The Brandeis Hoot 1/25/2019

Volume 16 Issue 2

“To acquire wisdom, one must observe” www.brandeishoot.com

January 25, 2019

Brandeis University’s Community Newspaper · Waltham, Mass.

Forum highlights issues with accessibility

By Ryan Spencer and Sabrina Chow editors

PHOTO BY SABRINA CHOW/THE HOOT

ACCESSIBILITY FORUM

Accesibility forum highlights issuses on campus.

Members of the Brandeis community shared experiences with disability and frustrations with accessibility on campus at a community forum, where administrators pledged their support in resolving these issues, on Tuesday.

From the transportation and housing available to students with disabilities, to the quality of food labels in the dining hall, to the amount of paperwork needed to prove learning disabilities and more, members of the Brandeis community described accessibility on campus as inadequate.

“This is unacceptable,” said Sasha Manus ’21, who shared her

experiences as a student with cerebral palsy and called on the university to do a better job meeting its professed dedication to social justice and inclusivity. Manus described being locked out of classes due to a lack of accessible buildings, being hospitalized after having to use a step stool during lab and having to wait weeks for appointments with Student Accessibility Support (SAS).

She said she had been hospitalized after eating food from the dining hall and had been called a “brain-damaged twat” by a professor when she tried to get a class moved to a wheelchair accessible classroom.

“I chose Brandeis because I love the community, but every time I See FORUM, page 4

Meet the winter election candidates

By Sabrina Chow and Rachel Saal editors

Executive Board: Secretary

Simran Tatuskar ’21 Tatuskar is currently co-chair

for the Health and Safety Committee on the Union and has been a part of many projects through her position, including getting condoms put in first-year residential bathrooms, putting pads and tampons in the major campus bathrooms and working with Brandeis Pro-Choice to get Plan

B pills. She would like to be involved in more projects on campus and hopes that as Secretary, she would have more power to start initiatives.

“I’m coming in halfway through the year when it’s already a transition period, so mainly I just want to make the transition pretty

seamless and just be able to assist in whatever the current duties already are,” she told The Brandeis Hoot.

“I know how much work goes into planning an event and because of that I will always show up to anything,” Tatuskar told The Hoot.

Allocations Board Three-semester Representative to the Allocations Board Ruizhang Zhi ’21 Zhi is running to help more See ELECTION, page 4

Univ. speaks out on proposed Title IX changes

By Celia Young and Ryan Spencer editors

Brandeis joined the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts (AICUM) in submitting a public comment against the proposed changes in Title IX rules to the Department of Education. President Ron Liebowitz announced the decision, criticizing the overly prescriptive and “one size fits all” proposed model in an email to the

Brandeis community on Thursday afternoon.

Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 endeavors to protect people from discrimination on the basis of sex in educational institutions that receive financial federal assistance.

“I am concerned that the overly prescriptive model proposed by the Department of Education will not best serve our students or our community,” Liebowitz wrote in the email, which emphasized the See TITLE IX, page 2

Inside This Issue:

News: Former Mueller, Comey attorney speaks Ops: Sandberg should make Facebook better Arts: ‘Proper Bantah’ interviews Brandeisians Features: Cancer survivor gives back EDITORIAL: Improve accessibility on campus

PHOTO BY SABRINA CHOW/THE HOOT

BERNSTEIN MARCUS ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING HOUSE

Swimming

Page 5 Page 6 Men’s team does ‘swimmingly;’ women’s sink.

Page 13 Page 9 SPORTS: PAGE 12 Page 11

WBRS WBRS concert headliner Sidney Gish welcomes midyears.

ARTS: PAGE 16

NEWS

2 The Brandeis Hoot

Brandeis joins Mass. colleges in concern over proposed Title IX changes TITLE IX, from page 1

importance of allowing colleges and universities to create their own policies and procedures, “while ensuring equity, fairness, and respect for all.”

The email continued, “The Title IX regulations should allow universities discretion in determining the appropriate investigative models for resolving complaints and not attempt to impose a ‘one size fits all’ process on all schools.”

“Brandeis is firmly committed to ensuring that all members of our community can study and work in an environment free from sexual harassment and discrimination,” he continued. “I believe that these comments reflect that commitment.”

The email comes after the Brandeis Student Union considered releasing a public comment in their weekly meeting on Sunday, Jan. 20. Sagie Tvizer ’19 presented a draft resolution to make a public comment to the Union, which the Senate will vote on this Sunday. The last sentence of the resolution reads, “the Student Union affirms and believes survivors,” said Tvizer.

In an interview with The Brandeis Hoot, Tvizer emphasized that anyone can make a public comment and called for Brandeis students to write public comments in a Facebook post in the Brandeis MyDeis class groups.

The statement on behalf of the AICUM criticizes six proposed rule changes by the Department of Education.

The AICUM summarized the consequences of these rules, saying, “many aspects of the proposed regulations may undermine rather than advance Title IX’s very purpose—to provide legal protection against discrimination on the basis of sex.”

The statement criticized the proposed changes, saying, “the proposed regulations may make it more difficult to maintain the privacy of both complainants and

respondents; make matters more time-consuming and expensive to resolve; and eliminate key aspects of the discretion that presently enables institutions to act in the best interests of all parties.”

One proposed rule would require live hearings where each party can cross examine the other party. The cross would be conducted by the party’s advisor of choice, or, if they do not have one, one will be appointed for them.

Any witness or party must be willing to be cross examined, or, if they refuse, the decision-maker of the case is not allowed to rely on the statements of the witness or party.

The AICUM raised concerns that the cross examination requirement is too restrictive, too legalistic for educational institutions, may deter complaints and harm the goal of stopping harassment by intimidating witnesses and may exacerbate financial differences between those with hired lawyer advisors than those without hired advisors.

The AICUM document also spoke about possible recommendations to the proposed rule, such as not requiring a live hearing in every case, only requiring parties to undergo cross examination (if at all) and allowing for more university discretion in handling complaints and hearings.

Another proposed rule states that if the conduct alleged by the complainant would not constitute sexual harassment under an earlier definition, the complaint must be dismissed. This defines sexual harassment as “severe, pervasive and objectively offensive” that denies a person equal access to the university or college, according to the AICUM statement.

The document raises concern over this rule, saying, “Requiring the dismissal of a complaint of harassment that is not severe and pervasive will generally discourage reporting of incidents, as students and employees will fear their grievances will be minimalized.” The AICUM recommends

removing the required dismissal rule.

Another rule requires the university or college to use the “clear and convincing evidence standard,” a higher standard than the “preponderance of the evidence standard,” also used in harassment cases. A university or college can only use the “preponderance of the evidence standard” if the university uses the standard with other conduct code violations that carry the same maximum disciplinary sanction as sexual harassment.

The AICUM criticized this proposed rule, saying the Department of Education was essentially imposing their authority over disciplinary proceedings not involving sexual harassment and therefore out of the Department of Education’s jurisdiction. The AICUM also questioned the practicality of changing the standard of proof for proceedings.

Another rule would require a copy of the investigative report to be sent to the parties for their review. The AICUM expressed concern that this could reveal highly confidential information, which could then be published online.

The document raised concern with proposed rules which would require Title IX officers receiving complaints to file a formal complaint when they have “actual knowledge” of multiple people complaining against an individual, as well as provide written notice to known parties which includes the identities of the parties involved in the incident.

AICUM states that this exposes complainants who want to remain anonymous and could deter complainants from seeking assistance and support. The group noted that many universities receive more disclosures of inappropriate conduct than they receive formal complaints.

The document also noted that “Requiring Title IX Coordinators to file complaints can create conflicts of interest or the appearance of bias.”

January 25, 2019

IN THE SENATE: Jan. 20, 2019 •

Sagie Tvizer ’19 attended the Senate meeting to ask the senate to support the opposition to the revised Title IX regulations announced by the US Department of Education. According to Tvizer, the revisions create conditions for fewer survivors to want to go to the Title IX office and make it harder for them to step forward. The Senate will vote on the issue at the next meeting, to allow senators to explore the issue further. If the vote passes, the Senate, on behalf of the student body, will publish a public comment.

It will also encourage individuals to send letters to the Department of Education.

•

Vice President Aaron Finkel ’20 introduced a theme for this Semester in the Senate: “Brandeis Teams Up.” The emphasis will be on better collaboration, between members of the Union as well as the administration. “We are going to do things right this semester,” said Finkel.

•

Finkel announced to Chairs of Senate committees that he will have a meeting with them within the next two weeks.

Chairs are to provide a plan for the semesters as well as a list of members. He also announced the creation of a comprehensive code of conduct for the Senate.

•

Senator Kent Dinlenc ’19 proposed to rename the Bylaws Committee to the “Rules Committee.” The merging of the Campus Operations Working Group (COW-G) and Health & Safety Committees into a “Campus Operations” Committee. The Senate will vote on these changes next week.

•

Dinlenc and Leigh Salamon ’19 proposed a change to Article X of the Student Union Bylaws; if someone is removed from a position they cannot run for any Student Union position for one academic year. The Senate will vote on this change next week.

•

The Sustainability Committee reported that they are currently working on making sure that there are recycling bins in all residence halls. COW-G is working on making the Rabb steps safer and the start of the menstrual product initiative.

- Sasha Skarboviychuk

Menstrual products placed in eight bathrooms

By Celia Young editor

Brandeis facilities has placed menstrual products, including tampons and pads, in eight bathrooms around the Brandeis campus as part of the Student Union menstrual products initiative.

The initiative was spearheaded by the Union Campus Operations Working Group (COW-G) and the Health and Safety committee.

The project is being funded and stocked through Facilities Services, rather than the Student Union. Though the budget has not been finalized, COW-G chair Richard Kisack ’19 says the proposed budget for the semester was between $5,000 and $10,000. The Union is waiting for facilities to confirm the budget.

Kisack spoke about his hopes for the project, saying, “I would

hope that students economically are a little less burdened and I would hope that students feel comfortable on campus and see the fiscal ways that campus actually serves them.”

The initiative began in fall 2016 and went through a trial period in the academic year of 2017.

Six bathrooms were stocked with 8,000 menstrual products for one month in March 2017 to test the project, and funded by a Senate Money Resolution (SMR) for just under $1,000. The resolution passed unanimously.

After this trial period, the Union examined data collected on pads and tampons and sent out a survey. Members of the Union met with Jim Gray, the vice president for operations, in fall 2018, where Facilities agreed to supply the menstrual products. After the meeting, Kisack released a survey to find out what high traffic bath-

rooms would be preferred by the student body to have menstrual products.

The products were stocked in the eight bathrooms, including the bathrooms in the first floor of Farber Library, the first floor of Goldfarb Library, the mailroom, the first floor of the Shapiro Campus Center (SCC), the first floor of the Gerstenzang Science Library, the first floor of Sherman, the first floor of Mandel and the SCC’s second floor gender neutral bathroom.

Kisack hopes that the initiative will be permanently funded by Facilities. “Tampons and pads are extremely expensive,” he said, and continued that, because the majority of the Brandeis population use menstrual products, this initiative is important to keep running.

Kisack said that one of the biggest challenges to complete the

project was slow communication and high turnover in the Union, which made the initiative difficult to continue. Kisack was proud, however, that the project has been fully implemented.

“It shows that the campus, that the Brandeis Student Union as well as Brandeis University cares about our students and cares about their well-being and their life and making sure they enjoy their time while at Brandeis,” he said.

Director of Communications for the Union, Rachel McAllister ’21, worked on the project by sharing information and communicating with the rest of the Union. She said that, at least from word of mouth, the project had been well received by the student body.

McAllister also spoke about her hopes for the project. “I hope that they like the products I hope that

if they don’t that we continue to get feedback and we continue to change and modify what we’re doing,” she said.

“I think this is filling a need that we’ve heard for a long time.”

PHOTO FROM HOOT ARCHIVES

January 25, 2019

NEWS 3

The Brandeis Hoot

Case to decide A-board jurisdiction over Union

By Celia Young editor

A Student Union Judiciary case will decide whether or not the Student Union is a club, and as a result, whether or not the Allocations Board has jurisdiction over Student Union funding. The case was filed by Student Union President Hannah Brown ’19, Chief of Staff Emma Russell, and Vice President Aaron Finkel ’20 on the evening of Jan. 15, and is expected to be decided this Sunday the 27th, according to Associate Justice Morris Nadjar ’19.

By deciding this case, the judiciary will establish a precedent for how the Student Union is funded.

Morris hopes to resolve the trend of animosity between the allocations board (A-board) and the executive board (E-board) of the Union with this decision.

“We want to be as transparent as possible,” Morris said, about the judicial hearing process. “We want to make sure also that the university has precedent, and that we understand the Student Union’s place now and for future generations to avoid these kinds of conflict.”

The judiciary, which will deliberate in the Student Union conference room on Sunday, and is given “final authority on the interpretation of the Student Union Constitution,” according to Article IV of the Union constitution.

Chief Justice Gaby Gonzalez Anavisca ’19 will preside over the proceedings.

The three representatives from the E-board of the Union presented four claims for the judiciary to consider when filing their case.

The first claim was that the Student Union is not a club as defined by the constitution, but rather is a governing body for clubs and organizations.

Finkel spoke about the first point, saying, “We are arguing that the Student Union is not a club. It is the government. A-board is just a mechanism to distribute funds.”

According to the second claim, because the Union is not a club, “the Student Union is not under the jurisdiction of the Allocations Board.”

The third claim is that the Student Union is guaranteed the entirety of its benchmark by the constitution, and the fourth claim defines the word benchmark as, “the minimum amount guaranteed to a Secured Club.” The fourth claim goes on to state that the A-board makes decisions on requests from secured clubs for more than their benchmarks.

The Judiciary met over skype after the case was filed, said Morris, to discuss the case. Sunday, the judiciary will meet with representatives from the A-board including Co-Chair Aseem Kumar ’19 and Brown to discuss each side of the issue.

Morris spoke about the issues of the case, saying, “The core issue, at least for my understanding, is that the student union is not a club. Therefore, being recognized, chartered or secured would mean nothing.”

He continued, “And this is where the confusion then comes in, does A-board control the funds? What do we do about the funds that the Student Union has?

Everything else is pretty much relevant to that statement, like the benchmark amounts. So really it’s just the question of: Is [the Student Union] a club?”

Morris described the two sides of the argument. If the Student Union is a secured club, the A-board would be able to decide how much to fund the Union, as it has done in the past.

This has caused some controversy within the Union, which began when the A-board decid-

ed not to fund the Union an additional $12,000 that the Union requested. The A-board decision was vetoed by Brown, but the A-board again unanimously overturned the presidential veto.

The Union was allocated $38,000 for the fiscal year of 2019, and the additional $12,000 would have allowed the Union to achieve their benchmark funding goal of $50,000. The A-board allocation was based on the expenditure of the Union last fiscal year, at $30,000, and the A-board felt that the Union did not provide substantial reasoning for the request for the additional $12,000.

Roland Blanding ’21, an A-board representative, spoke about the reason for allocating less money to the Union. “There has been a history of the E-board not utilizing all of the funds they’re given in the first place,” he said. “They did not use even 80 percent of the money they were allocated last year, and that is why we felt justified allocating [them] less than last year.”

But Finkel spoke to the feeling that A-board powers had gone unchecked. “Under the constitution, A-board is not entitled to just make decisions by themselves,” he said.

If the Student Union is a secured club, but the judiciary decides that the term “benchmark” refers to a minimum funding goal, the Union would be guaranteed the $50,000 by the A-board, and so would other secured clubs.

