41 minute read
FORUM
Established 1949 Jocelyn Gould, Editor in Chief Jen Geller, Managing Editor Avraham Penso and Natalia Wiater, Senior Editors Gilda Geist and River Hayes, Deputy Editors Brandeis University
Emily Blumenthal, News Editor Sofia Gonzalez, Features Editor Gabriel Frank, Forum Editor, Megan Geller, Sports Editor Luke Liu, Arts & Culture Editor Noah Zeitlin, Photography Editor Yael Hanadari-Levy, Graphic Design Editor Cameron Cushingand Hannah O’Koon, Copy Editors Frances Hoffen and Yona Splaver, Ads Editors Samantha Goldman, Online Editor Andrew Baxter, Hannah Kressel, Eliana Padwa Yvette Sei, Lily Schmidt-Swartz, Judah Weinerman and Maya Zanger-Nadis, Associate Editors
Advertisement
EDITORIALS Encouraging tolerance during Coronavirus outbreak
Commending University’s SipChip intiative As news headlines breed panic about the real but still somewhat distant threat of coronavirus (COVID-19), this board would like to examine how all of this new and constantly-changing information affects the Brandeis community.
The Centers for Disease Control regularly updates their coronavirus situation summary, which says as of press time, “This virus is NOT currently spreading widely in the United States.” The CDC does note, however, that the potential health threat of coronavirus is high, but emphasizes that, “For the general American public, who are unlikely to be exposed to this virus at this time, the immediate health risk from COVID-19 is considered low.”
In other words, there is reason to be wary, but no need for immediate alarm. To put it into perspective, Brandeis students, like any other U.S. residents, are at a far higher risk of contracting a common strain of the flu than COVID-19. According to a report by the CDC, there have been between 32 million and 45 million flu illnesses from Oct. 1 to Feb. 22, and between 18,000 and 46,000 flu deaths in that same time period. Protect yourself from the flu by getting vaccinated at the Health Center, Monday through Friday from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. Prevent the spread of the flu (as well as other illnesses, such as COVID-19) by washing your hands, covering your mouth when you cough or sneeze and staying home when you are sick. In the event that COVID-19 does make its way to Brandeis, the Health Center is prepared to respond, even adding a page to its website with information about COVID-19. According to Administrative Director of the Health Center Diana Denning in an email to the Justice, “the Health Center is following guidelines from [the] CDC for screening, testing, transportation, quarantine etc. The school has protocols for supporting quarantine and isolation if needed.”
In addition to these health measures, Provost Lisa Lynch wrote in emails to the community on Feb. 9, Feb. 26 and March 1 that the University administration is restricting students, faculty and staff from traveling to China, South Korea, Italy and Iran on “official university business.”
This board also condemns the recent spike in racism against Asians and AsianAmericans as a result of the spread of the illness, as COVID-19 was first identified in China. Since then, coverage of the virus has exploded in the media, with U.S. press publishing between five and seven thousand articles on the coronavirus per day by January, according to a Feb. 25 Columbia Journalism Review article. “Viruses spread. Racism even faster it seems,” a Feb. 11 Forbes article noted.
The Brandeis community is stronger for its diversity of students. During this time of uncertainty, this board urges the Brandeis community to reject these harmful stereotypes against our Asian peers and colleagues.
On March 4, the Student Union and the Prevention, Advocacy and Resource Center will launch their new SipChip initiative. SipChips are drink-testing devices which, upon contact with a cold drink, will indicate whether it has been tainted with any common “date-rape” drugs. SipChips will be available in numerous locations around campus, and this test run will help determine future supplies. This board applauds the SipChip initiative and sees it as a positive step forward in sexual violence prevention.
SipChips are a measure designed to allow potential victims to save themselves from danger, and the leaders bringing this initiative to campus see this project as working to change campus culture so that people know sexual assault will not be tolerated. This board commends the way that PARC and the student leaders involved have framed SipChips as working to change campus culture surrounding sexual assault. We hope the campus will keep this sentiment in mind and avoid victimblaming that would result from putting responsibility solely on SipChip-users to protect themselves. SipChips should be implemented as a University norm alongside other sexual violence prevention measures to shift the responsibility away from potential victims. This could mean incorporating SipChips into the Department of Community Living’s event registration process and making them available for people hosting parties offcampus. Event organizers should be able to pick up a supply of SipChips from their Quad Office, have them available throughout the party and be required to return extras the next day.
In a March 2 email to the Justice, Ricki Levitus ’20, one of the students leading the SipChip initiative, explained that many campus organizations, including all 10 Greek Life organizations, will receive
educational presentations about “what Sip Chip is, how to use them, why they are important on both a national and campus scale, and where Sip Chips will be available on campus.” This board commends these efforts to educate campus about the initiative. We hope that these training sessions will also include information about how to use the Chips within specific situations, such as how to test a drink subtly to avoid detection, how to escape a situation if a drink is drugged and how to inform an authority figure of the danger. Moreover, this board hopes that the University is thinking about more ways to implement prevention education and create a culture where sexual violence risk is mitigated as much as possible.
