The Brandeis Hoot - 10-03-08

VOL 5, NO. 6

OCTOBER 3, 2008

Union starts student rights office

BY ALISON CHANNON Editor

Student Union President Jason Gray ’10 announced the creation of the Student Union Office of Student Rights and Advocacy in an e-mail to the student body Wednesday night.

“In the past few years, it has come to our attention that there is a need to provide more information about students’ rights on campus,” Gray wrote.

“While the University provides and publishes appropriate information,” Gray wrote, “student-tostudent assistance has been missing.”

Consequently, he wrote, “the Student Union has reorganized and reestablished the Office of Student Rights and Advocacy (OSRA), an office of the Student Union that will be providing peer to peer rights-related advisory services.”

Gray explained that the Union See OSRA p. 11

B R A N D E I S U N I V E R S I T Y ' S C O M M U N I T Y N E W S PA P E R

THEHOOT.NET

University faces $10 million budget shortfall

BY ALISON CHANNON Editor

President Jehuda Reinharz announced that the university faces a $10 million dollar shortfall for the 2009 fiscal year at Thursday’s Faculty Senate meeting.

The current economic downturn “obviously affects all of us,” Reinharz said, “universities are experiencing particular challenges.”

“As we were closing the 2008 budget and planning for 2009, we knew things weren’t looking good,” Reinharz explained.

Reinharz cited three patterns affecting the university’s budget.

First, while Brandeis’ endowment returns are better than most, they are declining. Second, “donors have less to give,” and third, revenue from student tuition has decreased.

Also, “energy costs are up and contract services are up,” he said.

Reinharz then announced, “we are projecting a $10 million shortfall.”

In March, the university trustees approved a budget for the 2009 fiscal year, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating

Officer Peter French explained.

The $10 million shortfall is based on the projected figure approved in March. French explained that the university is now expecting a decrease of $4.2 million in revenue from graduate and undergraduate tuition revenue, a $3.8 million decrease in philanthropy and endowment, and a $2 million increase in operating costs.

“Our total gross budget is $336 million for 2009,” French said.

Of the $336 million gross budget, $140.9 million is the university’s “controllable base budget.”

The other money is composed of sponsored research and gift funded budgets, among other fixed monies.

In order to make up the $10 million shortfall, the university will use $5 million of one-time resources and make a 3.5% reduction in the controllable base budget.

Brandeis felt the pinch of the slowing economy last year. While the fiscal year 2008 operating budget was balanced, “it was a tough effort to get that budget balanced,” he added. In order to balance the

Revenue Losses Student tuition revenue

$ 4.2 million

Philanthropy and gifts Cost of operating University

$ 3.8 million

$2 million

Shortfall: $10 million

See BUDGET p. 11 GRAPHIC BY Ariel Wittenberg

Exploring a blog’s ‘Innermost Parts’

BY ARIEL WITTENBERG Editor

On Sept. 18, Phil Lacombe ’10 wrote a post on the blog www.innermostparts.org entitled “A great day for Brandeis Progressives.”

Lacombe’s post, written the day Adam Hughes ’11 was elected Vice-President of the Student Union, started, “It’s a great day for the Progressive Party (if you can call it that.).”

He continued to say that he perceived the “Progressive Party” to have a serious voting block in the senate (at the time, the “party” held five of the nine occupied senate seats), and ended saying “A good Progressive is always looking ahead…we must remember that the regularly-scheduled fall elections are still to come, and that those seats will determine the control of the senate.”

Lacombe’s post received one of the largest responses in the blog’s history. Almost all of the 18 comments about it were by Innermost Parts writers insisting that there was no such thing as a “Progressive Party” at Brandeis.

Despite the post’s backlash, Lacombe continues to insist that Innermost Parts is, in fact, a political party at Brandeis.

As he wrote in his post, Hughes is not the first Innermost Partsendorsed candidate to win a Student Union election.

INSIDE:

Students Crossing Boundaries creates fellowship program

BY ALISON CHANNON Editor

PHOTO BY Max Shay/The Hoot

BLOG: A student reads the latest news on the Brandeis-focused blog, Innermost Parts.

In fact, every candidate that the less than one-year-old blog has endorsed (Class of 2011 Senators, Alex Melman and Lev Hischorn and Senator at Large Noam Shuster ’11, along with Hughes) has won.

Hughes’ campaign manager and North Quad Senator, Andy Hogan ’11, and another writer for the blog, Nathan Robinson ’11, Castle Quad Senator, were elected to the senate last week.

Additionally, Lacombe cited two other senators in his post whom he believes are “Progressive”— Senator for Racial Minority Students, Kamaran Lee ’12, and Class of 2010 senator, Paul Balik.

According to Lacombe, there are currently seven “Progressive”

senators in a Student Senate of 21—meaning that the “Progressive Party” has one-third of the vote.As it takes a two-thirds majority to pass a resolution in the Senate, having a voting block which controls one-third of the senate would give the “Progressive Party,” and potentially Innermost Parts, a considerable influence in the Senate.

The issue of whether or not Innermost Parts constitutes a Political Party is one that neither the writers of the blog nor other Student Union members agree upon.

Either way, the idea that an institution that is so young (it was founded in December of 2007) could potentially have this amount of influence is one which See BLOG p. 12

Following their trip to Israel and the West Bank last February, Students Crossing Boundaries will release an application for their revamped program Tuesday.

Last year, 11 students, including Students Crossing Boundaries founder Justin Kang ’09, went on a 10-day trip over February break to various sites throughout Israel and the West Bank in order to gain a better understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The trip was sponsored by a $25,000 grant from the Carter Center.

Controversy swirled around SCB last year, particularly because of its funding source. However, despite another $25,000 grant from the Carter Center, “the university is much more receptive [to SCB] than last year,” Kang said.

Releasing the application is “a lot less dramatic and secretive,” he added.

This year, SCB has expanded and reorganized the program. Instead of sending 11 students on a 10-day trip, students will apply for summer fellowships.

Five students will be selected to spend the summer working and studying in Israel or the Palestinian territories and another five students will be selected to work

THE COMPASS POINT

PG 5

FALL PERSPECTIVES

PG 9

THE SHAPIROS

PG 6

WATER BOTTLES

PG 11

and study in the major immigration center of El Paso, Texas and Cuidad Juarez, Mexico.

The students traveling to the Middle East will receive a $4,000 stipend made possible by funding from the Carter Center. Students traveling to Texas and Mexico will be funded through other grant opportunities at Brandeis.

“The format has vastly changed from last year,” Kang explained.

“Last year’s experience was absolutely valuable but we wanted to make it more thorough.”

For the program’s second year, the format “is similar to the Ethics Fellows model. [Students are] going to find their own internships,” Program Director Feya Hillel ’10 explained.

This way, students will be able to pick an internship that focuses on an area of particular interest to them such as “environmental issues and women’s rights issues” as they pertain to the particular area of conflict, Program Director Adriel Orozco ’10 said.

“We always want to leave it open to [students],” he added, “we want to take them to these areas but have them experience it through their own vision.”

While each student will have a separate internship, Hillel emphaSee SCB p. 16

THIS WEEKEND

PG 16

COMICS

PG 16

2

The Hoot

October 3, 2008

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

Sri Kuehnlenz Editor in Chief Kathleen Fischman Editor in Chief

Alison Channon News Editor Bret Matthew Impressions Editor Ben Sacks Features Editor Chrissy Callahan Features Editor Kayla Dos Santos Backpage Editor

Danielle Gewurz Copy Editor Jamie Fleishman Advertising Editor Ariel Wittenberg Design Editor Max Shay Technology Officer Napoleon Lherisson Photography Editor

Senior Editors Jordan Rothman, Zachary Aronow

FOUNDED By Leslie Pazan, Igor Pedan and Daniel Silverman

Know your rights before you fight

I

n the wake of on-campus controversies from the Gravity Magazine incident to the Mamoon Darwish case, it seems that the rights of Brandeis students have become increasingly unclear. Each incident raises new questions about the boundaries of free speech, safety, due process and more. The recent creation of the Student Union Office of Student Rights and Advocacy will hopefully be one step towards clearing up these lingering questions.

The fact that this office will be composed completely of students will make it especially effective, because it will give students a more relatable source of advice on their rights. The current Rights and Responsibilities document is overloaded with administrative jargon that does not resonate with students, and without the OSRA, administrators are the only human resource for students with questions. By contrast, the OSRA will enable students to sit down with informed peers who can better understand where a student is coming from. This is an invaluable service that the OSRA will provide. The Student Union has ensured that the committee will be well-informed by appointing Laura Cohen ‘09 to the position of director. Cohen’s role as a adviser to Darwish in the trial and subsequent appeals proceedings has provided her with a wealth of experience upon which to draw when talking to students.

The distribution of “Know Your Rights” info cards will hopefully be a more effective way of reaching out to the general student body, in addition to those students who actively seek knowledge of their rights.

While Rights and Responsibilities is printed in the free student planner we receive every fall, it is unlikely that many students take the time to read it and rather flip past it to find student holidays. An info card will be much less intimidating than pages upon pages of fine print, making it more accessible for students.

Brandeis has offices and committees that handle everything from issues of social justice to cafeteria hours. It is only appropriate that we have a Student Union office handling something as important and pertinent as the rights of our study body.

SUBMISSION POLICIES The Hoot welcomes letters to the editor on subjects that are of interest to the general community. Preference is given to current or former community members.

The Hoot reserves the right to edit any submissions for libel, grammar, punctuation, spelling and clarity. The Hoot is under no obligation to print any of the pieces submitted. Letters in print will also appear on-line at www.thehoot.net.

The deadline for submitting letters is Tuesday at 8:00 p.m. All letters must be submitted electronically to editor@ thehoot.net. All letters must be from a

valid email address and include contact information for the author. Letters of length greater than 500 words may not be accepted.

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

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

E-mail: editor@thehoot.net

Letters to the editor: To the Editor: Your Sept. 26 article entitled “New club aims to ease Brandeis Waltham tensions” has misinformation that I would like to clarify.

I do not blame Brandeis’ social scene on “the police overstepp[ing] their rights in dealing with students”; the police are doing their jobs by stopping transgressions. Some officers have overstepped their boundaries, which is one of many reasons why students should know their rights.

