During an interview with The Hoot, Brooks alleged that Rutrick “was not enforcing the rules” regarding libel, slander, and campaign requirements. According to Rutrick, the rules for libel and slander were reserved for “outrageously offensive statements.”

Official Union election results announced Noam Shuster ’11 and Brook’s co-campaigner Justin Sulsky ’09 as the official winners of the April election, winning 447 votes and 399 votes respectively. However, due to an injunction submitted by Brooks and accepted by the UJ on Sunday, Shuster has yet to have been sworn into the Union. The UJ will hear the case Saturday evening, Brooks said.

“I’ve never contested an election ever before—I conceded that the elections were fair and run properly by the administration, so I was able to bow out gracefully,” Brooks said. “In this one case, I have never seen or been a part of such an unfair election where the other side was committing these numerous illegal activities. I can’t sit by and let this go by unchallenged—if we really care about justice and fairness in elections, I will submit this case to the UJ.”

He also asked the UJ to consider “disqualifying candidates Shuster and [Kaamila] Mohamed ’11 as write-ins from the primary round ballot and recognizing Justin Sulsky and Andrew Brooks as the winners of that round,” stating that the damage of the alleged libelous remarks could not be undone.

During an interview with The Hoot, Brooks detailed several instances of libel. One regarded an e-mail sent by Shuster supporter Lisa Hananiya ’09 on the Facebook group “Silence” on Apr. 15, which said, “Hey guys, the 2 ppl running for senator at large this year are the same people that i talked about in the demonstration, denying my Palestinian identity!! that’s why i decided to add Noam Shuster as write-in candidate!!! [sic].” Neither Shuster nor Hananiya responded to several e-mails asking for comment before publication.

Brooks said this e-mail referred to the Union chartering of the club “Brandeis Students for Justice in Palestine,” which he suggested changing from “Palestine” to “Palestinian People.” “The word Palestine is a very controversial term—used as a euphemism for the non-existence of the state of Israel—I just wanted their club’s name to reflect their goal,” Brooks said. “There isn’t really a Palestine right now but there is a Palestinian people, if that’s the group you’re aiming to help.”

Still, he added, “[Hananiya] was writing to an audience who were upset about the Mamoon Darwish case, who were very upset because they felt they administration was targeting him because he was Palestinian…the fact that she said I didn’t recognize her Palestinian identity, it was meant to damage my reputation amongst these constituents.”

Another incident mentioned by Brooks came from the weblog Innermostparts.org, which had referred to Brooks and Sulsky as “backward reactionaries.” A post by Innermostparts contributor and Shuster campaign manager Adam Hughes ’11 over January’s Patriotic Display Resolution stated, “Compare this with Justin Sulsky and Andrew Brooks’ horrible records (I know I said I wouldn’t, but I just can’t help it!)…Authoring and being the only two senators to vote for the ridiculously partisan American flag resolution [and] doing absolutely nothing about almost every key progressive issue like endowment transparency and gender neutral housing (at least, to judge by their project reports).”

When it was discovered that Brooks had not authored the resolution, Rutrick sent Shuster, Mohamed, Hughes, and Innermostparts founder Sahar Masachi ’11 his sole written warning to their campaigns regarding libel: “There have been a large number of requests for these two write-in candidates to be disqualified for these two posts. As Chief of Elections, I have decided that the commission will neither mark Noam and Kaamila as ‘violators of a rule’ nor will I disqualify them from the race,” Rutrick wrote. “If you wish to continue using this website to comment on the election, make sure that you double check the veracity of your claims. Further false claims, considered ‘libelous’ by the elections commission, will be punished.”

The post, as of publication, remains intact, although the words “horrible” and “infamously” have been struck through with a single line, and a correction follows the original allegation now stating that only Sulsky authored the resolution.

Hughes responded to the libel allegations in a post on Innermostparts. He wrote, “the only times that the word ‘libelous’ comes up in Mr. Rutrick’s e-mail are in reference to hypothetical future statements from the campaign. If we were definitively judged to have committed libel, we were never told about it, and even if such a judgment was passed, Mr. Rutrick dealt with it in the way he felt was appropriate. I don’t see where any injunction could be made.”

The staff of Innermostparts claimed that the post contained a misunderstanding due to the lateness of the post. “[Brooks is] saying that we slandered him, he’s saying that we said he co-sponsored this resolution…I would argue that it was unclear wording, maybe,” said Massachi. “But in any case, he’s arguing that the resolution that he voted for was so despicable or detestable for us to suggest that he cosponsored it is a slander against his character. So if it is a slander against his character, why would he vote for it?” When asked if the negative connotations given by Hughes would have influenced this decision, Massachi replied, “It’s our opinion—libel is just about fact, so if we say he’s wasting the Union’s time, that’s our opinion and we’re allowed to say that.”

When asked why the statements remained undeleted and legible for the public, Massachi stated, “I think it would be unethical – I say that because I think it would be unethical for me to delete something that I wrote and pretend it never happened. I think it would be unethical in general for people to take something back and pretend it never exists… I kept it in there to use in the historical record to make sure that no one thinks I was disassembling it.”

He added that Brooks was “a sore loser,” and alleged that statements from the Brooks campaign—including an e-mail from Sara Hammerschlag ’09 to the group “Students United for Israel,” which said, “there is no doubt that [Shuster and Mohamed] would not be friendly toward Israel in their official capacities as members of the Senate”—were equally libelous.

Brooks, however, alluded to Mohamed’s voting against March’s resolution celebrating Israel’s birthday, as well as Shuster’s outspoken criticism, referring to Israel’s establishment as “the catastrophe.”

“I don’t think it is hypocritical to say that as an Israeli, she is not very supportive of her country… when she founded Students for Justice in Palestine, they were saying we want a Palestinian view to go against the Israeli view, to counteract the violence that Israelis do to Palestinians,” said Brooks. “I think people at the end of the day people will say that Andrew Brooks is friendlier towards Israel than Noam is…negative campaigning is allowed, so long as you’re telling the truth.”

Rutrick, meanwhile, defended the blog as an expression of opinion. “To say that Andrew Brooks and Justin Sulsky are ‘dinosaur reactionaries,’ it is a statement of opinion, that they are politically conservative,” he said. “[My ruling] allows candidates to say what they think about other opponents without being punished for it…I said I would be looking closely at outrageously offensive statements, like don’t vote for Andrew because he’s Jewish—it should be encouraged for people to tell the truth about opponents, so that voters know.”

Brooks and Sulsky also alleged that Shuster supporters made slanderous comments about their campaigns. “I found a witness in East Quad, she said “Oh, you’re the candidate who fixed the ballot so only you and Sulsky would be on it,” Brooks said, reiterating he had no control over the ballot. “Yeah, Noam Schuster was going around Usdan—she said that.”

He added, another student “told me that supporters of Noam Shuster said I voted against giving [the Transitional Year Program] funds for T-shirts because I hate black people…I hate black people, so that’s why I voted against giving $214 going for T-shirts, half of which went to TYP and the other half went to T-shirts for professors that taught TYP students.”

Brooks stated he voted against the proposal because no group on campus received fully subsidized T-shirts from the Student Union “except for Midnight Brunch—and that’s open for everyone.”