This board beseeches the University to continue the initiative permanently. Currently, SipChips are not being implemented experimentally using CEEF. This board hopes that the University continues to supply SipChips, funding it as needed based on initial popularity. Community Emergency and Enhancement Fund funding is one way to do this, but more sustainable methods might include allocating money from the Student Activities Fund or creating a joint spending plan between different University parties. Regardless of how it is funded, this board hopes that the University will continue to respond to student voices around SipChips and other sexual violence prevention initiatives. We applaud this program and hope to see its expansion in the future.
In order to create a culture of protection and prevention, we also encourage students to pick up a SipChip at the PARC office, Union office, Student Sexuality Information Service office, Health Center, the Stein, the C-Store, Gender and SexualityCenter, Intercultural Center, Gosman, all DCL Quad Offices and at Greek Awareness Council events.
Views News on the HARRISON PAEK/ the Justice
On Feb. 22, United States Democratic Presidential candidates competed for the votes of 36 pledged delegates during the Nevada Caucus. Sen. Bernie Sanders won the caucuses, which demonstrated that he could expand his platform beyond white liberal supporters to minority groups such as Latinos, African Americans and Asian Americans. Does this performance build momentum and prepare him to come out ahead on March 3, Super Tuesday? Of all the current presidential candidates, who do you believe is best equipped to succeed on Super Tuesday, and what is their most likely path to the nomination?
Prof. Maura Jane Farrelly (JOUR)
I’d like to see all news outlets do less “horse race” journalism when it comes to campaigns and more reporting that delves into the costs and possible consequences of the candidates’ various proposals (and also interrogates the cultural, economic, bureaucratic, and political challenges candidates will face in making those proposals a reality). Granted, the kind of journalism I’m calling for IS getting done; when people say “the media” (a vague term…) aren’t covering something, it often means they just haven’t been paying close attention. Good work on the candidates’ policy proposals is being done by journalists. But so long as the horse-race stuff is out there, I’m afraid it’s going to be what attracts people’s attention. Human beings like competitions —and Americans, in particular, seem to like “winners” and “underdogs.” Nevertheless, we might get better elected officials if we weren’t allowed to be distracted by such things.
Maura Jane Farrelly is a professor of American Studies and Journalism.
Nathanial Walker Of the remaining candidates, Bernie Sanders is best equipped for success on Super Tuesday. Having the grassroots funds from earlier months, he’s already been campaigning there, while other candidates have been in the first four states. Despite Joe Biden’s impressive win in South Carolina, this will likely not materialize into success soon. Unless Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s dropping out throws a substantial wrench into calculations, Sanders is more likely to compound on a strong Super Tuesday showing. That said, the likelihood of a contested convention is very high. Fewer candidates in the race may potentially lessen the margin between Sanders and the others; Sanders has a clear path to the largest number of delegates and/or votes, but not above the needed 50%, so the Party can easily award the nomination to someone else. However, there are two considerations increasingly being accepted. First, the Sanders bloc is demonstrated to be the largest constituent group in the Democratic Party, and it has less loyalty to the party elites. Second, awarding a second or third place candidate with the nomination undermines the Democratic Party’s democratic argument, especially considering frustration with the electoral college in 2000 and 2016. Without including the Sanders bloc, a Democratic Party victory in November is considerably less likely. Nathanial Walker is a Ph.D. student studying International Relations at Brandeis University.
With 1,357 delegates at stake on Super Tuesday, Bernie Sanders will win more delegates than any other candidate, with Joe Biden in second place and Mike Bloomberg in third. Based on his strong win in South Carolina, Biden may deny Sanders a majority of Super Tuesday delegates, if moderate voters rally to Biden as the party’s best chance to stop Sanders. Going forward, the nomination will be largely determined by whether third-tier candidates, such as Mike Bloomberg, stay in the race (good for Sanders) or drop out (good for Biden). Prof. Gary Samore (POL)
Gary Samore is the senior executive director of the Crown Center for Middle East Studies and professor of the practice in politics at Brandeis University.
Daniel Ruggles
This question is the question that many voters, pundits, and political scientists are asking: who will be the Democratic nominee? Had I a crystal ball, perhaps this would be easier to answer. We are far too early in this unusually crowded process to make any real predictions about the eventual nominee. For a prediction as to a specific candidate, please refer to the opinion section of any major newspaper. While this drama is compelling, Democrats must contend with the existential crisis gripping their party: a move either towards the left or the center. A progressive candidate and their supporters must accept the reality that they will vie for votes in battleground states in November, potentially jeopardizing a more progressive campaign. Conversely, centrists must contend with a growing progressive faction whose support may be crucial in the primary stage — especially troubling as moderates have not yet coalesced around any one candidate. Regardless of the outcome on Tuesday, a fraying Democratic Party is a liability in November, not an asset. Daniel Ruggles is a Ph.D. student studying American Politics at Brandeis University.
