes and don’t have anything to do otherwise, they can just ask me for help on whatever they’re doing musically, or advice on whatever they’re thinking about doing career-wise.

apply your experience as Undergraduate Advising Head of chemistry towards your interaction with students in the classroom?

BF: Certainly, because you learn a lot more as an advisor about students if you’re willing to take the time [to do so]. And having a lot of advisees doesn’t preclude [the occurrence of] a new question, but when a certain amount of time has passed, you’ve heard a lot of the questions. They’re still interesting but I like it because ….I get a chance to apply the experience I gained by tackling some tricky problems and solv-ing things smoothly for students as op-posed to saying “I’ll get back to you in two weeks,” which I had to do at the beginning. And I don’t want to ever be in that situation because I think students appreciate having their problems dealt with punctually. I usu-ally try to answer my emails quickly…you have to answer it sometime, why not now?

CC: Another thing a lot of students men-tioned in their nomination of you was the fun aspect of your classes. For many stu-dents, science is a challenge. How do you strike a balance between taking this com-plicated material and making it fun for stu-dents?

BF: I think of lots of jokes. Particularly I always think of the tension breaking jokes. This semester I’m teaching an advanced lab chemistry course….One of the topics is called magnetism and I find that some-where in the middle of that I’ve got to have a joke because everyone’s getting confused…The joke is [often] part of the lecture; it’s got a message in it. Some of the jokes are just nonsense. They don’t have anything to do with anything. You know, I add up a col-umn of numbers and I say “ah that comes to zero: my raise!” So then my raise is a eu-phemism for zero for the rest of the semes-ter…It’s just a matter of if students have fun they learn more, and I have more fun when the students are having fun.”

CC: You’ve taught at Brandeis since 1972. What is it about Brandeis students that im-presses you so much and has made you stay so long?

BF: They are of incredible quality. At this point in my career, about two or three years ago I stopped taking PhD. students when I turned 65…What I started to do at that point is work even more closely with un-dergrads in the research lab, and they are incredibly good. I just can’t say too many good things about them. And again, that enhances one’s experience in the lecture hall too… An A student on an exam, you don’t know how good that student is in a research environment and the answer is, they’re [pretty] good! If I had to go back and [delete one student from my lab] I’d say please don’t do that, they were all good. There isn’t one I’d like to get rid of.”

CC: Is there anything else you’d like to add?

BF: I think everyone likes to think [they]’re doing a good job teaching. What I particularly like about the award is that it comes from students; it’s not decided by administrators…Without student input the award doesn’t exist because there’s no basis to give it. It’s gratifying to have had enough positive student feedback.

David Rakowskiinterview, continued

Student Praise

“It has been an honor to have Professor Foxman as

my advisor. In an ideal world, every student would have a mentor who was as patient, inspiring, and dedicated as he is. Professor Foxman is

truly an asset to the univer-sity, and Brandeis should recognize his exceptional

skill as a professor and advi-sor.”

“Professor Foxman shows his commitment to students first and foremost by dedi-

cating vast amounts of time to us. By treating us as intel-ligent scientists-in-training

who are capable of handling complicated research ques-

tions, he inspires confi-dence in his students. In my personal experience, it was

only after I noticed Professor Foxman’s belief in me that I began to trust in my own

scientific abilities.”

Bruce Foxman

RAKOWSKI (from p. 6)

PHOTO COURTESY OF Bruce Foxman

I M P R E S S I O N S12 The Hoot April 24, 2009

I cannot believe the time has come for me to write my last col-umn for The Hoot. It has been quite an adventure since I first started writing in the fall of 2006, and I am proud to be the longest-running column still operating on the Brandeis campus. Throughout my writings for The Hoot, I have addressed many different top-ics, from issues relevant to the Brandeis community to a variety of other subjects. Some of these articles may have been contro-versial, while others were light-hearted in nature. Still, I hope that you, my dear reader, have been enriched by these pieces and have been exposed to a unique viewpoint from reading “One Tall Voice.”

In this last column, I will con-vey my sentiments about Brandeis University, and the community that calls it home. I’d also like to officially retire my column with some concluding remarks, as I end one important chapter of my Brandeis career.

I absolutely love Brandeis Uni-versity; that is to say, I truly care for the institution itself. This col-lege has afforded me unparal-leled opportunities, the likes of which I could not have possibly imagined when I stepped foot on campus almost four years ago. Coming from limited financial means, I might have had a hard time paying for a state university, let alone a private research insti-tution. Yet, I have been able to complete both my B.A. and M.A. at this institution for quite a small sum of money, and I am eternally grateful to the university for its assistance. Here, I have explored myself through extra-curricular activities, and have participated in around 25 clubs, sports, and other organizations around campus. Additionally, Brandeis’ fine fac-ulty has expanded my mind and given me a first-rate education. I have tried in my small way to repay this wonderful university. I give tours as often as I can and enthusiastically relate my passion for Brandeis. I write targeted let-ters to donors, and try to convince anyone I know to apply. This in-stitution has been so good to me, and I will never be able to thank Brandeis for how it has enriched my life.

I do sadly have to report that I hate the Brandeis community. Although this university has af-forded me much, the community of students here has made much of my time at Brandeis a miser-able experience.