Rutrick, however, said that because these statements could not be proven, the Elections Commission could not accept these complaints. Sulsky, however, disagreed with this decision: “Slander is verbal, and it’s against the rules,” he said. “We didn’t walk around with tape recorders. They couldn’t have expected us to record incidents of slander that we heard from people.”

Finally, Brooks also alleged that the Shuster and Mohamed groups campaigned illegally by creating Facebook groups and posters without meeting with the Elections Commissioner. “It says in the [Union] Constitution [that] the rules apply to all Union members and all Union organizations—all Union members meaning all students in the university,” said Brooks, citing the disqualified write-in campaign of Charlie Chelnik ’10 last fall. “Even the write-ins have to follow all the rules that the candidates have to follow.”

Rutrick, however, replied “to say that someone can’t run a write-in campaign because they haven’t met with an elections commissioner yet is ridiculous—that’s why we have write-in elections.”

While accepting Brooks’ right to appeal the election, Rutrick stood by his decisions as Chief of Elections. “My commission set the standard on libel and slander higher than past commissions have—I not only allowed but encouraged candidates to speak candidly about each other: to allow them to campaign negatively, if they wished,” he said. “I think that being able to say that the other candidate is lazy, to use an example, is perfectly okay, and I think that’s something that people need to hear. An election that doesn’t allow you to say that someone is lazy is a bad election.”

When asked if this practice stemmed from his own penalization for libeling rival candidate Jordan Rothman ’09 during April’s Vice Presidential elections, Rutrick responded, “it’s partly true—I particularly noticed that elections were flawed when something I considered flawed happened to me, when I was punished for something that I wasn’t able to argue. Every candidate should know when they were doing something wrong and had the chance to undo it, and I don’t consider that to be particularly groundbreaking, but it’s just what I think is fair.”

“I think one warning over seven different counts of libel and slander isn’t enough…he does not have discretion to not take action, he only has discretion as to what to administer,” said Brooks.

Brooks added, “[Rutrick] said he personally wouldn’t give people warnings because he got a red line on his campaign when he committed libel against Jordan Rothman. The fact that that wasn’t done when seven libelous comments were made, when nothing was done was to remedy that…I’ve heard of three-strike laws, not seven-strike laws.”

Editor’s Note: Adam Hughes and Jordan Rothman are editors for The Hoot.

The Student Bill of Rights, spearheaded by Union President Jason Gray ’10, was compiled by a student committee this semester.

“The vote was to determine the will of the student body,” Gray explained. The high approval rating “shows that this is something that not only the Union wants but the student body desires,” he said.

Gravity Magazine Editor-in-Chief Jonathan Zornow ’08 commented, “I voted for it because I think it’s a good thing. It’s in the best interest of my organization to vote for it.”

“I guess I voted for it because I didn’t see any reason not to. It’s a valuable addition to student life given the amount of activism and involvement at Brandeis,” said Max-Fischlowitz Roberts ’10.

He added, “students should know that they have a certain freedom to express how they feel especially given Brandeis history.”

Gray explained that he and the committee envisioned the Student Bill of Rights developing in three phases. The first was the creation of the document and the vote to gauge student support is part of the second phase.

The third phase is “working with the administration to incorporate [the Student Bill of Rights] into their governing structure.” Gray would also like to create “know your rights cards” for students in their dorm rooms. This is the “implementation stage,” he said.

While Gray is looking to the future of the Student Bill of Rights, Director of Student Development and Conduct Erika Lamarre does not support the document. “I respect where the Union is coming from on this, however the rights expressed in the Student Bill of Rights already exist so there is really nothing new there. When rights are violated it is usually on a peer to peer level and regardless of the circumstances, the university has many ways in which to address perceived violations of rights.”

She continued, “I think any discussion of rights should be about awareness and also the balance of those rights with responsibilities.”

“Students on this campus don’t know what their rights are,” said Gray. And while he and Lamarre both commented on the need for rights awareness, Gray commented that “in some cases, [students] don’t have the rights they ought to have.”

“We want to do two things,” explained Gray, “substantiate the rights student deserve and let students know what their rights are.”

In response to claims that Rights and Responsibilities enumerates the same rights as the Student Bill of Rights, Gray responded, “I don’t think R and R is bad…[but] R and R is not effective. [We] need to provide a more effective way for us to know what our rights are.”

Kathleen Fischman contributed to this report.

According to the proposal written by the weight room committee of the Student-Athlete Advisory Committee, the weight room’s current equipment is outdated and in disrepair.

The rollover funds would be used to replace the old work out machines and dumb bells as well as set up additional Olympic weight lifting equipment in the room adjacent to the weight room.

While the funds will not be used to repair the actual room in any way, they will be used to “refresh” the equipment every few years even after the old equipment has been replaced.

“This will make a big difference,” Michael Shoretz ’09, one of three students on the weight room committee, said. “If people here value their health, they need a place to take care of their bodies, and the old weight room doesn’t allow them to do that.”

Cassidy Dadaos ’09 was another student on the weight room committee and said that the proposal will “affect the whole campus not just now, but for the future too.”

In order to make use of $100,000 in rollover funds, former Union President Shreeya Sinha ‘09 and former Union Treasurer Choon Woo Ha ‘08 elected to allow the student body to vote on how to use the funds. Students were able to submit spending proposals.

Sinha sent an e-mail to the student body April 11 explaining the guidelines for student proposals. The proposals, she explained in the e-mail, must enhance the lives of students.

Students chose between eight proposals approved by the Union. The proposals included a one-day carnival, a peace and social justice week, renovations to Chum’s, a ten member delegation to Rwanda, a new weight room in Gosman, a radio transmitter for WBRS, solar panels for a university building, and free STI testing for 300 students.

The vote to allocate the rollover money to the weight room was a close one, with a margin of 22 votes. 496 students voted to give the money to the weight room (37.43 percent), while 474 students (36.77 percent) voted to spend the money on putting solar panels on a Brandeis building.

Phil Lacombe ’10, a proponent of the solar panel proposal, was disappointed in the final decision.

“Considering that the students didn’t need to money anyway, I wish we could have used the money toward something more selfless,” he said. “I wanted to use it to help something larger than just the campus.

Dan Orkin ‘10 voted to renovate Chum’s—a proposal which received 139 votes. “It’s an investment that affects tons of clubs,” he said. “The kitchen equipment is non-existent, the PA system is on its last legs and while peace and social justice week is a Brandeis idea, it’s not a lasting investment.”

The student body also voted to pass an amendment to the Constitution, which would change the way the Capital Expenditures and Emergency Fund works in an effort to minimize future rollovers.

The Capital Expenditures and Emergency Fund, according to the amendment, is an emergency fund run by the Finance board, which gives emergency funds to clubs in need.

This new amendment changed the minimum reserve balance from $150,000 to $25,000 and lowered the minimum price of a single club purchase to $5,000. According to the amendment, these changes were necessary in order to “ensure the stability of the Union’s financial affairs and allocations” as well as increase the accessibility of the Capital Expenditures fund to the student body.

Ha said made this amendment the main initiative of his Presidency this year, adding that he was “relieved” that the amendment passed: “It’s a great way to end the year.”

According to Ha, the drafting of the amendment was a group effort made by the entire F-Board and believes that the passing of this amendment shows that “the students have faith in their elected officials.”

All Einstein employees were sent an e-mail on April 25 from manager George Kallis stating, “Effective Monday, April 28th, all workers must be wearing black pants or khakis. Einstein bagel wants this rule enforced. There will be no exceptions. Anyone in jeans or other pants cannot work.”