Secondly, I did say that students have been “wrongfully arrested,” but I never said that the arrests at Pachanga were wrongful; I was in New York at the time and am in no position to make any judgments regarding that night.

Thirdly, Attorney C.L. Lindsay III’s (not Lindsey) scheduled talk at Brandeis on the evening of Tuesday, November 25 is not definite because as explained during the meeting, we must first request funds from the FBoard in order to pay him.

Finally, I was quoted as saying,

“I want everyone to be aware of their rights: students, landlords, and neighbors,” and although this is true, the Advocates’ focus is on teaching students their rights, not also landlords and residents.

It would be erroneous to believe that all of the police officers overstepped their boundaries or that they are the cause of the disconcerting social scene at Brandeis.

- Seth Shapiro ‘09 Founder and President of The Advocates

SEA Change

Don’t bottle it up, vote!

BY MATT SCHMIDT Special to The Hoot

How long has it taken you to read this sentence?

Not long at all, but that’s exactly the amount of time it takes to cast your vote in the Student Union poll regarding the reduction of bottled water on campus.

Not more than thirty seconds, not much time in the grand scope of things, but just enough time to make a truly lasting institutional change at this University.

We at Brandeis have the chance to pass a groundbreaking bottled water policy, but the University needs to hear from us first.

As some of you may know, the University has established a committee comprised of students, faculty, and staff to look into the feasibility of reducing campus-wide bottled water consumption.

Before enacting any policy, the committee wants to effectively gauge public opinion on the issue by presenting a Student Union poll to the undergraduate student body (we should be receiving an email with a link soon).

The committee is unsure of the wealth of public support for the reduction of bottled water on campus, and this is our chance to make sure the committee hears our voices.

Over the past two decades bottled water has dominated the beverage world with a powerful grip. Global consumption of bot-

tled water more than doubled be- health regulations on tap water tween 1997 and 2005, resulting in than bottled water.

If you are still unsure of the negthe unnecessary disposal of more than two million tons of plastic ative social, economic, health and environmental effects of bottled each year.

Fortunately, across the nation water on communities and indigrassroots efforts have sprung viduals worldwide, check out the up that are slowly awakening the article that appeared in the Sept.

American people to the absurdity 19 column that spelled them out of bottled water. As a result, the in great detail.

We need to end our absurd adgrowth of the bottled water industry has slowed for the first time in diction to bottled water. We realize it is unrealistic to completely a decade.

In the past year, communities eliminate bottled water use; somet i m e s nationthere is wide have d e m o n - In the end, the taste [of bottled water] no other s t r a t e d is indistinguishable and it is perfectly o p t i o n . is t h e i r healthy; there are actually more health That aversion regulations on tap water than bottled why the vote is to bottled water. for a large water. instituMu n i c i tional rep a lit ies, duc t ion, such as and not San Franthe comcisco and Salt Lake City, have outlawed the plete elimination of bottled water purchase of bottled water in their on campus.

By voting yes, we not only offices, some restaurants have stopped serving bottled water, and prove to the University that this a few progressive schools have is what the students want, but by taken a stand on this issue. Now it becoming one of the first Universities in the nation to implement is our turn to take action.

The production of bottled water a policy of this scope, we also set uses over 1.5 million barrels of oil a precedent for schools and instieach year and that’s before count- tutions worldwide to take similar ing the fuel used in transporta- action. So go ahead, check your tion. In the end, the taste is in- email, and take the thirty seconds distinguishable and it is perfectly to vote yes for the reduction of healthy; there are actually more bottled water at Brandeis.

Are you tired of having sex at Brandeis?

Do you wish you were rationally abstinent?

Would you rather be writing for The Hoot?

Contact Bret Matthew at bmatthew@brandeis.edu to see your rants in print.

CORRECTION: The photo featured alongside the September 26, 2008 article, “Brandeis introduces Lerman-Neubauer Fellowship for class of 2012” was miscredited and was actually taken by Max Shay.

October 3, 2008

The Hoot

3

IMP RES S IONS

Veterans' Best... Enemy Egghead lives: looking back to the 50’s

ILLUSTRATION BY Alex Ducette

BY BRET MATTHEW Editor

It’s Saturday morning, the day after the Sept. 27 Presidential debate. I’ve had some time to think about what the candidates had to say, and I’m sure I will have plenty of topics to write about over the next few weeks. But first, I have a little bone to pick with John McCain.

Senator McCain, throughout this campaign you have used your personal story of being a POW as a way to obtain the mantle of “veteran’s best friend”. It has served you well, allowing you to win the Republican nomination and engage in a close race for the presidency, but I don’t think it is quite fair. You see, Senator, some of your recent comments and your actions in the Senate have caused me to seriously question your dedication to our men and women in uniform.

Allow me to present you with some examples. Why, Senator, do you believe it is necessary for our troops to achieve “victory” in Iraq in order to return home “with honor”? First, General Patraeus himself recently stated in an interview that he did not know if he would ever use the word “victory” in regard to Iraq. But more to the point, shouldn’t we honor our troops for their service no matter what happens during war?

Haven’t they performed admirably and done everything we have asked them to do throughout this war?

And why Senator, do you think the soldiers who have already given their lives in this fight will have “died in vain” if the end result is not exactly what we want it to be?

Do they not deserve to be honored for dying for their country?

Ah, but I’m sure that you and your supporters will find some ways to brush off my accusations.

“Look at the record,” you will say, as if your words alone are enough to reassure us skeptics. As if we should believe that your veteran status requires you to support veterans across America.

I looked at the record. And I tell you, what I found appalled me. I will include my findings here for all who are curious, and for you, Senator McCain, whose memory, I must admit, I find to be lax at times.

In November 1991, you voted against providing automatic annual cost-of-living adjustments for veterans’ benefits.

In September 1995, you voted for an appropriations bill that un-

derfunded the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development by about $8.9 billion.

In October 2000, you voted against a bill that provided $47 billion for the Department of Veterans affairs, a bill that only seven other Senators opposed.

In April 2003, you urged your fellow Senators to table a vote to provide over $1 billion for National Guard and Reserve equipment in Iraq, even after it had become clear that more equipment was necessary.

In October 2003, you voted to table an amendment by Senator Chris Dodd that called for $322,000,000 in safety equipment for US forces in Iraq.

In March 2004, you voted against the creation of a reserve fund that would allow veterans’ medical care to be increased by $1.8 billion, because it would have had to be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes.

In March 2006, you voted against increasing veterans’ medical services by $1.5 billion, because, once again, it would have had to be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes.

In May 2006, you voted against an amendment that called for $20 million to be provided to the Department of Veterans affairs for health care facilities.

In September 2007, you voted against the Webb Amendment that called for adequate troop rest between deployments.

This year, you showed contempt for the 21st Century GI Bill that was lauded by Senators Jim Webb (D-VA) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE), who, like you, are both Vietnam veterans. The bill called for, among other things, increased educational benefits for returning veterans. But you thought the bill was too “generous”, and you didn’t even show up to vote on it.

Honestly, Senator McCain, it’s difficult to find an instance where you have supported legislation that will support our troops. Perhaps that explains why you received a 20 percent rating from the nonpartisan Disabled American Veterans, and a “D” grade from the non-partisan Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America. Perhaps that explains why men and women serving overseas have donated six times more money to Senator Obama’s campaign than to yours.

Found another group of friends, Senator? Because you sure don’t seem to like your fellow veterans very much.

BY MATT KIPNIS Columnist

Watching the Republican convention this summer, with its incessant attacks on “liberal elites,” characterizing Barack Obama as ‘aloof ’ and ‘out of touch’ with ‘regular Americans’ (I confess, a particular favorite was Mike Huckabee accusing Obama of believing in “European Ideas” - Democracy anybody? Natural Rights? – but I digress), I found myself reminded of another Presidential election in which the Democrat, running against a decorated Republican veteran, was painted as ‘aloof,’ overly intellectual, an ‘egghead.’ I speak of the 1952 election, wherein Republican Dwight Eisenhower defeated Democrat Adlai Stevenson after casting him as an arrogant liberal intellectual who talked down to the voters.

Anti-intellectualism has a long and proud heritage in American culture, passing from religious revivalists in the mid seventeenth century to Jacksonian populists in the early nineteenth century to mid-American capitalists in the twentieth century.

This strain reached a peak during the McCarthy era, such that historian Richard Hofstadter, in his Pulitzer Prize winning work on the subject, Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, observed, “The political ferment and educational controversy of the 1950’s made the term anti-intellectual a central epithet in American selfevaluation.”

For Stevenson, a politician of uncharacteristic thoughtfulness and wit, this revival proved particularly ill-timed. The original “egghead,” so named due to his bald brow and oblong visage, Stevenson had worked as a new dealer in the 1930’s, and later served as a member of the American delegation at the founding conference of the United Nations.

Elected governor of Illinois in 1948, Stevenson initially refused to let his name be put forward as a candidate at the Democratic Convention, agonizing about accepting the nomination when it came to him, facts conservatives would later use to attack his “intellectual” tendency to “overthink” things.

Yet his eloquence and commitment to a thought provoking style

of politics brought him a passionate following in the Democratic Party.

Never one to disguise ugly truths, Stevenson did not shrink from thoughtful criticism of his country; so he declared in his acceptance speech: “More important than winning the election is governing the nation. That is the test of a political party – the acid, final test.

When the tumult and the shouting die, when the bands are gone and the lights are dimmed, there is the stark reality of responsibility in an hour of history haunted with those gaunt, grim specters of strife, dissention and materialism at home, and ruthless, inscrutable and hostile power abroad.”

While this rhetoric went down well with critical liberals, most Americans aren’t known for their willingness to accept criticism of their country (no less today than in the 1950’s). “The greater part of the public,” Hofstadter noted, “and a great part even of the intelligent and alert public, is simply non-intellectual,” forgoing that strain of national self-criticism intellectuals frequently engage in. Stevenson, with his though provoking speeches and constant self-doubt probably aimed higher than he ought; yet in response to precisely that criticism, he wrote after the campaign: Did I talk over the people’s heads? No … I think candidates for important offices … should not treat us as fourteen-year-olds, but as adults, challenging us, in the ancient tradition of all civilized people, with the assumption that we should and can and will respond to the appeal of reason and imagination.