Judah WEINERMAN
CHATTERBOX
Want a break from the partisan gridlock of the Beltway? Want to hear major politicians from all around the globe speak in relative harmony on one subject for once? Want to be on the frontlines of American statecraft and international relations? Boy howdy, do I have a conference for you. It’s another year, so that means it’s time for another American Israel Public Affairs Committee Policy Conference, a three-day celebration of the AmericanIsraeli alliance attended by politicians and Zionists of all stripes. At least, it used to be.
Once a rare bipartisan institution in the ever-shifting world of Congressional pressure groups, AIPAC has dropped the pretense in recent years, going from a support group for all pro-Israel politicians, to a mouthpiece for Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud and the Republican Party. Unless you’re a Democrat beholden to older Jewish voters in New York or Florida, good luck getting an invite.
One figure who will be conspicuously absent from this year’s conference is Democratic candidate for president Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT), who might be the first-ever Jewish presidential nominee of a major political party. In an official Twitter announcement, Sanders wrote that “The Israeli people have the right to live in peace and security. So do the Palestinian people. I remain concerned about the platform AIPAC provides for leaders who express bigotry and oppose basic Palestinian rights. For that reason I will not attend their conference.” Then again, Sanders also skipped the event in 2016 when his opponent Hillary Clinton gave a keynote address, so that’s just business as usual, right? Maybe, but AIPAC’s longtime ally Democratic Majority for Israel has launched a full-blown anti-Sanders offensive, running attack ads against the Vermont Senator in Nevada and the delegate-rich states ready to vote on Super Tuesday.
Perhaps this could be dismissed as a difficult relationship between the AIPAC-world and the broader Sanders coalition, who are far less sunny about the continued existence of the Jewish state than the former kibbutz-dwelling Senator himself, but the cracks are showing well outside of Sanders’ orbit. Sanders’ Senate colleague and fellow presidential candidate Elilzabeth Warren (D-MA) is also choosing to skip the event, giving an affirmative “Yeah” when asked by activists from the staunchly anti-AIPAC advocacy group IfNotNow if she was skipping the event. Okay, so we lost the progressives, but Democratic moderates will surely come to their senses, right? Nope.
This campaign cycle’s centrist Democrat par excellence, former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttegieg, made a big deal about skipping the conference before sheepishly sending in a pre-recorded video message right as he was busy dropping out the race. We’ll miss you, ratboy. Longtime AIPAC allies Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and former Vice President Joe Biden will be speaking by telephone, unwilling to make the trip while they desperately try to eek out a non-defeat on Super Tuesday. Not exactly record turnout.
The lone Democrat actually attending the event will be Michael Bloomberg, with the former New York City mayor even getting a speaking spot of his own. Then again, given the aforementioned bias towards Republicans, maybe the one-time Republican Bloomberg has the edge there.
Don’t get too worried that Bloomberg might have a good time: look what horrible company he will be with. Instead of the sweet platidutinal tones of Buttegieg or an inevitable “You don’t get much snow in Israel, huh?” joke from Klobuchar, AIPAC will instead be treating attendees to a who’s-who of international reactionaries.
The conference is scheduled for major addresses from usual Trumpworld suspects like comedy duo Mike & Mike, AKA Vice President Pence and Secretary of State
Pompeo, Senate Majority Leader and eldritch demon Mitch McConnell (R-KY), sun-bleached mistake Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA).
Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu and Blue & White leader Benny Gantz will both be speaking, looking for a final edge in the “I have American friends” department before they head back to the polls one last time. By the time you read this article, Israel will have just held its third election in 10 months.
What exactly justifies the presence of other kleptocratic-like speakers like Colombia’s Ivan Duque and the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s Félix Tshisekedi, or the attendance of Serbia’s genocide-denying Aleksandar Vucic? Shouldn’t AIPAC strive to represent the values that the AmericanIsraeli relationship is supposedly built upon — democracy, individual liberty, republicanism and equality of opportunity — rather than inviting every two-bit world leader who has negative feelings towards Muslim immigrants?
The most damning guest of all is the inclusion of Austria’s Chancellor Sebastian Kurtz, who until last year ruled alongside the Freedom Party, a far-right organization founded by a group of former SS officers. In what world exactly does a man content working with a group of Nazi nostalgics qualify as any kind of friend of Israel’s, let alone one worth giving a major platform to? For those poor few remaining Democrats making an appearance, like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Democratic Caucus Chair Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), my heart goes out to you. As AIPAC ties its political fates ever tighter to the increasingly tenuous Trump-Bibi alliance, it’s becoming tough to be a full-throated Democratic Zionist in Washington, D.C. AIPAC is making life quite easy for openly pro-Palestinian Democrats like Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rep. Rashida Talib (D-MI), who once would have found themselves run out of town by AIPAC-supported Democrats, but now can skate by with a scant few grumbles and disinvitations.