Other new rules that Einstein employees must now follow include neatly displaying bagels, new scoopers to use for the spreads, and no eating behind the counter. Employees have also been told to be more friendly and polite to customers.

Kallis dismissed any effects of the change. “This is still the same Einstein’s,” remarked Kallis.

When pressed about the rumor of a failed inspection, he commented, “[the inspectors] just wanted some small changes. See the order the coffee is lined up – it’s in the right order now.” He would not comment further about any more details of the inspection.

“We’ve heard a lot of rumors from people. Something is going on that we’re not being told,” said Ori Applebaum ’11, who started working at Einstein’s this semester.

While the changes will not significantly affect the average student, Einstein’s employees have been critical of the changes.

“I don’t like it at all,” said Cecelia Watkins ’11, who has worked at Einstein’s since the fall. “I think it’s absurd because wearing black pants won’t sell any more bagels. College students don’t care about that.”

Elise Diamond ’09 echoed the Watkins’ complaints saying, “it’s inconvenient to wear black pants, because I have to wear them the rest of the day [but] I don’t have time to go home and change.”

Diamond is part of a small group of students who have started an informal petition asking for a raise due to the new policies. “I only work here eight hours a week, so it’s a very small part time job. I’m a student first. I did not come to Brandeis to work at Einstein’s,” said Diamond.

When asked about the changes to Einstein’s, Director of Dining Services Michael Newmark responded in an e-mail message, “There are no changes.”

However, in response to an e-mail that included the aforementioned changes, Newmark would not comment further on a possible failed inspection. However, he wrote, “We conduct our own internal audits on all Dining operations and in addition EBB conducts audits of their locations. Any national brand maintains their high standards regardless of what location it may operate in. This is important to create quality and consistency from one location to the next.”

Although the changes aim to create a consistency between the Brandeis Einstein’s and other locations, Watkins voiced that because of the college environment, policies, such as wearing the black pants, should not apply equally.

“Customer’s can’t even see below our waists,” said Watkins.

Employees have stated that they feel a change in atmosphere now that new standards are being enforced.

“I really like the job because it gives me the opportunity to converse with hundreds of students in a couple of hours. It used to be a pleasurable activity but now it seems like it’s becoming a corporate job,” said Applebaum.

However, this case may not have arose in the first place if the election rules set by the Student Union were nuanced enough to handle a more complicated situation such as this one. The unspecific nature of the rules has allowed for them to be applied to various actions, from logistical errors to more serious violations that bring the fairness of the election into question.

No matter the violation, the candidate receives a notation next to his or her name on the ballot, stating only that they had violated election rules, without specifying which rule(s) in particular. In the Spring 2006 election for Senator-at-Large, candidate Jamie Ansorge ’09, received such a notation on the ballot, after it was found that one of his supporters posted campaign fliers using a staple gun, a non-Union approved campaign material.

More recently, Rutrick received the same notation on the ballot after election commissioners deemed an e-mail he had sent to club leaders asking for the endorsement as ‘libelous.’ When asked if this personal incident influenced his treatment of requests to disqualify Shuster, Rutrick said, “it’s partly true—I particularly noticed that elections were flawed when something I considered flawed happened to me, when I was punished for something that I wasn’t able to argue.” Rutrick’s experience with how the Union handles campaign violations has lead him to adopt a more lenient attitude in the position of Chief of Elections.

The contrast between Ansorge and Rutrick’s respective experiences with campaign violations is evidence of a systemic problem with the vagueness of the election rules, specifically the previously mentioned ballot notation. The Student Union must take into account the fact that the average voter may not know the specific circumstances under which the candidate violated election rules. One measure the Union can take to maximize the fairness of elections is to give an explanation on the ballot elaborating on which rule was violated and how.

Of course it is not feasible to develop rules and procedures that account for every imaginable situation, but election procedures should be structured to eliminate the opportunity for the Chief of Elections to allow their bias to influence his or her decisions. More nuanced rules that distinguish staple guns from slander will maximize the fairness of elections.

Whether you like it or not, the country needs money. The national debt is over $9 trillion. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could total $2.4 trillion over the next decade, perhaps more. The nation is teetering on the edge of recession. And through it all, we Americans have spent the last eight years enjoying a nice tax break.

Of course, lets be honest. It is an election year, and the last thing the government would ever dream of is raising taxes on us “ordinary people”. No, the debate currently going on between the parties is whether or not to raise taxes on the wealthy, the elite (ah, maybe I shouldn’t use that word).

Whether or not the government decides to charge rich people more money on April 15th, both parties have agreed that they want to give the middle class another tax cut. Apparently, its meant to stimulate our ailing economy, and it is wildly popular among politicians. This is not necessarily a good thing.

I know my argument is not a popular one, but I have to say that I find certain irony in the opposition. Everyone loves to say that they are “stimulating the economy” with the money that they save from lower taxes, but far fewer people care about the detrimental effects of war and debt.

For this, you may thank President Bush. Back in 2001, when it became clear that we were going to invade Afghanistan, Bush came up with a novel idea to drum up war support. He decided to offer the American people a war that would not raise their taxes, and would instead be financed by borrowed money. How could we refuse? It was like getting a free meal.

Do you see the pattern yet? There is a very good reason why, before us, no nation has ever cut taxes during wartime. There is just only so much debt that can be accrued before the economic damage becomes impossible to repair.

This leaves two solutions. The first is to end the war, which will not be easy. Unfortunately, since Americans have been largely spared the monetary costs of war, they have much less of a reason to call for its end. We are, at times, a lazy and selfish people.

Therefore, the only solution we have left available is the one in my title. The government must raise taxes, for everyone. The revenue that this will raise should at the very least make borrowing money less necessary. More importantly, when the American people begin to wonder why their taxes are so high, we will be able to give them a simple answer:

“President Bush’s war needs more of your money”

I have a feeling that letters to Congress calling for peace may increase in number.

Sent to the Students United for Israel listserv, the Hammerschlag email openly portrays both Shouster and Mohammed as anti-Israel, saying that “there is no doubt that they would not be friendly toward Israel in their official capacities as members of the Senate.” This statement is based on nothing but the two candidate’s involvement in Students for Justice in Palestine. She goes on to say “The write-in campaign is a clear attack against any marginal pro-Israel sentiments in the Senate.” Finished with her misrepresentation, Hammerschlag ends her email with a plea to vote for Brooks and Sulsky. The hit job is complete. In her email she lies about Noam Shouster and Kaamila Mohammed in order to defeat their campaign. That is libelous.

Asher Tananbaum’s email contains less in the way of outright lies, but makes up for it in strident antipathy for anyone who dares take part in the democratic process. He declares that Noam Shouster has a campaign run entirely on “two pillars…1. Noam Shuster is an Israeli who lives in a mixed Arab-Jewish town. 2. Andrew Brooks and Justin Sulsky are anti-Palestinian.” While it is true that Shouster did indeed grow up in a town of that description, to say that her campaign was based off of it is false, especially considering she had a website in place that provided her platform. The second comment, along with another that follows—“Her entire campaign is essentially a referendum on the Arab-Israeli conflict”—show not only dishonesty but projection, as Sarah Hammerschlag had already tried to make the election a referendum on the Arab-Israeli conflict and called Noam Shouster and Kaamila Mohammed anti-Israel. Tannenbaum (who was also an administrator and officer in the Brooks/Sulsky Facebook group) filled his note with other rhetoric that was no less insulting to the intelligence, such as “What you will get with Ms. Shuster is yet another insider and yes-woman, not an independent thinker.” This is not libel, as it is a matter of opinion. It is still pretty unsavory, though.