I blame much of this on my desire to express my oftentimes controversial opinions. During my freshman year I was a smiling happy automaton, trying more to be liked than to be true to my

own beliefs. And I benefited from this outward appearance. People genuinely liked me, I was easily elected to public office, and no one had harsh words or negative sentiments about me.

At the beginning of my sopho-more year, I resolved that I must relate my political and ideological sentiments. I had read John Stuart Mills’ “On Liberty,” and genuinely believed that a diversity of opin-ions would only benefit the com-munity of which I was a part.

I wish with all my might that I had never made this decision, that I stayed quiet thought my college career. I can only wonder how much better my Brandeis experi-ence would then have been had I refrained from sharing my ideo-logical beliefs.

Although this community pro-nounces itself as liberal and pro-gressive, it is neither. Although the students at this university supposedly support a diversity of opinions, they actually do not. I can spend hours talking about the intolerance and bigotry launched at me simply because of my dif-ference, simply because I had contrasting views from the people here at Brandeis. My John Mc-Cain stickers, private property, were vandalized with obscene comments this year, and the ad-ministration did little to assist me.

I have been stopped on the street and called obscenities like “cocksucker” or “asshole” com-pletely unprovoked, simply be-cause of these columns. In class, professors who have no write to speak on political matters, bashed my ideological positions while no one seemed to take note of the in-justices being perpetrated against me. I am furthermore convinced that had I shut up and never ex-pressed my opinions, I would have won more student govern-ment elections, generated more positive sentiments towards me, and been more embraced by the Brandeis community.

What is crazy is that my views have only enriched the campus. The Office of Development has had me write letters to rich Re-publican donors, and used me as an example of a conservative stu-dent in order to convince skep-tics that people like me exist on the campus. They have even sent some of my articles to these peo-ple to show donors my involve-ment on campus.

In addition, the Admissions Office has asked me to help con-vince prospective students of the diversity of views on campus, which I have done on a number of occasions. Furthermore, I have involved myself in WBRS, BTV, and The Hoot in capacities that have allowed me to voice my po-litical beliefs. Anyone with a brain has told me that this activity has enriched the community by in-creasing dialogue and diversity

on campus.I feel completely marginal-

ized by a community that is sup-posed to be open and accepting of difference. I see the wretched hypocrisy of close-minded pro-gressives who seem to only value opinion so long as it is in line with their own beliefs. I even had a Brandeis student write in my honesty box on Facebook, “I hate all conservatives and you’re one of them.” People here are so big-oted. People here are not follow-ing the values of true liberalism or Louis D. Brandeis himself. Up in Olin-Sang there is a plaque that encourages students “to question without fear.” It doesn’t seem that the students here have nurtured such an environment. For this reason, I hate the community at Brandeis, can’t wait to leave, and am glad I will never to see most of you ever again.

Now comes the time where I must close out my column for good. I remember the first article I wrote, “Memoirs of a Conserva-tive at Brandeis Part One,” and the fallout I encountered. After, I resolved never to write a column again, but was talked out of this by the Impressions editor at the time. In a way, I wish I would have quit then and never subjected myself to the torment my writings would yield. And in fact this trend seems to have affected other controver-sial columnists at Brandeis. My colleague and friend Kevin Mont-gomery ’07 was forced to retire during his senior year, while Matt Brown ’08 of the Justice similarly gave up his column during his last year at Brandeis. I take some pride in knowing I continued all the way through, but all the nega-tive feedback has taken its toll. I am bitter because of the bigotry, saddened by how this institution’s values have not been practiced, and angry over the intolerances I have been forced to face. In a way I am happy to be retiring, to nev-er again experience the assaults launched at me for my political beliefs.

I love this publication and it has been my sincere honor to have been a columnist and editor of the Hoot. I also love this insti-tution for all that Brandeis has done for me. But I absolutely hate the hypocritical and intolerant Brandeis community, which does injustice to progressive values and launches vicious attacks at people who hold different opinions.

Some may be sad that I will never write again, others will be jubilant. In the end, I hope that with my articles I have added something to this institution. Ad-ditionally, I am extremely proud that I stuck true to my principles and added my beliefs to the mar-ketplace of ideas, despite the big-otry and prejudice launched at me by the Brandeis community.

BY JORDAN ROTHMANEditor

I recently watched the movie “Watchmen” and although it is a sci-fi movie, there is something you can learn from the comedian character – “the world is a big joke.” I mean this because this week the Durban II conference took place in Geneva, Switzer-land.

For those of you liv-ing in a cave, the first Dur-ban Con-f e r e n c e was held in South Africa five years ago to discuss rac-ism, racial d i s c r i m i -nation, xenophobia and related intolerance but instead became a forum of anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic rhetoric.

As a consequence this year several countries have decided not to attend, amongst them the United States, Canada, Neth-erlands, Germany, Italy and Is-rael. Switzerland said that they are neutral, but how can you be neutral in something like this? Have they not learned from the mistakes of the past? As Edmund Burke said, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

This conference on racial dis-crimination has distinguished speakers like Mahmoud Ahma-dinejad, the president of the Is-lamic Republic of Iran, which is certainly an example country in human rights. Three French Jew-ish students realized the circus this was and stood up with clown wigs to scream at Ahmadinejad during his speech.