But clubs often receive much more or much less than their constitutionally defined benchmark. Brandeis Television (BTV), for example, has a benchmark of $15,000, but was allocated just under $3,000 for the fiscal year of 2019. Club Sports has a benchmark of $175,000 but was allocated just over $240,000. The Waltham Group and the Campus Activities Board both receive over

$30,000 more than their respective benchmarks.

If the benchmark were to be defined as a minimum amount for funds allocation, all secured clubs would get at least the amount defined in the constitution. To change that benchmark value, a constitutional amendment would have to pass with a two-thirds vote from the members of the student body who voted.

But the A-board argues that a benchmark is a goal, not a minimum value. “A benchmark by definition is a standard. It is not a baseline and it is not a minimum.

For that you can refer to Webster’s dictionary,” Blanding said.

Blanding also spoke about the possible consequences of the benchmark amount being treated as minimum.

“I think that it would be terrible if it came to be that clubs… weren’t able to get funding because we have to set aside tens of thousands of dollars to clubs that wouldn’t use the money because of a misinterpretation of the meaning of the word benchmark,” he said.

If the Student Union is not a chartered, secured or recognized club, then the E-board argues that it is not under the jurisdiction of A-board. This leaves the question of how the Union would be funded open for debate. As Morris put it, “who would they then report to if not to A-board?”

Morris continued, “Animosity is growing between the Union. It’s also a matter of what is A-board’s position. If the Student Union feels that ‘we’re assigned this and that we can have all the funding that we’re entitled to,’ it kind of leaves the question of who’s putting the checks and balances on the Student Union [and] where its funds are being allocated.”

Finkel spoke about possible alternate ways the Union could be funded without the A-board, such

as how other universities fund their unions through a senate vote or the Department of Student Activities. Finkel believes the case will be resolved in favor of the E-board, saying, “I’m confident that they will see reason and say that a small group of people cannot simply make decisions like this, that involve a lot of money without consulting anybody.”

Blanding spoke about possible consequences of having the Union fund itself, saying it would lack accountability and would undermine A-board’s authority.

The constitution as it currently stands refers to the word “benchmark” in Section 2 Article 1-1 when describing the Union government fund, saying, “[The] Union Government Fund … shall fund the affairs and operations of the Union and shall be distributed to the Union Government. A benchmark for this fund shall be $50,000.”

The A-board is defined by the Student Union Constitution Article 5 Section 1 as, “The Allocations Board shall establish the budgets from the Student Activities Fund for Chartered and Secured Clubs in accordance with this Constitution and its Bylaws, and shall publish their allocations each funding period, henceforth referred to as a marathon, to the Student Union and to the student body.”

The judiciary is provided with resources and information including the E-board claims and relevant sections of the constitution by Clerk of the Judiciary Abdul Rehman ’19.

The judiciary decides all cases by a majority vote of the justices present and voting, according to the constitution. All hearings are public, though the judiciary can vote to make them private.

Former official speaks on Russia investigation

By Ryan Spencer editor

A former federal official spoke about the Trump administration and the Special Counsel investigation into 2016 election interference with members of the Brandeis community at the Heller School on Wednesday.

Chuck Rosenberg, who resigned from his role as the head of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) after criticizing President Donald Trump in September 2017, previously served as counsel to FBI Director Robert Mueller from 2002 to 2003 and as chief of staff and senior counselor to FBI Director James Comey from 2013 to 2015.

He spoke on the Brandeis campus as the Special Counsel investigation led by Mueller examines whether individuals on the Trump campaign aided or had advanced knowledge of Russian interference in the 2016 election and whether Trump has sought to obstruct the investigation.

“It seems to me that every time Mueller drops something into the public domain, we are surprised,” Rosenberg said. “We think we know about it because we read about it or we talk about it, but we

don’t.”

His statement comes amid a constant flow of media reports and speculation since Trump took office about the Special Counsel investigation and its implications for the presidency. Comparing the public’s knowledge of the investigation to the tip of an iceberg, Rosenberg said he expects the public knows about one tenth of the information which Mueller knows.

“We think we know a lot about the obstruction piece because of things the President has said and done—whether its asking Director Comey to go easy on Mike Flynn or tweeting that certain people under investigation should stay strong, meaning shouldn’t testify, or hinting at the plenary pardon powers that he has or firing Director Comey—they all seem obstructive to us, but obstruction of justice actually requires more than that,” Rosenberg said. “It requires intent.”

Rosenberg explained that intent has a particular legal definition and is complicated by untested questions of presidential power.

There is a “serious argument that the President, any president, has a plenary Article 2 powers to fire members of the executive branch,” according to Rosenberg,

who said he does not subscribe to that particular argument.

In May of 2017, Trump fired FBI Director Comey, a move which fueled speculation that the president was attempting to impede the investigation into Russian election hacking and possible collusion with the Trump campaign.

“Can a president fire the director of the FBI? Absolutely, there’s no question about it,” Rosenberg said. “Can he do it for corrupt purposes? That is where the debate begins.”

Rosenberg noted additional questions that remain unanswered. “We don’t know whether a president can be charged [with a crime] while in office, we don’t know if a president can pardon himself,” he said, noting that “a lot of this stuff has not been litigated, has not been adjudicated.”

Even when Mueller concludes his investigation, according to Rosenberg, it remains to be seen how much of that report—if any—is made available to the public.

When finished, the Mueller report, according to Rosenberg, will go to the Attorney General who will decide what parts of the report to make public. Rosenberg described Bill Barr, Trump’s nominee for Attorney General, as a

“man of integrity” who is “well regarded in the Justice Department as an institutionalist.”

“I am going to make as much information available as I can, consistent with the rules and regulations,” Barr said before the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this month according to CBS. On the question of whether congress would be able to view the report if it were not to be made public, Rosenberg said, “I think it’ll be a heck of a fight.”

“I can imagine a scenario under which we don’t see it,” Rosenberg said.

Noting the complexities of the Mueller investigation and the many witness, documents and institutions being examined, Rosenberg described the Mueller investigation as “moving at the speed of light.”

“Having worked for Mueller, I can tell you unreservedly that I have never seen a human being work harder than Mueller,” he said.

Rosenberg also spoke on his decision to resign as head of the DEA after he criticized the President for a speech in which Rosenberg says Trump condoned police violence.

“When you guys put somebody in the car and you’re protecting

their head, you know, the way you put their hand over?” Trump said in the speech to law enforcement agents in New York which led Rosenberg to resign, according to NBC News. “Like, don’t hit their head, and they just killed somebody — don’t hit their head, I said, you can take the hand away, okay?”

According to Rosenberg, after Trump’s speech he wrote an email to his entire workforce condemning the President’s words.

Rosenberg said he explained in the email, “We’re better than this, we do not behave this way, we are tethered to a set of rules and a set of values and to a constitution which requires us to treat those in our custody with great care.”

“The notion that a president, any president, would condone police violence, I thought was dangerous in a whole bunch of ways,” Rosenberg said, “One is it sends the absolute wrong signal to our communities, two it sends the absolute wrong signal to our cops and three it make their jobs more difficult and more dangerous.”

Rosenberg’s comments came as part of the Heller School’s “Conversations with the Dean.” A full video of the discussion can be found on the Heller School’s Facebook page.

4 NEWS

The Brandeis Hoot

January 25, 2019

Winter election candidate profiles clubs get the funding they desire and helping the ones who have a dream, according to an email sent to The Hoot. Zhi was the president of the Student Union at his high school and is currently the treasurer of Brandeis Chinese Cultural Connection (BC3).

“Reallocating the funding from the trivial issue to necessary matter is another focus of mine,” Zhi told The Hoot in an email. “I will be doing research on which part of funding can be decreased, and re-allocate them for the urgent needs of the Brandeis community.”

Two-semester Representative to the Allocations Board

Alan Huang ’21 Huang is running for re-election after previously being on the A-Board last year. He hopes to continue being a part of the board because he loves the work that they do for all the clubs and seeing how all the clubs across campus operate.

Huang feels that the success of A-Board relies on its transparency, consistency and accountability. “If I get re-elected, I would increase communication with clubs and club leaders, maintain consistency and equity of allocations, and align the goals of the board with that of the student body.”

“I have already gone through the steep learning curve for understanding the operations of the board,” Huang told The Hoot in an email.

Aria Pradhan ’21 Pradhan is double majoring in business and economics with a minor in legal studies, according to the candidate biographies that were sent out to the student body.

Two-semester Racial Minority Representative to the Allocations Board Sonali Anderson ’22 Anderson was interested in the behind the scenes of where money goes, especially the minority clubs. As a member of the Social Justice and Diversity committee and an advocate for the Office of Students Rights and Advocacy, Anderson realized that these committees received limited funding for their events.

Even though Anderson realizes that there is not a lot of time for her to really make an impact, given that it is second semester, she is hoping to have a quick transition and make sure everything goes to the right place where it’s supposed to be.

Anderson is looking to execute on events both on, and off, campus. “For the Social Justice and Diversity committee, we are trying to make an event where we can talk to the Brandeis police

and talk about the issues that students have with police and make a dialogue with them,” Anderson told The Hoot.

Shivam Nainwal ’22 Nainwal was raised in an Indian household that taught him that everything has to be done to a certain standard, especially handling money. Nainwal was the student body president in high school and is very used to organizing things.

He also worked at a foundation in India, working with disabled children and poor people.

Nainwal hopes to provide funding to clubs that have a high number of people from racial minorities. “They are the clubs that get left behind whenever these discussions come up so I personally think these clubs should get a certain amount of funding,” Nainwal told The Hoot.

“I personally am always available 24/7,” said Nainwal. “I will be there to listen to your opinions and views and if they have problems they can always share it with me. Because at the end of the day, the student government is there to help the student body.”

Senator for Midyear Students

Jack Ranucci ’22 Ranucci hopes to become more involved with the social life at Brandeis and affect change though student government. Ranucci said that after not being on campus last semester, he has a fresh perspective of the campus after watching it from the outside.

If elected, Ranucci would want to join the Bylaws Committee, join the Services and Outreach Committee and help integrate this midyear class with the rest of the first-years on campus.

“I want to best serve the people and that doesn’t mean getting elected and doing what I want to do,” said Ranucci. “That means getting elected and doing what other people want me to do so being in tune with the wants of the midyears and the student body as a whole. The candidacy is less about me but about me being willing to represent the student body and their values.”

Madeline Scherff ’22 Scherff has been part of student government for her whole life and is passionate about making sure all voices are able to be heard. As student body president in high school and working on an advisory council for the Connecticut State Board of Education, Scherff realized “what it means to truly commit to a cause and to look out for the interests other than your own.”

Scherff plans on being a voice for midyear students because

their experience is different from most other students at Brandeis.

“I’m also really passionate about environmental sustainability, and I would really like to be part of making Brandeis even more sustainable,” Scherff told The Hoot.

Senator for East Quad

Taylor Fu ’21 Fu is running for East Quad Senator because she wants to “build a more collaborative community at East among the students and CAs,” Fu told The Hoot. She said that she hopes to work with Community Advisors (CA) to make sure they are more available to students. She also said that she hopes to work with DCL to clean and organize facilities in East Quad.

Fu worked on the Health and Safety Committee last semester, where she has been helping to improve the mental and physical safety of students.

Senator for Off-Campus Students

Jacob Diaz ’20 Diaz is running for off-campus senator because he wanted to “not just be on the sidelines,” he told The Hoot.

Diaz would try to make life easier for off-campus students by making off-campus parking easier, increasing BranVan route times and hosting nights for students who just moved off-campus to talk with more experienced off-campus students.

“Currently, [the off-campus experience] is kind of a sink or swim phenomenon; either you love it or hate it, and it’s entirely based on the way you live off-campus,” said Diaz.

Matthew Stenerson ’19 Stenerson served as off-campus senator during the 2017-18 academic year and is running for re-election based off of his previous term.

“I saw some meaningful and long-lasting projects arise from Senate initiatives,” Stenerson told The Hoot. “I understand now how progress is made in the Senate, and I feel uniquely prepared to hit the ground running during this one-semester term.”

In addition to his term as off-campus senator, Stenerson has participated in student government since early high school and has directed various fundraising projects. He also has experience in healthcare and hopes to work with the student body, the Senate and administration to increase the number of CPR-certified Brandeis graduates.

Senator for the Foster Mods Matthew Reeves ’19 Reeves is the sole candidate for

Foster Mods Senator. As a second semester senior, Reeves is running because he is hoping to make a “final bit of change on campus” before graduating.

In high school, Reeves was the president of student council and, on campus, was part of a committee in Massell Quad and has worked with the Department of Community Living (DCL) on various community projects. He is also the Undergraduate Departmental Representative (UDR) of the philosophy department and the captain of the crew team.

“There is a lot of smoking and marijuana on campus. The place reeks. And I want to try to do something about that,” Reeves told The Hoot. “The Student Union seems like a shit show, to say the least. So I want to improve it.”

Senator for Racial Minority Students

Kelly Zheng ’22 Zheng is running to increase the conversation about racial minorities on campus. She thinks that there are a lot of problems on campus, but no one is doing anything about it. As an Asian American, Zheng talked about the discrimination that she felt in the past and how the Brandeis Asian American Student Association (BAASA) helped her start those conservations.

“I want to be the voice for people who cannot be heard,” Zheng told The Hoot. “I want to expand myself on a wider scale. It’s not just Asian Americans [who are being discriminated against] but Latinos, African Americans and many others.”

Denezia Fahie ’22 Fahie hopes to “ensure the voices of those minoritized and often dismissed are not only acknowledged but highlighted and prioritized,” in a candidate profile that was sent to the student body.

“Every thought, concern, and uncertainty deserves more than validation, rather, a genuine investment in seeking collaborative and sound solution! As communities of color, we must maintain our progressive stride toward greatness, for success and excellence.”

Yoko Hsieh ’22 Hsieh has always had a passion for the Student Union, especially bringing a positive view to the environment and leading with her actions. Even though Hsieh does not have experience specifically in the topic of racial minorities, she thinks it’s a great opportunity to learn more about not only her own culture but other people’s as well.

Hsieh hopes to incorporate more cultural groups on campus,

possibly through a cultural day where people from all different cultures are able to come together, meet new people and eat some good food.

“I am a really hard-working person as well as a caring person, so I believe that I will speak up for anyone who has problems in the racial minority area,” Hsieh told The Hoot. “And because of Brandeis’ environment, I want to maintain it and possibly improve it.”

Senator for the Class of 2020

Trevor Filseth ’20 Trevor Filseth ’20 is running per the encouragement of current vice president, Aaron Finkel ’20.

As a writer for The Justice, he feels like he is up to date with the happenings at Brandeis, even though he isn’t part of the Student Union.

Filseth has also been a varsity athlete on the fencing team his entire time at Brandeis, and he was also the treasurer for Quiz Bowl and Game Night at one point.

“If you look at what students at Brandeis care about, mostly it’s the financial aspect of things,” explained Filseth. “Obviously, this is all small stuff, and you’d have to start somewhere, but I think it would be meaningful for the administration to reduce some of those costs. Then we can get to other, larger issues.”

Tom Alger ’20 Alger, a member and team catalyst of the varsity swim team, has helped “create a community that is cohesive” within the team. He hopes to improve the community within the class of 2020 by bringing more school pride and bridging the gap between the varsity athletes and the rest of the student body. Alger is also running to enact change, improve the facilities, work towards ensuring housing for all undergraduates during their four years at Brandeis and improve food in the dining halls.