Nelson Rutrick, the Elections Commissioner, responded to the complaint by saying “The claims filed by both sides in this debate have both been considered to be examples of negative campaigning because they are statements based in opinion.” It was his call to make, just as it is now the Judiciary’s. If it goes through, however, and the Judiciary holds up Brooks’s definition of libel, it could prove very disastrous…for Andrew Brooks.

The first comment I have is very short. I want to point out the irony of accusing an Israeli of being Anti-Israel. I’m not saying that those people do not exist, however, it seems… strange as a campaign tactic.

In addition, the most basic look into Shouster’s life would prove otherwise (and I have never met her). The source of this comes from the Justice, “Despite Brooks’ claims about the Shouster campaign, students supporting Brooks’ and Sulsky’s campaigns sent e-mails to Students United for Israel regarding Shouster and Mohamed, insinuating that the two candidates are opposed to Israel.” Again, accusing an Israeli (Shouster) of being opposed to Israel.

The second comment is somewhat nitpicklike, if you forgive the made-up word. Although I mostly hate politicians who do this themselves, I feel that this contradiction needs publication. A lot of this election has been around the topic of Palestine and candidates accusing and defending against being anti/pro Palestine.

Andrew Brooks has addressed the question of whether he is anti-Palestine a couple of times, once when voting on chartering the Palestinian Club, and again during this campaign. After being disappointed with the club’s charter, Brooks was explaining his problem with the club’s name, “Most people who use that word [Palestine] use it as a reference to a nation that exists, and that’s just historically false, there isn’t a nation that exist[s].” He believed that because the nation did not exist, the word Palestine should not be included in the club’s name.

After filing the injunction for this election, he was again interviewed by the Justice and spoke again about his opinions regarding Palestine, “Brooks said that he does not deny the existence of the Palestinian nation.”

Although this is a small contradiction, I just want to bring to light the disagreement between the two statements. I do not want to get into a discussion of how I think Brooks feels about the Palestinian, mainly because I am not sure he knows, but I just want to bring this to your attention.

My third and most severe comment on this election, is that this is not the first time that Andrew Brooks has received a benefit of a questionable ruling to aid his campaign for Senator-At-Large.

I would like to tell you the story of the 2006 Senator-At-Large election. There were, of course, two slots for Senator-At-Large. The first round proved a very close race for the second slot. Shreeya Sinha won the first slot and both Andrew Brooks and James Ansorge were separated by two votes after the first round with Ansorge in the lead. Then, the election changed forever. James Ansorge violated the Student Election rules. He violated the most sacred rules known to the Brandeis elections.

“The violation occurred when Ansorge’s friend used staples to tack fliers to residence hall doors. The Union provides masking tape for fliers, but not staples,” according to the Justice.

Ansorge used staples as opposed to tape and therefore was penalized in the second round, “As penalty, next to Ansorge’s name on the Student Union candidate profiles Web page, in red letters, a message read: “This candidate has violated one or more election rules.’” In the second round Ansorge lost around 30 votes to make Brooks the winner of the second Senator-At-Large slot.

In an interview afterwards Ansorge claimed, “That [the penalty] very clearly cost me the election.” Brooks, the winner of this mishap spoke differently. Although Ansorge lost around 30 votes from the first election to the second, Brooks said, “I don’t think it played as big of a role as some people asserted […] In the end people voted for the person they liked.”

According to the Justice, the violation was reported anonymously. I am not accusing Brooks of reporting, mainly because the crime was committed in Rosenthal and he was a freshman, but winning because of unauthorized staples is nothing to be proud of.

With that story finished, I would like to point out that another election regarding Brooks is being contested. I will admit that this time the dispute is about libel and slander, which is much more serious than a staple, but eventually Mr. Brooks will have to face the reality that he lost.

I wish Brooks would just let the Senate move on with life and realize that he did not lose because of anything illegal. He lost because more students voted for the other candidates. I would like to give Mr. Brooks some advice: If you really wanted to contest the decision, you should have done it under Article 25, Section 30 of the Union Constitution (aka the sore loser clause). Note: Article 25, Section 30 of the Union Constitution (aka the sore loser clause) does not exist.

I guess I’d always been sort of unsure of what feminism meant and of whether I could truly define myself as a feminist. On the one end, I’ve always felt a strong aversion to traditional female stereotypes and fought for women’s rights, mentally at least. Sure, I was the little girl who always had pink dresses and bows in her hair, but that was through choice, and if I had been forced into that I would’ve said no way! That is, if it wasn’t my own choice. I’ve always believed that women could do what men could, but the negative connotations surrounding the word feminism had left me unsure of how to identify my affiliations with this word.

As it is the end of the school year, I’ve had several months to digest what I’ve learned from all of my courses this semester. Ok, so maybe I am, like most of you, cursing the fact that finals are upon us, but I’ve also become enlightened in so many ways and the knowledge I have gained from WMGS 5a has extended further than the readings I’ve read or the videos I’ve viewed in class.

As our readings and discussions in 5a have proven, feminism doesn’t mean what you might think it does. To be a feminist does not mean you are a man-hater or a crazy person. On the contrary, feminism means what you make it to mean and is tailored to the individual invoking it. Some feminists might choose not to marry or have children simply to ‘stick it to the patriarchy,’ some may choose a career out of self-interest, some may protest and lobby for women’s rights, some may simply be a silent voice for their fellow human beings.

Feminism has gone through so many stages and has jumped so many hurdles to get women where they are today. Sure, women hold more jobs now than they did before and there is less blatant prejudice against women nowadays. But maybe that’s because the prejudice is more hidden, or in some ways openly advertised under the guise of a beauty campaign.

I for one am absolutely disgusted by the way our media treats women as plastic Barbie dolls to mold into the perfect prototype they desire. Women are told to lose weight and starve themselves or asked to undergo painful and risky plastic surgery to fit a ‘beauty ideal’ that is purely plastic and manufactured in the minds of a sadistic few and projected upon the masses. But let me stop myself before I rewrite my first column (Media Sends Mixed Messages 8/31/07).

It is clear that women are still discriminated against on the world stage, as are women of minority status. Furthermore, domestic abuse still exists and is frequently exhibited towards women. No one is about to deny that women too are capable of and do abuse men, but overridingly it is women on the receiving end of the hostility.

Typically feminism has addressed these issues. But feminism doesn’t only extend into the depths of issues pertaining to females; it also affects minorities because feminist issues are intersectional. Did you ever think about who takes care of those rich career women’s children? Minorities, especially women of color, step into these roles to support their own families.

Moreover, the glass ceiling still exists and women hold less high-up positions in corporations and are paid less than men. But women are moving up and showing that they are more than just pretty faces. Both women and women of color have made gains in the workplace and are gaining respect in the media through TV and film. Slowly but surely, baby steps have been taken.

After all, why do we have to differentiate between male and female when we’re all ultimately in the same situation? We all have problems, we all face adversity, and we’re all human beings so we should all just be a little more accepting and cut each other some slack.