Similarly, 23 delegates aban-doned the conference while he was speaking. Ahmadinejad called the State of Israel a “cruel and repressive racist regime” and said zionism had penetrated mass media and financial sys-

tems to extend its domination over other countries.

Coincidentally, this was the same day that the Holocaust was being remembered worldwide.

Want to hear a great joke? The board of the Durban II Confer-ence on Anti-Racism is: Iran, vice-chair; Libya, chair of the “Main Committee;” Cuba, “rap-porteur.”

No wonder there is so much r a c i s m a r o u n d the world, w h e n the UN H u m a n R i g h t s budget is spent on big jokes like this. I honestly c a n n o t find a bet-

ter adjective for a conference (worth more than $5 million) in which dictators give a lesson in human rights to Israel.

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanya-hu thanked the handful of coun-tries that did not attend the con-ference, and said that it helped restore a measure of sanity and helps bring some moral clarity in this big joke that the world has become.

Meanwhile, UN secretary gen-eral Ban Ki-Moon said he was greatly disappointed at the na-tions that did not attend saying that differences needed to be addressed. Well, Mr. Ki-Moon, what would you do if North Ko-rea were to say that South Korea is an awful government com-pared to North Korea? Further-more, it is a clear violation for a member of the UN to incite ha-tred against another country, es-pecially at a UN conference.

The fact that this conference is taking place in the 21st century is unbelievable, I just cannot ex-press it. How can we discuss rac-ism and an end to it with such authoritarian leaders leading the conference? It just does not make sense.

I love Brandeis Universitybut I hate Brandeisians

‘The world is a big joke’The Durban Conference

One Tall Voice

BY LEON MARKOVITZEditor

The fact that [Dur-ban II] conference

is taking place in the 21st century is unbelievable.

PHOTO from internet source

April 24, 2009 I M P R E S S I O N S The Hoot 13

The Hoot accepts submissions to the Impres-sions section on any topic of consequence to any member of the campus community. Our mission is to give every community member a voice. The views expressed in the Impres-sions section do not necessarily reflect the

views of The Hoot's editorial board.

Despite right-wing claims that President Obama is “gutting the military,” the President’s proposed 2010 budget actually calls for an increase in defense spending. In 2009, total defense spending—which includes the base defense budget and the supplementary budgets that fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—will amount to $655 billion. In 2010, this number is expected to rise to $664 billion.

This is not necessarily a good thing.

The defense budget, already an enormously bloated federal docu-ment, does not need any more padding. Consider the fact that United States defense spending makes up almost half of the world’s total defense expenditure—mean-ing that our government spends almost as much on the military as the rest of the world combined.

Nowhere is this discrepancy more apparent than on the high seas. According to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the United States Navy’s battle fleet is larger than the combined fleets of the next 13 navies. Not that we re-ally need to worry about compet-ing with 13 navies at once. Out of those 13, Gates claims, 11 belong to nations that are American allies or partners.

Our overwhelming dominance looks rather impressive on paper, but continuing to fuel it is not practical in the post-Cold War era. We are no longer facing a power-ful superpower like the Soviet Union; instead, our enemies are small groups of ragtag terrorists scattered across various corners of the globe. Do these terrorists pose a threat to the US and its allies? Absolutely. The attacks of Sept. 11 tell us that much. But common sense should tell us that the ships, planes, and other expensive weap-on systems originally designed for a massive confrontation with the Warsaw Pact nations will do little to protect us against terrorism.

Secretary Gates seems to realize this—to a certain degree—and has advised against spending money on certain programs that are ob-

viously unnecessary. He has, for instance, called for an end to pro-duction of F-22 Raptors: ridicu-lously expensive advanced fight-ers that have yet to actually prove themselves in combat in either of our two current theaters of war.

And yet when it came time to offer a budget proposal, even Gates couldn’t resist putting for-ward something reminiscent of the Cold War. His proposal has been described as “10 percent small wars-centric, 50 percent large wars-centric, and 40 percent dual-use.” Meaning that at least half the defense budget, if not more, is being wasted in prepa-ration for imaginary “large wars” between the US and other great powers.

Some may disagree with me. In fact, I think it is safe to say that a majority of Americans disagree with me. The public seems to, at least at the moment, favor the continuation of high levels of military spending. For example, a recent Gallup poll found that 41 percent of respondents felt that defense spending levels were “about right,” while 24 percent felt that levels were “too little.” Only 31 percent thought the govern-ment was spending “too much.” Along that same vein, another Gallup poll taken at about the same time found that only 6 per-cent of respondents felt that our national defense was “stronger than it needs to be,” while 54 per-cent felt that it was “about right” and 37 percent felt that it was “not strong enough.” Perhaps we’re afraid of a massive attack by an invisible enemy and we want to be ready. Or maybe we just like to show off.

But the hard truth is that every dollar spent on expensive weapon programs that we don’t need will ultimately hurt us because it is a dollar taken away from worthier projects at home. This is particu-larly important to consider at the present time, with the US facing a record debt and an economic crisis. If we don’t get our pri-orities straight, we will find that there just isn’t enough money to invest into our education system, or into “green jobs,” or even into a

reformed healthcare system. And when that happens, we will likely find our economy in even worse shape.