This still inspiring sentiment, that politicians should engage with voters, not pander to them, that we should aim high, and believe such achievement possible, invokes a spirit long absent – shamefully absent – from our recent political past. Rather than follow the road of higher aspiration, we have allowed those of the opposite, anti-intellectual persuasion to dominate the discourse on both sides.

This latter persuasion, the ethos of those who rush to question the patriotism of anyone who professes opinions critical of Amer-

ica, Hofstadter defined as, “a resentment and suspicion of the life of the mind and of those who are considered to represent it; and a disposition constantly to minimize the value of that life.”

The tendency in American politics for the last 30 years or more, and displayed most shamefully in the last presidential election cycle, has been to pit the major party candidates against each other in a race to proclaim themselves the most patriotic, and the propensity of intellectuals to question this dogmatic patriotism has rendered them vulnerable to charges of anti-Americanism. Yet refusing to subscribe to dogma is hardly a fair test of anyone’s respect for their country, something Adlai Stevenson understood quite well.

During a speech to the American Legion in the ’52 campaign, he observed: “The anatomy of patriotism is complex. But surely intolerance and public irresponsibility cannot be cloaked in the shining armor of rectitude and righteousness.

Nor can the denial of the right to hold ideas that are different – the freedom of man to think as he pleases. To strike freedom of the mind with the fist of patriotism is an old and ugly subtlety.”

In the current election cycle we again have a candidate known for his eloquence, a man who still claims to see the best in us, one who asserts his love of country by embracing a multitude of voices: a modern egghead.

Perhaps, confronted with the specter of economic doom and their influence abroad at an historic low, Americans, after eight years of perhaps the most antiintellectual administration in the nation’s history, will come to regard Barack Obama’s measured words with more respect than intellectuals have of late received.

And yet I can’t help but add a final word from Stevenson.

During the campaign, Stevenson, after an event, was approached by a voter. “Governor,” the man said, “that was a great speech. After hearing that, I’m sure you’ll get the vote of every thinking man.”

"Why thank you,” Stevenson replied, “but I need a majority to win.”

4

October 3, 2008 4

IMPRESSIONS

The Hoot

Stranger in a strange land

The double standard in the Middle East A biased view won’t lead to peace

ILUSTRATION BY Alex Doucette/The Hoot

BY ARIEL WITTENBERG Editor

“No! Stop! Back away!” the girl yelled over the in the gym at the Waltham Health Club, as her Karate instructor came toward her.

“I don’t know you! You’re a stranger!”

“Good job,” the instructor said, turning to the 25 kids in the gym learning about “stranger danger.”

“Now, what’s a stranger?” he asked them.

“Somebody you don’t know,” one girl replied.

“Yeah!” another one agreed.

“And you can punch a stranger!”

This was the scene this past Saturday when, as part of my work for Waltham’s Daily News Tribune, I went to the city’s “Child Safety Day.” It was a small affair with a cute, carnival-like atmosphere. It had loud music, free toys and a stuffed animal, interactive fire safety dog to boot.

But this was not the Child Safety Day of my childhood, where you were told to stomp on a stranger’s foot if they came up to you, never lean over a lit candle, and always ride your bike with a helmet on.

This—in case the remote-controlled, interactive fire safety dog didn’t tip you off—was the Child Safety Day of the twenty first century.

It wasn’t of the twenty-first century just because the child identification cards (cards with children’s photographs and fingerprints which can be used to help identify them if they get abducted or hurt) were done electronically—though if you’re a CSI fan, you’d probably have recognized the technology that they used. It was a day of the twenty-first century because it was a day founded on fear.

At the same time that parents were lining up to have their children finger printed for their ID cards, in case they got abducted, they were being approached by agents from New York Life (a life insurance agency which sponsored the day in honor of National Life Insurance Awareness Month) asking them if they have thought of how their children would be cared for in the event of their own death.

At the Fire Department’s booth, the theme was how to stop home fires. Instead of the booth’s display showing any information about how to stop home fires, it was a collage of photographs depicting burning homes.

The police were urging parents to register their children’s bikes not in case the bikes got stolen, but in case the bikes were stolen along with their kids.

This, despite the fact that while 33,000 children are abducted by non-family members in the United States per year, more than 310,000

bicycles are stolen in the country per year (according to missingkids.com and an the FBI Uniform Crime Report of 2000).

And if you say that preventing child abduction is more important because human life is at stake, consider this: The entire day was devoted to “Stranger Danger”—what to do if a stranger comes up to you. Only once did anyone at the bicycle booth mention that you should always ride your bike with a helmet on, even though of the 540,000 bicyclists who visit emergency rooms with injuries every year, 67,000 of them have head injuries, and 27,000 of them have head injuries serious enough to be hospitalized.

So why do we tell our children more about how to avoid strangers while on our bikes than how to safely ride our bikes period?

Because the twenty-first century isn’t simply one based on fear— it’s based on irrational, intangible fear.

Between terrorism and child abduction, our society is completely enamored with why bad things happen to good people. And when the bad things happening are caused by other people—instead of falling off your bike and hitting your head—the fear becomes even more irrational, as it’s source is even more inconceivable.

This century isn’t the first one in which the American people harbored irrational fears. In my American Studies class, Classic Texts of 1609 to 1900, we just finished reading Reverend Jonothan Edwards’ sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” The sermon, written in 1735 as part of the Great Awakening (a period of renewed religious fervor in America), basically outlines why and how people can be overcome by evil, even if they follow all of God’s commandments.

If you read it, you’ll see that the twenty first century’s stranger looks a hell of a lot like the eighteenth century’s Satan.

The cries of “no, stop, back away,” could just as easily be those of a eighteenth century girl renouncing Satan in order to save herself from a fiery damnation as they could be of 25 four to ten-year-olds learning karate-based self-defense moves in front of a poster-board plastered with homes going up in smoke.

Edwards explains why bad things happen to good, God fearing people in the following way: “The foolish children of men miserably delude themselves in their own schemes, and in confidence in their own strength and wisdom; they trust to nothing but a shadow,” he writes.

In Edwards’ time, this quotation meant that, in order to save themselves from an inconceivable danger, the Puritans wrapped them-

selves in a tangible solution, which further damned them.

For Edwards, the act of praying to God simply for the sake of praying, as opposed to belief, is what damns people.

In the 21st century, it gets a bit more complicated.

It’s not that we don’t believe it when we tell our kids how to protect themselves from strangers, it’s that sometimes even the best intended plans only serve to leave us oblivious to other evils, even as we feel more secure.

At the Child Safety Day event, which was held inside of a gym, the kids were given candy and potato chips in an effort to make the event more fun—in effect teaching them to stay safe, except for their arteries.

Arteries which, if the kids can’t go outside and play without an adult home and so go inside, play video games and gouge on junk food, will be worse for the wear.

And while it’s entirely possible that I’m taking the Puritan analogy too far—that my American Studies reading has gone to my head—it could also be that I have experienced the twenty-first century version of another one of Edwards’ teachings first hand.

As a believer in predestination, Edwards believed that from birth, certain people were damned, and certain people were saved. No matter what anyone did in search of redemption, his fate was sealed.

The only trick was that you would never know if you were damned or saved until you died.

Basically, anyone and everyone was at risk of being possessed by Satan, and of being just as evil as the Devil himself.

And, as the kids on Saturday were quick to point out at the beginning of the Karate demonstration, anyone can be a stranger.

On Saturday the kids learned that often, a stranger will observe his target before making contact.

The stranger is someone who appears safe. The stranger will try and make themselves seem to have something in common with a child before trying to take them.

The only real way to tell if someone is a stranger, is if they are suspiciously loitering around playing children, with no personal connection to the kids.

And me, I was the only adult not accompanied by either a uniform, or children of my own. I was the one standing in the background, watching the kids learn karate, writing down their every move in my notebook. I was the one smiling at them while they played, trying to seem friendly so that when I finally crouched down to be at their eye-level and asked them questions, they would talk to me without being afraid.

Me, I was the stranger.

ILLUSTRATION BY Alex Doucette/The Hoot

long-range rockets on Ashkelon, a city of 120,000 people and continues to smuggle sophisticated When navigating the complex weaponry into Gaza.

Making matters worse, the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, it seems that Iranian-provided rockets and each party is focused on a sepa- missiles can now reach 250,000 Israelis. Terrorists deliberately rate dilemma.

The Palestinians concentrate on launch rockets from Palestinian the issue of the settlements while city centers.

By doing so, Israel is faced with Israelis focus on security. The Palestinians have not taken con- a complex decision: defend itstructive action to achieve their self and possibly hurt innocent civilians or do nothing. Israel is goals of peace.

Hamas, unconstrained by the known to take precautions so as Palestinian Authority, has fired not to hurt civilians.

Despite these attacks, Israel conover 4,000 rockets and mortars into highly populated Israeli tinues to take steps to strengthen towns and villages since Israel Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and facilitate withdrew from Gaza in 2005.

Israel, on the other hand, acts humanitarian assistance. Israel to move toward the goal of peace is focused on treating the Palesand safety with the Palestinians as tinians humanely and allows the delivery of food, reliable partmedicine, elecners. Despite the great risk The world seems to tricity, and fuel Gaza. Patients to that mishold a double standard to are permitted to sion, Israelis have still when it comes to the leave Gaza for treattaken steps I s r a e l i - P a l e s t i n i a n medical ment in Israel, to minimize despite the threat the effects of peace process. of would be suitheir military cide bombers operations who have used on Palestinfalse medical ian civilians and have worked to provide hu- information in attempts to enter Israel and carry out attacks. manitarian relief.

Also, Israel avoids using airThe world seems to hold a double standard when it comes to the strikes as a tactic to hit enemy tarIsraeli-Palestinian peace process. gets, though it is safest for troops, Israel is highly criticized for any to prevent killing civilians.

In order to make peace, I believe military action against terrorists while no one condemns the Pal- a way must be found to bridge the estinian Authority for ongoing gap between how each party deals terrorist activity. Israel, like every with their separate goals.

The Arab States in the Middle sovereign nation, has the right East share in the effects of this and duty to defend its citizens.

I believe this double standard is conflict and it behooves them to the main impediment to the peace give concrete support to peace process because it condones the talks and give Abbas political supviolent actions of Hamas, allows port to fight terrorism with full the Palestinian Authority to sit authority.