Since coming to Brandeis, Alger has noticed that students are mostly in their own separate niches and cliques and not a unified community. He hopes to work with the rest of the student union to make a more cohesive culture for the student body and working together with everybody.

“I would be interested in helping working with Sodexo services to work on sourcing food from local farmers and work with recipes that work with local veggies to create fresher food,” Alger told The Hoot. “And work with facilities services and getting them to renovate in the future, building more and expanding on their current living facilities to create housing for all of us.”

Community members gather for MLK Day

By Rachel Saal editor

Students, faculty and guests of diverse backgrounds came together at the “13th Annual Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial: There Is No Him Without Us” show on Monday night to hear from guest speakers and watch performers “celebrate Black excellence,” according to the Brandeis Events website.

By the end of the night, most of the people in the Shapiro Campus Center Theater had become a part of the show and were on their feet,

singing and dancing along with the performers.

The DMJ United Voices of Praise Choir, a Gospel Choir that aims “to keep Ministry first, show love and work in ‘Excellence Without Excuse,’” according to their Facebook page, sang for about one hour of the three and a half hour show.

After the performance of their first song, the group invited the audience members who weren’t already standing to stand and sing along. The lead singer of the gospel group invited anyone who wanted prayer to come to the front, where one of the members of the choir would pray over them, and she of-

fered to hold worship services at Brandeis once a month if the audience wanted. Several students raised their hands.

The choir, which had performed at Brandeis in the past, excited many students who had seen them in previous years. “I’m most excited to see the Gospel Choir perform,” said Cyril Ojilere ’21. “I came to the event this year to remember the efforts of Martin Luther King Jr. and to be empowered by the singers’ passion.” Ojilere, who was one of the many students dancing along to the choir’s set, was also a performer in this year’s show.

This year’s event, which was

created to commemorate Martin Luther King Jr. Day, also commemorated the upcoming 50th anniversary of the Department of African and Afro-American Studies at Brandeis. The event had a variety of acts including choreographed dances, poetry, vocal performances, speeches and a recitation of one of King’s speeches.

Performers included Sankofa, Kwesi Jones ’21, Bethlehem, Toxic, Chari Calloway ’19, Maria Aranibar (GRAD), Christian Nuñez ’19. Alumni performers included Nyah Macklin ’16, Cary Weir Lytle ’98 and keynote speaker, Alex Montgomery ’17.

Montgomery’s speech was about the “forgotten and minimized” key members of the Civil Rights Movement, especially the women and queer members of the movements. Among the lists of “forgotten names” were Bayard Rustin and Pauli Murray, a former professor at Brandeis.

Montgomery said that Brandeis’ Gender and Sexuality Center would “be a great dedicated space in her honor.” The audience cheered, clapped, and snapped during her speech as they did for most of the other performances.

“The whole thing was so overwhelming,” said Laura Peacock ’22. “I had chills the entire time.”

January 25, 2019

NEWS 5

The Brandeis Hoot

Community shares frustrations with accessibility FORUM, from page 1

am here,” she said, “I feel like a second-class citizen.”

Other students and community members shared similar experiences. Chris Christian ’19, who described herself as a student with a “connective tissue disorder and a neurological condition” and who sometimes uses a wheelchair but other times can walk with just a cane, said she has gotten locked inside buildings while trying to get from one elevator to the next.

Anna Henkin, a PhD candidate in the biochemistry department, talked about how being a graduate student means existing in that somewhat “invisible space” of not being an undergrad stating that “it is honestly extra hard for us to get any support with disabilities.”

She described herself as having both learning and physical disabilities and said that she doesn’t feel comfortable telling her professors about her disabilities.

“The things that professors say make me feel like if I ever told them I had a disability, they would never take me seriously. I would never get good projects.

I would never get to publish papers,” she said. She also spoke about difficulties getting to class without excessive planning and difficulties communicating with the disabilities office.

“The culture cannot be so hostile,” said Henkin. “So hostile when you admit you are imperfect. We are all, obviously, imperfect. But having vulnerability does not make you weak, and that is the message that is always being sent.”

The forum was the result of an open letter sent to President Ron

Liebowitz last semester by the group Addressing Accessibility at Brandeis, an advocacy group founded by students within the disability community at Brandeis.

The letter aimed to start a conversation about accessibility on campus. “This is not a letter to tell you we are angry,” the letter states.

“This is a letter to tell you that

ger (Brandeis Counseling Center), Matthew Sheehy (University Librarian), the Department of Community Living (DCL), Sodexo and the Academic Services Department.

Professors Steven Gulley (HSSP), Neil Simister (BIO), James Morris (BIO) and Maria de Boef Miara (BIO) were also

as it was with difficult things,” said Gulley during the forum.

While Gulley identified with a lot of the students, he was also saddened by the manner that Brandeis was being talked about.

“There is history here, folks,” said Gulley. “And I hope you can take time to study it, but it will not make this pain go away, but it will

PHOTO BY SABRINA CHOW/THE HOOT

we as a Brandeis community are hurt, harmed, and demoralized when not everyone has access to this campus.”

In a subsequent meeting with Liebowitz’s team after the letter was sent, the group gave a list of departments, representatives and faculty members that they hoped would be able to attend the event, including: Beth Rodgers-Kay (SAS), Ombuds, Dr. Joy von Stei-

invited as they could “include and provide meaningful insight to the discussion.”

Gulley, who has been at Brandeis since 1997—initially as a doctoral student—has been a wheelchair user since he was a teenager and reflected on his time in college prior to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). “My experience at Brandeis was filled with as many empowering things

keep us grounded in where we came from. And that might help us know a bit about where we are going.”

Many of the previously mentioned departments and individuals were in attendance at the forum, including Liebowitz, Provost Lisa Lynch and Executive Vice President for Finance and Administration Stewart Uretsky.

Mark Brimhall-Vargas, the Chief

Diversity Officer and Vice President for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion moderated the forum alongside Kim Godsoe, the Associate Provost for Academic Affairs.

Lynch provided affirmations to all members of the Brandeis community that the Provost’s office will be looking at “developing a set of accessibility indicators that measure the progress we are making on this campus.”

“Accessibility is a shared responsibility on this campus,” Lynch said, “that starts from the top.”

Rachel Steinberg ’20 and Emily Dana ’19, two of the main organizers of the forum, were both disappointed by the outcome of the event. In an interview with The Brandeis Hoot prior to the forum, Steinberg said she wanted the forum to “start a dialogue ... and clear up misconceptions and open communication between students and faculty.”

Both Steinberg and Dana had expected the format of the forum to be open for all concerned students and members of the Brandeis community to voice their concerns to members of the administration, rather than the small group discussions that were utilized at the event.

Liebowitz was the final speaker at the forum, voicing words of gratitude to the student organizers of the forum and all the people in attendance who partook in the conversation. Real-Time Captioning (CART) Services were also available to provide increased accessibility for hard of hearing individuals, so that they could more easily participate in the discussion.

Research may face delays amid government shutdown

By Ryan Spencer editor

As the longest government shutdown in United States history approaches its fifth week, researchers who are applying for or who receive federal funding from affected departments may face increasing delays and uncertainty, according to Vice Provost for Research Edward Hackett.

While Brandeis’ largest source of research support, the National Institutes of Health, remains unaffected by the partial shutdown, the university’s second largest source of funding, the National Science Foundation (NSF), is not open, Hackett told The Hoot.

The Brandeis website lists at least 9 other departments and agencies affected by the shutdown including the Department of Homeland Security, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Agency, and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH).

“A physics professor told me she had a proposal pending at the National Science Foundation,” Hackett said, “they should have heard about it in late December, and haven’t. Now, we don’t know if that’s an award or a decline, but that’s the problem. We don’t know.”

Researchers have been instructed to continue to adhere to deadlines for grant proposals even though many agencies will not review proposals until the government reopens.

Although work may continue on most federally funded projects which received rewards prior to the shutdowns start on Dec. 22, projects could be disrupted if they are housed in a federal facility, include federal personnel, or if the award has terms and conditions which require administrative action to approve a withdrawal of funds, according to the Brandeis website.

Wendy Cadge, a Professor of Sociology, told The Hoot via email that she received a grant for 2019 from the NEH for a collaborative project with WBUR and Walking Cinema. Funds for the project, which she said was about “hidden sacred spaces in Boston,” have not been released and the project has not been started due to the shutdown.

Hackett told The Hoot that the university is in the early stages of assessing how many ongoing research projects have been affected by the government shutdown and researchers have been told via email to reach out with concerns.

The university will still get the full amount of grant funding when grants delayed due to the shutdown are eventually funded,

according to Hackett. He said delays can still mean wasted time and missed opportunities for collaboration.

“The clock ticks, the semester works its way along and the student gets that much closer to graduating or heading home for the semester and the work remains undone,” he said. But when the government reopens, “then we will just play catch up,” he said.

He described contracts as “a different animal.”

“Contracts can be ordered to stop work and may not be paid for time lost and that’s an open question, how a contract will be treated,” Hackett said. The university “may not get the money back ever,” from service contracts which are ordered to stop during the shutdown, he said.

Hacket, who worked as a program officer at the NSF during the 1995-96 shutdown, told The Hoot that he recalled returning to work to find piles of boxes. The 1995-96 shutdown, which lasted from Dec. 15 to Jan. 6, was formerly the longest shutdown, according to The Washington Post.

“If you build a backlog like this, it has to be dealt with somehow,” he said. “We’re so focused on the shutdown that we’re not thinking about the pain coming when we reopen.”

Hackett said he expects that awards will probably slowed up

due to the backlog created by the shutdown. “I don’t see how they couldn’t be because the workload is set up so that they would be reviewing and deciding on proposals pretty much throughout the year,” he said.

At government agencies which are not processing grant proposals, work is “just being snowplowed forward, making a bigger and bigger mountain each day,” according to Hackett.

On Thursday, the Senate held back-to-back votes on Republican and Democratic plans to reopen the government, both of which failed, according to The New York Times. The Democratic plan

which would have funded the government for two weeks failed 52-44 with 6 Republicans crossing party lines. The Republican vote failed 50-48 with only one Democrat voting yes. 60 votes are needed for a spending bill to pass.

“We’re going to need to be patient, have good will, flexibility, [and] agility to work our way out of this,” said Hacket, “its total uncharted territory, the government hasn’t done this before and there’s no clear end in sight.”

“That’s the hard part,” he said, “there’s much more volatility than we’ve ever seen in something like research.”

PHOTO BY SABRINA CHOW/THE HOOT

6 The Brandeis Hoot

OPINIONS

January 25, 2019

New Title IX proposal fails to support survivors

By Lauren Puglisi special to the hoot

Unfortunately, though unsurprisingly, in November of last year, the Department of Education headed by Secretary Betsy Devos proposed changes to Title IX, the law which prohibits sex discrimination in educational programs. The proposed rule would increase the rights of the accused and decreases college’s liability to investigate incidents of harassment. It would, in effect, exclude certain cases from investigation by narrowing the definition of sexual harassment and discourage survivors from reporting by making the process more intimidating and confrontational.

As an intern with REACH Beyond Domestic Violence and as a participant in demonstrations expressing solidarity with those affected by sexual violence, I am deeply upset by these proposed changes, as they fail to prioritize the protection of student survivors.

The current Title IX definition of sexual harassment requires schools to intervene in any “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.” The new proposal seeks to tighten this definition so that schools would only be

required to investigate cases of sexual harassment that are “so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that it denies a person access to the school’s education program or activity.” This means that students may be forced to endure repeated abuse before schools are required to intervene.

By that point, a student may already experience symptoms of trauma, such as persistent fatigue, sleep disorders, nightmares, fear of recurrence, anxiety focused on flashbacks and depression, all of which have long-term psychological impacts and interfere with their ability to focus on their education.

The new definition of sexual harassment also only includes on-campus incidents. However, the majority of a student’s life may be spent off-campus: Living off-campus, attending social events off-campus and studying abroad. Thus, this proposal fails to protect many students throughout their time at college.

In my opinion, one of the most troubling proposed changes, though, is the requirement of live hearings in all post-secondary education cases including cross-examination. The accuser’s party is now able to directly question survivors about their mental

health, substance use and other irrelevant details of the event which perpetuate victim-blaming and rape myths. This can retraumatize survivors and intimidate them from reporting.

Overall, these policies communicate to survivors that their government and their schools will not take proper action to support them. At a time when we are seeing the rights of immigrant survivors and trans survivors threatened and perpetrators of sexual assault occupy some of the most powerful seats of our government, now more than ever, survivors need to be given the assurance that they are protected by their educational institutions.

Now is a crucial moment to support survivors and stand to oppose these changes. One way to do this is by submitting a public comment through the Federal Register on the proposed changes. These comments are required by law to be read by the Department of Education, so I urge you to take a few minutes to do so and encourage friends and family to do the same. The deadline for comments is Jan. 28 at midnight Eastern Time.

Regardless of what the Department of Education decides, all members of the Brandeis

CARTOON BY HELEN WONG/THE HOOT

community, especially the administration, must continue to support student survivors, as-

suring them that they are heard, believed and have a right to an education free from violence.

15 years after its inception, Facebook has hit rock bottom

By Joesph Silber staff

The Academy Award-winning film “The Social Network” told the story of 19-year old Mark Zuckerberg, who successfully launched Facebook from his dormitory at Harvard in February 2004. It accurately presented Zuckerberg as an immature, socially awkward yet power-hungry individual, who would go on to become the youngest billionaire in history, and whose network would attract over 2.2 billion users by January 2018. Yet all success stories suffer occasional setbacks, and for Zuckerberg, 2018 was one that he may never recover from.

In March of last year, The New York Times, the Guardian and the Observer simultaneously released a bombshell report detailing Cambridge Analytica’s seizure of 87 million Facebook users’ personal data without their consent.

The British political consulting firm did so through posting a personality quiz on Facebook, and took advantage of Facebook’s then-poorly constructed policy of allowing third party apps to acquire users’ friends’ profile information.

Facebook’s stock price took an immediate beating, plunging 18 percent just one week after the story broke. In April 2018, Zuckerberg attempted to exercise damage control by testifying in front of Congress and formally apologizing for the data breach, promising to implement stricter regulations over the company to prevent this type of episode from repeating itself.

While the company seemed to be on the rebound, a poor earnings report in July sunk the stock another 20 percent, as user growth hit a snag in light of the data breach scandal. Users rightly feel unprotected, and high profile celebrities such as Will Ferrell, Cher, Jim Carrey and Tesla CEO Elon Musk announced they would be deleting their Facebook pages in protest.

Major Facebook investors have called on Zuckerberg to step down. Jonas Kron, a senior vice president of Trillium Asset Management, who has a £8.5 million stake in Facebook, argued that “Facebook is behaving like it’s a special snowflake … It’s not. It is a company, and companies need to have a separation of chair and CEO,” according to an article released by The Telegraph.

But that is precisely the problem—Facebook has no oversight over Zuckerberg. Most companies have a board of directors that can vote to remove the company’s CEO, yet Facebook’s board is chaired by Zuckerberg himself. This lack of oversight gives investors little to no confidence that the company can implement meaningful change to protect users’ data.

And then there’s the issue of spreading fake news on Facebook. In the run-up to the 2016 presidential election, Russian bots opened up fake accounts to promote conspiracy theories aimed at swaying voters towards Donald Trump. This past November, Facebook’s board of directors released a halfhearted statement in which the company took some responsibility for failing to detect

fake accounts, while also maintaining that much of the criticism over its lack of oversight was “grossly unfair.”