Some lawmakers, especially those who represent districts or states that are home to defense manufacturing, will naturally try to tell you the opposite. They will argue that defense spend-ing is good for the economy be-cause it creates manufacturing jobs. While at least part of that is technically correct—defense contractors do employ thou-sands of American workers—I would argue that propping up our economy with defense spending is unwise whether the economy is strong or not. That would mean falling deeper into what President Eisenhower once called the “mil-itary-industrial complex,” a too comfortable relationship between the government, the military, and the private sector that has only grown larger and created more wars since being first named in that famous farewell address. Ba-sically, the more money there is to be made from the manufacture of weapons, the greater the incentive to start wars in order to use the weapons.

It won’t be easy to end a cycle that has been growing for so long, but our only hope for im-proving our situation is to make a switch—from a perpetual war-time economy to a true peacetime economy. There are billions of dollars worth of defense projects that can be cancelled and their money channeled into peaceful infrastructure projects, without a major job loss. If done right, we might even be able to save some money and ultimately cut overall spending.

But to do anything, to make even the slightest dent in the es-tablished defense spending pro-tocol, would take some serious political courage. The kind of courage that allows a leader to say no to the politicians and busi-nessmen who insist that even the slightest drop in defense spending will spell certain doom and de-struction. We’re still waiting on that courage.

A greeting to arms

Book of Matthew

With any luck, aging baby boomers may yet provide a boom for something other than Jeffer-son Airplane box-sets and Viagra. After sucking the nation dry with self-indulgent protests in the 60s, flares in the 70s, and basically ev-erything that happened in the 80s, they might actually prove useful to us dead. Here’s the idea: impose a 100 percent tax on all property other than one residence, one au-tomobile, and – say – $10,000 in personal property, including any-thing held in trusts created for the benefit of any private person(s), on the owner or trust settler’s death. Trusts benefiting registered charities are kosher.

This plan would achieve a few salutary purposes. First, it’s fair. Rich kids have enough ben-efits while their parents are alive; there’s no need to exacerbate those inequalities after they’ve already been given a massive head start. Passing as-sets from generation to genera-tion tends to repli-cate race and class disparities over time and wors-en America’s already shocking wealth distribution.

Leveling the playing field in this way would help to deliver on America’s egalitarian ethos and pull-yourself-up-by-your-boot-straps rhetoric. Plus, I don’t know if you’ve noticed this, but trust-fund babies are really obnoxious. Still, if you’re lucky enough be one (not for long, sucka!), there would be no impediment to parents buy-ing life insurance to provide for their surviving family members, and joint or community prop-erty would pass to the surviving spouse or partner as it currently does. Indigent minors or depen-dents unable to work could be provided for by the government using some of the revenues from the tax.

And how ’bout those revenues? According to my super-unsci-entific Google research, the 20 richest Americans could pay for roughly 20 more car-manufac-turer bailouts or, for the Repub-licans out there (surely there are some left), nearly five more years

in Iraq. Their untimely deaths would also cover roughly 86 per-cent of what the Heritage Foun-dation claims the healthcare plan Obama ran on would cost (don’t bother fact-checking that; you’ll have to go to the Heritage Founda-tion website). These numbers are rough, but the point is that’s just 20 obscenely rich people; imagine the bloated government schemes millions of country club corpses could sustain.

Now I know what you’re think-ing, “Why don’t we just pass this law now and start shooting rich and upper-middle-class people?” But wait; there’s more. The plan does not depend on people actu-ally dying right away. It creates an incentive for those who actually have the happy cabbage to spend, spend, spend while they can. Want to buy his and hers Aston Martins for you and your mistress? Go ahead; you can’t take it with you...or leave it behind.

Some of you may be skeptical. P e r h a p s you were mistreated as children. Whatever the source of your m o r b i d outlook on life, let me set your t w i s t e d minds at ease by

shooting down your irrational ob-jections in advance.

“Won’t rich people simply find a way to cheat the system?” Perhaps, but they cheat now and taxes still make up a fair chunk of the fed-eral government’s revenues. Plus, attempts to convey away assets in some dodgy way before death could be set aside in basically the manner fraudulent conveyances before bankruptcy are right now.

“Won’t they just leave like the Rolling Stones left England when it had ridiculously high tax rates?” Since this tax doesn’t affect people while they’re alive, there’s far less incentive to turn one’s life upside down to avoid it. Plus, “Exile on Main Street” rocks.

“Won’t people stop working hard if they know they can’t pass on their wealth?” Don’t be silly.

“Didn’t Soviet Russia try some-thing similar and fail?” Yes, but that was a poor country where most people didn’t have much to begin with. Anyway, we’re far less protective of our liberties here.

A modest proposal to fix the economy

BY BRET MATTHEWEditor

BY WINSTON A. BOWMANSpecial to The Hoot

R ich kids have enough

benefits while their parents are alive.