So thank you to Sue Lanser and WMGS 5a for opening my eyes to what being a feminist truly means. To conclude, I’d like to get it out in the open in case you hadn’t already figured it out from this whole column, yes I am a feminist, and proud of it!

1. Weapons of Mass Destruction

Ah, an easy one. In one State of the Union address Bush triumphantly declared the discovery of ‘WMD-related programs activities’. The President then outdid himself and announced (albeit on Polish television) that WMD had indeed been found, and all of Saddam’s conventional weapons stockpiles are now safely in the hands of sectarian militias. But obviously no radical armed movement is going to want to fiddle around with plutonium or nerve gas, right? So logically the WMD must still be there. As Donald Rumsfeld pointed out, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence…although I suppose abandoning the whole concept of deductive reasoning to rationalize a war isn’t the smartest thing a nation has ever done.

2. Arab Radio Broadcasts

Specifically, the ones from 1947-48 which told the Palestinian Arab population to flee to make way for the incoming Arab armies, thus giving rise to the Palestinian refugee problem. These broadcasts are mentioned in hundreds of textbooks, pamphlets, et cetera, not to mention that several major intelligence services were closely monitoring the region at the time, so finding them shouldn’t be too hard. It would, of course, be nice to know the names of these radio stations, who delivered the directives, and what exactly was said. My search for a transcript or audio recording was completely fruitless. Perhaps, then, these orders to flee came not from the radio but from newspapers or some other source of information? Alas! Any and all inquiries to the Crown Center and a search of the library were also in vain.

3. Osama bin Laden

At last, something that definitely exists. Of course, it isn’t certain that bin Laden is actually in the Middle East. He could be on Long Island, for all the public knows. Iraq is probably out of the running since the downfall of his good buddy the quasi-secularist infidel Saddam Hussein. ‘Super Size Me’ filmmaker Morgan Spurlock has just released a movie about this very topic, so prospective bin-Laden hunters had better get a move on before this Harry Houdini of terrorists retreats to his lair in a hollow-out volcano or something.

Fame and fortune await whichever intrepid adventurer is brave enough to find them. So pack your bags, roll up your sleeves, re-read your back issues of the Weekly Standard, and get to it!

I have lived a transient life. The simple question at a party of “where are you from” usually provokes a sigh from me at first, followed by the long paragraph of places that I once called “home.” This conversation usually produced a bored recipient and feelings of deep reflection, tinged with sadness, from me. Nevertheless, the chance to finally settle down has been something of a failed quest on my part, with the exception being Brandeis.

Have you ever looked at something, a sports team, a new car, a new friend and thought: “this seems right”? That is what I thought when I first visited this school in the summer of 2003. During that mad search for colleges I was confused and bewildered by the sheer number and diversity of schools and what they offered me. Brandeis was just a bit outside my magic numbers of GPA and the SAT, but like many long shots, it stayed with me as a persistent fantasy.

When I was accepted my choice was automatic. At the age of 18 I thought that I had finally made it, that my years of hard work and the shittyness of High School had now set forth for me a future of success and happiness. My first year at Brandeis was a breeze academically, and I felt as though I had finally found my place to shine. Unfortunately there was much for me to learn on the social end. Mistakes that I made that first semester haunted me throughout that year. But that experience was worth it in a way. I was forced to develop a personal discipline and decent moral background that has helped me since. Though these efforts I was largely able to cast off the reputation that my stupidity had created, and by my sophomore year I had a large group of loyal friends.

Life was a consistent and lovely experience at Brandeis until I decided to take a chance and go abroad at the beginning of this year. That choice changed the careful dynamic that I had worked to create around me, and for the worse. But I have rebounded by once again using the lessons that I learned from this school to adapt and succeed in difficult circumstances.

This school has meant a lot to me. A large portion of my greatest triumphs, as well as my most prolific failures have taken place here. I have appreciated every moment that I have spent at this school. Instead of some nasty diatribe against the people with whom I have had difficulties with, I must thank every staff member, professor, family member, and friend who have made this such an excellent experience. I dreaded this moment a month ago, as I saw graduation as a retirement of sorts for fun and friendship. Today however, I look forward to the rest of my life outside of Brandeis. Once again the odds might be stacked against me after I graduate (thank you Bush for this wonderful job market and this awesome economy in which I somehow have to pay back my loans). But if I am able to find people like my friends here on the outside, life just might work out.

With all the media coverage, one might be forgiven for thinking that the crisis has something to do with our not having enough food to feed the 6 and a half billion people on earth. This is simply untrue. In fact, the disturbing irony of this crisis is that there exists today more than enough grain to feed every man, woman, and child alive. Food production per capita has steadily increased since the 1960s while world population growth has been slowing since the 1980s. The reason why starving people are rioting around the globe has little to do with food shortage and more to do with two longstanding injustices: animal genocide and global capitalism.

The first problem is that more than one third of the grain produced globally goes not to feed humans but to feed animals who, if left to their own devices, wouldn’t eat it. Absent human intervention, animals like cattle, goats, sheep, and chickens would forage among wild grasses and legumes for sustenance. Unfortunately, since the early 20th century, untold billions of these animals have been imprisoned in industrial farms and force fed, among other things, cereal grains only to be viciously slaughtered for human consumption. Indeed, every one pound of meat produced for wealthy Westerners to eat requires enslaved animals to consume seven pounds of grain which alternatively could be used to feed poor people in Asia, Latin America, and Africa. Since 2006, the amount of grain wasted in this barbaric form of production grew by over 100 million tons, which is a major reason for the current crisis.

Animal genocide, while tragic, is not the only cause of the food crisis; in fact, the crisis is profoundly bound up with the crisis of global capitalism. As I’ve already explained, the problem is not that humans have too little food; on the contrary, it’s that food costs too much for the world’s poor. One of the biggest reasons for the recent spike in food prices is the rapid growth of food speculation.

As the sub-prime credit crisis wrecked havoc on the economy, investors unloaded their increasingly worthless paper assets and searched for a safer bet. What they found was the food commodity market. These markets were devised to allow farmers to finance their production on the basis of money they expect to receive from future sales. It works like this: farmers sell speculators a contract promising some of the food they expect to produce in the future. They then take the money from the transaction and use it to finance the production of food they’ve already sold.

Since the advent of the subprime crisis, deals of this nature have increased by over twenty percent. The problem is the real return on food commodities is about five percent. The paper assets which the new food speculators are trying to replace, on the other hand, had much higher rates of return. To compensate, these speculators purchase enormous numbers of contracts and hold on to them in order to drive up prices. Once the prices rise, they sell off these products on the market—which is artificially inflated because of their actions—and pocket a much higher profit than normal. The overall effect is the rapid increase in food prices which has left so many people hungry and angry.

The food crisis is a stunningly simple problem to solve. If, for example, the US and European Union governments mandated a 15% cut back in meat production, consumers in wealthy countries would have to pay a little more for filet mignon, but everybody in the world would have enough grain to eat. If, instead, there were stricter regulations on food speculation, the crisis would likewise be alleviated. The problem is that those with the power to take these steps have an economic interest in maintaining the food crisis. The result will be, as Hugo Chavez pointed out last week, “a massacre of the world’s poor” so that the wealthy can have a little more money in their pockets and a little more meat on their plates.