Yet in spite of all this chaos, there is something Facebook can do to save face: fire its Chief Operating Officer (COO), Sheryl Sandberg.

Sandberg, who previously served as vice president of global online sales and operations at Google, was hired as Facebook’s COO in 2008. She was seen as a rising star in Silicon Valley, a widow with two young kids who served as a role model to working single moms across the country.

And then came another New York Times eye-opener, published in November 2018.

It detailed several instances in which Sandberg had expressed anger over the criticism leveled

PHOTO FROM NYTIMES.COM

at Facebook. At a September 2017 meeting over the company’s failure to combat Russian trolling operations, given by Facebook’s security chief, Alex Stamos, Sandberg reportedly directed her anger towards Stamos, stating that “You threw us under the bus!”

Facebook also acknowledged one of the most damning reports in the New York Times story, that Sandberg had personally ordered the communications staff in January 2018 to launch a detailed inquiry into George Soros’ finances, Soros being a frequent critic of the company.

This behavior was particularly alarming in light of the fact that Soros was targeted in the October 2018 mail bombings. And finally, Sandberg reportedly called one of the company’s most fervent critics in Congress, Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, urging her to cease criticizing the company on her Facebook page.

Whether or not Facebook is truly committed to changing its ways is up for debate. But it cannot be denied that the company’s COO, rather than publicly acknowledging the company’s missteps, spent an unconscionable amount of time trying to silence its most ardent critics.

In most instances, the buck stops at the CEO’s desk. Yet with Zuckerberg serving as his own boss, the next best option is to sack the company’s second-most senior official, the COO, who failed to step up to the plate and take initiative when times got tough.

Someone needs to be held accountable at Facebook—and that person is Sheryl Sandberg.

January 25, 2019

OPINIONS 7

The Brandeis Hoot

The cost of maintaining rapid social change

By Alex Kougasian staff

Despite Trump taking office as president, we have seen a continuation of the rapid social change that has been quite apparent since the Obama administration. The gay rights movement, universal healthcare, rights for transgender individuals and more mainstream discussion surrounding equal pay were all developments which took place in a relatively short span of years.

However, many of those whose views could not keep up with social standards found themselves ushered more and more into an increasingly polarizing, right-leaning standpoint. The election of Trump sent a very transparent message to America.

That message, as I interpret it, was that such quick social reform left behind a substantial and now passionate population of Americans.

“Make America Great Again,” sounds, to me, like a plea for a return to the familiar.

The predominant liberal response to this now mainstream political slogan resembles a justification for the value of social change over the familiar. The familiar, the left argues, neglects the historically neglected, and social change is necessary until injustice is eliminated.

I believe that both sides are aware of the fact that a world in which injustice is truly eliminated is one that might not even be fathomable, let alone achievable. But the left argues that the implausibility of an injustice-free world is reason for the necessity of an omnitemporal push for social de-

velopment while the right cites it as justification for defeatism. But regardless of how both sides perceive this futility, Trump’s election demonstrates a prevailing emotion of many Americans and the effects of a polarized society.

The left finds itself in a predicament at this juncture. Social reform is necessary for those who are underrepresented, yet when it is achieved in a radical and expedited fashion, it stirs up an equal and opposite level of backlash from the right. How will efficient social change be achieved while so many are threatened by that change?

I argue the answer to this question lies in approaching social change from a more collaborative perspective. Yes, when it comes to social development, the focus should ideally be on those for whom the social development is

intended to help. Social change is a topic on which people get very rightfully passionate. It involves confronting the daily struggles of those who have been wronged by a historically unjust system. The discussion surrounding change, as a result, is not always cordial.

This, along with their socio-political perspective, makes the right generally progress-averse.

Harkening back to President Trump, the current administration is a perfect example of what harmful byproducts come from exclusionary social reform.

While raising our standards as a society has allowed for a much more nuanced collective understanding of the problems that many minority groups face, it has also contributed to a movement which gave rise to Trump and which legitimized the backwards and, in many cases, hateful views

he represents.

As in any political discussion, there is no perfect answer. However, accommodating the worries of the right by being open and collaborative in the way we go about social reform will prevent truly radical perspectives from dominating conversation and tempering our forward development. It sacrifices some of the swiftness of our social reform but aggregates our viewpoints, making our collective attitudes more conducive to change. This may not be the most just solution for the groups that need the system to be reformed, but it may be the most practical solution for negotiating the needs of the oppressed in democracy. It speaks to the intrinsic benefits and problems with our system that both the just and the unjust must compromise with each other.

Student Sexuality Information Services: advice column

By SSIS special to the hoot

Welcome back to the SSIS col-

I have a light flow and am prone to vaginal infection but I really want to try a menstrual cup to reduce waste.

What do you recommend?

Thank you for your question!

It’s awesome that you want to reduce menstrual product waste.

Choosing a cup can be quite challenging: There are so many different brands, materials and shapes that menstrual cups come in, and it’s not very feasible to try out a

umn, where we answer any and all of Brandeis students’ questions about sex, sexuality, identity and relationships. If you have a question you’d like answered bunch since they can’t exactly be returned! We do offer two different menstrual cups in the SSIS office (SCC 328), both for $20: The Diva Cup, which is transparent and made of silicone, and the Keeper Cup, which is brown and made of gum rubber. (Note: the Keeper Cup CANNOT be boiled).

There are many more options than what SSIS offers, however.

In regards to your light flow, there are some cups that might be better for you: The size one Lunette or Luna Cup, or a size

in our next column, email ssis@ brandeis.edu or leave a question in the Google Form link on our Facebook page. Any and all questions are welcome: there are no Small Ruby Cup, or a Super Jennie Cup in Small, all of which are small or smaller versions of their respective brands. None of them are sold at SSIS, unfortunately, but we can definitely let you know where to get them!

It seems that your concern might be with what seems to be health/sanitation of the menstrual cup. While disposable menstrual products tend to be more common and normalized in our society, that definitely doesn’t mean that menstrual cups are inherent-

bad, stupid or weird questions!

(Note: These answers are good-faith attempts by SSIS to be helpful to the Brandeis community, and are by no means ly unsanitary. For instance, there is little evidence that menstrual cups such as the Diva Cup increase the risk of yeast infections.

The Diva Cup is made of silicone, which is generally biocompatible with the body and non-allergenic to most (it’s latex-free and gluten/ tree nut/peanut free, though the packaging itself is not guaranteed to be free of gluten/tree nuts/ peanuts). Removing, emptying and rinsing out the cup at least twice a day is also a good idea to keep things clean. These are great tips for preventing complications with your cup, but if you currently have an active vaginal infection, it is important to discontinue use of your menstrual cup until the infection subsides.

With proper care, menstrual cups can be quite sanitary and safe to use. For the Diva Cup, cleaning can involve washing the cup with the brand’s DivaWash and water.

Also, warm water and a mild, unscented, water-based (oil-free) soap work just as well. It’s also a good idea to, at the end of your cycle, boil the menstrual cup in an open pot of boiling water for five to 10 minutes with plenty of water. Be sure not to leave the pot unattended, as the cup can be damaged easily in this situation.

(Also be aware of your menstrual cup’s material composition: boiling will melt cups made of rubber!) If your cup appears discolored or damaged after cleaning/ boiling/etc., it might be good to discard it and purchase a new one.

Hopefully this information helps somewhat with your menstrual cup choice. There’s a lot of information and products out there, but in the end, it is all up to personal preference. We hope you can find a cup that’s right for you!

My boyfriend and I have been dating for a month.

He just told me that he’s really into feet. How do I handle his weird fetish?

PHOTO COURTESY SSIS

Thank you for your question!

exhaustive or to be taken as universal. If these answers don’t resonate with you, either pay them no mind or reach out to us with suggestions for improvement!)

It seems like you may have reservations about this specific fetish.

Before getting into anything else, we think it’s important to validate both you and your boyfriend’s feelings and experiences. It’s totally understandable that you may have reservations about your boyfriend’s fetish, as long as you make space for his feelings and experiences about the situation as well. You never have to help your boyfriend act on this foot fetish if you’re not comfortable doing so, but it’s also important to realize that foot fetishes are actually fairly common and healthy to have.

Initially, it may be helpful to take some time to think. How does this situation specifically make you feel?

Research is also a great way to learn more about this fetish and what it may mean to your boyfriend. None of this may directly apply to his experience, but it’s good to have a background of knowledge in order to engage with an experience you have not had. If you’re comfortable, perhaps consider asking your boyfriend questions about it: When did this fetish arise? What are some things that turn him on that relate to his fetish? Hopefully the two of you feel safe and comfortable enough with each other to have an open, honest and nonjudgmental conversation about it. Consider coming up with a Want/Will/Won’t list if you haven’t already: What do each of you want to do sexually, are willing to do and what won’t you do? It may be helpful to have a visual guide of the experiences you both feel comfortable sharing, so you could try writing down your lists and then comparing.

It’s completely valid to not be interested in exploring this fetish with your boyfriend, as long as he does not feel judged for it. It’s pretty cool that he had enough trust to confide in you, and hopefully with some personal reflection and open conversation, you can come to some sort of mutual understanding!

8 OPINIONS

The Brandeis Hoot

January 25, 2019

We are afraid to offend people, but not afraid to offend the environment

By John Fornagiel special to the hoot

When plastic was first popularized in the 1960’s, it was cheap, malleable and light, which proved to be extremely economically beneficial to corporations and businesses across the globe. Due to the benefits of plastic, plastic product use is exponentially increasing, with 27,370,000 U.S tons in 1960, to 77,920,000 U.S. tons in 2015. Since plastic is not biodegradable, where does all of this generated plastic go to?

Although the total plastic consumption has increased, recent strides to encourage recycling has led to around the same amount of landfilled plastic: 24.5 million U.S. tons in 1960 and 29.4 million U.S. tons in 2015. This landfilled plastic easily finds its way into our oceans, with 8.8 million U.S tons annually being dumped into the ocean. There is so much plastic in our oceans, that by 2050, plastic will outweigh marine animals.

The uncaring notion of Americans regarding plastic products must be mitigated and stopped, to protect marine ecosystems, and in turn, us. From the moment you walk into Walmart, the most popular store in America, the first thing you are greeted with is rows and rows of ca-

shiers that each have a simple thing: a plethora of plastic bags.

Unfortunately, the majority of Americans consider plastic bags to be commonplace. Most Americans hand out and use plastic bags and plastic products without a second thought of the impact these products have on our environment.

Everywhere I turn at Brandeis, plastic seems to flood the campus.

From Upper Usdan to the C-store, plastic utensils and plastic bags are handed out as if they have no impact on our environment.

It seems as if the C-store puts in almost no effort to try and lower their plastic output. There is a rack of plastic bags directly next to the cashier, and it seems as if they are trying to encourage students to take them. There are no reusable bag options purchasable in the store, even for a small fee.

So if students decide to purchase more than a handful of items, which they often do, they are forced to take a plastic bag and contribute to the exponentially growing problem. If the C-store is intent on offering plastic bags, a small fee should be introduced to discourage their use. This not only saves Brandeis money over time on plastic bags, but also brings us one step closer to becoming an environmentally-friendly campus.

There is a simple solution to mit-

igate the impacts of the plastic dilemma: the availability of reusable bags. Not only would the option of reusable bags offer environmentally-conscious students an easily accessible alternative to plastic bags, but, combined with the recurring small fee on plastic bags, could encourage other students to begin using reusable bags. These bags can be sold in various sizes so that students can easily carry them around in their backpack.

The bags could have the Brandeis logo on them as a medium of illustrating their school spirit. Alternatively the design of the bags could be left up to the student body. A competition for the best bag design could be held. Not only would this get the student body more involved in this process, but it would also attract attention to this cause.

On the same token, there are no metal utensils available for purchase in the C-store, let alone anywhere on the Brandeis campus. This forces students to use plastic utensils when purchasing food from either Upper Usdan or the C-store. In Upper Usdan, metal utensils can be available, then a designated area to put used utensils that can be washed, just like in the dining hall. In the C-store, inexpensive sets of utensils can be bought for students to have in their dorm rooms. This is not

only convenient for students, but also decreases the consumption of plastic utensils. Additionally, to further decrease the consumption of plastic utensils at the C-store, a small fee can be introduced.

The bookstore is generally known to sell Brandeis merchandise, including Brandeis shirts, water bottles, mugs and even keychains. Why not reusable bags as well? If put near the front of the bookstore, many people could walk by these bags, and some could consider purchasing one or a few of them. They could also provide great inexpensive gifts for families that allow parents

and families to show off their school pride, not to mention be more environmentally friendly.

Brandeis is known nationally as a very progressive university.

Since the founding of Brandeis by the American Jewish community as a means for groups that were discriminated against to receive a higher education, Brandeis has been pushing progressive boundaries. In this regard, however, we seem to be falling behind. We are afraid to offend people, but not afraid to offend the environment. It’s time to become leaders on the environmental front.

CARTOON BY HELEN WONG/THE HOOT

The justice after injustice

By Sabrina Chow editor

In 2004, Cyntoia Brown was found at the scene of a murder victim, a 43-year-old man who had allegedly solicited her for sex when she was only 16. Brown gave up her Miranda Rights and defended her actions for shooting the man. Brown was tried as an adult even though she was a minor. Brown received a “life sentence” in 2006 that would last for 60 years based off a loophole in the Tennessee Supreme Court. Since the sentence could theoretically be reduced by up to 15 percent, or nine years, this doesn’t violate the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that forbids convicting minors to prison for terms equivalent to death, according to an article by Refinery29.

The case hit the media, hard.

Celebrities voiced their support of Brown, and her release, attracting the attention of major celebrities like Kim Kardashian, who seems to be inserting herself in a lot of cases like these in recent years.

When Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam granted Brown full clemency after almost 15 years behind bars, Brown’s face lit up like the sun. In half a year, Brown will become a free woman.

On Oct. 20, 2014, Chicago police officer Jason Van Dyke was seen via police dashboard cam shooting 17-year-old Laquan McDonald 16 times, effectively killing him. In the video, McDonald is allegedly charging Van Dyke with a three inch knife, and Van Dyke proceeded to shoot him.

Van Dyke was initially charged with first degree murder, aggravated battery and official

misconduct during the trial.

However, after four years of trial, Van Dyke was found guilty of second-degree murder and aggravated battery with a firearm and was sentenced to six years and nine months in jail.

This was considerably light due to the range of possible sentences Van Dyke could have received, which ranged from probation to twenty years behind bars.

While the release of Brown and the indictment of Van Dyke is seen as a huge win for supporters of Brown and McDonald and gives hope back to the community for the justice system, the fact of the matter is, this victory should not be so rare. It should be commonplace.

There is no question that our justice system is pretty broken, and while steps are being made towards improving it for all members

CARTOON BY HELEN WONG/THE HOOT

of our society, we are still a long way from an acceptable system.

It’s the story that we always hear.

The white cop fatally shoots the innocent black person and is not found guilty of any charges. The Van Dyke case is one of the first times that I’ve ever heard in which the cop was found guilty of a crime that he committed. Oftentimes in previous years, these types of cases do not even make it to court.

While our justice system is improving to side more often with the victims of assault, regardless of their race, there is still so much more work that is necessary to ensure that all people who were wrongfully killed, murdered and imprisoned did not die in vain or get convicted because of the color of their skin or the place that they grew up.

It is very obvious that not everyone comes from the same background. A Hispanic or African-American person who grew up in the inner city would have a very different upbringing than a child who grew up in an affluent neighborhood in the suburbs.