PHOTO from internet source

14 The Hoot I M P R E S S I O N S April 24, 2009

We have no idea how fortunate we are. If you are reading this ar-ticle you are probably a Brandeis student, and having this classi-fication entitles you to amazing educational opportunities. There are roughly 3,000 colleges and universities in this country. Since Brandeis is currently ranked 31 by U.S. News and World Report, this makes us in the top 1 percent of colleges in the nation. Then, fac-toring in that only 30 percent or so of Americans have a B.A. de-gree, you can definitely gauge how lucky you are indeed.

Seeing how we are at the very top of the higher education pyra-mid, I have become extremely skeptical about the learning that occurs at the lower end of the spectrum. I see people cutting corners here, leaving their studies by the wayside, and can only con-clude that it must be worse at the 99 percent of other universities in the country.

I wasn’t thinking about writing an article on this topic, but a con-versation I had with a professor intrigued me enough to convey my views in this medium. I hope I don’t misrepresent his views, but this professor is optimistic about prospects at these other univer-sities, and in all honesty, he has the experience and background to make such a judgment. Fur-thermore, he says that students at these institutions are committed, energized, and completely com-petent at their academic work. His beliefs are totally legitimate and completely reasonable, and discussing this topic with him has been quite enjoyable. In order to continue the conversation, I’d like to convey my own views, so that others may also chime in on this worthy intellectual topic.

I would first like to state that I believe that there are too many universities in this country. I also believe that there are too many people obtaining B.A. degrees as well. Why must one go to college to be a field hand, why must an auto mechanic focus in the liberal arts? People in this country can obtain well paying and reputable blue-collar jobs without higher education, and are perhaps pres-sured to obtain college degrees.

This seems inefficient, because far fewer people tangibly require higher education than are receiv-ing it. Furthermore, there are way too many two-bit universities in this country, which are more of-

ten than not diploma-mills rather than actual institutions of higher learning. Some colleges offer pole dancing as a credit-bearing course, while people can get B.A.s in a number of useless and un-academic concentrations. Some may believe that higher educa-tion provides positive benefits to society, as educated citizens can contribute more to our nation. I positively agree with this senti-ment, but believe that this mis-sion is achieved in high schools, and a saturation of B.A. degrees is extremely wasteful.

It is true that a university is pri-marily judged on the quality of students that attend it. Class dis-cussions, out of class interactions, and other worthwhile experiences can all be enriched if the student body of a university is committed to the academic mission at hand. For a bunch of reasons, I do not believe that the students at a num-ber of other universities provide the foundation for this enrich-ment to occur.

From what I understand, and from what my friends tell me, people at lesser-regarded institu-tions believe college as a 4-year party fest. People cheat, cut cor-ners and don’t seem interested in intellectual enrichment. And some of these schools only nur-ture this behavior with the insti-tutionalization of online classes and other “new-age” measures. All that this does is take students farther from the classroom, open up entirely new avenues for cheat-ing, and limit the interactions be-tween students, their peers, and professors.

Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of students at Brandeis who seem unconcerned with their aca-demics and simply want to party during these formative years of their youth. But I would proffer that there be less of those individ-uals at our university and this is one reason why we are receiving an unparalleled education.

I know that many of you may have wanted me to tackle a more controversial subject. This topic, however, is a subject on which I have pondered extensively, and I am happy to have been given the chance to convey my beliefs. I encourage all of you to discuss this topic, rethink your assump-tions and otherwise muse on the condition of higher education in our country. Most of all, I hope all of you appreciate the educational opportunity Brandeis has given you, and I hope you utilize it to the fullest of your ability.

I recently walked into my USEM classroom and saw some unusual writings left on the chalkboard from a previous class. These writ-ings were unusual because they were in a foreign language—Japa-nese. Most of the people I know would glance at these curious markings and only be able to rec-ognize some punctuation marks dispersed among the rest of what appear to be hieroglyphics. When faced with a familiar Western ex-clamation point amidst the jumble of Asian lettering, their minds would exclaim some garbled, in-discernible sounds. I looked at the same symbols trailing behind that exclamation point, and instead of seeing gibberish, or having my brain stop me and tell me some-thing akin to the phrase “does not compute,” I pronounced in my head the following phrase:

“Watashi wa ureshii desu!” which, quite plainly, means “I am happy!”

This was not a miraculous burst of inexplicable knowledge. I actu-ally studied Japanese for five years in the past, but I haven’t had any-thing to do with the language since junior year of high school. In fact, by the end of eleventh grade I was so sick and tired of studying it that I was more than happy to drop it and finally salvage the pathetic remains of my dwindling GPA. I had signed up for Japanese class way back in the day, circa seventh grade, and felt obliged to continue with it so as not to “waste” my ac-quired knowledge. But what I did end up wasting was a lot of time and futile effort, struggling to un-derstand a language that I realized only too late I was never even fond of to begin with.

Does that mean that my knowl-edge of hiragana and katakana

is worthless? Certainly not, but I can’t say that I wouldn’t rather replace it with five years worth of knowledge that I appreciate more. Although knowledge is never wasted, some kinds are still more useful, and appreciated, than oth-ers. There’s knowledge that can be applied to one’s interests and career, and then there’s knowledge that one would be lucky to ever take out of mental storage to an-swer a Jeopardy question. It’s nice that I can write in Japanese, just like it’s nice that I used to play the violin—but it’s immensely discon-certing to me that I won’t be able to use those skills because they are underdeveloped and, quite frank-ly, I don’t care to develop them.