If AIPAC insists on staying a factional organization, limited only to the most bellicose of Republicans and those select few Democrats gunning for the ex-Catskills set, it risks completely abandoning a generation of young American Jews already tuning the organization out. Just look at what they think of AIPAC’s least favorite candidate. According to polling from Morning Consult, 49% of Democrats between 24 and 38 years old support Sanders, while a whopping 59% between 18 and 23 would cast their vote for the Vermont Senator. In an era where President Trump’s approval rating is 71% among Israelis and 71% of American Jews voted against Trump in 2016, AIPAC risks making itself irrelevant to the exact demographic it claims to fight for. AMANDA PYUN/the Justice
The screw up at the DNC is a self-inflicted injury
By REENA ZUCKERMAN JUSTICE CONTRIBUTING WRITER
Wednesday, Feb.19 marked the first time United States presidential candidate and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg appeared on the debate stage. Bloomberg had only announced his candidacy on Nov. 24, 2019, almost a year and a half after the other candidates declared their run for the presidency. On Jan. 31, the Democratic National Committee changed its debate rules to eliminate the donor and polling requirements. As a result, Bloomberg became eligible to participate in future debates. As the debates have continued since June 2019, the DNC over time has made both the polling and donation requirements stricter. With more and more candidates running for the nomination, most candidates of color dropped out as they were not hitting the polling requirement, but in many cases were still meeting the donor threshold.
The qualifications for the first debate held on June 26-27 of 2019 were: “Attain at least 1% support in a minimum of 3 approved polls at a national level or in the first four primary/ caucus states (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina)” and “a candidate must have received donations from a minimum of 65,000 unique donors, with at least 200 unique donors per state in at least 20 states.” Twenty
candidates qualified. By the sixth debate on Dec. 19, 2019, only seven candidates qualified, only one of whom, businessman Andrew Yang, was a person of color. In order to be on the December debate stage, the candidates had to have “at least four percent support in four different polls” and “financial support from a minimum of 200,000 unique donors, with at least 800 unique donors per state in at least 20 states.” At that time, Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, former Secretary for Housing and Urban Development Julian Castro, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, former Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick and California Senator Kamala Harris were all still in the race. However, none of them qualified to participate.
As the debates winnowed down to mostly white candidates, many party officials, candidates, and Democratic voters started pushing the DNC to change the qualifications for the debates. Booker dropped out after not qualifying for two debates in a row and Harris dropped out having known that she would not make it to the January debate stage. On Dec. 14, 2019, a letter was sent to the DNC signed by Booker, Castro and seven other candidates. The letter urged the DNC to return to an earlier rule of qualification which reads, “either achieving the threshold through polling or through individual contributors — rather than requiring candidates to reach both.” This would have allowed both Castro and Booker to participate in the January debate. However, the Democratic National Committee on multiple occasions refused the request to alter the rules for the candidates of color. However, they then allowed a rule change to bring a white billionaire in Bloomberg on stage for the Feb. 19 debate.
In a tweet on Jan. 31, presidential candidate and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, in an echo of her future attacks on Bloomberg, wrote, “The DNC didn’t change the rules to ensure good, diverse candidates could remain on the debate stage. They shouldn’t change the rules to let a billionaire on. Billionaires shouldn’t be allowed to play by different rules— on the debate stage, in our democracy, or in our government.” The senator was not the only one to criticize the DNC: Many other current and former candidates went on Twitter to express their disdain.
On a macro level, it is important to have Bloomberg on the debate stage just so the hundreds of millions of dollars he has been pouring into advertisements are not the only part of him that voters hear. When on a debate stage, as we saw in the Feb. 19 debate, both moderators and candidates were able to push back on his claims and ask both important and challenging questions. Having to answer tough questions about one’s past and plans for the future should be necessary for Bloomberg to be on the ballot. However, it is not right for the
DNC to change the debate rules to only benefit one candidate, after having refused to do the same exact action earlier, at the end of 2019.
It is also especially problematic given that the qualification the DNC got rid of was the donor qualification. Having donors from all across the country shows depth in someone’s campaign and also shows, in a way, a better representation of how much support the candidates have. Bloomberg bought his way onto the stage without having to ask for donations. The candidates, eventual nominee and the primary process itself should reflect the Democratic party and its values. These values are what makes the Democratic Party’s process better than the Republicans. However, the way the DNC has dealt with the current election and the debates in particular, have in fact gone against the values of democracy and the Democratic primary. The debate is a very important part of the primary process. It is a way for the candidates to reach national audiences while also answering important questions about current events and their plans for the future. In order to stay competitive, candidates need to continue to be on that all-important debate stage. However, in manipulating the process, the Democratic National Committee has cheapened what the debates mean and forced people who had support from many Americans out of the race. It is the epitome of being undemocratic.
The opinions expressed on this page are those of each article’s respective author and do not reflect the viewpoint of the Justice.
The Justice welcomes letters to the editor responding to published material. Please submit letters through our Web site at www. thejustice.org. Anonymous submissions cannot be accepted. Letters should not exceed 300 words, and may be edited for space, style, grammar, spelling, libel and clarity, and must relate to material published in the Justice. Letters from off-campus sources should include location. The Justice does not print letters to the editor and op-ed submissions that have been submitted to other publications. Op-ed submissions of general interest to the University community — that do not respond explicitly to articles printed in the Justice — are also welcome and should be limited to 800 words. All submissions are due Friday at noon. Write to us
The opinions stated in the editorial(s) under the masthead on the opposing page represent the opinion of a majority of the voting members of the editorial board; all other articles, columns, comics and advertisements do not necessarily.