The end of the conflict will beidly by, and condemns the Israelis for action that would, for any gin with pressure from the Arab other country, be considered jus- States on the Palestinian Authority. The international community, tifiable acts of self defense.

Palestinian terrorists have car- in judging by fair standards and ried out more than 25,000 attacks holding terrorists accountable for since September 2000, killing their actions, can encourage the more than 1,100 Israelis. Recently, Arab States to begin this process.

Hamas has fired Iranian-supplied

BY REBECCA WILKOF Special to The Hoot

The

Hoot

October 3, 2008

October 3, 2008

I M P R E S S I O NI S MPRESSIONS

One Tall Voice

The Compass Point

The Hoot

5

An American view from Voluntary celibacy across the pond

An argument for rational abstinence

sickening; for me, the cost-benefit analysis turns up negative. I have therefore chosen to take myself off the market and my life has I am not such a fan of sex.

I always like to have an exciting been made somewhat better beway to start my articles and given cause of it.

I taught a few time-managethe subject of the piece, this affirmation is appropriate. The college ment seminars last year and the culture is one of random hook first thing I said to my listeners ups, thoughtless intercourse, and was that I have forfeited “women, poetry, and television” to mainother sexual activity.

Very few students look past the tain the life that I live.

Take it from me, you can do pressure of their peers and society at large to see that this lifestyle wondrous things if you don’t focus on sexual pleasures. You are is nonsensical and irrational.

In this article, I will not focus better able to focus your efforts on the moral reasons for celibacy, and have more time than you can but shall try to illuminate a more possibly imagine.

Look at me. I have a great GPA rational side to the practice. I will attempt to make people aware of and am currently getting my Masthe benefits of voluntary celibacy ter’s degree. I have been involved and try to break the societal pres- in 23 organizations, earned 10 ofsure that forces people our age to ficer-ships, and won more awards than I can think of offhand. seek pleasures of the flesh.

And this was ALL made possible The Hoot has had some great sex columnists in the past and by my decision to become voluntarily celistill boasts some bate. This fantastic writers Hooking up is a perfect case a c h i e v e on the subject.

I never thought of market failure. Due to ment is so I’d be bringing imperfect information, or much more long lasting “One Tall Voice” high costs, people often fail and perinto this realm, but would like to at hooking up for various petual than sexual acilluminate this reasons. tivity. more rational I have had side to the “hook a plethora up” phenomof different enon.

Let’s be honest here; how many experiences and two years ago I times have you gone to parties even attended 25 intercollegiate and tried to hook up with some- competitions at 15 different unione and were met with failure? versities. I have also built a sense For most of us, this is the vast of accomplishment that can easily be transferred to a resume or a majority of attempts.

I remember being a freshman graduate school application.

This is truly what people should wanting to seek the quintessential college experience. And yes, I too be doing with their college expewent to great lengths in order to rience.

Experimentation does not just pursue sexual activity. To be perfectly honest, EVERY one of my lend itself to the sexual realm, but to the academic and co-curricular efforts was met with failure.

After about a few months of arenas as well. So much can be acthis, I finally threw up my hands. complished if you forgo the purWas it really worth the investment suit of sex. Trust me, a whole new of time and energy to pursue world awaits.

This is not to say that I would something that wouldn’t provide enough countervailing enjoy- never have sex in college. If the ment to make up for the waste? cost was minimized due to availWas it truly in my best long-term ability, or if the calculus down the interest to be attempting to hook- line showed up in the positive, I up with random people when I would assuredly consider sexual could be studying or engaged in activity.

But since women aren’t throwother activities that would pering themselves at me, I suppose manently affect my life?

After taking Professor Coiner’s this hypothetical stance has very Intro to Economics class, I feel low chance of being realized.

I guess what I am trying to say comfortable talking about this phenomenon in economic terms. in this article is don’t feel presHooking up is a perfect case of sured to have sex for the sake of market failure. Due to imperfect having sex. Deeply analyze the information, or high costs, peo- costs and the benefits of the activple often fail at hooking up for ity and then rationally decide the best course of action. various reasons.

I once saw a shirt that said In addition, viewing the entire process as a cost-benefit analysis “time+money=women” and I also makes evident problems in thought that this was an extremely the hook-up culture. On the cost misogynous statement. Nevertheside is spent time and energy, less, it somewhat captures what possibilities of venereal diseases, I am trying to say. Don’t pursue and of course the awkwardness sexual intercourse, if the cost exthat arises after the act has been ceeds the benefits.

So this is my brief foray into committed.

And truly what is to gain? Mo- this realm and I hope I never have ments of pleasure, fleeting feel- to make it again. Make rational choices and trust me, you have a ings of enjoyment?

For me, the market failure is world to gain.

BY JORDAN ROTHMAN Editor

BY EMMA NEEDLEMAN Columnist

This installment of the Point comes to you from across the pond, where I am currently spending a semester abroad at University College London.

The Hoot Editorial Staff couldn’t resist the chance to print the most incisive commentary on British/ American relations since Thomas Paine’s Common Sense (and by “the most incisive” I mean “the most offensive and weird”) so we’ll be running several of these reflective travel-themed pieces, cleverly titled “The Compass Point.”

Let me start by saying there is much I find mystifying about British culture. Before I left, I’d fallen into the trap of thinking that it was more or less similar to America.

This is not true. There are the little differences of course. They play eight-and-a-half minute Velvet Underground jams in sandwich shops. The drinking age is lower, so whenever I go out I am surrounded by teens.

And, alarmingly, the notion that pedestrians have the right-of-way seems to be a uniquely American one.

Of course, there are also the big distinctions: Britain is a former superpower.

America is a current superpower.

And with fewer than seven percent of its populace attending church, Britain is concretely a post-faith society, while America is, um, clearly not.

Furthermore, what Americans call “liberal” ideals (i.e. abortion rights, gun control, abolition of the death penalty) are seen as moderate a n d taken f o r granted o v e r here. So, for instance, the fact that The Hoot Op-Ed page seems to have turned into the National Review in my absence would really bother them.

But, generally, I think the Brits like Americans.

Whenever my American “flatmates” and I go out, the locals always want to talk to us.

They’re usually friendly and just want to tell me about their vacation to Florida (they all love Florida—I can’t explain it), but sometimes it feels

like being a B-list celebrity in a restaurant where a fellow patron keeps asking you to “Do the catchphrase!” and telling you he loved the episode where Iggy Pop guest-starred.

One time this really drunk, obnoxious 17-year-old was talking to us and wouldn’t shut up about

“what a bad idea the NRA is” and I was like, “Ugh, I’m just trying to drink my seven dollar beer here.”

Then he said that most Americans are stupid and I said that I was stupid, but also carrying a concealed handgun. He ignored me.

Anyway, I’m sure you’re not interested in hearing my anecdotes about drinking in bars, so I’ll get to the juicy stuff. I’ve been trying to reflect on what the real difference between us and them is—that is, in this world where so much is homogenous and information so accessible, what is it (apart from imperialist guilt) that makes me so conscious of my nationhood as I walk the streets of what is supposed to be a great “international” city?

It all comes down, in a way, to the subway system.

At my orientation, they warned us not to talk loudly, or even at all, on the subway.

“It’s something A m e r i c ans do that really bothers us,” they explained.

“It’s not y o u r fault— you just h a v e louder voices.”

It’s true that the Brits are practically silent on trains and that a subway ride in New York City without at least one person screaming is rare, but I

ILLUSTRATIONS BY Alex Doucette/The Hoot

don’t attribute it to either biological “loudness” or even differing ideas about manners.

The reason that Brits are quiet and we’re loud isn’t because they’re

stuffy and we’re yee-haw cowboys. It’s because the British— and, I’d venture, much of the rest of the Western world—are self-aware in a way that Americans simply are not.

Think about it this way: Let’s say you had a friend who was always convinced that people were watching her, eavesdropping on her, judging her based on what she was wearing.

What would you think about her?

I’d probably say she seemed a little paranoid and immature, but the big adjective that would spring to my mind is “narcissistic.”

In America, it’s narcissistic to think that other people are so bored they’re listening to your conversation, that they don’t have problems of their own and are instead watching you drop your change or are noticing that your scarf clashes with your jacket.

I really think that we, as a people, believe firmly in “live and let live” more than anything else and that we assume that other people feel the same way.

In our attitudes to ourselves and our actions, I think we are truly free, we are truly (dare I say it?) liberal.

But the British are painfully self-aware. I’ve never been apologized to more (walking through a crowded grocery store, I hear a chorus of “sorrys” for infractions I didn’t even realize were committed).

I have seen grown men blush because we both reached for a door handle at the same time.

They rarely talk above a murmer.

No one swears unless they’re drunk.

But their constant self-monitoring isn’t self-involvement: it’s a necessary response to the fact that they are actually always judging each other all the time.

People over here care about what you wear, about what you say, and how you say it.

They do want people to conform to lofty standards of politeness.

Americans don’t.

So then why do we—the openminded and individualistic ones—legislate morality?

And why are we trying to take over the world?

That’s a heavy question to lay on you.

I’m going to try to make some headway in the next installment, but, until then, I’m going to look for the answer at the bottom of a glass of Guinness. Cheers!

6

October 3, 2008

The Hoot

FEATURES

Who are Carl and Ruth J. Shapiro?

BY ARIEL WITTENBERG Editor

Freshmen Jeremy Solomons and David Hanno eat at Einstein’s in the Shapiro Campus Center about once a day.

Jeremy lives in North Quad, and Hanno lives in Massel, so the two friends use the SCC as a meeting place to catch up on each other’s day.

“It’s funny,” Solomons said, “I come here so often, but I know absolutely nothing about the Shapiros except that they must have lots of money, because there’s like five other buildings named after them.”

“I bet they’ve donated like, $ 3.8 million to ‘deis,” Hanno said.

As for where the Shapiros made their money, Solomon said his best guess is embezzlement.

“All of those rich people get their money that way,” he explained, “even the Kennedys made their money off of prohibition.”

Hanno said that while he doesn’t know where the university’s largest donor got their money, “I assume that they worked for it.”

“I don’t know, they’re Jewish, right? So maybe they’re doctors or lawyers,” he said.