We can’t go back to the past to make ourselves invest time in things we now take interest in. What ends up happening is kids get sidetracked from a feeling of fulfillment later in life by signing up for things that require huge commitments before they are even aware of their vastly underde-veloped interests, and moreover, their talents. Although American universities are among the best in the world, there is still much to be said about the academic system in grade schools. It seems to me like grade school was all about being smart and well rounded in every-thing, because the goal was to get good grades in everything. As far as I can tell, before college no one ever stopped to think about spe-cialization in particular fields of interest, except perhaps with ex-tracurriculars.

In my high school, only upper-classmen were allowed to choose electives, and most people chose electives based on what would look good for colleges. Electives allow students to choose courses that would help nourish their natural talents. If specialization started at an earlier age, with courses spe-

cifically geared towards individual students’ abilities and interests, they would waste less time acquir-ing useless knowledge. Schools should focus more on finding out where students’ talents and inter-ests lie at a younger age. That way they can get a head start on more challenging and narrow topics in their specific fields, and be already on the right track when starting a university. Most of the home-schooled peers I have met seem to me more precocious than their publicly-schooled counterparts because their teachers honed in on their strengths and weaknesses from a young age. I am not saying that every child should be home-schooled and I realize that pub-lic schools would have difficulty providing so much individual at-tention to its students. But I feel that the material I am learning at university level isn’t so challenging that I couldn’t have grasped it at a younger age if given the chance, thus propelling my education more efficiently.

It took me forever to have even the slightest notion of what I want-ed to do with my future. Lo and behold, the idea didn’t come to me until I arrived at college—the first time I had the freedom to browse around and explore my academic interests. Now I feel rushed to nourish the talents that were col-lecting dust throughout high school, because then I was too busy worrying about what would make me seem like a better, more “well-rounded” candidate for a top uni-versity (hence, my decision to take AP Calc instead of a writing course my senior year. Terrible mistake). For the select few people who have known, for whatever reason, what your careers will be since you were young children—you have had an advantage. As for the rest of us, we’ve got a lot of catching up to do.

Two Tall Voices Cynical Optimism

Does everyone need a college education?

Knowledge is never wasted, but time is...BY SAMANTHA SHOKIN

Columnist

BY JORDAN ROTHMANEditor

Done reading? Listen to The Hoot Audio!Visit www.thehoot.net

S P O R T SApril 24, 2009 The Hoot 15

April softball recap: Judges go 14-4

The Brandeis women’s softball team has had a great month, going 14-4 to bring them to 22-12 over the season. Of the nine double headers they’ve played in April, the softball team has swept six, split two, and lost only one. They are currently ranked fifth in the New England Region with the undefeated Tufts still holding onto the top spot with a 32-0 record.

In their most recent matchup against Pine Manor the Judges had another shut out game, this time pitched by Caroline Miller ’12, who went for six innings strik-ing out five batters and giving up three hits and a walk. All five Brandeis runs came in the fifth inning. Emily Vaillette ’10, who gave up only two hits over seven innings, pitched the second game. All three Pine Manor runs of the game came off five er-rors committed by Brandeis. Pine Manor took a 3-0 lead in the top of the fourth but the Judges answered back with two runs in their next plate appearance. Brandeis took the lead in the fifth off a two-out RBI single by Ross. With the victory over Pine Manor Vaillette recorded her ninth win of the sea-son.

Brandeis faltered in their first game of the month losing 3-1 at WPI, but came back to split the series with an 8-3 vic-tory. The Engineers managed to get on the board with three straight singles followed by an infield hit. The Judges immediately answered back with an RBI single by Carly Schmand ’11 but WPI pitcher Allie Hardy ’12 shut them down from that point on, striking out one batter and inducing 17 ground-ball outs without allowing a single runner to reach base.

In the second game of the double header Brandeis looked like a completely different team. The Judges began their assault in the top of the second with a two-run homer by Caroline Miller ’12 and an RBI single by Lara Hirschler ’12. In the following in-ning they broke it wide open, stacking on five additional runs to bring them to an 8-0 lead. The Engineers finally made it onto the board in the bottom of the fifth with a two run homer, but couldn’t bring in any more despite loading the bases. Allie Mus-sen ’10 allowed only one more run in the

BY HANNAH VICKERSEditor

Above par fundraising skills save golf team for now

The Brandeis golf team managed to pull off the unex-pected; they have pulled their program out from the brink of demise.

Back in January, Brandeis golf captain Aaron Hattenbach ’09 explained the stakes prior to the successful fundraising operation. “If we survive one year, we can continue on. If we can’t get through this one year, there is the likelihood Brandeis golf doesn’t exist for a decade. If you quit on it right now, what’s the likelihood that the school is going to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to the golf pro-gram?”

Nearly three months after being told that the golf team would be shut down, Coach Shipman along with Hatten-bach, Lee Bloom ’10, Charlie Sachs ’11 and Athletics Di-rector Sheryl Sousa announced Wednesday that the team had successfully raised the $22,000 dollars needed to keep the program running through next season. Athletics direc-tor Sheryl Sousa opened the conference.