The Justice is the independent student newspaper of Brandeis University. Operated, written, produced and published entirely by students, the Justice includes news, features, arts, opinion and sports articles of interest to approximately 3,500 undergraduates, 900 graduate students, 500 faculty and 1,000 administrative staff.
The Justice is published every Tuesday of the academic year with the exception of examination and vacation periods.
Advertising deadlines: All insertion orders and advertising copy must be received by the Justice no later than 5 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the date of publication. All advertising copy is subject to approval of the editor in chief and the managing and advertising editors. Fine Print The Staff For information on joining the Justice, write to editor@ thejustice.org.
Editorial Assistants News: Leeza Barstein, Jen Crystal Forum: Abigail Cumberbatch Arts: Lizzy Freeman, Jacqueline Wang Photos: Thea Rose Online: Ruohan Chen Graphic Design: Megan Liao
Staff News: Jason Frank, Chaiel Schaffel*, Ella Russell, Hannah Taylor, Jackie Tokayer Features: Haven Dai, Talia Zitner Forum: John Chen, Leon Kraiem, Harrison Paek*, Trevor Filseth*, Angela Self, Vandita Malviya Wilson*, Mehmet Zorluoglu Sports: Emma Ghalili, Jonathan Sochaczevski, Jonah White Arts: Caylie Jeruchimowitz, Huilin Li, Rachel Sterling, Mendel Weintraub Photography: Lauren Berk*, Haven Dai, Zack Katz, Vera Shang Copy: Jane Flautt, Lynn Han, Ora Rogovin, Emily Shen Graphic Design: Sara Fulton, Shinji Rho, Grace Sun * denotes a senior staff member.
In the twenty-four hours before I wrote this article, three candidates dropped out of the democratic presidential primary: Tom Steyer, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Senator Amy Klobuchar. Shortly after this article will be printed, the polls will open in Massachusetts and a basket of other ‘Super Tuesday’ states. The consensus among the pundits is that this is now basically a two-person race between Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders. Bloomberg, my former mayor, is still dumping obscene amounts of money into advertising, but I don’t think people expect him to go very far. Tulsi Gabbard remains a darkly interesting footnote, pulling reassuringly negligible numbers as she continues to apologize for farright leaders around the world. This leaves us with just one other candidate: our own senator, Elizabeth Warren. She’s been the focus of much pressure in the last few hours to follow her recent competitors and drop out, and, if she wishes to remain influential, cast her lot with someone who can actually win.
The trouble with this pressure is that Warren is not purporting to have a shot at winning an outright majority of delegates: she seems, from what I’ve read at least, to be angling for a contested convention in Milwaukee, depriving Biden and Sanders of enough delegates and winning the few needed herself, to have a shot at convincing their own delegates to vote, on a second ballot, for Senator Warren — making her the nominee rather than either of her competitors, despite her having received far fewer votes than either one of them. This poses an obvious democratic (with a small ‘d’) dilemma.
A comparison might be made to the electoral college in a general election: surely it’s unjust, the argument goes, that Donald Trump became president even though Hillary Clinton won millions more votes. And, certainly, that’s problematic. But the silliness of electing presidents via the electoral college shouldn’t make us assume that the alternative, though better, is very reasonable. In the last election, Trump won about 53 million votes while Clinton won about 56 million votes. Both those numbers are so big they’re basically meaningless to me, and the difference between them, though also enormous, is proportionally very slim — about 2%.
The roughly half of the country that voted for Clinton was devastated in 2016 not just by the result, but by the arbitrary way it was obtained. It wasn’t just that they lost — it was that they won, and still they lost. But suppose the popular vote were reversed — that Trump had won 56 million votes and Hillary only 53 million. Or suppose that Hillary had won both the popular vote and the electoral college. In any of these scenarios, half the country is governed by someone they have no faith in. And a country whose people are faithless can easily become a state that is perceived By LEON KRAIEM JUSTICE STAFF WRITER
as illegitimate. If November yields a narrow Democratic victory, this legitimacy problem could be hard to ignore, especially if the current President conjures up doubt, as he often does, about the facts.
Now back to the Democratic primary. Imagine the following contested convention scenario: Nobody receives an outright majority on the first ballot. Bernie Sanders receives a plurality, Biden follows close behind and Warren is way below them, with just enough to muck up the system. What is the democratic thing to do here? There is an easy argument that Sanders should receive the nomination: he got the most votes. But, for the reason I outlined above with regard to the general election, I don’t think that’s as compelling as it might seem at first glance — whether it’s Sanders or Biden, half the people lose. And that’s reasonable enough when there is no other option.
But what about when there is the option to nominate someone who, despite having received very few votes the first time around, may be more acceptable to more people than either of the other two candidates — a mutual-second-choice scenario? This is the democratic argument for nominating Elizabeth Warren in such a scenario, and it is also the argument, put forth by the New York Times editorial board recently, for abolishing
the current convoluted system altogether and replacing it with a national rankedchoice primary in which the person with the broadest base of support, rather than the best consolidated ‘lane,’ would walk away the nominee. (Since the last election, a number of states have adopted ranked-choice voting systems; the Voter Choice MA movement is working to get it here in Massachusetts.)