Social justice is an ambiguous term at best. Someone once told me that social justice was “justice for everyone,” but what in the world does justice mean anyways? Others have defined it as increasing opportunities for all, and promoting a general situation of equality. In essence this sounds okay, but the process by which to conduct this policy is unsure at best. Fair trade coffee, for instance, decreases opportunities for stockholders to freely compete in the market, lessening their overall business liberties. Redistribution of money to the poor unfairly taxes the rich, many of whom have worked hard for their assets. Heck, if leveling the playing field is part of social justice, then I can classify assisting that awkward kid on your hall in the pursuit of action on a Friday night as part of this ideology. These fellows are obviously disadvantaged, and don’t contain the right background to be successful in this arena. Why not use Affirmative Action to level the playing field and assist them in this endeavor? The truth is, no one really knows what social justice is, as value judgments and ambiguity hinder true understanding of the concept.

I am becoming more of an objectivist, a follower of the tenets laid out by the contemporary philosopher Ayn Rand. Her beliefs stem from the central philosophy that people should not live for others nor ask others to live for themselves. Social justice is diametrically opposed to this philosophy. This ideal essentially asks servitude of its followers as each is shackled to the obligations and responsibilities of the concept. Social justice makes people slaves, as they are taught to assist others, give of themselves and be servants to people whom they hardly know. This is sickening indeed. Masses of people donate to charity, or give their time to service projects, out of the sheer pressure of this responsibility. I am adamant that most are mindless when committing these selfish acts, and this blind obedience is troubling indeed. Do what makes you happy, live for no one but yourself. Social justice creates a system of bondage as its tenets preach a fictitious obligation and responsibility to others.

I am also convinced that social justice is just a construct that people use to make themselves feel righteous. People ally this concept with certain causes, such as anti-poverty campaigns, in order for them to feel good and generate a positive image. I have already described at length in previous articles how these people accomplish nothing tangible in these endeavors, but to propagate their own egos. It is also despicable how social justice is such a catch phrase on this campus. People throw it out there to associate it with all kinds of things, and it pops up all around our community. I saw a campaign flier in North Quad with few words other than the phrase “social justice” emblazoned in the center of the paper. Like the words “sex” or “free pizza”, this term was simply used to catch a passerby’s attention and associate the campaign to positive perceptions. I have come to see that the term is hollow indeed and has no true meaning. It is merely a phrase casually tossed around by countless people in order to promote themselves or their ideals. I have finally come to realize that the emperor has no clothes that there is only emptiness in using this term. The phrase has descended into a mere play-thing, a commodity used to generate a positive image from others.

Every time I hear the words “social justice,” I cringe. Every time I see those damnable words, I close my eyes. This phrase has no true meaning and its ambiguity is only compounded by the various causes that are unjustly associated with it. If social justice is what I think it is than following this ideology makes people servants to others. Never think you have an obligation to anyone but yourself, and don’t let society dictate where your responsibilities lie. Lastly, social justice is meaningless and has virtually no substance. It is merely a phrase constructed by masses of people who want to associate themselves with the positive attributes of this pre-fabricated construct. I am certainly against using the term “social justice,” but for all of my past activities, it would seem that I would support this ideal. I have done two terms with Americorps, completed 625 hours of national service, served as a commissioner of my town’s environmental commission, and won the Raoul Wallenberg Humanitarian Award, among other accolades. Still, I am proud to stand up to the pressure and propaganda to say that I am anti-social justice. And I believe that many Brandeis students should be able to relate to my sentiments. Here on campus, being “anti-social” seems popular indeed.

This was one of the first messages that I was taught after joining The Hoot, and four year’s after our publication’s creation, I think it is still the most important message of all.

The Hoot is not, nor has it ever been, a filter of opinion, or a place where only a few get to present their thoughts on politics, campus events, or just the world in general. From the beginning, the philosophy at this newspaper has been that if a member of the Brandeis community feels strongly enough about an issue to commit words to paper, those words deserved to be in our pages. This was the promise of The Hoot: a space for everybody, an outlet for each of us.

I am extremely proud that The Hoot has always been a place where people with a variety of political and social views come together and feel comfortable. Within our pages, it is easy to find the staunchest conservatives sharing a page with the most radical of socialists. We have had Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarians who have all earned the title of Editor. We’ve had pieces on sex, theater, race, and the Middle East conflict, from everywhere on the spectrum of belief.

Of course, this open approach does have its pitfalls. We have undeniably printed some awful articles; we’ve opened ourselves up to allegations of bigotry and unfairness, some of which were justified. However, after initially having to beg our columnists to write epic pieces in order to fill eight pages, we now often have more articles than we know what to do with for a 16 page issue. I think that this is a testament to our style, our attitude, and the understanding that we have with our writers and with the community at-large. We are a forum, a place for debate, and the venue for a back-and-forth between community members with opposing and often controversial viewpoints.

I’m glad that the community seems to appreciate what we have done. In four years, we’ve gone from crawling before the Finance Board, collecting SAF scraps, to receiving full funding, plus money for equipment; I like to think that our existence, severely questioned for over a year after we started, is no longer in doubt. I hope that we have ingrained ourselves into the fabric of the Brandeis community, that there is an expectation that The Hoot will be here, Friday after Friday. I hope that people find this paper to be a necessary part of our university.

In the first issue of The Hoot, the editorial board wrote that “we founded The Hoot because we believe that what Brandeis needs is a community newspaper. A newspaper written about, by, and for members of the Brandeis community.”

In 2008, Brandeis still needs a community newspaper. After a year in which the police were armed with little student input; a professor was accused of racism and punished without knowing what he had done; and a Student Union Executive Board was sworn in promising a new direction for student government, having an outlet for students, on every side of each issue, remains critical.

Debate breeds accountability. Voices incite change. Published discourse, appearing on campus week after week, can be stronger than any protest. This is what The Hoot was created for.

If you are a member of the Brandeis community, if you care what happens on this campus, if you are invested in this university and want to make it live up to its promise, then The Hoot is, and always will be, yours.

In the nearly four years of The Hoot’s existence, one thing has been a constant, and this is the idea of innovation and change. Since The Hoot’s inception, the publication has more than doubled in size, going from 8 to 16 pages in this short period. And for the first time ever, The Hoot produced several 20-page issues this past year. And not only in black and white, but in color, nonetheless! Though some might claim that dialogue isn’t really present at Brandeis, this serves as a testament that Brandeis students are passionate about a wide variety of issues.

Not only are students willing to divulge their opinions in one newspaper, they are willing to fill up two. Back in the early days of the paper, another publication, The Brandeis Watch, filled this void. At the time, The Watch was the “longest running independent magazine of Brandeis University,” having been a mainstay since 1980. It included many of the same issues that are still a part of our dialogue today: diversity at Brandeis, registering for classes, and even articles dedicated to sex. Unfortunately, The Watch had some financial problems and internal disorder, and died out.

But it seems that The Hoot has helped to fill this large void left by The Watch. As the campus has shown an increased appetite for dialogue and coverage of a variety of topics, The Hoot has added features and sports sections, has sort of given birth to The Blowfish (hence the name), and has also underwent major changes in its culture section, now Diverse City.

And finally, The Hoot has hopefully been able to help be a part of the beginnings of a major shift in our campus media. I am referencing the added emphasis on online media, an area that has been a fairly recent foray of this publication, and one that has been met with varied success.