It is oftentimes a matter of context that leads people to act in the way that they do. Everyone is taught different ideals and different mannerisms, and those who are less fortunate and perhaps grow up in more dangerous places are often taught more about how to survive on the streets rather than a formal education.

No child should have to worry about where their next meal is coming from or constantly have to look over their shoulder to run away from a potential attack and dodge a drive-by shooting.

Everyone deserves justice, in whatever shape or form that it comes in. As citizens of one of the most developed countries in the United States, we should not

need to rely on famous celebrities to come to the aid of those we believe are wrongfully convicted or charged to help their case.

But what this also entails is exposing the underlying issues of our current society.

It is very much a power struggle between all walks of life, regardless of their ethnicity, gender, race, etc. Everyone is looking to be the top dog, and when they don’t get their way, well, that’s up to the imagination.

Take for example the Brown case. According to an article published by NPR, this case highlights the “sexual abuse-to-prison hotline.” Yasmin Vafa, who is the executive director of the human rights organization Rights4Girls, said that the case is “an example of the ‘sexual abuse-to-prison’ pipeline that leads some of the most vulnerable women and girls into the criminal justice system.”

The article goes on to speak about the ways that victimization is the main driving factor towards the abuse of women and girls and how the #MeToo movement has been an ongoing platform that has shifted to exposing the stories of these women in hopes for the necessary reform.

“And I think that it’s not a coincidence that the whole issue of Cyntoia Brown has made a kind of resurgence during the wake of these ‘me too’ disclosures because I think it shows what ‘me too’ looks like for some of our most vulnerable girls,” Vafa told NPR. Cases like Brown’s and Bresha Meadows’, who pled guilty for killing her father, are among the extreme cases that show the ways in which the justice system has failed extremely vulnerable populations and demonstrate the necessity for reform from highly oppressed communities.

FEATURES

January 25, 2019

The Brandeis Hoot 9

Helping young adults defy the odds: The Samfund

By Sabrina Chow editor

Everything happens for a reason. Right? Sometimes, the powers of the universe throw curveballs that are oftentimes unexplainable. Sam Eisenstein Watson ’01, MBA ’06, was thrown quite the curveball by life. And she ran with it.

In her last year as an undergraduate at Brandeis, Watson was diagnosed with Ewing Sarcoma, a rare form of bone cancer. After eight months of treatment and returning to school, one month short of graduation, Watson was diagnosed with an early form of leukemia.

While her bone marrow transplant proved successful for curing her leukemia, she fell behind in school. “While all my friends were graduating, starting careers and getting apartments, I was in the hospital having surgery and chemo,” said Watson in an interview with Brandeis Alumni & Friends.

“I had no real job experience. I wasn’t professionally equipped to do anything.”

Watson knew that she could not have accomplished everything she has today without the help of not only her peers but Brandeis itself. Watson realized while she was in treatment that she had “a really solid base of people, a great network of friends and a spectacular community,” she told The Brandeis Hoot. “I probably took for granted how great Brandeis was. Because Brandeis was always good.”

She went on to tell the story about one of her friends that was in treatment with her and the

stark contrast between Brandeis and her friend’s school. Watson learned that all the things she took for granted at Brandeis, the deferment on her costs and allowing her to take classes remotely, did not happen at a lot of other universities. “It was so striking to me how different other universities were and the difference that that made. And I appreciate Brandeis that much more because they didn’t have to do that,” said Watson.

A big influence for this was her Dean at the time, Michele Rosenthal. Watson told The Hoot that she was one of the main reasons that Rosenthal started working with helping other young cancer survivors navigate on-campus resources and develop future plans.

Coming back to school was not the only problem that Watson faced but also the bill of her medical expenses. Watson credits her mother, and Brandeis, for helping her navigate through the costs.

And in an attempt to assist young cancer survivors like herself, she started her non-profit organization, The Samfund.

Watson eventually came back to Brandeis and completed her MBA in nonprofit management from the Heller School for Social Policy and Management to help her lead her organization even better.

According to their website, “The mission of The Samfund is to support young adults who are struggling financially because of cancer. Through direct financial assistance and free online support and education, The Samfund helps young adults move forward towards their professional, personal, and academic goals.” The group uses the hashtag, #CancerIsntFree.

A company that Watson had been working with helped her come up with the hashtag. “They told our story in just three words,” Watson told The Hoot in an interview. “One of our greatest challenges as an organization is to show the story of young survivors, we can’t always get our story across in photos or concisely. The aftermath of cancer is really challenging. It is really uncomfortable for people to attach a price tag to survival because we’re supposed to be grateful to be alive.”

Watson went on to explain how difficult it is for cancer survivors to ask for help because everyone thinks they should be so grateful to be alive. “There is so much shame and stigma that it’s impossible to reach out for help. This [hashtag] stops people in their tracks,” Watson told The Hoot.

Young adult survivors of cancer are able to fill out an application twice a year with The Samfund to receive an average of $1500 in financial assistance. While some people may be drawn away from the grant because of the application, Watson has found that the application itself is extremely helpful for survivors.

“Filling out the applications is really, really liberating [for survivors] to be able to process this part of their story. It is validating for them,” explained Watson.

“There’s so much discomfort and shame in addressing the financial struggles that when we make it okay for them to talk about that, it does wonders.”

Through their grant applications for survivors, The Samfund also collects raw data that has made significant discoveries in the field. According to their website, “In an article published in the

peer-reviewed medical journal ‘Cancer Medicine,’ The Samfund determined that young adults who had undergone cancer treatment were $100,000 behind their peers in average net worth.”

According to Watson, the biggest groups that are affected are people in their mid to late thirties. “When cancer hits, everything hits,” Watson told The Hoot.

“In the cancer community, there are more conversations happening about the costs of cancer and some of it is young adult-specific and others not. This provides unique opportunities to share what we’ve learned from the survivor side and get credibility from a different way.”

Through this research, they found that student loans were the largest cause of gaps of cancer survivors and their peers, which led them to working with the nonprofit organization Critical Mass, they were able to create the Deferment for Active Cancer Treatment Act, which defers student loans for cancer survivors, which passed in Oct. 2018. Working with Critical Mass allowed both organizations to use their strengths to pass the amendment.

Watson told The Hoot that the leader of Critical Mass, also a young adult cancer survivor, who had spent ten years on Capitol Hill, had a good understanding of the political process while The Samfund was able to provide “data and insight into on the ground stories.”

The Deferment for Active Cancer Treatment Act is similar in ways to the Civil Service Members Relief Act, which provides help for people returning from the military to get their footing once back in the United States.

PHOTO FROM ALUMNI.BRANDEIS.EDU

“It started as a free-standing bill but got voted in as an amendment,” explained Watson. “We had so many sponsors jump on the amendment because it let people get a pause on their student loan interests. We weren’t asking anybody for anything.”

While the law has passed, the government is still processing the amendment and working on the paperwork. However, any cancer survivors are able to go to their student loan companies and automatically receive the deferment for six months, 100 percent guaranteed.

Michelle Landwehr, the Chief Operating Officer told Alumni & Friends, “Even after knowing Sam all these years, I am still in awe of how articulate, humble and driven she is. My passion for this work and the cancer community began with Sam and her story but continued to grow as I got to know our grant recipients and their stories, challenges and successes.”

Pre-Law advising at Brandeis empowers and educates

By Jackie Kostenko staff

For many students at Brandeis, law school is only a couple years away. The pre-law path can get overwhelming when it comes time for internships, applications and essays. Pre-law advising at Brandeis can help students manage their route to law school.

Lauren Dropkin, the pre-law advisor in the Hiatt Career Center, is a major tool for students interested in pursuing a career in law. She mainly helps juniors and seniors that are ready to apply to law school work on their resume, letters of recommendation and essays. First-years and sophomores can also meet with her to discuss information leading up to law school, including their next steps and networking strategies.

A meeting with pre-law advising can go a long way. Dropkin emphasizes, “I always want students to walk out of my office feeling empowered to move forward, feeling like ‘I know what my next step is and I am ready to take it.’”

In order to get more information, there is a pre-law listserv that interested students can subscribe to for more information and opportunities.

There is a strong success rate of admission to law schools from

Brandeis.

For those interested, Dropkin suggests to people that they apply to a wide range of law schools. She emphasizes that the most important steps to take at Brandeis are “get good grades, develop yourself outside of the classroom and have a really good idea of why you want to be a lawyer.”

As a message to students, Dropkin is a resource for students in a wide variety of majors and minors, as she says, “I am definitely someone that they can come see, you do not have to be a legal studies minor to go to law school.” As Louis Brandeis once said, as quoted on the Brandeis website for the Legal Studies program, “The study of law should be introduced as part of a liberal education, to train and enrich the mind.” Many majors and minors can contribute to a well-rounded education in the humanities that will assist students who wish to attend law school.

Additionally, she tries to create a supportive environment for students going through the stressful process of applications, as well as researching various programs and schools that will be the right fit for them. It is also important to her that students feel empowered about their decisions.

“The first step for those deciding if they want to go to law

FIRST STEPS FORWARD

Dropkin (middle) helps students on their road to law school.

school or not is determining how they plan on using their law degree,” said Dropkin. Having a specific motivation within the field of legal studies will help students propel their education forward, and even when the process may become difficult, students will not lose sight of their goal.

Students may utilize other Brandeis resources to help them

prepare for a law career, such as joining the Pre-Law Society. According to the club’s website, the goals of the club are to help “educate the Brandeis student body on the application process to law school and create a forum whereby students can voice their concerns and questions about applying to law school.”

Additionally, it offers practice

PHOTO COURTESY LAUREN DROPKIN

timed LSAT sessions, help with networking and internships, visits from law school admissions counselors and speakers that discuss current issues regarding the field of law.

While the process of applying to law schools may be difficult, the end result is ultimately extremely rewarding, with the help of many Brandeis resources.

10 FEATURES

The Brandeis Hoot

January 25, 2019

BCC program combines stress management with tools for academic success

By Sabrina Chow editor

The Brandeis Counseling Center (BCC), along with the Psychology Department, created the Resiliency, Information, Skills, Experience (RISE) Program, done mainly through the BCC, to help all undergraduate students learn the tools necessary to succeed in college. This semester will be the second time that the program is being offered. The first offering, in fall of 2018, was only open to first-years. However, spring 2019 was open to all students.

Director of the BCC, Dr. Joy von Steiger, along with Assistant Professor of Psychology Hannah Snyder, came up with the program. According to Snyder, the program was formed through ongoing collaborations with the BCC, to see the manner in which students were utilizing the BCC. According to a flyer sent to the student body by Brandeis Health and Wellness over winter break, “RISE is a program for undergraduate students who want to learn skills to help them thrive in college, support their mental wellbeing and achieve academic success.”

The flyer goes on to state that the program is designed for students who have previously expe-

rienced “depression and/or anxiety.” Even though this program is targeted toward those types of students, von Steiger said in an interview with The Brandeis Hoot that it is really open to all students. She emphasized the experiential learning aspect that highlighted an “enhanced sense of belonging” and “setting students up for success.”

Both von Steiger and Snyder received feedback from upperclassmen about how they personally felt they did not have these resources available to them and still struggled with some of the things that were covered in the program, which is why they decided to open it up to all undergraduate students.

“We realized that a lot of undergraduate, and graduate, students feel like they don’t have the coping strategies that they wished they had, which is why we decided to expand the program to all undergraduates,” said von Steiger.

She went on to explain that these programs would vary between different groups, namely undergraduate and graduate students.

She hopes to someday have programs similar to RISE for all types of students.

Through their research over the years, Snyder realized that there was an increased need for programming, especially for first-

year students. These students “who were often coming in with a history of anxiety and depression and had been receiving support and services during high school,” did not often realize the extra demands that college places on students, especially opposed to high school, said Snyder.

“The social environment is brand new, the academic environment is new… and the transition to becoming an adult, that can be really stressful and difficult for someone who is already coming in with a history of depression and anxiety.”

Students who are accepted into the program work both with therapists from the BCC and with Snyder to form two different skill sets, “coping with stress” and “academic skills,” Snyder said. They will first meet in a two-day “conference” that gives students the chance to get to know not only each other better, but the counselors and support systems that are available to them.

Snyder explained that the twoday conference really just involved doing a lot of ice breakers to make sure all the students were comfortable with one another in a safe space.

Following these two days, the group will meet weekly and alternate between the two specific topics: “coping with stress” and

PHOTO FROM HOOT ARCHIVES

“academic skills.”

The “coping with stress” sessions will be lead by different counselors in the BCC, while the “academic skills” sessions are led

by Snyder. The purpose of both types of sessions is to help students ease the transition between high school and college. “There are some new tools that you might need to help you manage the academic side of things,” explained Snyder.

“How to plan effectively, create schedules and study in an efficient, and effective, way. Deal with tendencies to procrastinate.

And all those things that if you don’t develop skills independent-

ly, then they can become a source of a lot of stress.”

Snyder further emphasizes the RISE program because it combines two topics that are oftentimes not talked about together.

“You can’t just deal with the academic side or just deal with the mental health side,” explained Snyder. “Those things are closely related. You have to try to both prevent stress and give students tools for coping with stress when it inevitably still occurs sometimes.”

The RISE program for this semester has already closed, but students interested can apply next semester for the program.

Featured Events Calendar Oshogatsu: Japanese New Year Fri. Jan. 25, 6-9 p.m., Intercultural Center Japanese New Year is an important annual holiday in Japan with long-standing traditions and customs. On the eve of New Year, Buddhist temples all over ring their bell 108 times to dispel evil and welcome the new year. Similarly, Japanese people flock temples for their first shrine visit of the year (Hatsumode) to pray for prosperity in the new year. There are also lots of delicious foods special to this time of year! While we won’t be able to replicate them all because of time and resources, we would like to give Brandeis at least a taste of Japanese New Year and celebrate the prospects of another year. Sponsored by the Japanese Student Association (JSA).

Rolling Into the New Semester Fri. Jan. 25, 7-9 p.m., Ridgewood Commons This event will introduce different types of rolls from different countries in the SEA area that are subtle but essential representations of the diversity that is South East Asian Culture, especially to those who may not know much about the culture.

Each type of roll will represent different SEA cultures, and their cultural contexts will be discussed during the event itself, thus kicking off our semester by displaying the richness of the food and their significance. Sponsored by the South East Asia Club.

’Deis Hacks Sat. Jan. 26, 8 a.m. - Sun. Jan. 27, 2 p.m., Farber Library Mezzanine Hosted by the Brandeis MakerLab partnered with the Brandeis International Business School, this year’s ‘Deis Hacks is an evolution of the Printathon and Codestellation hack-events with a community engagement twist! Expanding on last spring’s Hackathon, the Waltham community facing “Social Design Challenge on Disequity,” we are sourcing our hack-challenges from the 30-or-so notfor-profits and social enterprise organizations local to Waltham. Instead of having a single hackathon challenge, this event’s theme will fuse design thinking, digital fabrication & social impact to work on real world solutions for non-profit companies. Each hackathon team will chose a design challenge from Waltham’s diverse non-profit community they find compelling to focus on.

Snow Jam Sat. Jan. 26, 9 p.m.-12 a.m., Levin Ballroom Join Campus Activities Board and Greek Awareness Council for the biggest, most jammin’ on-campus party of the semester!

Winter Involvement Fair Sun. Jan. 27, 1-3 p.m., Shapiro Campus Center Wander through all of the rooms and offices of the Shapiro Campus Center and meet leaders from our clubs and organizations. Involvement is the key to success – so let’s get started!