But in the absence of a better system, we have to make principled decisions about how to use the one we have. That requires thinking not just about numbers, but about where the legitimacy of a government actually comes from — this is a task that all states have to reckon with in this particular historical moment, when the whole world order is being challenged, but it is one with which the opposition to Donald Trump, in particular, has to grapple. The Republican base believes in Trump — often fanatically. At the same time, a vote for Trump in 2016, like a vote for any demagogue in a free election, was not so different from a vote-of-no-confidence in the existing system.
Eking out a Democratic victory in the electoral college in November, even if it succeeds in effecting a peaceful transfer of power back to a competent, reasonably moral adult, will not automatically fill the legitimacyvoid that Trump now claims squatter’s rights to occupy. Neither will a numerical majority in the popular vote. Indeed, it will be hard to achieve that numerical majority, or that electoral victory, unless the candidate who runs against Trump can make a claim whose democratic nature doesn’t begin and end at the ballot box that Tuesday afternoon.
And so, having defended Warren’s pursuit of a contested convention, I want to close with what I think is a better argument for awarding the nomination to a Sanders plurality than one that is based on a delegate count: the Sanders campaign has a credible assertion of legitimacy that no other candidate, absent a majority of delegates, can overcome.
This legitimacy begins, but doesn’t end, with Sanders’ delegates: it comes from the record number of small donations to his campaign. It comes from all the people who have used that campaign as an organizing hub for countless local causes apart from the presidential race — a subscriber to campaign texts receives updates, for example, on local labor strikes. If Warren or Biden can make a better claim to this sort of legitimacy, let them.
But as we march toward the convention, the Democratic Party ought to take democracy — not just delegate counts — seriously. That’s what’s going to matter in November, no matter who ends up as the nominee. ZIHAN QIU/the Justice
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
My name is Robbie Goldstein. I am a primary care doctor at Massachusetts General Hospital, and I’m running to be the next representative in Congress for the 8th District of Massachusetts.
Growing up, my dad was a dentist and my mom managed the office. One patient at a time, they wove their practice into the fabric of the neighborhood. In 2001, I came to Massachusetts to go to college at Tufts University and then stayed to get my medical degree and doctorate in cancer genetics. Today, I’m a primary care doctor for those living with HIV, the LGBTQ community and those affected by substance use disorders.
I have served as a leader and a teacher in the hospital. Throughout the years, too many of my patients face the same challenges — challenges that are bigger than any one person can solve, and have only gotten worse since 2001. Across the 8th District, thousands of people are living without health insurance. Many more are living with food insecurity, housing instability and inadequate access to high quality transportation or a job that pays a living wage.
Over the coming months, I hope to earn your support and your vote. To learn more about me and our campaign for change, please visit www. RobbieForChange.com an @RobbieForChange on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
Friendship should drive self-improvement
Gabriel FRANK IN RETROSPECT
Several weeks ago, I had the privilege of collaborating on the writing of an editorial discussing Sodexo’s recent insertion of special dining pamphlets into various dining locations around campus. At first glance, the pamphlets seemed to be encouraging a healthier diet, instructing students on how to build plates that maintained appropriate portion sizes, how to use water as a means of suppressing one’s appetite and secretly physically exert oneself doing mundane tasks in order to burn calories. Evidently, these seemingly harmless pamphlets encourage weight loss, something many attempting to have a healthier lifestyle do not seek to do.
In fact, these pamphlets may have had the opposite effect, pressuring on individuals who may be insecure about their eating habits or other aspects of their daily dietary routines. To me, such pamphlets are a manifestation of the harmful social phenomenon known as diet culture, where thinness is worshipped as an equivalent to good character and moral virtue. Under this detrimental logic, anyone who does not fit this model is, to some extent, less worthy of the admiration of others. Clearly, this ideology is an extreme one and was most certainly not the intent of the pamphlets. On the other hand, there was clearly some passive form of unfairly reprimanding those who may not make the best dietary choices. Why they do so, however, is no business of Sodexo’s and to overgeneralize what may be a very tough choice for many on campus and elsewhere is a grave mistake. While I think Sodexo’s message here was both positive and well-intentioned, it was poorly executed.
Since the publication of the editorial, the pamphlets have been promptly removed from dining halls. Sodexo made the right choice in doing away with them, but I still stand behind the pamphlet’s original intentions. Make no mistake, I believe that diet culture is wrong and that to pressure anyone into making dramatic changes in their lifestyle out of a lack of respect for their worth as a person due to their appearance is outright immoral. Conversely, however, I also believe that there should be a collective encouragement of a healthy, active lifestyle for all, that reflects on both a desire for self-improvement as opposed to validation in the eyes of others — as well as artificial standards of beauty and fitness. Indeed, I believe that encouraging selfimprovement within ourselves by endorsing a healthier lifestyle, whatever form that may take, should be an important aspect of one’s life. This was the mark that the Sodexo pamphlets missed, but I nonetheless believe in one’s right to speak to someone concerning dietary habits or other aspects of their lifestyle they may believe to be detrimental.