“I had met with the team back in January and told them that unfortunately we were going to be suspending the program at the end of the season. And they rallied, took it upon themselves to raise the operating budget that we needed for next year which was $22,000. And really, the amount of character that they displayed as a team is just a testament I think to the Brandeis student athlete. Just to

BY ZACHARY ARONOWEditor

exemplify everything that we hope that our student ath-letes are going to be. Hard working, determined, passion-ate about their sport.”

“It was a team effort.” Team captain Aaron Hattenbach ’09 explained. “Ralph (Harary ’09) and I wrote this letter to the donors and we contacted “My Sports Dreams”. Every-one put forth an effort and it just shows that we can do more than this.”

“I was happy they were going to try.” Coach William Shipman explained when asked for his re-action to the beginnings of the fundraising effort. “ I wasn’t sure what the response would be but we’ve got enough big donations to give a core and all the smaller ones, family and friends accu-mulated…I’m very happy with the enthusiasm they all showed in doing it. Aaron was the spear-head. I wasn’t sure how quickly it could be done, they did it in an extraordinarily amount of time.”

The fundraising isn’t over for Brandeis golf as they now look to raise the funds to get the program endowed. That figure is considerably more difficult to reach: $250,000 but Sousa expressed hope that with economic recovery, the

University would be able to endow the program. A big if to be sure.

“We’re trying to help them anyway we can.” Sousa said, “The fundraising hasn’t stopped. The team met their goal in a very short amount of time but the efforts are continu-ing so that now that next year is secure. We just gotta keep

going with the momen-tum we have and as Aar-on said, the goal would be to ultimately endow the program. “

With funding for next year set, the Judges can keep their focus for now on the regular season which Hattenbach ad-mitted has been a strug-gle. In their last tourna-ment, an April 21 date at the Worcester State Invitational, Brandeis finished in a tie for sev-enth out of 15 teams. Lee Bloom led the individual

effort, tying for 17th amongst all golfers with an eight-over-par 79.

The Judges Golf team wraps up the season with the UAA Championships in Georgia from April 25-27.

seventh inning and led the Judges to their 8-3 victory.

The Judges then faced Framingham State the next day and came out with two deci-sive home field victories of 8-1 and a 6-0 shutout, the first the team has had since 2006. Emily Vaillette ’10 missed a perfect game when she allowed a two-out walk in the top of the sixth but succeeded in strik-ing out six batters and allowed only two balls out of the infield. Framingham’s only run of the day came off a double in the first game by Christy Ulak ’12. The Judges on the other hand showed the strength of the top of their order. Melisa Cagar ’11 was 4-7 over the two games with a steal and four runs scored in her lead-off spot. Korp, batting second, was 2-7 with a triple and a team-high five RBI. Erin Ross ’10 was 4-8 with four RBI and two doubles.

Brandeis extended their win streak to five games that weekend with a sweep of Bow-doin at home, winning 7-4 in the first game and 5-4 in the second after going into extra innings. Of the 12 Brandeis runs over both games, 11 were unearned due to seven er-rors by the visiting Polar Bears. The Judges had a 6-0 lead at the end of the fourth in-ning thanks to two runs in the second and another four in the fourth, mostly due to the three walks Michelle Wells ’12 allowed. Bowdoin came back in the top of the fifth to score four unearned runs but Brandeis tacked on another run in the bottom half of the same inning when a throw to third went into left field making the final score 7-4. In the second game the Judges scored their only earned run of the day in the bottom of the second off a solo homer by Danielle Lavallee ’11. Bowdoin responded in the top of the third, taking a 2-1 lead, but the Judges came back in the same in-ning to tie it up. Bowdoin took the lead again in the fourth off a solo shot by Alison Coleman ’09 that nearly hit a passing com-muter-rail train, but again Brandeis rallied back and tied the game at 3-3, forcing the game into extra innings. The Polar Bears scored a run in the top of the eighth, but the Judges scored two in the bottom half of the inning to win the game 5-4.

Brandeis saw it’s five game winning streak end in their next game against Suf-folk in a 10-9 loss in extra innings, but took the second game of the double header in

an impressive 11-0 win. The Judges got an early lead in the first game, jumping out to 6-0 off three runs in both of the first two in-nings, but they wouldn’t be able to hold it.

Suffolk first made it on the board in the fifth off a two-run homer, then took the lead in the sixth when three Brandeis pitch-ers issued five walks combined and hit one batter, allowing three runs in without a hit as well as two two-run hits to give them an 9-6 lead. Brandeis tied the game in the bot-tom of the seventh, but were unable to take the lead despite having the bases loaded. In the second game, though, there was little question who was in control. The Judges cored four runs in the second, five in the third, and two in the fourth. Courtney Kel-ley ’11 was responsible for six RBI in the game and went 2-2 with a two-run triple in the second and a grand slam in the fifth. The game was called in the fifth inning.