“But I don’t think anyone really knows who they are.”

Hanno and Solomons aren’t the only students who don’t know who the Shapiro’s are. As sophomore Naomi Kling puts it, “no one knows.”

In 1939, Carl Shapiro formed Kay Windsor Inc., a women’s clothing company based in New Bedford, MA. 22 years later, the Shapiros had made a fortune, and established the Carl and Ruth Shapiro Family Foundation, according to the Foundation’s website.

In 1971, Shapiro sold Kay Windsor Inc. to the Vanity Fair Corporation as part of Vanity Fair’s plan to expand into women’s knitwear. At the time, it was one of the largest women’s clothing companies in the country, making five lines of dresses and women’s sportswear, according to the fashion history website, Vintagefashionguild. org.

After selling his company, Shapiro was director of Vanity Fair Corporation until his retirement in 1976.

Kay Windsor Inc.’s dresses are still popular. On Google, the two types of websites that come up upon searching the company are either press releases about the Shapiros’ philanthropy, or people looking to buy vintage clothing.

While the source of the Shapiros’ money might seem unglamorous to Hanno and Solomons, their contributions are not.

Making their first contribution to the university in 1950, the Shapiros have since donated a total of $80 million dollars, making them Brandeis’ largest donor.

When they donated $25 million in 2000 for the building of the SCC, it was the university’s largest single donation.

Since that time, the only single donations to break that record have come from the Shapiros themselves.

The Shapiros have a total of three buildings to their name on campus, and the university is currently in the process of re-building the Carl and Ruth Shapiro Admissions Center, something Nancy Winship, Executive Director of Development at Brandeis, said was Carl Shapiro’s idea.

“Carl sees his donations not as gifts, but as investments in the future of Brandeis,” said Winship, whose family has been friends with the Shapiros since her childhood.

“They don’t just build buildings, they work very, very hard at it, along with the Brandeis team, and they make sure that those buildings have everything that they need. Whatever Carl and Ruth do, they make sure that it’s done really perfectly, and with the best material.”

For example, when the SCC was being designed, it was Carl Shapiro who decided that the building should face toward the Loop Road. Then, as an added bonus, he offered to pay for the landscaping of the Great Lawn, which at the time was a parking lot. Carl Shapiro also came up with the idea of the block-couches that are in the SCC’s atrium, purposely picking furniture that could be rearranged in order to best suit the student’s needs.Winship said that Carl and Ruth Shapiro visit the SCC about twice a year to make sure it isn’t lacking anything they might need to provide.

On tours of the university, prospective students are told that the Shapiros donated the money on the condition that the design for the building had no 90-degree angles.

Winship said that the story is “entirely false,” but that “Carl really cares about the aesthetic designs of his buildings—and the lighting. Carl loves lighting.”

Winship attributed the Shapiros’ generosity, in part, to their close friendship with President Jehuda Reinharz.

The Shapiros chose to donate to Brandeis because, as members of the Jewish community, they wanted to show their faith in the institution, Winship said.

Not only was their first donation given only two years after the university was founded, but Ruth Shapiro has been a member of the Brandeis National Women’s Committee, an organization dedicated to maintaining Brandeis’ library, since 1948.

The Shapiros have also contributed to many organizations in the Boston area, including the Museum of Fine Arts, The Dana Farber Cancer Institute and Beth Israel Hospital.

In fact, the Shapiros declined to comment for the article because so much has been written about them and their contributions to various institutions int he past.

Still, Winship said Brandeis is the family’s “highest priority,” despite the fact that no one in the Shapiro family has attended the university.

“And that just shows you the kind of people they are,” Winship continued. “I’ll tell you, I just love them. In

my office, I have a statue of Louis D. Brandeis and two photos of the Shapiros, and that’s it. And it’s because they are some of the most wonderful people you could ever spend an evening with. They are incredibly elegant, but also fun. Carl has a great sense of humor. He could definitely make every student on campus laugh.”

In January, 2003, the university showed its gratitude to the Shapiros by surprising Carl Shapiro with an honorary degree—the university’s highest honor.

Though honorary degrees are usually given on campus at the commencement ceremony each May, the university made an exception of their largest donor, giving him his degree at his home in Palm Beach.

The university has only made this exception once prior, in 1994 for George Burns, a political historian. The honorary degree reads “the innovative initiatives, programs and buildings you have supported will enrich the lives of many generations to come.”

And at 95 and ¾ years old, Carl Shapiro isn’t done giving yet.

“He goes to work every day from eight a.m. until dinner and what does he work on? His whole work is philanthropy,” Winship said.

“And it’s smart philanthropy. I come out of a meeting with him, President Reinharz and Peter B. French, and you just know that he was the smartest person in the room.

It’s counterintuitive, but he definitely gets smarter every year he gets older.”

Carl Shapiro joined the university’s Board of Trustees in 1979 and is currently a trustee emeritus. His daughter Rhonda Zinner currently serves on the board and is vice chair of the Board Overseers of the Heller School, David E. Nathan, Director of Development Communications said.

In addition to the Shapiro Science Center, which is currently under construction, and the admissions building which is just getting started, the Shapiro Family Foundation’s executive director, Jean Whitney, said the foundation has also pledged to pay for a building at the Heller School.

“We’re just lucky to have the Shapiros on our side,” Winship said. “Most universities don’t have a Carl and Ruth Shapiro.”

“And I think that people use the Shapiros as an example,” she continued. “Because Carl is so brilliant—and brilliant is the word—people see him investing huge amounts of money in the university and it gives us credibility. If Carl’s doing it, Brandeis has got to be a great place.”

Contributions through the years 1950: Shaprios make their first gift to Brandeis

1986: Carl J. Shapiro Chair in International Finance

1976: Carl and Ruth Shapiro Center for Technology and Journals

2000: Carl and Ruth Shapiro Campus Center

1992: Carl and Ruth Shapiro Admissions Center

2004: Rhonda S. and Michael J. Zinner Forum

2007: Carl and Ruth Shapiro Admissions Center (renovation)

2006: Carl J. Shapiro Science Center

October 3, 2008

F E AT U R E S

The Hoot

7

Meet the Author series introduces many prominent authors to Brandeis community

BY BEN SACKS Editor

Four and a half years ago, Brandeis Media Relations and Communications staff members Dennis Nealon and Lorna Miles came up with a simple idea: bring authors to Brandeis to discuss their works, and make the events free of charge to attendants.

A little planning culminated in the first of scores of successful events, a talk by Professor David Hackett Fischer (HIST) in February 2004 on his book Washington’s Crossing. Since then, over 40 authors, many of them well known, have come to Brandeis to discuss the books they have written.

The Meet the Author series, according to Nealon, was created in order to fill a missing element of the Brandeis experience. “The university lacked a real stage, a showcase that would befit the literary community that [Brandeis] is,” he stated. “We started it as a way to bring people together to talk about books. We are trying to interest students as much as we can.”

Meet the Author events include a reading or discussion by the author on a featured book, followed by a question and answer session and a book signing. Oftentimes,

the featured book becomes available at a highly discounted rate through the Brandeis bookstore.

Topics covered range from “history to politics to autobiographies to anything,” said Nealon. “The talks really are all over in terms of subject matter, with some intellectual challenge built in. We want [these events] to be thought provoking and fun.”

Featured authors make their presentations free of charge. “It’s a trade,” explained Nealon. “We’re giving an author a spotlight for their book at one of the top universities in the country, and in return, the authors are giving us their time and their insights.”

Students have a say as to who is invited to speak, and virtually no speakers have turned down an offer. Past Meet the Author events have highlighted such authors as Pulitzer Prize winners Sophie Freud ’70 (granddaughter of Sigmund Freud), David Oshinsky and Professor Fischer. Just last week, the program hosted renowned scholar and statesman Itamar Rabinovich and expects more great speakers in the near future, including Professor Alison Bass ’75 (AMST) on Oct. 29 , author of Side Effects: A Prosecutor, a Whistleblower, and a Bestselling

Antidepressant on Trial.

At first, the series was held in the Shapiro Campus Center atrium in order to draw attention to itself and provide an open market feel, whereby passerby on their way somewhere could stop and attend for as long as they wanted Events were held at lunch time, so that people could take a break in the middle of their days to hear the day’s speaker. However, the setup was more of a nuisance that a convenience.

“We wanted the hustle and bustle around us,” said Nealon. “It was a terrific venue, but authors found it difficult to concentrate, they couldn’t hear themselves think.”

Since then, Nealon and Miles have experimented with various times and locations on campus.

“I think that the student body is very much behind the program, but everyone is very busy,” Nealon said.

Nevertheless, turnouts have been decent, with audiences ranging from approximately 25 to 300 people. “60 is the right amount for the feel of a proper crowd,” stated Nealon. “Any time our events have less, they feel under-attended and I feel badly that people missed a really good opportunity to meet

with people who create books out of their work and their thoughts.

These are people that are sharing their lives’ work.”

The total cost of an event is just a few dollars. Since speakers come for free and Brandeis venues are free as well, the total cost of an event may be the cost of producing promotional posters. “We’re working on literally less than a shoestring budget,” Nealon noted.

It’s a win-win situation, in his view. “[The idea] is beautiful in its simplicity, and who doesn’t like books?” It’s a very popular program.

Nealon and Miles are proud of their accomplishment, as they feel the Meet The Author series has truly added value to the Brandeis community.

“How perfect is it?” Nealon asked rhetorically. “At Brandeis, you have a built- in audience of terrific young people who jump at the opportunity to spend time with someone whose life’s work has been put into a book.”

Students interested in learning more about the Meet The Author series should contact Dennis Nealon at nealon@brandeis.edu, or Lorna Miles, lorna@brandeis. edu.

Meet the Author

Comeuppance

by Prof. William Flesch (ENG) Wednesday, Oct. 22, 2008 4-5:30 p.m.

Rapaporte Treasure Hall

Side Effects

by Alison Bass ‘75 (AMST) Wednesday, Oct. 29, 2008 4-5:30 p.m.

Shapiro Campus Center, 2nd Floor Multipurpose Room

Magnifico

by Miles Unger ‘82 Wednesday, Nov. 12, 2008 4-5:30 p.m.