Film Screening: “Guangzhou Dream Factory” Mon. Jan. 28, 12-2 p.m., Heller-Brown Building G4 The film features a dynamic cast of men and women from Cameroon, Kenya, Nigeria and Uganda and weaves the stories of Africans chasing an alluring yet elusive “Made in China” dream which ultimately illustrates a compelling critique of

Composing Women: Music by Women Past and Present (The Annual Alfredo and Demitra DiLuzio Concert)

21st-century global capitalism. Following

Sun. Jan. 27, 3:30-5:30 p.m., Slosberg Music Center Recital Hall The concert is curated by composer, violinist and conductor Dana Maiben, winner of the 2018 Miriam Gideon Prize for her composition The Green House.

The concert will feature the Mockingbird Trio - Elizabeth Anker, Contralto; Scott Woolweaver, viola; John McDonald, piano—and guests Deborah Boldin, flute and Tracy McGinnis, bassoon, performing the prize-winning composition and Rebecca Clarke’s viola sonata, as well Concerto Incognito and La Donna Musicale performing earlier works.

Factory” provides a rare glimpse into Af-

a filmmaker’s journey from Ghana to China and back again, “Guangzhou Dream rican aspirations in an age of endless outsourced labor. Today, the booming metropolis of Guangzhou—formerly Canton, a centuries-old trading port in southern China—is a mecca of mass consumption and vast international trading centers.

Every year more than half a million Africans travel to Guangzhou where they buy goods to take back to the African continent to sell. Over time, some have chosen to stay, and for those Africans, China looks like the new land of opportunity and a place where anything is possible. But is it? The film will be followed by a discussion facilitated by Prof Joseph Assan, Associate Professor, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management.

- Compiled by Polina Potochevska

EDITORIALS

January 25, 2019

“To acquire wisdom, one must observe.”

Editors-in-Chief Abigail Gardener Sarah Terrazano Managing Editor Emily Botto Senior Editor Ryan Spencer Copy Editor Natalie Fritzson Deputy Copy Editor Jennifer Cook News Editor Celia Young Deputy News Editor Rachel Saal Arts Editors Ben Beriss Noah Harper Opinions Editor Sabrina Chow Features Editor Polina Potochevska Sports Editors Zach Cihlar Shea Decker-Jacoby Layout Editor Candace Ng Social Media Editor Emma Lichtenstein

Volume 16 • Issue 2 the brandeis hoot • brandeis university 415 south street • waltham, ma

STAFF

Lucy Braverman, Emma Belkin, Camila Casanueva, Kevin Costa, Katie Decker-Jacoby, Chris DeMena, Olivia Ellson, Daniel Freedman, Jonah Koslofsky, Jackie Kostenko, Alex Kougasian, Jenna Lifschitz, Josh Lannon, Shruthi Manjunath, Gillian O'Malley, Thalia Plata, Sasha Skarboviychuk, Zachary Sosland, Sophie Trachtenberg, Rachel Wang, Hannah Wilson, Helen Wong

MISSION As the weekly community student newspaper of Brandeis University, The Brandeis Hoot aims to provide our readers with a reliable, accurate and unbiased source of news and information. Produced entirely by students, The Hoot serves a readership of 6,000 with in-depth news, relevant commentary, sports and coverage of cultural events.

Recognizing that better journalism leads to better policy, The Brandeis Hoot is dedicated to the principles of investigative reporting and news analysis. Our mission is to give every community member a voice.

SUBMISSION POLICIES The Brandeis Hoot welcomes letters to the editor on subjects that are of interest to the community. Preference is given to current or former community members and The Hoot reserves the right to edit or reject submissions. The deadline for submitting letters is Wednesday at noon.

Please submit letters to letters@thebrandeishoot.com along with your contact information. Letters should not exceed 500 words. The opinions, columns, cartoons and advertisements printed in The Hoot do not necessarily represent the opinions of the editorial board.

CONNECT phone • (781) 330-0051 e-mail • eic@thebrandeishoot.com online • brandeishoot.com twitter • twitter.com/thebrandeishoot facebook • facebook.com/thebrandeishoot

ADVERTISE Advertising in The Brandeis Hoot helps spread your message to our readers across the Brandeis campus, in the Waltham community and beyond through our website.

All campus organizations receive a 25-percent discount off our regular prices. We also design basic ads for campus organizations free of charge.

To reserve your space in the paper, contact us by phone at (781) 3300051 or by e-mail at ads@thebrandeishoot.com.

GIVE A HOOT, JOIN THE HOOT! Writers, editors, photographers and graphic artists wanted to join The Brandeis Hoot, your weekly community newspaper.

To learn more, send us an e-mail at join@thebrandeishoot.com, or visit our website http://brandeishoot.com/join.

UNSOLICITED SUBMISSIONS We welcome unsolicited submissions from members of the community sent by e-mail to eic@thebrandeishoot.com. Please limit submissions to 800 words. All submissions are subject to editing.

T

The Brandeis Hoot 11

Accessibility forum should have prioritized students

his past Tuesday’s forum addressing accessibility on campus was a good start by the administration to begin the conversation of poor accessibility on campus, but fell short of meeting student expectations and setting specific goals.

The forum has met considerable critique from students, namely that it seemed orchestrated by the administration to limit student contributions.

For a significant portion of the forum, attendees sat in small groups at tables around Levin Ballroom, discussing their concerns with the other people at their tables. If the point was for students to express their frustrations with accessibility to the administration, then they should have been able to openly speak for more of the forum. Instead, only a few students were able to openly address all attendees— their only opportunity to speak directly to administrators—especially because many administrators weren’t at the students’ tables. Also, the experiences of a few students who spoke out cannot represent the experiences and difficulties of all

students with disabilities on campus.

It seems the “open forum” wasn’t as open as intended.

The forum did not determine any next steps or specific goals to address. It should have yielded a plan of action, or at least realistic plans for accessibility improvements.

Instead, it seemed the administration held the forum in a half-hearted attempt to assuage student concerns and make it seem like they are more proactive than they actually are.

The list of accessibility issues on campus is lengthy. Food labeling in the dining halls often inaccurately reports allergies. The BranVan is often inefficient. Countless buildings, including residence halls, are inaccessible—Brown, Spingold, Shiffman and Olin-Sang, to name a few—do not have elevators. Neither do the North, Massell, East or Rosenthal residence halls. Students have endured detailed complicated bureaucratic processes and paperwork that is filed weeks late from the Student Accessibility Services (SAS) office. Some students have

cited overworked employees and understaffing as justification for these issues, but there is the overwhelming opinion that the office drags out accommodation requests.

It is very easy to complain about all these issues, but we should also acknowledge that, at the very least, the administration did hold an accessibility forum when it was requested. It may not have been completely satisfactory for all attendees, but it was still a step towards addressing the multitude of accessibility issues at Brandeis. The forum was videotaped and provided real-time captioning. We commend the organizers and the group of students who pushed for the forum and are completely in support of the movement to increase accessibility at Brandeis moving forward.

We implore the administration, and SAS, to listen to each student’s individual needs and take steps to tangibly improve accessibility on campus.

Editor's Note: Sabrina Chow and Ryan Spencer did not contribute to this editorial

12 The Brandeis Hoot

SPORTS

January 25, 2019

Men’s swimming sweeps while women’s splits

By Shea Decker-Jacoby editor

This past weekend the women and the men’s swimming and diving teams traveled to Bridgewater, Massachusetts, for their final away meet before heading into league competition. The men were strong and swept their two opponents, defeating Bridgewater State 152-70 and Keene State 152-70. The women easily defeated Bridgewater State 131-98, but were edged out by Keene State with a final score of 114-108. The Brandeis men improve to a 5-5 re-

cord and the women fall to a 5-8 record.

The men started off strong by winning all nine individual swimming events, along with earning wins in diving and relay events.

Richard Selznick ’21 earned first in the 1000-yard freestyle by a margin of 33 seconds, finishing with a time of 10:15.99. Selznick also placed first in the 500 free by a margin of 11 seconds, finishing with a time of 4:59.58 and took second in the 200-yard individual medley with a final time of 2:05.46.

Daniel Wohl ’21 won two freestyle sprints, finishing at 22.83 second in the 50 yard by a margin

of eight-hundredths of a second, and finished the 200-yard race with a time of 1:46.27, winning by just under six seconds. Marcelo Ohno-Machado ’21 finished the freestyle sweep by winning the 100 with a final time of 49.70 seconds, along with coming in second place in the 200. Rookie Brendon Lu ’22 won the 200 butterfly by four and half seconds with a time of 2:05.17 and breaststroke with a time 2:16.23 winning by 0.16 seconds.

Matthew Arcemont ’20 finished off the sweep for the Judges taking the 200 individual medley with a time of 2:03.32 and came second in the 100 freestyle. Jamir Zitelny

’20 finished first in the 200 backstroke in 1:58.65, beating his previous personal best by 10 seconds.

Judges finished off their victory with a win in the 200-yard freestyle relay with Ohno-Machado, Zitelny, Wohl and rookie Benton Ferebee ’22 winning by two seconds, finishing with a time of 1:30.33.

The top performers of the meet for the women were rookie Abbie Etzweiler ’22 and classmate Claire Xu ’22. Etzweiler earned a victory in the 1000-yard freestyle with a final time of 11:50.87, winning by over a second, and shaved six seconds off her personal collegiate best. She also earned a bronze in

the 500 freestyle with a time of 5:50.92. Xu claimed the victory in the 200-yard individual medley with a final time of 2:17.18 winning by more than three seconds.

She also placed second in the backstroke with a time of 2:19.14.

The women finished out with top performances by sophomore Audrey Kim, Uajda Musaku, Annie Huang and Kylie Herman ’19 who won the 200 freestyle relay winning by more than two seconds with a time of 1:44.89.

The Judges will head back to the pool in a dual meet on Saturday against Clark University for their Senior Night honoring Sabrina Greer and Herman.

Men’s basketball splits weekend with two tight games

By Sophie Trachtenberg staff

The Judges hosted tough matchups against the University of Chicago and Washington University in St. Louis this past weekend at home in Auerbach Arena, winning against the former and losing against the latter, both by a one basket spread. After the two games, Brandeis’ overall record falls to 10-6, standing at 3-2 in the UAA. This leaves the men in second place in the conference, tying with three other UAA teams.

On Friday night, the Judges faced the Maroons of Chicago, fighting in a close competition that was pushed beyond regulation and into a thrilling overtime

win. Brandeis built an early lead, causing the Maroons to trail by as much as 11 points during the first half of play. This hot start was pioneered by Lawrence Sabir ’21, who scored nine points early, helping Brandeis to shoot 54.2 percent in the first. The lead was cut to six by halftime, however, with the Judges still remaining ahead by a score of 31-25 before the second half of the game.

Again, the Judges jumped out quickly on their opponents, going on a 9-2 run to open the second half of regulation.

From here, the Maroons took over to start an offensive run for themselves, outscoring Brandeis in a 34-28 fashion that produced a tie by the end of the game. In

overtime, Chandler Jones ’21 came out firing, hitting a quick three-pointer to force an early lead for the Judges. Chicago came back to answer with a three of their own and continued to build a two-point lead over Brandeis.

Then, it was Collin Sawyer ’20 who took over for the Judges. He scored the last five points of the game, hitting a two-point basket off of a steal from Jones and then hitting the game-winning three with 10.1 seconds left in overtime. Brandeis went on to defend the Maroons well for the last possession of the game, sealing their hard-fought win. Overall, Corey Sherman ’19 led the Judges offensively with 19 points, Sabir and Sawyer each had team highs of six

rebounds, and Sabir led with five assists.

In Sunday’s contest, the Judges faced the Bears of Washington University in a battle for the number one spot in the conference, but fell short in a 53-50 loss.

Despite a slow 7-0 start lead by the Bears to open up the game, Brandeis fought back to lead Wash U by five going into the second half, with a three from Sherman and a layup from Sabir at the buzzer. The Judges continued to build their largest lead to ten points with a score of 34-24. The Bears responded with a spark on offense, however, tying the game at 48 points with about three minutes left in the game. From then on, Wash U led Brandeis, forcing

a loss for the Judges on a slim margin of just three points with a final score of 53-50. The Judges had balanced scoring, as Sawyer led with ten points, and Jones, Sherman, and Latye Workman (GRAD) each adding in nine of their own.

Despite falling to Wash U, the Judges’ victory over Chicago has propelled them to a ten-win mark in the season for the first time since 2013-14, a great improvement under new Head Coach Jean Bain in his first season at Brandeis. This upcoming weekend, the team goes on the road looking to improve their record against Emory University on Friday and the University of Rochester on Sunday.

Women’s basketball drops to 2-3 in conference play

By Emerson White special to the hoot

With school back in session, the women’s basketball team took their home court for their third and fourth conference games but unfortunately fell to the University of Chicago, 71-62, and to Washington University St. Louis, 101-67 in the Red Auerbach Arena this weekend. The Judges won their first two games in conference play over winter break, beating both Carnegie Mellon and New York University. But after this weekend, Brandeis women’s basketball drops to 2-3 in the UAA, leaving them with a 6-9 overall record.

Despite being up the first three quarters, the Judges couldn’t hold off Chicago in the fourth. The Judges were up at halftime 40-32, with the help of Sarah Jaromin ’19, who finished with 14 points in the first half. After the half, the Maroons came back with a strong third quarter, outscoring the Judges 19-12. In the third quarter, Chicago hit four three-pointers to Brandeis’ zero. Overall, the Judges were neck and neck with the Chicago Maroons from the field point line, Chicago making 39.3 percent and Brandeis making 38.2 percent. Chicago took their momentum from the third quarter and continued into the fourth making six of their 10 shots, to the Judges 2-of-14. Chicago beat

out Brandeis in rebounds 37-34 and in assists 13-9.

Jaromin and Camila Casanueva ’21 were the top scorers for Brandeis, Jaromin finishing with 19 points and Casanueva finishing with 18. Casanueva also led the team in rebounds alongside Samira Abdelrehim ’21 and Hannah Nicholson ’20, Abdelrehim had seven, while Casanueva and Nicholson finished with six. For Chicago, the standout players were Taylor Lake and Olariche Obi. Lake was the top scorer of the game with 20 points, and Obi added 14 points and 10 rebounds.

After their loss to Chicago on Friday, the Judges returned to the Red Auerbach Arena on Sunday to face Washington University.

The Judges were unable to come out on top and lost 101-67 to Washington. This leaves Washington 5-0 in the UAA, and Brandeis 2-3. The visiting Washington University Bears dominated all four quarters, outscoring Brandeis.

The Judges struggled to connect on field goals, going 25-for-61, while the Bears went 40-for-68.

Two rookies, Kerry Tanke ’22 and Maya Burris ’22, led the Judges in scoring, Tanke finishing with 14 points and Burris finishing with 12 points. Burris and Tanke also both shot well from the threepoint line. Tanke went 6-for-9 in field goals and Burris made 5-for6. Casanueva also had 12 points for the Judges. The Bears led in scoring, with five players finishing

in the double digits. Washington also led in rebounds and assists, with Kristina Schmelter who had a game-high eight rebounds, and Becca Clark-Callendar who finished with 10 assists. Jaromin led the Judges in rebounds, finishing with five, and was top two for assists. Jaromin and Sophie Trachtenberg ’21, both finished with three assists. The Judges had a strong third quarter with 21 points but couldn’t gain momentum in the fourth.

The Judges will be on the road this weekend, to face two more UAA opponents. Brandeis plays at Emory on Friday, Jan. 25, at 6 p.m., and they face Rochester next Sunday at 1 p.m.