The Judges played their next three sets of games away, sweeping the first two at Wheaton where they defeated the home team 10-5 and 3-2 and then Salve Regina 7-3 and 9-0, but lost both games against Babson 5-3 and 5-4. The victories against Wheaton were especially sweet for head coach Jessica Johnson who was an All-American at Wheaton College. Brandeis jumped out to an early 3-0 lead, but the Ly-ons came back in the third to tie the game. The Judges immediately took it back, how-ever, and would not give it up for the rest of the game, withstanding a 2 run rally by Wheaton. In the second game of the dou-ble header Brandeis scored all three runs by the third inning and were able to hold their opponents to just two runs off a single in the fourth and a homer in the sixth.

The Salve Regina Seahawks committed 11 errors in their two losses against Brandeis, which allowed a total of 12 unearned runs. The Judges and Seahawks were tied at three going into the sixth inning in the first game of the day, but Brandeis scored four un-earned runs off three Seahawk errors to reach the final score of 7-3. The Judges fin-ished the second game in the fifth inning when the mercy rule was called based on the 9-0 lead of which five runs were un-earned.

Brandeis dropped both of their games at Babson the next day; the first time the Judges weren’t able to win at least one of

their double headers. While both teams had eight hits in the first game, Babson was able to translate them into two more runs for their 5-3 victory. Brandeis struck first, scoring three runs off a homer by Miller. After that, however, the Judges weren’t able to bring any more batters home. Babson tied up the game in the bottom of the third and took the lead in the fourth off a ground ball and tacked on another run in the fifth to complete the scoring for the game. The second game of the day had to go into extra innings, but the Judges weren’t able to pull out a win. Brandeis had a 4-1 lead going into the seventh, and it was last licks for the home team, but Babson managed to pull out three runs off four hits and a Brandeis error to force more innings. In the bottom of the eighth Babson closed things out off an RBI single to win the matchup 5-4.

The Judges came back to win both of their next double headers, first against Wesleyan at home Saturday 4-3 and 1-0 then again on Monday at Pine Manor 5-0 and 4-3. In the first game against Wesleyan the Judges held onto a 1-0 lead into the sixth inning after Korp drove in Schmand on an RBI single in the third. The Cardinals tied the game off an RBI single of their own and went on to take a 3-1 lead in the top of the seventh off three hits and an error by Brandeis. The Judges answered back with last licks in the bottom of the inning off back-to-back singles by Melissa Cagar ’11 and Hirschler. Cagar scored off an error by the third base-man to make it a one run game and Erin Ross ’10 provided the game winning 2-run double.

The second game was an old fashioned pitchers duel. Vaillette threw her second shut out of the season while giving up only four walks, three hits, and striking out four Cardinals. The only run of the game came in the sixth inning. Brittany Grimm ’12 singled with two outs, followed by another single by Samantha Worth ’09. An error by the centerfielder allowed Grimm to score from second and gave the Judges their 1-0 victory.

At the time this article went to print the Judges were in the middle of a double header against Rhone Island College at home. Rhode Island, ranked fourth in New England, won the first game 9-4.

They rallied, took it upon them-selves to raise the operating budget that we needed for next

year which was $22,000. And really, the amount of character that they displayed as a team is just a testament I think to the Brandeis student athlete.

-Sheryl Sousa

W E E K E N D16 The Hoot April 24, 2009

Do you like technology and art? As part of Boston's Cyberarts Festival, the event features the art installation Sod Off!, grass that resents being trodden on and Orgy of Noise, a concert performance. Free.

Spotlight on Boston

Saturday to Sunday, Apr. 25-61 Memorial Drive, Cambridge

What's going on at Brandeis?

Insert Comic Here By Anthony Scibelli

Grounded Indefinitely:Friday, Apr. 24 and Saturday Apr. 25Shapiro Campus Theatre

laughingwarlock

Boris' Kitchen presents an original sketch comedy show for your view-ing pleasure. Sixteen comedians come together to make you laugh. And there may be surprise bear attacks. $3.

Maker Revolution:

www.themakerrevolution.com

Candyland:Saturday, Apr. 25, 10:00 p.m.Sherman Function Hall

By Ian Price

Sleazy By Matt Kupfer

Wired for Sound:Sunday, Apr. 26, 8 p.m.1 Fullen St, Cambridge

Like electronica? Stop by Pick-man Concert Hall and listen to the Longy School of Music perform live Electroacoustic tunes. Don't miss out.

www.longy.edu

The Tower: Friday, Apr. 24, 8:00 p.m.Merrick Theater, Spingold

This show has a bit of everything from drama to dance. And it's free. Sit down and watch a modern adap-tation of the Tower of Babel story. Contemplate: what does it mean to be a part of a global community?

Hoot Comic Strips

Photo courtesy of N. Sorokin.

Have a sweet tooth? At Trisk's Spring dance, fulfill your craving. Be prepared to dance the night away. If you're not going to the Junior/Senior formal, then definitely check out this party.

Unless otherwise noted, photos are from Google images.

SpringfestSunday, Apr. 26, 12:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.Chapels Field

Editor's Pick:

Photo courtesy of event website.

Enjoy the glorious weather and celebrate Spring! There will be a BBQ and live music featur-ing, Mochila, Deerhunter,the Decemberists, and many more. Beer for those 21+. Free.

Photo courtesy of Gary Scott.