Take, for example, an abuser of highly potent and addictive narcotics such as methamphetamine or cocaine. It is quite likely that a friend or family member of said addict would see these habits as incredibly harmful and even life-threatening, to the point of staging an intervention or forcing their beloved to enter a rehabilitation program. Here, the friend is doing this not out of a desire for self-validation or some societal conception of an ideal state of being for everyone, but out of genuine love and concern for their companion. This is top of the belief that they can do better and not exist in this state of dependence on harmful, debilitating substances. In this case, why should something such as diet be any different? There are dietary habits which are significantly less healthy than others, which may contribute to an individual’s poor health and livelihood. In my view, any true friend of an individual with these habits, if he or she knows why they are occuring, has an obligation to speak with them about the harm they are causing to their health. One real life example of this concept is the obesity epidemic in the United States, where the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that over forty percent of adults are obese, with a quarter of them classified as severely obese. Health complications associated with obesity include heart disease, stroke, type-2 diabetes and numerous deadly cancers. Knowing this, as well as the health risks associated with obesity, encouraging those who may suffer from it alter their lifestyle is necessary.
Using these examples, people should (albeit, far less extremely) encourage others to engage in dietary self improvement in a manner that is constructive, healthy and done out of love. This is what differentiates constructive criticism from the lifestyle questioning that were present in the messages within Sodexo’s pamphlets, on top of having people actually approach selfimprovement in a way that yields positive results. Ultimately, body positivity and a healthy approach to changing one’s diet can go hand in hand and it’s up to us, not a caterer or corporation, to see that it does.
WBBALL: Judges end 3–11 in the UAA
CONTINUED FROM 16
University of Chicago, the Judges owned a five-game losing streak as they looked towards their final game of the regular season.
Violets 91, Judges 73
This past Saturday, Feb. 29, marked Senior Day, as the Judges honored seniors Nicholson, Rubinstein and St. Amand. Additionally, the Judges closed out their regular season at home against the New York University Violets. After the first quarter, the Judges held onto a narrow lead, 16–15. However, the Judges were significantly outscored through the following three quarters. After the second, the Judges fell behind NYU 41–28, and continued to trail 68–52 after the third quarter, ultimately losing 91–73. Despite the loss, senior Nicholson led the team with 18 points, three other Judges scored in double digits. In her final game, Rubinstein scored 15, while Jillian Petrie ’21 added 12 and Reavis scored 10 points. Nicholson also led the team with 10 rebounds, concluding her career with her 10th double-double of the season. The Judges made only 37% of their field goal attempts, with a meager 25.9% of 3-point shots made. The Judges conclude their regular season with a six-game losing streak and a record of 13–12.
Meeting: Wednesdays at 6 p.m.
Want to be more than just a spectator?
Write for Sports!
Contact Megan Geller at
sports@thejustice.org
Images Courtesy of Creative Commons
NOAH ZEITLIN/the Justice
ONE LAST TIME: Brandeis’ Eric D'Aguanno ’20 dribbles out of his college career in a game against New York University on Saturday.
MBBALL: Season ends with a win against NYU
CONTINUED FROM 16
Bears 77, Judges 70
The Judges put in a greatly improved performance back home on Feb. 21, but it was not enough to take down the Washington University in St. Louis Bears.
Playing their second straight game against a nationally ranked opponent, Brandeis went step for step with WashU in the first half, emerging with a 38–34 lead. The game stayed tight for most of the second half, with a D’Aguanno three-pointer putting the hosts ahead 54–52. That woke up the Bears, who went on to outscore the Judges 17–2 over a six minute stretch thanks to a barrage of threepointers. Now trailing by 12 with just over four minutes to play, Darret Justice '23 got the Judges back within single digits with a three-pointer. The Bears immediately responded in kind, as Jack Nolan nailed the Bears’ third consecutive three-pointer to make it 72–60. In the final minute, WashU had the ball, ahead 75–65 and it looked like they would see the game out comfortably from there. Instead, the Judges forced a turnover and took advantage of a missed one and one to score five straight points and cut the lead in half with 26 seconds left. Brandeis forced a five-second violation and a held ball in the next three seconds of action, but turned the ball over on one possession and missed three shots on the next, allowing the Bears to escape with the win.
The Judges shot just 40%, but Chandler Jones ’21, D’Aguanno and Sawyer all scored double figures.
Judges 101, Maroons 95; 2OT
It took an extra ten minutes, but the Judges snapped their losing streak in an incredible game against the University of Chicago Maroons on Feb. 23.
Chicago led 58–43 with 13 minutes to go in the second half, but Brandeis went on a 21–5 run to take the lead. Trailing 74–71 with under a minute to go, Sawyer tied the score with the final three points of regulation before Dylan Lien ’23 missed a chance to win the game at the buzzer. In the first overtime period, the Judges took an 86–79 lead with 38 seconds on the clock and looked like they had completed the comeback victory. Instead, the Judges missed three consecutive free throws and the Maroons scored seven straight points to send the game to double overtime. With Sawyer — who scored a career-high 27 points — on the bench after fouling out, the Judges were tied at 91 with two minutes left before scoring six straight points, five of which were by Jones. Chicago would score twice more, but Jones countered with a pair of free throws after both baskets, sealing the once unlikely win.