Over the past semester, The Hoot has proudly hosted several debates for Union members, hosted SunDeis videos, filmed bands performing at our own Chum’s Coffeehouse, showcased various clubs, and hosted a variety of panels featuring members on behalf of numerous clubs. This means that for the first time Brandeis has an easily accessible audio and video archive of the past. One can go back and listen to the Union debates or campaign promises in a year to see how well candidates kept their promises, or simply watch a concert or event they were at.

Of course, our new media coverage is not as complete as it could be, but it is ideally a start of things to come. As the “community newspaper,” it only makes sense to perform this kind of outreach and truly further the goals that are a part of the core of our publication’s foundations. Unlike a print newspaper, there is no lack of space for this venture. The possibilities are endless. Every club could have their own weekly talk show, and every event could be filmed and archived forever. This is building a real community full of open forums and open dialogue, truly something that Brandeis should represent.

In no way is The Hoot perfect or immune to error. There have been several instances where this paper has been harshly questioned, most notably for the “I Hate You Thugs” poem from several years ago, and in no way have we forgotten this. Only being four years old, we are still learning from our mistakes and trying to improve for the future. This really is simply The Hoot 2.0 in more ways than one.

So here’s to four years having past, and another four years of The Brandeis Hoot, and by all means the possible birth of yet another newspaper in the next decade. And finally, here’s to increased dialogue and innovation within the Brandeis community over the coming years.

What!

Three years, seven months, and four days ago when I first stepped foot onto this campus, Brandeis was a different world. Every year, changes have mounted to the point where I know that this university will be largely unrecognizable to me in twenty years – and not just in terms of dwindling green space. As a tour guide during Alumni Weekend two summers ago, I led groups of Brandeis grads from years ending in 1 and 6 around campus. Many of the older alums didn’t recognize half of the buildings and the ’81 and ‘86 grads kept asking, “What happened to the Stein?” Apparently in the ‘80s, it was a legitimate campus hot spot, an “authentic Irish pub” as they called it. Clearly, campus culture changes depending on who populates the campus. While arguably there is a certain type of person who chooses to attend Brandeis, we are not all the same make and model year after year.

That difference was evident with Igor Pedan ‘05, who took frustration and with campus media and did something about it. And so the first Hoot issued forth in January 2005. Stacks of black and white newspapers started appearing next to stacks of colorful ones, but that wasn’t the real difference. People began talking. People who were freshmen and had no real idea about the history of newspapers on campus, were reading and forming opinions. The reaction of the campus back then has become the hallmark of this paper now – perpetuation of discussion.

In an environment where the collective memory erases itself every four years, it’s important to hand down pieces of the past to the younger generation. It’s important to keep the conversation going to bridge the knowledge gap. The campus as it was then took advantage of Igor’s knowledge, which he left in the hands of the subsequent Editor-in-Chief, Heather Zaijdel ‘07, and so on, in the hopes that people would never stop talking, never stop questioning. To The Hoot, the community is no different from the staff. We are all a part of this university and every member of this community has a voice in the paper whenever they want it.

There are big ideas and even bigger possibilities within the pages of this paper, stretching out into an infinite web of online possibilities. Whatever interests you, as interests change, The Hoot is an environment for change. One of the great things about college is that we learn not only in our classes, but also from each other. This paper is not just about news. It is not just about art. It is not just about sports, or opinions, or comics, or pictures, or illustrations, or Podcasts or videos.

This paper is ultimately about people, and, shockingly, people are flawed. This paper is not perfect, this campus is not perfect, and that is why The Hoot exists and persists. If everything was perfect, we would sit down and shut up. Nothing will ever be perfect, but perfection is not the point. For whatever negativity exists on this campus - and we all know there is plenty - The Hoot is a piece of hopeful optimism for the future. This paper may not exist in this form, but as my former editor-in-chief Andy Meyers says, we respresent a group of people that keeps coming back, like those who wrote for The Watch and The Brandeisian before us. We are not the title of our publication, but a certain type of people - and we are Brandeisians, with everything else that entails.

Can you really change the world with a newspaper? It certainly can’t hurt to try. It’s not up to me and my fellow seniors anymore. I leave it to your more capable hands. All of you.

When The Hoot was first chartered in 2004, co-founder Igor Pedan told the Justice that he wanted to bring a focus back to the community. With each passing semester The Hoot has evolved to be able to better address that goal. Over the last few years The Hoot has engaged with difficult campus issues such as bringing controversial speakers to campus, addressing gender and racial inequality, and investigating the actions and policies of the student union and administration - to name a few. Its OP-ED pages have been packed with readers thoughts about injustices on campus, and commentary on student publications’ content. With more stable funding three years after its fledgling days, The Hoot has been better poised to address and explore these issues.

The Hoot is not just an alternative to the Justice. The mere presence of both publications on campus has improved the quality and breadth of coverage of news on campus as a whole, but the publications’ missions are not the same.

“To acquire wisdom, one must observe” is the motto proclaimed at the top of each Hoot issue. The Hoot has served as a watchdog on campus, raising awareness about issues in administrative and student union policy that the campus may not otherwise have known.

The Hoot is unique in its policy of accepting and publishing any pieces of interest to the general community. Because of The Hoot’s focus on Brandeis-specific news it has started dialogues which have been inspired by controversial works it published that may not have had opportunity to be printed elsewhere. Reflections and responses on these pieces have taken place in our Opinion pages, but more importantly for our publication, reactionary discourse has taken place in dorm rooms, the Campus Center, and over meals.

The Hoot’s role has always been to seek truth and report it – exposing the complex issues and changes that have propelled our campus forward to where it stands today. The controversies that take place on campus along with relevant commentary on sports and cultural coverage are explored by curious people asking important questions, and our 3,000-plus readers can expect nothing less from the pages of The Hoot.

As our campus has undergone construction and changed, so has The Hoot. The Hoot’s focus in the last year has expanded to incorporate some new media content – including podcasts and real-time blogging of the NCAA Men’s Basketball tournament games – bringing a new audience to its website beyond Brandeis students. These moves provided vital practice for Hoot staff harnessing new media opportunities and gave online readers more options for news consumption. Additionally, The Hoot’s podcasts of all the Student Union candidates stances on various issues formed the basis for wise voting and enlightened governance; a crucial role for a campus publication.

The mere creation of The Hoot also set an important example for the campus and its journalistic community. As news organizations are consumed by massive corporations, and funding is siphoned away from investigative pieces and foreign bureaus, having an opportunity to foster competition on campus and force publications to strive for accuracy, has taught the student journalists to strive for better quality and the need for competition, imbuing the next generation of student journalists with this value.

The Hoot’s policies and style echo the campus’s focus on having an active student body engaged with local and global issues. It is constantly growing and putting new talent to work.

The Hoot, which used to need to ask the F-board for funding issue-to-issue has grown stronger with each passing semester, such that this year’s graduating class will be the last one to remember a campus without more than one student newspaper.

The hope for the future is that The Hoot will continue to grow, improve, and meld the unique writing, photography, copy editing, and new media talents of so many students to continue to produce such praiseworthy work.

I’ve found that not enough people have knowledge of the various gems of the Brandeis experience. Here are a few examples: there are tunnels under the castle; using Student discounts it’s possible to see the Boston Lyric Opera for $2; you can create any type of media project in the Getz Media Lab; and the Faculty Club is open to students and probably the easiest place to find Jehuda. In your experience of Brandeis, maybe you will get to experience the other things that I have not listed, but that’s a start.