Shapiro Campus Center, 2nd Floor Multipurpose Room

Freshmen twins preform gymnastics on horseback

BY LEEYAT SLYPER Special to The Hoot

When the sport of volleyball was originally founded in 1895 in a nearby Massachusetts YMCA, it was hailed as an ingenious combination of tennis and handball.

American football drew inspiration from its British predecessor, rugby, and its namesake, known in America as soccer. But only one sport can claim as its godparents two sports that at first glance might seem immiscible. “We usually try to explain it as gymnastics on horseback,” said Mara Rosenberg ’12.

Mara and Ilyana Rosenberg, first-year twins, are both involved in a sport that is more commonly referred to as equestrian vaulting, or more simply, horse vaulting.

A typical competitive horse vaulting meet includes matches in which vaulters like Mara and Ilyana showcase their flexibility, athlet-

icism and balance by performing gymnastic feats atop a cantering horse. “The horse canters in a circle, and we do routines to music on its back,” Mara summarized.

The horse runs in an even circle, led by a rope called a “lunge line” which in turn is controlled by a horse trainer who stands in the middle of the circle, known as the lungeur. Meanwhile, vaulters use the horse’s back and sometimes even its neck as a moving balance beam, executing moves like shoulder stands and splits.

During a competition, vaulting routines are divided into two types. First, vaulters must complete the seven “compulsory moves,” including a mount in which a vaulter gets onto the horse; stand; seat; flag and scissors and others, and are judged for their form and execution. The freestyle that follows must be a minute long and set to music, with moves that are judged based upon their difficulty and the level of the vaulter’s skill. Last year, the Rosenbergs choreographed a pairs, referred to in the sport as pas-de-deux, freestyle routine to the theme song of “Batman Begins.”

“Gymnastics on horseback,” as Mara referred to it, is also a pretty accurate description of how the two got involved in the sport in the first place. Said Mara, “I’d done horseback riding lessons since fifth grade. [During high school] I wasn’t ready to give up gymnastics, but it was too much of a time commitment to do both.”

When the twins’ mom saw an advertisement in the newspaper publicizing a vaulting club near their home in Portland, Oregon, Ilyana was looking for a sport that would combine two of her passions. And despite their initial per-

plexed reaction to the sport, a common reaction of most first-time viewers of equestrian vaulting, Mara and Ilyana quickly became hooked.

Under the direction of their coach in Portland, the two competed last year in the national vaulting competition in Watsonville, California. That experience, said Mara, gave her a chance to match up her skills against other vaulters in her division, as well as the unforgettable opportunity to see world-renowned vaulters perform their routines.

At its best, vaulting is an art form, Mara said, “High-level vaulters look like they’re so at ease on top of the horse. “ As such, one of the main focuses in horse vaulting is the smooth interaction between the vaulter and the horse.

“The core element [of vaulting] is harmony with the horse. You get deduced a lot if you hit the horse by landing on it too hard. You are supposed to not even let the horse know that you’re up there,” Mara said. “It’s a really big team and horse combined effort.”

Most vaulting clubs in the United States have a horse that is owned collectively by the vaulters who in turn are in charge of preparing it before practice and taking care of the horse afterward. Keeping that in mind, injuries in the horse vaulting world are rare.

If there is a conflict between the horse and vaulter, vaulters are taught to protect themselves at all costs. “We actually don’t wear any pads or helmets or protective gear.

If we’re off balance or something happens, we just jump off… The longeur is in control of the horse,” Mara said.

A random survey of Brandeisians show that horse vaulting is pretty much unknown on campus.

What is most people’s reaction when they hear the Rosenberg’s unique pastime? Surprise, if you ask Ilyana. “I tell them to go on Youtube or Google. They do it…and say

‘Wow. You do that? That’s really cool,” she said.

Though equestrian vaulting has been in existence as a sport in America since the late 1950s, it still has yet to take off in America the way it has in Europe.

Most vaulting experts trace modern-day vaulting to Germany, where it originated as a tool to introduce children to the equestrian arts.

In 1983, the sport gained official recognition in the field when the Federation Equestre International (FEI) included horse vaulting in their 10 member list of equestrian disciplines. But even with recognition and occasional vaulting demonstrations at the Olympics, horse vaulting remains one of the least popular of the 10.

For Ilyana, the sport’s small size has some unexpected benefits, and she remains unsure as to whether or not it is advantageous to expand the sport’s appeal to a wider audience.

“It would be a lot of fun to have more people involved. But then again because it’s such a small sport you get to know everyone and you get to compete at the same competitions as national champions,” she said.

There are several horse vaulting clubs scattered throughout the United States, making continuing their unique hobby during college relatively easy for the Rosenbergs.

“It was actually one of the ways I was considering colleges—how close it was to vaulting. Luckily all the colleges I applied to were at most 30 minutes away from a vaulting club,” Mara said.

Even with schoolwork, Mara and Ilyana have found the time to spend two hours every Sunday at the New England Vaulakryies, a competitive club near Waltham.

After all, the Rosenberg twins are masters at combining, whether it be schoolwork and hobbies or gymnastics and horsebackriding.

12

October 3, 2008

The Hoot

N E W S

The ‘Innermost Parts’ ful…Brandeis was, in short, a Progressive.”

“We have forgotten Louis’ lesson,” he consurprises and sometimes frightens both tinued. “Louis Brandeis believed in Social sides of the debate.

Justice, real Democracy, freedom of ExInnermost Parts’ story is not so much pression, and self-determination. So do we. about Brandeis’ first labeled political party Louis Brandeis was a Progressive. So are we. as it is about an organization, which started Is our University?” as a protest against the Brandeis administration and Student Union, increasingly The Center of Controversy finding itself in cahoots with the very organizations it protested less than a year ago.

The last line of the second ever post on BLOG (from p. 1)

In the Beginning Innermost Parts was created last December as a “spin off ” of Democracy For America after the university administration made it clear that the campus police were to be armed, Lacombe said.

Lacombe (who is currently president of DFA but was not at the time), along with other DFA members had founded another spin off of DFA called Students Opposed to the Decision to Arm, or SODA. SODA’s aim was to convince the administration not to arm the campus police by gathering petition signatures.

When the group presented the petition— which had 830 undergraduate signatures, along with 16 staff and 20 faculty members’ signatures—to President Jehuda Reinharz and were still rejected, they decided to bring the petition to the Student Union Senate and ask that a resolution be written opposing the decision to arm.

The senate turned down the request.

According to a comment written by Rivka Maizlish ’10 one senator told the group that their “voicing frustration over the administration’s procedures was ‘disgraceful’ and that we should ‘just focus on your homework.’”

Maizlish also wrote that another senator would not vote for the resolution because “‘what about all the students that DON’T want their voices heard by the administration? What about THEM?’” SODA was outraged by the Union’s decision. But they were not angered simply because the Senate would not support the resolution; they were angered because of the Senate’s reasoning.

“We saw a Student Union that was unwilling to take a contradictory opinion to the administration,” Lacombe said. “And it was frustrating because they are the primary voice of the students who get to speak with the administration. They were fine with making committees about getting bikes on campus, but this showed that they were unwilling to act in a real way.”

So Sahar Massachi ’11 and Alex Melman ’11 decided to start a blog about Brandeis issues.

Massachi, who has been blogging since high school, said that while he had always wanted to start a blog with Brandeis as its focus, he hadn’t been motivated until “the Senate put the kibosh on the guns resolution.”

They decided to call the blog “Innermost Parts,” a phrase taken from the university’s motto—“Truth even unto its innermost parts.”

The blog started in December. The first post, entitled “Why we fight,” explains the blog’s origins, and describes it as a forum for Progressive discussion at Brandeis.

“Something is rotten in the campus of Brandeis,” Massachi wrote in the post.

“Those guiding the course of this University have abandoned the core values that make our namesake great…Louis Brandeis was a champion of the people against the power-

Innermost Parts (by Massachi and Melman) reads: “you and I can be just as powerful a voice as those with fancy titles.”

The post, entitled “We. Are. INNERMOSTPARTS!”, was written on Dec. 13.

While the line was written as a call to battle, and a recruitment tool to convince readers of the blog to become writers, within four months of its being posted, Innermost Part’s voice was being heard by “those with fancy titles.”

The blog hadn’t been extraordinarily popular in its first three months. According to the blog’s site meter, it had only 93 site visits in February, two months into its existence.

In April, the number of site visits sky rocked, to 2,669 visits—a figure which Massachi attributes to the blog’s coverage of the Senator at Large elections. In those elections, only two candidates’ names were on the primary round ballot, Andrew Brooks ’09 and Justin Sulsky ’09. The two were running on a combined ticket.

Unhappy with the choices once the deadline for signing up to run had passed, Noam Shuster ’11 and Kaamila Mohamed ’11 decided to start a “write-in” campaign.

When Innermost Parts heard about Shuster’s campaign, they endorsed her, and started writing posts in her favor, and against Sulsky and Brooks.

Shuster, along with Sulsky, won the election, leaving Brooks in defeat.

Shuster said she attributes her win to Innermost Parts.

“I didn’t know about the blog until someone told me they were endorsing me, but I love them now,” she said. “I am honored that they spoke up for me. I couldn’t have won without them.”

Massachi too believes that Innermost Parts played a big role in Brooks’ defeat.

“We did tip the balance in that election.

Without us, Noam probably wouldn’t have been elected,” he said.

Brooks thought that the blog influenced his defeat as well, and filed a suit with the Union Judiciary against then Union Secretary Chief of Elections, Nelson Rutrick ’09.

According to the May 2 issue of The Hoot, “Brooks alleged that Rutrick ‘was not enforcing the rules’ regarding libel, slander, and campaign requirements.”

Brooks cited Innermost Parts as one of two instances where Rutrick had failed to enforce the libel and slander rules.

On the blog a post had been written by Hughes (Shuster’s campaign manager at the time) stating that Brooks and Sulsky were “backward reactionaries.”

Writing about January’s Patriotic Display Resolution, Hughes stated, “Compare this with Justin Sulsky and Andrew Brooks’ horrible records (I know I said I wouldn’t, but I just can’t help it!)…Authoring and being the only two senators to vote for the ridiculously partisan American Flag resolution [and] doing absolutely nothing about almost every key progressive issue like endowment transparency and gender neutral housing (at least not to judge by their project reports).”