Jones scored 21 points along with 10 rebounds and six assists. Lien scored 18 points including 4–5 from outside the arc, and D’Aguanno added 15. Brandeis shot 9–17 from three.
Judges 72, Violets 69
Brandeis closed out the regular season with an unexpectedly close win against the last-place New York University Violets on leap day.
Seniors D’Aguanno and Sawyer were honored before the game, and it was announced that Sawyer would be returning to the team next season as an eligible graduate student. D’Aguanno, making his lone start of the season scored a layup to tie the game at 10 early on, as part of a 21–6 run that put the Judges in front by 11. NYU clawed their way back into it, coming within two before a Lien jump shot brought the Judges’ lead at the half to 34–30. The Violets opened the second half on an 8–2 run to take the lead, but Lien took it back with a three-pointer and the Judges stayed ahead from that point on. Despite this, Brandeis never pulled away and the visitors hit a three-pointer to make it as close as 70–69 in the final minute. Jones missed at the other end and NYU had a chance to shock the hosts for their second UAA win at the buzzer. Instead, Matan Zucker ’23 made the play of the game by taking a charge with seven seconds left, and D’Aguanno scored his 1014th and 1,015th points of his Brandeis career at the free throw line to make it a three-point game. Violets’ senior Jimmy Martinelli missed a would-be game tying three at the horn.
Jones, Sawyer, Lien and Lawrence Sabir ’21 all scored at least 10 points, while Zucker had eight points, five rebounds, four assists, and two steals in addition to taking the game deciding charge. The Judges only turned the ball over twice all game, while forcing 13 NYU giveaways.
Regular Season Recap
The Judges finish the season in third place in the UAA and will require an At-Large bid to qualify for the Division III NCAA Tournament, an unlikely but not impossible proposition. Short of that, they could qualify for the DIII East Coast Athletic Conference Tournament, which they won a year ago.
Sawyer finished the regular season as the team’s leading scorer with 390 points, with Jones next at 345. Jones led the team with 187 rebounds, while finishing tied with Hagerty for 72 assists. Jones also led the Judges in steals and blocks. Reigning UAA Defensive Player of the Year Lawrence Sabir saw his season interrupted by injury, but still managed to post 61 assists in 16 games. Jones and Sawyer each started all 25 games under second year Head Coach Jean Bain.
FENCING:
CONTINUED FROM 16
Massachusetts Institute of Technology as the Overall six-Weapon Team Champion and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst as the Club Teams six-Weapon Team Champion.
The Brandeis fencing head coach is Jennie Salmon, who is in her second season with the Judges. Assistant coaches are Arpad Horvath (fifth
12 athletes awarded UAA recognition
season), Matthew Zich (second season) and Jeff Salmon (first season). The Armorer is Al Merritt who is in his fourth season. The men’s captains are Chris Armstrong '20, Charlie Catino '20, Shawn Pyatesky '20 and Ian Quin '20. The women’s captains are Devon Brown '21, Jessica Gets '20, Hannah Mui '20 and Madeleine Vibert '21. In addition, the University Athletic Association named its Winter 2019-20 Academic All-UAA team, and Brandeis University student-athletes earned 63 honors. Within the UAA, All-Academic recognition is awarded to studentathletes who have completed at least one full year of college and who carry a minimum cumulative grade point average of 3.300. In fencing, 12 Brandeis athletes were named to the team. They include Devon Brown ’21, Dakota Levy ’20, Mia Li ’20, Jess Spear ’21, Madeleine Vibert ’21 Chris Armstrong ’20, Sam Chestna ’20, Trevor Filseth ’20, Alexander Holtmann ’21, Harrison Kaish ’22, Shawn Pyatetsky ’20 and Garrett Tordo ’21.
In an interview with the Justice, Levy explained, “It feels good to be recognized not only for our athletic accomplishments but for our academic ones as well ... At Brandeis, the “student” part of student-athlete really means something [and] academics are a vital part of the student-athlete experience here at Brandeis.”
The Judges will travel to Ithaca, NY to visit Cornell University in two weeks to compete in the National Collegiate Athletic Association Regionals.
Join Photos! Capture the best parts of campus Join Photos! Capture the best parts of campus
Email Noah Zeitlin and Sarah Katz at photos@thejustice.org Email Noah Zeitlin at photos@thejustice.org
Illustration by MORGAN MAYBACK/the Justice, NOAH ZEITLIN/the Justice; Photos by ANDREW BAXTER/the Justice, NATALIA WIATER/the Justice, YURAN SHI/the Justice, NOAH ZEITLIN/the Justice, SARAH KATZ/the Justice, ZACH KATZ/the Justice
Meeting: Sundays at 6 p.m.
just f eatures Everyone has a story