Track & field finds success at Bowdoin Invitational

By Camila Casanueva staff

Brandeis track and field was back in action in their second meet of the semester at Bowdoin College. The women led the way finishing in fourth place of the six teams competing with 71 points, while on the other side the men were sixth overall with 32 points.

There were some top performers on the women’s team and a couple winners of the afternoon.

In the 3,000-meter run, Danielle Bertaux ’20 captured the victory with a personal-best time of 10:17.91, qualifying for Division

III and Open New Englands. Sonali Anderson ’19 beat her school record in the 60 meter hurdles for the third meet in a row, winning with a time of 9.32 seconds, after running 9.46 in the prelims. Doyin Ogundiran ’19 finished second in the 1,000-meter run with a time of 2:57.82, which was good for both New England meets, as well as ECACs. Jac Guerra ’22 finished second in the mile run with a time of 5:07.32. Classmate Devin Hiltunen ’22 earned second in the 200-meter dash with a New England D3 and Open qualifying time of 26.73 seconds. In the 600-meter run, Lisbeth Valdez ’21 earned bronze with a mark of 1:40.20, while Maya Bliss ’19 was

fourth with a 1:41.41 finish. In relay action, Anderson, teamed with Kenya Brown ’19, Tessa Holleran ’21 and Anna Touitou ’22, took second in the 4x200-meter relay with a time of 1:50.81. Valdez ’21 and twin sister Leinni Valdez ’21 teamed with Hiltunen and Ogundiran to place third with a time of 4:05.36.

For the men, Scott Grote ’19 finished on top, taking second place in the 35-pound weight throw, heaving it 15.84 meters (51-11 3⁄4) on his second-to-last throw to qualify for Division III New Englands and ECAC New Englands, and also made his personal best. The Judges also had an abundance of third-place fin-

ishes. Regan Charie ’19 had two third place finishes, running 7.18 seconds in the 60-meter dash and 23.25 seconds in the 200. Breylen Ammen ’21 earned third in the pole vault with a height of 4.40 meters (14-5 1⁄4). Finally, with a time of 8.77 seconds Jack Allan ’20 earned third in the 60-meter hurdles.

Also in the news, Guerra was selected as UAA Women’s Track and Field Athlete of the Week. This is Guerra’s first UAA weekly honors. Competing at the Bowdoin Invitational on Saturday, Guerra was the runner-up in the mile run with a time of 5:07.32. When the time is converted for the flat track, it puts Guerra atop the UAA and

seventh among all Division III competitors in the event. The top 20 performers will earn a berth at the NCAA Division III Championships, which will be held March 8-9 at the Reggie Lewis Center in Boston. Guerra will be looking to reach the NCAA Championships for the second time, having qualified for the Cross Country championship meet in the fall, where he helped Brandeis finish in sixth place.

The Brandeis women’s track and field team is currently ranked 12th in Division III. The Judges return to action this weekend at the Terrier Classic at Boston University and at the Branwen SmithKing Invitational at Tufts.

ARTS

January 25, 2019

The Brandeis Hoot 13

Web-series ‘Proper Bantah’ wants you to step out of your comfort zone

By Noah Harper editor

“I hate being at the center of attention, so it’s kind of weird that I have a talk show,” said Rasheed Peters ’20 last Friday evening at the premiere of his new show, “Proper Bantah.” It’s a talk show about getting to know others, intended to help open people’s eyes to the fascinating people all around them. At the event, Peters screened clips from the first two episodes, celebrated the extensive production crew and led a panel discussion about how to make “Proper Bantah” better.

“I had this urge to create something,” Peters said, “I felt like there was a gap in the community.” He felt a need to “create a space where people can feel comfortable feeling uncomfortable”—his new show aims to inspire the Brandeis community to “embrace the discomfort” and get to know the impressive people that we might sit right next to in class.

Peters was inspired by the interview show “Profile” from his home country of Jamaica and David Letterman’s recent Netflix specials. The inspirations show: In the two 10-minute clips shown, there was a notable, professional sheen, and Peters’ affable, genuine style put his guests at ease.

“Proper Bantah” isn’t an average talk show.

At its best, it’s reminiscent of Anthony Bourdain—Peters also

PHOTOS BY SABRINA CHOW/THE HOOT

seems to reflect an authentic care about whoever he’s talking to.

And, also like Bourdain’s show, food is a way to bridge cultural gaps.

In the first episode, Peters travels to his guest’s apartment, where she demonstrates how to cook Senegalese beignets. It’s a simple snack—made from flour, sugar and evaporated milk—that looks incredibly delicious. He remarks on its resemblance to fritters, a fried codfish snack from Jamaica that’s prepared in a similar way.

“Whenever I eat good food, I have to dance,” Peters says.

His guest, Sahra Jaamac ’20, is introduced as “a young, east African feminist who is so destined

cause it requires vulnerability to admit you don’t know to say someone’s name. “Zah-ra,” Jaamac says, breaking it up into two syllables, which Peters repeats a few times. The question breaks up the interviewer/interviewee dynamic, putting things on a more even playing field. It becomes a conversation between equals.

In the second episode, he interviews Jonathan Goldman ’19, co-founder of The Right to Immigration Institute at Brandeis (TRII). Goldman speaks passionately and eloquently about starting a non-profit and the organization’s current work advocating for immigrants. It functions as a sort-of law clinic in which students become accredited in order to help clients with their cases. It’s

fascinating to learn that such an organization exists on campus— in our current crisis, one wonders what can be done to help immigrants in our community. “Proper Bantah” helps illuminate one such resource readily accessible on campus.

“Proper Bantah” is a show about exploring different experiences and walks of life, about finding the novel in the everyday. In a campus culture where making eye-contact is anathema, this is sorely needed. The event ended with Peters saying that he hoped viewers would be inspired to “strike up a conversation with the people you sit next to in class.”

The lesson of “Proper Bantah,” he reiterated, was to “find the comfort in being uncomfortable.”

for success that we had to get her on before the world caught wind of her.” An international student from Somaliland, Jaamac is a fierce advocate for educational opportunity and female empowerment. We learn about the special English-intensive school she attended, her record-breaking performance on a language test as a middle schooler and how that led to her getting to meet Anderson Cooper and Kelly Ripa. Over beignets, Jaamac says that she likes to play basketball and listens to classical music—and Sia. At the beginning of the interview, Peters asks Jaamac how to pronounce her name. It’s a disarming moment, humbling, be-

Rachel Lynn Solomon avoids sophomore slump with new book

By Emma Lichtenstein editor

When I got my copy of “Our Year of Maybe,” I was ecstatic.

A book with two Jewish leads, I didn’t know how it could get any better. But Solomon’s book is full of surprises, great plots, lovable characters and a captivating story that makes you never want to put it down.

I was a little hesitant about the plot going in, not going to lie. Giving your kidney to the best friend you’re secretly in love with doesn’t exactly scream “relatable.” But the messiness of pining, dating for the first time and insecurity about

your self-identity are universal feelings that Solomon conveys well. Peter’s kidney transplant is the first thing that happens in the book, and the plot quickly picks up into his new, healthy life. Sophie and Peter, the main characters, are each other’s only friend; they are essentially everything to each other. The two are toxically codependent. To top it off, Sophie is majorly in love with Peter and plans for them to date as soon as possible. However, Peter getting healthy immediately throws wrenches into her plan as he starts to form relationships outside of Sophie. Peter is thriving; he is in the middle of a religious awakening, he is making friends,

he came out as bisexual, he kinda sorta has a crush on Chase from English class. He is finally getting to try things he had only ever dreamed of from hospital rooms.

He even joins a band, his talent on the piano and charming personality easily making him a valued member. Peter’s dependence on Sophie was forced; he spent all of his time either in the hospital or in his house, so he couldn’t pick his friends—they had to pick him.

He is finally getting his first tastes of independence, of freedom, and he is loving every minute of it.

Sophie, however, is miserable; she wants her best friend, her love, back. Sophie’s dependence on Peter was completely her choice. She

PHOTO FROM TWITTER.COM

decided to dedicate her whole life to Peter’s happiness, and she was the only one who could provide comfort. When he starts to find joy from other sources, in people she doesn’t know and to places she’s not invited, her jealousy makes sense. So she does the only thing she can and finally takes a risk. She asks him out.

Yes, you read that right. SHE asks HIM out. I don’t think I’ve ever read a book where the girl asks the guy out. And while the whole situation was a mess (thank you, Chase), it was insanely refreshing to finally see this put into practice. Just one of the amazing topics that Solomon touches on that is often overlooked in YA literature.

The disaster of the Peter situation allows Sophie to branch out too, though it takes a little longer.

She starts to meet with some of the other girls on the dance team, who encourage her to choreograph dances and start exploring dance options outside of their small school. Sophie is hesitant to try, so used to being attached to Peter’s hip. But if he can make new friends, why can’t she?

While the book technically is about the relationship between Sophie and Peter, it is even more about how Sophie and Peter view themselves. Their school year completely transforms them and allows them to discover the best versions of themselves: the version that is happy.

The ending is supremely satisfying; to quote every YA novel

RACHEL LYNN SOLOMON

PHOTO FROM GOODREADS.COM

ever, I let out a breath I didn’t realize I was holding when I turned the last page. It’s not the ending I expected, but it’s the ending the book needs.

Still not sold? Well, Solomon also discussed some amazing topics that are often neglected in YA literature, including: teenage pregnancy, chinchillas, happy/alive lesbians (and many more LGBTQ people), chinchillas, finding what being Jewish is to you, a hookup at a party that you instantly regret, and oh, did I mention chinchillas yet?

Do yourself a favor and go pick up a copy of this novel as soon as you can. It’s an easy read that resonates more than you’d expect.

You can thank me for the recommendation later.

14 ARTS

The Brandeis Hoot

January 25, 2019

‘Glass’ is the movie Shyamalan fans have been waiting for

By Zachary Sosland staff

“Glass” is the latest feature from writer/director M. Night Shyamalan and is the long-anticipated conclusion to his “Eastrail 177” trilogy that started in 2000 with “Unbreakable” and continued in 2017 with “Split.” The latter is what many critics considered a return-to-form for the filmmaker, after almost 10 years of critically lamented box office failures (with the notable exception of 2015’s “The Visit”).

Picking up fifteen years after the events of “Unbreakable” and not long after the events of “Split,” the story follows both David Dunn (Bruce Willis), the hooded, crime-fighting vigilante from “Unbreakable,” and The Beast, a monstrous personality buried within the psyche of Kevin Wendell Crumb (James McAvoy), who are both brought to a mental hospital that also houses Elijah Price / Mr. Glass (Samuel L. Jackson), a comic book enthusiast-turned-enemy of the state with brittle bone syndrome.

Since I am aware that not everyone who sees “Glass” has the same benefit of watching “Unbreakable” and “Split” beforehand, my objective with this review is not only to describe what I liked about the film, but also why many critics are responding so negatively to it.

After finally seeing the movie myself, I can totally understand why.

Outside of some personal gripes from my initial viewing, however, I would still absolutely recommend seeing “Glass” in theaters if the film sounds at all interesting to you.

Regarding “Glass,” Shyamalan proves once again why he is one of the best filmmakers of his generation. Mike Gioulakis, the cinematographer from “Split,” returns and brings more amazing visuals to yet another Shyamalan film. Where Gioulakis made the locations in “Split” feel confined and claustrophobic, he makes the smaller areas in “Glass” feel dy-

namic and larger-than-life, while Shyamalan keeps the drama intimate and real. In fact, every frame of this film is so well-crafted that even harsher critics can at least appreciate it from a filmmaking perspective. And yes, there is more action here than in “Unbreakable” but, as well-made as those set pieces are, they are rather scarce in numbers, so don’t go in thinking that “Glass” is more of an action movie than a drama. Speaking of well-made, the film’s estimated budget is only $20 million yet the production values on display are indistinguishable, if not better, than most modern superhero movies, which further emphasizes that not every filmmaker needs over $100 million to make a good movie.

In terms of music, West Dylan Thordson reteams with Shyamalan for “Glass” and his arrangements mostly create the same suspense that they created in “Split,” while other arrangements inject varied emotions into scenes, which helps separate this film from its two predecessors. The music in “Glass” also takes cues from Thordson’s “Split” theme, as well as James Newton Howard’s iconic “Unbreakable” score and places them in scenes where they would feel appropriate. Moreover, the obvious and not-so-obvious references to “Unbreakable” and “Split” did not bother me because they do not feel pandering.

In terms of acting and character development, everyone in “Glass” mostly brings their A-game.

Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson continue to give restrained and believable performances as older versions of their respective characters David Dunn and Elijah Price, with Jackson once again stealing the show because, despite his physical impediments, Price is still as unpredictable as ever. Several critics have mentioned that they are upset with Dunn’s role in the film, but I did not mind it as much, and I won’t say why to avoid potential spoilers. Another obvious standout in “Glass” is James McAvoy as Kevin, the man with 24 personalities. Whereas

McAvoy only depicted seven personalities in “Split,” he portrays closer to 20 in “Glass.” He continues to make each personality feel different, proving yet again how extremely talented an actor McAvoy is. Even the supporting cast of this film delivers some rather memorable performances.

Anya Taylor-Joy returns as Casey Cooke from “Split,” while Spencer Treat Clark and Charlayne Woodard reprise their roles from “Unbreakable” as older versions of David’s son Joseph and Elijah’s mother Mrs. Price. Their roles are not simply fan service, and all have at least one emotional moment with the main characters they are associated with. Sarah Paulson is the latest addition to this trilogy as Dr. Ellie Staple, a psychiatrist who tries to convince the three main characters that their superpowers are simply delusions of grandeur. I won’t say too much else about her role except that it fits with the film thematically.

For fear of spoilers, I will use this writing section to talk primarily about the third act, since that is the point of contention between fans and critics. Now, I can understand both sides of the argument and how some fans who have followed this franchise since the beginning could find this ending problematic. I, however, thought the ending was immensely satisfying and caught me so off-guard in a way that only Shyamalan can. It’s a terrific way to cap off this trilogy and hammer home the themes and messages that Shyamalan has set up for almost 19 years. More surprisingly, this ending gave me a certain sense of euphoria as I left the theater because of how inspired I felt as the credits began to roll.

As I begin to wrap up this review, I want to briefly touch on a widespread issue that is hurting both professional film criticism and (to some extent) fan culture, which is the idea of “Expectations vs Reality.” A common theme that I notice among harsher critics (professional or otherwise) is that the movie is not at all what

PHOTO FROM IMDB.COM

they wanted from a sequel to both “Unbreakable” and “Split.” Renowned YouTube film critic Chris Stuckmann, a self-proclaimed Shyamalan supporter admitted in his initial “Glass” review that he had absolutely no problem with the direction that the film ultimately takes and made some purely subjective complaints about the music that I could not disagree with more. The idea that critics and fans may look down upon a movie that “doesn’t give them what they wanted” could possibly cause major studios such as Disney and Warner Bros. from preventing creative and talented filmmakers (such as Rian Johnson and Denis Villeneuve) from making more director-driven movies, in the vein of The Last Jedi and Blade Runner 2049. It may also hurt Jason Reitman’s recently announced “Ghostbusters” sequel, because even if it does give dedicated fans of that franchise what they want, they will still most likely respond similarly to the female-led “Ghostbusters” remake from 2016.