There is something that all students should understand about the nature of Brandeis. All the administration cares about is making us look good to donors and prospective students. This creates a trickle-down-care type dynamic where supposedly to satisfy the condition to making the university superficially look good, they will have to create awesome opportunities and care about the students as well. This is a hollow shell of a sentiment most of the time, but it works. It is true that there are many administrators that actually do care about the students, but as a whole this university is run as a business, and that is the bottom line. Because of this we see events handled in specific ways, such as the Palestinian exhibit and the recent Darwish case. Be conscious of this when claiming that the university has dealt with a situation in the wrong way.

Now after criticizing the university, I would like to praise it from a personal perspective. As a Jewish stereotypical male coming to this university, I found that my previous identity of being “The Jew” of the group had become meaningless and allowed me to explore other ideas of my own identification. The clubs of the university were so diverse that I could find my own niches, trying out many different clubs and eventually gaining leadership in some of them. I have been president of four different organizations on campus at some point, and also have held various other important positions. I’m not saying this to gloat, but rather to illustrate that Brandeis offers a context where it is easy to become a leader, and to develop your own personal image.

This leads me to my next topic: What a college experience should be. Basically, college is for making mistakes. It’s for breaking the rules, learning from consequences, and exploring internally and externally. College is the safest setting to make poor decisions without the hard-hitting consequences that you might experience if you were out in the real world. I’m not saying you should put yourself into extremely dangerous situations, that’s just dumb. I am saying that you have a community of close and trusted friends that will help you out in times of trouble, and that you should be educated towards living in the real world where that kind of wisdom from experience will help you.

The college experience should also involve being part of activities and groups. Be as active as you can in everything, without exhausting yourself, and you’ll be rewarded. Also, try to improve your situations by actively changing them yourself. If you find something irritating about campus or anything like that, your best bet is to take charge and change it yourself. I’ve found that organizations (Student Union, the Administration, various Clubs) will usually not do things for you, and you have to solve the problem face to face with people, not over email. College is also a place to challenge your ideas. Don’t be stubborn. Consider alternatives to your predispositions and meditate on the sentiments of others. College will expose you to a plethora of differences between people that you cannot easily find in the real world.

Alright, now that I’ve preached to you as individuals, I think I should say more about Brandeis as a whole. Lighten up. Bring back traditions that have been lost, because tradition is an enormous virtue to communities. I’m talking about Modfest, the “Less You Wear, Less You Pay” Dance, Screw Your Roommate (as it originally was). I know some traditions, like Rocky Horror and Liquid Latex, have also been threatened into extinction. Keep these events alive. Also, clubs should find a way to communicate with each other and use each other’s resources. The Hoot is an amazing resource for advertisement of events, as well as recording videos and posting them on their website. I also believe that the university, and all organizations holding power, should react to situations in a patient, thoughtful, and community-involving way. All too often, quick and rash decisions have led to disaster, like with Gravity, Hindley, and the Student Events funding controversies.

My final words of wisdom are – experience is life, hunger is the best spice, and your main goal in life should be to get to a point where you can die without regrets.

…Because no matter what, it gets done, and it gets done well. It’s because you’re working in the most interesting, most exciting, most rewarding job on campus. Because you’re working for The Hoot. And after four years of working for this newspaper, it is only appropriate that my final article is discussing not just why The Hoot was the best experience of my college career, but why this newspaper is so important to the well-being of this University as a whole.

While The Hoot’s motto is “to acquire wisdom, one must observe.” I, on the other hand, would argue that our true philosophy is “competition breeds quality.” In the previous four years, campus controversy has reached new heights, and, unfortunately, student trust in the Justice was at an all-time low. The spirit of Dusty Baker—along with the lesser evils of misquoting, questionable judgment, and the innumerable stories that fell through the cracks—not only prevented the newspaper from reaching its potential as a muckraking publication, but was reflective of a campus that only had one voice.

And that is why The Hoot is so important. With incidents such as the removal of the Voices of Palestine art exhibit, the debate surrounding a visit by Jimmy Carter, the threatened termination of Donald Hindley, the questions of due process regarding the Mamoon Darwish case, and now, the questionable tactics used during the recent Senator-at-Large elections, one voice is not enough. Because The Hoot and the Justice compete for their headlines, we, in essence, compete in the public arena—if one publication does not dig deep enough, the other one will; if one point of view is left uncovered, it won’t be for long; and if someone is misquoted, there is another platform from which to correct it. The Hoot, from the very beginning, learned from the mistakes of its predecessors—indeed, its first editors broke from within the upper echelons of the Justice’s staff. And with an alternative publication for people to turn to, the Justice has improved as well, creating a cycle of growing excellence for both.

Justice Louis D. Brandeis once wrote that “sunlight is the greatest disinfectant.” However, one source of illumination hardly gives anyone a correct interpretation of what’s ahead. While the Justice has been seen as the professional, Establishment publication on campus, sometimes the truth transcends hierarchy—sometimes, only a community can shine a candle to fight the darkness.

Instead of separating ourselves from our community, we embrace it, reaching out for anyone and everyone to contribute, no matter what their interests, experience, or politics may be. Indeed, this newspaper is so important to this school—and to me in particular—because it is “the other.” It is the path not taken. It is the excitement and pride and camaraderie that comes with doing good on this campus. It’s the most interesting, most exciting, most rewarding thing I have done as an undergraduate.

It’s The Hoot. And I love it.

Development employees and senior staff will work primarily on litter and trash clean-up.

Senior Vice-President of Institutional Advancement Nancy Winship explained, “we’re going to take off our nice clothes and put on gloves and sneakers and clean up every piece of litter we can see.” She added, “the ground crew does a great job [and] we thought we could add a little.”

“We’ve worked very hard to have a beautiful campus and we want to keep it beautiful,” Winship remarked.

When she arrived at the university 15 years ago, she said, “the Great Lawn was a parking lot…there is more open space on this campus than ever before.”

Much of the aesthetic improvement, Winship said, is owned to President Reinharz.

Reinharz, she commented, leads by example. “I have never seen him walk by a piece of litter and not pick it up,” she said.

Along with campus beautification, Brandeca Day will also include a meeting with the university’s new sustainability coordinator, Janna Cohen-Rosenthal ’03.

“We’re all aware of the environment,” said Winship, “and we’re learning from the students.”

As part of her position, Cohen-Rosenthal, explained, she has approached different departments to discuss lessening environmental impact. The development office “approached me to give a talk about how their department could be involved,” she said.

“The part that’s really great,” said Cohen-Rosenthal, “is that they want to…think about how they can improve sustainability.”

Students for Environmental Action Vice-President Matt Schmidt ’11 agreed. Brandeca Day is “a great idea. I’m always in favor of university departments showing initiative on sustainability,” he said.

SEA President Stephanie Sofer ’09 echoed Schmidt’s comments. “It is very exciting to have more members of the Brandeis community get involved in sustainability at Brandeis.”

She continued, “in order to make environmental sustainability ingrained within the culture of this university, faculty and staff must be on board, as well,” she commented.

Winship said she hoped the event might inspire other departments to take similar action. “We hope this will become an event that takes place a number of times a year,” she remarked.