When Rutrick discovered that Brooks, in

Popularity Contest fact, did not authorize the Patriotic Display Number of posts Resolution, he wrote Number of site Month on Shuster, Mohamed, visits Innermostparts Hughes and Massachi an e-mail, warning February 93 34 them against slander March 1,010 58 and libel. (Innermost April* 2,669 34 Parts now has a correction on this post, May 3,135 22 which otherwise reJune 992 20 mains intact. The July 1,125 20 words “horrible” and August 17 1,023 “infamously” have been struck out, but September * 62 3,796 are still visible, *months with Student Union Elections something Massachi said signifies that the **information courtesy of www.innermostparts.org and http://www. author of the post sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=s44innermost&r=36 believes that writing those words was a The Innermost Parts of mistake, but does not the Senate want to pretend they were never written.)

In order to pass a resolution in the To Brooks, this action was inadequate, and he requested that the UJ disqualify Mo- senate, a two-thirds vote is required.

A voting block that takes up one-third hamed and Shuster as write-in candidates of the senate has the potential to conand declare Brooks and Sulsky the winners trol which resolutions are passed and 21 Senators

which fail. of the election.

This graph shows the In May, the UJ decided to hear the case,

varying degrees of and, as a result, Shuster’s swearing in was

“the innermostparts delayed until the hearing was over.

voting block.” There

are two senators who At the center of the controversy, Inner have been labeled by most Parts gained even more momentum,

Innermost Parts as 2/3 of senators with one of its founders, Melman, live-blog “progressive.” Inner (14) ging the trial.

most Parts calls itself

a progressive blog.”

“Of course I was on their side and they

There are three senawere on mine, but it couldn’t be official so 1/2 of senators

tors who have been (11) that the UJ wouldn’t find out and so that I

endorsed by the blog, would win,” Shuster said.

and two who are closely affiliated with Shuster was not sworn in as Senator at the blog, but were large until May, after the UJ ruled against

never endorsed.

1/3 of senators (7) Brooks. When the controversy was over, Adam Hughes, the “Progressive” SenaShuster emerged as Senator at large, and In- tors Union Vice President, (according to Innneris a writer for Inner nermost Parts emerged as, what Massachi most Parts) mostparts and was Senators affiliated calls, a “political force” on campus—jump- with Innermost

endorsed by the blog.

Parts ing from 2,669 site visits in April, to 3,135 In the event of a tie, site visits in May.

the Student Union Online Discussion, Offline Results Shuster was not the only senator Innermost Parts endorsed in the spring. The blog also endorsed Class of 2011 senator candidates Alex Melman and Lev Hirschorn— both of whom write for the blog.

According to Massachi, one of the founders of the blog and the writer with the most posts to date, he decided Innermost Parts should endorse candidates because of his disappointment in the Student Union’s behavior.

“Listening to [the Student Union] last year just made you think ‘Why the hell are they even here?’ Massachi said. “We want an activist Student Union—one with a backbone—last year’s Union didn’t represent that.”

Since the beginning of the academic year, Innermost Parts’ influence has only grown.

In September, there were 63 posts on the blog, the largest number in the blogs history (beating March’s 58).

There were also 3,859 site visits, also a new record for the blog. Lacombe, who writes for the blog, attributes the site’s increased readership to the combined effects of the special Vice Presidential election, and the regular Senate elections.

“Innermost Parts thrives on elections.

There’s no question about it,” Lacombe said.

“We’ve definitely created a buzz. Both about itself and the election,” he continued. “It’s gotten people interested in who gets elected.”

Senators endorsed

by Innermost Parts

Vice President has the deciding vote.

Vice President tie breaker vote

In the Vice Presidential election, Innermost Parts endorsed one of its writers, Adam Hughes.

Hughes said that he decided to run for Student Union Vice President because he “felt there was no candidate running who shared the same priorities that not only I have, but that a majority of Brandeis students had.”

While Hughes ran against three candidates – Andrew Brooks, Gustavo Pardo ’10 and Christina Khemraj ’09 – Innermost Parts’ discussion of the election, and Hughes’ campaign focused mainly on Hughes and Brooks.

“We are definitely influential,” Massachi said. “We talked about that race like it was just Adam and Brooks who were running, and they were the ones who made it to the final round. That’s probably why – we talked about it, so people expected those two to be in a show down and only voted for them.”

Student Union President Jason Gray ’10 said that he didn’t know exactly how much influence Innermost Parts has had on Student Union politics.

He did, however acknowledge “they’ve done a good job of coordinating online communications with offline activism.”

Or, as Lacombe put it, “we have more force in elections than ever.”

October 3, 2008

NEWS

The Hoot 13

N E W S

of a political party?

Defining a Party

According to Lacombe, who wrote the original post about the Brandeis Progressive Party, Innermost Parts’ force in elections suggests that it is a political party.

Lacombe also said that Innermost Parts fulfils the three characteristics of a political party, as he learned it in his American Government class at Brandeis.

“Parties have to have one, an electorate, two, an organization and three, people in government who vote together,” he said.

“Innermost Parts has the first one—all of the writers define themselves as progressive, that’s a constituency with generally the same ideologies. It has an organization— Innermost Parts and related people have, in the past, organized to get people elected, like Noam and Adam. And Innermost Parts definitely has people in government.”

Lacombe continued to say that while it still remains to be seen whether or not the candidates whom Innermost Parts have endorsed will vote in a block, he is “pretty confident that they will vote together.”

Lacombe’s assertions, however, have been met with opposition on the part of many of the blog’s writers.

“I think you can define words however you want, but it doesn’t mean that we’re a political party,” Adam Hughes said. “I wouldn’t be ashamed of using the term political party if I thought it was what we are trying to do, but that label is completely foreign to what’s really going on.”

Hughes also questioned why it was Innermost Parts that was considered a party, and not DFA, saying that it was “cherry picking” to decide that one was and not the other since they are deeply connected.

Lacombe disagreed. “We share people, but if you look at the timing of everything, progressives started getting elected into the Union since the founding of Innermost Parts,” he said. “Also, DFA concentrates primarily on national politics.”

Massachi also denied that the blog constitutes a political party, saying that political parties create divisions and are “nefarious sounding.”

But to Andrew Brooks, who views himself as the two-time victim of Innermost Parts’ partisanship, the blog does divide the campus. “They are promoting narrow-minded thinking,” he said. “They are a political party because they have an ideological agenda of ‘progressivism’ and they have a litmus test to meet, and if you don’t meet their test, they oppose you.”

Massachi denied the allegation that the members of the blog have a litmus test, citing the fact that anyone can write a comment on the blog (Brooks himself has done so) and that he has never denied anyone’s request to become a writer on the blog.

In order to be confirmed, potential writers must e-mail Massachi and then have an interview-like “chat” with him to ensure that they “see eye to eye with us.”

The “chats” are mostly a formality, Massachi said, and mainly to ensure that “we aren’t letting secret conservative racists post anything,” he said. “I could control our message, but I don’t.”

As for whether or not he’d let Brooks, who says he is a Republican, post on the blog if asked, Massachi said, “I don’t like to engage in hypotheticals, but if I thought I trusted his ideology and thought it was in line with ours, then yes, I would.”

He continued, “But I just don’t think he sees eye to eye with us enough to be a pro-

gressive.”

Brooks, however, did not understand this reasoning.

“A progressive movement should be the most open-minded movement on campus,” he said. “but they are bigoted about party ideology, and that’s a sad reality to me, because even though I’m a Republican, I can be liberal too. They’d know that if they didn’t have this us versus them mentality.”

Lacombe also added that current “nonprogressive” senators might have trouble grappling with the idea that they are not part of the “Progressive Party” on campus, because they may have voted for “progressive issues” like approving bikes on campus, or gender neutral housing.

“It’s different to spearhead the campaign for something and to just vote for it,” he said.

Overall, the debate in whether or not Innermost Parts makes up a political party rests in the ways in which the opposing sides define it. The Merriam-Webster dictionary has no definition for “Political Party,” and other online dictionaries vary in their definition, leaving the question of categorizing Innermost Parts up in the air.

Gray said that the blog couldn’t be a political party because the bloggers themselves refuse to define it that way.

Lacombe, on the other hand, said that whether or not the blog wishes to define itself as a party, it still meets the criteria.

A Counter-Culture Lacombe attributes the controversy behind his post to the idea that Innermost Parts was founded in opposition to the established Student Union and Senate.

The idea that an anti-establishment blog could be labeled a party—something that requires organization, and a title—is undesirable to those involved.

“The nature of this movement is anti-establishment,” he said. “Making us seem like an organized group is not something the candidates want. The backlash is because none of the currently elected progressive candidates want to be the establishment on campus.”

Indeed, both Massachi and Hughes alluded to the fact that they did not want to be seen as established.

“We’ve had talks about formally calling ourselves a political party,” Massachi explained, “but no one wants to have one.

Political parties are establishments which naturally breed an us versus them mentality, they have officers, ranks—we have none of that, we’re very unorganized.”

Lacombe also added that while he doesn’t believe the blog is close to becoming the establishment, he can understand why others, like Brooks, could be concerned that Innermost Parts would become similar to that of the character Willie Stark from the novel All the King’s Men. In the novel, Stark, based on the real-life politician, Huey Long, starts out as a progressive, anti-establishment candidate for Governor of Louisiana, but, upon gaining political power, becomes just as corrupt as the establishment he had fought to kick out of the government.

“It’s true, it could come to that,” he said.

To Lacombe, not only do Innermost Parts’ opponents see the All the King’s Men scenario as a possibility, but the blog’s writers do as well, saying “part of the reason why we’re popular is because we’re controversial, and we’re fighting the man.”

Brandeis: A Political History

Innermost Parts’ political influence in the past three elections has raised question both within the blog and among other students about whether or not it constitutes a political party, but this isn’t the first time potential political parties have existed.

Massachi said that one reason he opposed Brooks in the Senator at Large election is because he perceived him to be in one such bloc.

“I didn’t know much about him then,” Massachi said. “I just knew about the conservative voting block he was a part of and the harm which it had inflicted on the Student Union the past year.”

Brooks denies that he was ever a part of any political block, and said “they are calling for opposition against a conservative party of which there are no members.” \ Brooks did, however, say that the “past four Student Union Presidents were elected by machine politics,” referring to the fact that in each election, the elected President was endorsed and supported by the previous one.