I like the Marvel Cinematic Universe as much as the next guy but, at the same time, I am so happy that Shyamalan could successfully put his uncompromising vision on-screen while keeping

his intentions extremely personal with “Glass.” Where “Unbreakable” was released before the comic book movie boom officially kicked off with Sam Raimi’s first Spider-Man film in 2002, “Glass” serves as an antithesis to the subgenre that still shows deep appreciation for the medium that birthed it. Some of the more analytical Shyamalan fans could even look at this trilogy as an allegory for the three phases of his career: “Unbreakable” represents Shyamalan’s rude awakenings as “The Next Spielberg,” “Split” represents when the general public began to turn on him, and “Glass” represents Shyamalan proving to the world that he never truly “left” as a filmmaker.

Although not perfect, “Glass” is a truly special film that I would absolutely recommend seeing in theaters and cannot wait to see again—hopefully in IMAX this time. Fans of both “Unbreakable” and “Split” will most likely enjoy this film, while less-seasoned fans who are remotely interested should go and decide for themselves. This film deserves all the money it’s making, and I sincerely hope that it opens more doors for not only Shyamalan but everyone involved with the production of this film.

‘On the Basis of Sex’ tells RBG’s origin story

By Sabrina Chow editor

The two things that always stay in my mind after watching a film are the score and the ability of the film to captivate the attention of the audience. “On the Basis of Sex” follows the story of a young Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Felicity Jones), as she fights for equal rights for men and women and highlights the issues of gender discrimination in the United States.

As a woman in the late 1950s at Harvard Law School, Ginsburg is already clearly set up for failure. The first scene in the film depicts Ginsburg and the rest of her classmates climbing the steps at Harvard Law for their first day of classes. Amidst the sea of black suit jackets, Ginsburg is easily visible in a sky blue suit.

As one of just nine women in her year at Harvard Law, Ginsburg is immediately discriminated against, by not only her peers, but also her professors, especially the school’s dean, Erwin Griswold (Sam Waterston), who al-

PHOTO FROM TIME.COM

ways chooses male students over Ginsburg to answer questions. It was only by being extremely assertive, and borderline rude, that Ginsburg was given the ability to speak.

As a mother and a wife during her time in law school, married to James Steven Ginsburg (Armie Hammer), who was a year above her, Ginsburg faced even more challenges on top of being a woman in law school: her husband’s cancer.

After graduating top of her class at both Harvard and Columbia Law, Ginsburg was not offered any position at any firm that she applied to, for a variety of misogynist reasons—whether

it be because the firm “was not looking to hire,” that “the wives” wouldn’t be happy with a woman working with their husbands or because the firm already had a token woman.

After teaching law on sex discrimination for several years, Ginsburg finds her calling once and for all—a chance to show a male-dominated field that she is meant to be a practicing lawyer.

How? Fight for the man. Sounds wrong, right? But the genius of Ginsberg’s argument against discrimination was that if men are discriminated in a way that women clearly are, well, that just can’t be right because men deserve the world, there’s no question about

that.

And Ginsburg was able to stick it to the man. Even with every obstacle that was thrown at her, she was able to overcome everything and prove that the laws discriminated against a single man for wanting to take on a “woman’s role” and care for his ailing mother.

At a time when the civil rights movement was in full force, trying to tack on the equality of women seemed like an extremely far-fetched idea. And while it is clear that there was much discrimination based on sex, it is made extremely apparent to the viewer, which can be appreciated.

Like the subject of her film, director Mimi Leder has made headway for women in the film, being the first female graduate from the American Film Institute Conservatory.

But what really makes the film is the score that accompanied it, written by Mychael Danna. Much like the music that he wrote for “Life of Pi,” it’s no surprise that Danna won the Academy Award for Best Original Score and the Golden Globe for the Best Orig-

inal Score.

Oftentimes when watching a film, I get distracted from its contents and focus on the score. You can tell with almost 100 percent accuracy what is going on in a film purely based on the film’s score. And I love to listen to the score to see how much I can get from the scene without listening to dialogue.

The greatest part about the film was the adaptation of the score to mirror everything that was going on. Given the time frame of the film, Danna did an amazing job of incorporating music from those eras to bring to life more of the film. By utilizing mostly a small chamber orchestra particularly highlights the professionalism of the film and the themes that it covers. Yet it also includes more upbeat, fun tunes when the time calls for it.

The greatest part of the film though was the final scene, where a young Ginsburg is seen running up the steps of the United States Supreme Court Building and a quick angle change sees the real Ginsburg climbing to the top. I was shooketh.

15 ARTS

The Brandeis Hoot

January 25, 2019

Alas, ‘Glass’ disappoints

By Jonah Koslofsky staff

How did we get here? Nineteen years ago, writer/director M. Night Shyamalan made “Unbreakable,” a nifty little deconstruction of the superhero genre starring Bruce Willis as David Dunn, a quietly indestructible man. The film concluded with the twist that Dunn had an “arch-nemesis” in the form of Samuel L. Jackson’s “Mister Glass,” a genius restrained by his ultra-fragile body. Shyamalan spent the better part of the next two decades shedding all the good will he’d accumulated at the start of his career, before re-emerging with the 2017 horror flick, “Split,” starring James McAvoy as Kevin Wendell Crumb, a man suffering from a “heightened” (read: somewhat offensive) form of Dissociative Identity Disorder.

“Split” largely succeeded thanks to McAvoy’s impressive performance, which kept the film grounded, even when McAvoy morphed into his personality called “the Beast” and started crawling on walls and shrugging off shotgun shells (though the contributions of Anya Taylor-Joy as Casey Cooke, Kevin’s wouldbe victim, should not be overlooked). The cherry-on-top of Shyamalan’s rebound? Willis cameoed in a mid-credits scene as Dunn, meaning “Split” was really a stealth sequel to “Unbreakable.”

Shyamalan’s meta-textual twist was a brilliant move, cementing his comeback by linking his new, kosher work with a prior achievement—and signaling where he’d be headed next.

Thus, we have “Glass,” the final chapter in a bizarre superhero trilogy no studio would ever green-light. Unfortunately, “Glass” doesn’t live up to either of its predecessors. In other words, the director who made “The Happening” and “Lady in the Water” is back.

We’re reintroduced to David

PHOTO FROM SLASHFILM.COM

Dunn, still wearing a dark green poncho and dubbed “The Overseer” by the public for his heroic deeds over the past 18 years. His son (played again by Spencer Treat Clark) has grown up to become his “guy in the chair,” helping Dunn while he searches for “the Beast,” who has kidnapped another gaggle of teenage girls.

“Glass” follows a rigid three act structure, in that the start is interesting, the middle is boring and the end is nonsensical. After a dull fight scene, Dunn and Kevin are apprehended by the authorities and brought to a discount-Arkham Asylum, where they are overseen by Dr. Ellie Staple (newcomer Sarah Paulson), who attempts to convince the pair that their “super powers” are nothing more than delusions.

This is an enormous structural misstep: Both “Split” and “Unbreakable” thoroughly convinced their audiences that these charac-

ters possess supernatural abilities, making the feigned-backtracking pointless. And for a movie called “Glass,” the film sure takes its time to introducing the titular character—Shyamalan is too busy shoving his stilted dialogue down the throats of talented performers.

The worst of which come when “Glass” attempts to further deconstruct comic books. The film imagines itself the “Scream” of superhero movies, with characters constantly reflecting the tropes and format the genre, while repeating them. But the filmmakers behind “Scream” demonstrated an understanding of horror (and its clichés), while Shyamalan never gets what makes comics so appealing. In an age when “Black Panther,” “Spider-Verse” and “Wonder Woman” show the power these movies and stories can carry, Shyamalan utterly fails to grasp why people care about this stuff.

But “Glass” didn’t have to deconstruct superheroes—a satisfying confrontation between Dunn and “The Beast” would have been enough. But the film fails here too, as the action sequences are staged poorly: It’s impossible to get a sense of the geography of the space where the characters are fighting, meaning you never know where anyone is. This is baffling because on the whole, “Glass” has top-notch cinematography.

Working again with director of photography Mike Gioulakis, Shyamalan keeps his subject in the center of the frame and osculates between big wide shots and tense close-ups with extravagant lighting to match. It’s just that none of the director’s aesthetic choices or visual language bleeds into the physical conflict between Dunn and Crumb.

But while we’re on the topic of stuff this movie does right, James McAvoy still turns in a superb

performance, though he’s been reduced to a piece of the puzzle instead of the main event. The same goes for Jackson’s second turn as “Mr. Glass” (once he shows up).

Bruce Willis, meanwhile, is barely awake while “acting,” and as a result, “Glass” doesn’t really have a protagonist. But it’s the ever-excellent Anya Taylor-Joy who gets the shortest stick: The hero of “Split” gets barely any screen time and even less to do.

Taylor-Joy’s reduced role is yet another indicator that Shyamalan doesn’t really understand what makes his movies work (when they do). Had he really studied superhero movies, he’d know that the last entry of these trilogies is always the weakest (see “Spider-Man 3,” “X-Men: The Last Stand,” “The Dark Knight Rises”).

“Glass” is no exception, when it should have been so much more.

The Shyamalan-isance has ended, before it truly begun.

‘Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse’ finds a unique take on the Wall-Crawler

By Jonah Koslofsky staff

Over the past two decades, three white guys have played Spider-Man. There was the original, chubby-faced Tobey Maguire, the Coldplay-listening skateboarder (we don’t talk about him) and the best of the bunch, the charming and childish Tom Holland. Last year’s “Spider-Man: Homecoming” did what it could to reinvigorate the myth of Peter Parker, but after six live-action solo movies, even the most die-hard Spider-fans (this critic included) might be getting a little sick of the same old story.

“Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse” is the cure.

The plot goes a little something like this: Middle-schooler Miles Morales (Shameik Moore) is a Spider-Man fan who winds up with arachnid powers of his own. Not long afterwards, he meets “Peter Parker” (Jake Johnson, “New Girl”), a washed-up, overweight Spider-Man from an alternate reality. “Peter” is just the first Spider-person to appear,

as “Spider-Gwen” (Hailee Steinfeld), a black-and-white “noir” Spider-Man (a hilarious Nicolas Cage), and Spider-Ham (a pig with spider powers, played by John Mulaney) all show up as well. The “space-time continuum” is in jeopardy, and the group must learn to work together to get everyone back to their native universes.

“Pretty standard ‘Spider-Man’ stakes,” as Peter sarcastically puts it, but as a whole, “Spider-Verse” couldn’t be further from the norm. Directors Rodney Rothman, Peter Ramsey and Bob Persichetti inject so much style into the picture that “Spider-Verse” could be mistaken for an Edgar Wright film (high praise). The latter’s work on “Scott Pilgrim” is clearly an inspiration, with this latest take on the wall-crawler firmly embracing his comic book roots. The movie has a totally distinct look and feel (partially enabled by the use of a lower frame rate), and while it’s not entirely relevant, “Spider-Verse” is a love-letter to the last ten years (approximately since I started buying comic books) of Marvel

comics, perfectly reinvigorating what’s worked.

It’s a sincere Spider-Man movie about Spider-Man, a postmodern meditation in the same vein as “The Lego Movie.” This makes sense, considering the film was co-written by Phil Lorde (half of the “Lego Movie” and the new “Jump Street” series), who brings a similar commitment to a multiplicity of narratives and the “meta” sensibilities that one has come to expect (Miles singing a song recorded for his own soundtrack is a fun detail).

As plot jostles Miles between different father figures and the film juggles different aesthetics, it becomes clear that Ramsey, Rotham and Persichetti are trying to make a Spider-Man movie with something for everyone. What’s crazy is that they actually pull it off.

Because “Spider-Verse” doesn’t get bogged down by its hefty ambitions—on the contrary, the film is fast-paced and frequently hilarious. There’s some of the “Spider-Man in school” antics that made “Homecoming” feel so fresh, and the action is constantly

enjoyable. Like its closest competitor, the excellent “Incredibles 2,” “Spider-Verse” makes a real case for animated superhero adaptations—the medium allows for six things to be happening at once, as we cycle between multiple, simultaneous beats during each of the energetic (and, at times, psychedelic) set-pieces.

It’s in the relationship between the disheveled Peter and the inexperienced Miles where “Spider-Verse” finds its real heart. As

Peter shows Miles the ropes—or rather, the webs (couldn’t resist)– the pair bring out the best in each other. The solution to our Spidey saturation was never to replace Peter Parker. Rather, it’s about diversifying our definition of the hero. “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse” is one of the best superhero movies in recent memory because it does just that.

And if that wasn’t enough, there’s the talking pig voiced by John Mulaney.

PHOTO FROM FANDANGO.COM

January 25, 2019

ARTS 16

The Brandeis Hoot

WBRS brings indie spirit to campus

By Ben Beriss editor

WBRS held a concert last Saturday, Jan. 19 to kick off the new semester and welcome new midyear students to campus. A relaxed event featuring an array of truly independent artists, the concert was an impressive showcase of college music.

The show started with a performance from Adam Sickler, a former Berklee School of Music student with strong ties to Brandeis’ music scene, including acting as producer to Late Night Thoughts.

Having recently moved to Nashville to expand his musical career, Sickler brought the Music City feel to the stage with soulful semi-country ballads about love and learning how to live.

Sickler was followed by Brandeis’ own musical phenoms Late Night Thoughts. The duo of Brian Rauch ’19 and Michael Harlow ’19 greeted a crowd excited to hear another performance from some of the most talented musicians on campus. The duo is remarkable for their ability to create comfortingly smooth music which captures the blend of anxiety and ambition we all feel when the night is ending, and we begin wondering what tomorrow will bring.

Many of their songs capture the moments of heartbreak or harsh realities of life. But in Saturday’s performance, they infused this mood with an optimistic spirit, performing with an infectious energy; they felt almost as cheerful when singing about love for grandmothers as when singing about how everyone will turn to

PHOTOS BY BEN BERISS/THE HOOT

dust and be forgotten. The band’s most popular song is “Shit Happens,” a casually melancholy song about the inevitability of tragedy.

Saturday’s performance exemplified the attitude of the song: Accept the realities of life and keep moving towards a better tomorrow.

The headlining performance was Sidney Gish, indie phenomenon whose 2017 album “No Dogs Allowed” blew up on streaming platforms—thanks to Twitter—while she was a junior at Northeastern. This earned her a tour with Mitski and “Album of the Year” from the Boston Music Awards. Her music on “No Dogs Allowed” and earlier album “Ed Buys Houses” is reminiscent of a combination of The Avalanches, Regina Spektor and cited influence Bill Wurtz (yes, the history of Japan guy, go look up his music; it’s kinda dope), incorporating a variety of classic indie sounds and well-placed vintage samples.

She is most well-known for her ability to capture the spirit of contemporary “young adults,” or as Nina Corcoran writes for Pitchfork, “she stands out as a[n]… entirely relatable young person

in the post-Tumblr era.” Or as the crowd repeatedly put it Saturday, “big mood.” She is, in many ways, a poet of a new generation, crafting passages as packed with meaning as those we dissect in

English class, but which is so familiar to her peers it’s fully understandable without analysis.

At a time when the world seems to be drifting without guiding principles and our impending independence seems threatened by internal insecurity and external hatred, Gish’s music helps us laugh off the anxiety and embrace the culture our new generation is creating.

Gish’s performance at Brandeis matched her music: Intimate, self-effacing and meaningful. She started by confessing she had broken her nail, forcing her to use a guitar pick for the first time and at one point pronounced her guitar “in tune enough.” The performance was largely a simple runthrough of popular songs, split up

by Gish crouching down to adjust her pedalboard occasionally. The music was remarkable live. Embraced by an excited crowd, the songs took on a universal meaning for everyone in attendance.