“We do not need any more machines at Brandeis,” he said. “We need to end the era of machine politics.”

One of those presidents is Jason Gray.

Gray, however, denied involvement with any sort of political party, and denied the existence of any political blocs in the union.

He did, however, say that there are political organizations at Brandeis who make themselves known.

“People have political agendas of things they want to get done, and I expect them to push it,” he said. “If they didn’t, they aren’t living up to their potential.”

Lacombe, on the other hand, believed it naïve to think that Brandeis does not have political divisions.

“I just don’t think the senators know how to deal with Innermost Parts because they say the Senate is a non-partisan organization,” he said. “But it’s idealistic to think that any legislative or government body won’t have voting blocks.”

physical organization is not as important as online communication because students choose their representatives online.

“The difference between a Student Union election and the real world is that we vote online here,” he said. “So you can get your news about a candidate and their platform and five arguments about why you should vote for them and then actually vote for them all in the same place.”

“Talking to people about it in Usdan is good, but unless people have their computers with them, they can’t vote there anyway.

It’s just as effective to reach them with the blog,” he said.

A New Media

Innermost Parts is not only charting new territory at Brandeis politically, but also in terms of the media as well.

As Gray noted, neither The Hoot nor the Justice allow their writers to be a part of the Student Union Senate or Executive Board, in an effort to keep their publications objective.

While both Lacombe and Massachi hold that Innermost Parts’ coverage is not entirely political or progressive (the blog has featured posts about what it means to be Jewish and architecture at Brandeis), they recognize that the blog does have a political purpose.

“The blog is our stump, it’s our megaphone,” Massachi said, comparing a student reading Innermost Parts to going to hear a candidate speak. “We inspire individuals to act.”

“It works such that the blog creates the buzz and pushes people to take action in a grassroots way,” Lacombe agreed. “Going door to door is important in an election, but innermost parts gives that extra push of instilling excitement into the electorate to inspire them to go out and act individually and get behind a campaign.”Andrew Brooks, on the other hand, believes that because the Blog is technically a form of media, it is dangerous because students might confuse it with an objective news outlet.

“Innermost Parts is only one side of the story,” he said. “Don’t make it your sole New-age Politics source of information. To not consider the And as a voting bloc, or political party, other point of view goes against everying Louis D. Brandeis stood for.”

Innermost Parts is not like the others.

“Sure, there have been blocks in the StuThe Spirit of Brandeis dent Union before, it’s just that people hadn’t known about their existence because they What all sides of the debate about Innerdidn’t have a website,” Lacombe explained. most Parts’ partisanship can agree on is that “It just wasn’t publicized.”

Massachi, on the other hand, maintained both sides have “the spirit of Brandeis” at that Innermost Parts is not a party because heart. In interviews, both Massachi and it does not have an organized structure, or Brooks claimed to embody Louis D. Branformal, physical Innermost Parts meetings. deis’ vision and to understand that the other And while Brooks cited Innermost Parts’ side is working with the best intentions.

“We gave Andrew Brooks a lot of shit, but many volunteers who campaigned for Hughes as a reason for his defeat – “I just he has the interest of the Student Union at didn’t have the infrastructure,” he said – heart,” Massachi said.

“Innermost Parts has definitely gotten both Hughes and his campaign manager, Andy Hogan, said that those volunteers more Brandeis students involved in Student were largely unconnected to Innermost Union elections, and that’s a positive thing,” Brooks said.

Parts.

“I’m convinced that everybody here wants Hogan, who organized the volunteers, said that only two of the 15 volunteers wrote to make Brandeis a better place, they just for the blog and also said that he rarely want to do it in different ways,” Lacombe reads the blog. While there was one post on said.

Ultimately, Gray believes that Brandeis Innermost Parts explicitly encouraging students to campaign for Hughes, Hogan said students need to take a step back and look he recruited his volunteers via a Facebook at the situation.

“The Union is very, very real, and has the message.

Lacombe, on the other hand, said that the potential to make very very real change,” he nature of Brandeis Student Union elections said. “But only on a very very small scale.”

For more information on Innermost Parts, negates Massachi’s arguments, saying that go to www.innermostparts.com.

14

October 3, 2008

The Hoot

SPO RTS

Sun doesn’t shine for Judges’ men’s soccer as they fall 2-1

BY ZACHARY ARONOW Editor

“Not one thing was I happy about today.”

Brandeis head coach Mike Coven was nothing short of visibly perturbed following Brandeis’s second straight loss, bowing 2-1 to Bridgewater State at home.

“When we lose to a team like Wheaton who is ranked fourteenth in the country, we lose 2-1; it shows we played a decent game.

This team is very average and we’ve just lost to – there’s no reason we should lose to a team like this so I’m very, very concerned about the direction the team is going right now.”

Bridgewater State started the scoring, converting a costly turnover into an 18 yard blast that beat Brandeis keeper Sean O’Hara at the 22nd minute. The Bears put the game out of reach in the 53 minute as forward Jon Nutting converted a thirty yard shot that was just under the crossbar but over O’Hara’s outstretched hands.

The Judges launched a furious effort in the second half – taking 14 shots alone and finally broke onto the board after Ben Premo ’09 converted a one timer set up by Patrick Metelus ’10 for his 36th career tally. Brandeis took nine shots in the final 26 minutes but a combination of bad luck and Bridgewater net minder Ryan Seifert’s 7 saves preserved the 2-1 victory. Brandeis outshot Bridgewater State 24-13

PHOTO BY Danielle Wolfson/The Hoot

SOCCER: Matt Hohmann ‘11 and Kevin Murphy ‘09 playing against the Bridgewater State Bears.

and O’Hara had four saves in the losing effort.

The loss comes three days after Brandeis saw their four game winning streak end at the hands of then number 22 ranked Wheaton 2-1. The Judges jumped onto the scoreboard first with a tally from rookie Alexander Farr ’12 who converted a one timer feed from fellow rookie Evan Ersing ’12. A point-blank save from keeper Cole Davidson kept the Judges from doubling their lead which proved critical as the Lyons tied up score at the 33rd minute. Eric Driscoll’s second goal of the season gave Wheaton the lead and an offside’s call wiped out what would have been the equalizer from Farr. The

Lyons outshot Brandeis 16-10 in the game; O’Hare had five saves in the effort.

The losing streak comes at an unfortunate time for the Judges as they open this weekend with their first UAA match of the season, taking on Rochester on the road and then return to nonconference play against MIT at Cambridge. “Going into the UAA schedule right now, all the UAA teams are two or three goals better than this team we just lost to so we’ve got to make some changes, I’m going to have to think about and hopefully, we’ll be better on Saturday…I’m very disappointed, hopefully we’ll come out and play better against Rochester.”

Women’s volleyball loses two matches, wins one out of three

BY ZACHARY ARONOW Editor

The Judges entered the season with questions about depth and over the weekend, left Amherst still dealing with these questions.

Playing without injured setter Abby Blasco ’11, recuperating after aggravating her hamstring injury against Tufts, the Judges struggled to adjust, sandwiching a 3-1 victory over Westfield State with 1-3 losses to host Amherst.

“That definitely changes up our line-up.” Coach Michelle Kim explained, “Vi [Ruggiero ‘09] hasn’t set in awhile so it’s an uncomfortable situation for Vi but you know, no matter who’s setting, we still have to take care of the ball.”

“I think we played well Friday night,” Coach Kim said.

“Effort and you know, just trying to do different things with different line ups and stuff, I thought Friday was good. Saturday was a little bit harder, just some frustration built in, you know things not going our way…I think we just need to learn to cope with some of our frustrations and do a better job with that.”

Brandeis climbed back from a

five point deficit to take a 16-15 in 25-15 and 25-16 wins to snap the opening set against Amherst their two game losing streak. but the Lord Jeffs hung on for a However after taking the first 23-25 victory. set from Middlebury 25-20, the The Judges rebounded using a Judges lost three straight sets 1910-4 run to claim the second set 25, 19-25, 23-25.

25-19.

Against Westfield State, Paige HowevBlasco had 17 kills er Amherst This is when you step leading the offense. took the Lorraine Wingthird set up, this is when you enbach and Nikki 17-25 and shine. So let’s see what Smith each had 12 eked out kills; Wingenbach the 23-25 our players can do. also had 13 digs. win in the Libero Lauren Polast set. linsky ’10 had a team -Coach Michelle Kim high 17 digs. Blasco Piera C ar f a g n o had 15 digs in the ’10 led a losing effort against balanced attack with 13 kills while Middlebury while Carfagno lead Nicole Smith ’11 had 11 kills for the offense with 13 kills. the match along with six blocks.

Brandeis faces a tough chalBridget McAllister ’10 had a dou- lenge this weekend as they start ble-double with 10 kills and 15 their conference play in Pittsdigs. Paige Blasco ’11 led the de- burgh, taking on number nationfense with 25 digs. ally ranked Emory followed by Violette Ruggiero ’09 had 41 NYU and Chicago and they’ll be assists in her first game as a setter doing it without Abby Blasco who in two years. has been ruled out of the upcomWestfield State proved to be a ing contests. good salve for the Judges in the “This is when you step up, this tournament, responding with a is when you shine.” Coach Kim 25-8 pounding in the first set. stated, “so let’s see what our playAfter narrowly losing the sec- ers can do.” ond set, Brandeis followed with

Women’s soccer brief: Denise Dallamora’s squad extended their winning streak to two games as women’s soccer opened the month of October with a 3-0 blanking of Wellesley.

Brandeis took control early and never let go, pummeling Wellesley goalie Katie Martore with 29 shots, 10 of them on goal. Only two of the Blue’s five shots required Hillary Rosenzweig ’10 to knock aside.

Rookie Alana Torre ’12 started the scoring in the 31st minute off of a corner-kick. Torre later added an assist on Kaitlin Oldfield’s ’12 goal that gave the Judges the 2-0 lead at the half. Tiffany Pacheco ’11 provided the insurance tally early in the second half.

Brandeis soccer continues to take its show on the road as they play their first inter-conference match up of the season against Rochester on Saturday and then return home on October 7 to take on Tufts.

-By Zachary Aronow

AD V ERT IS EM ENT

16

October 3, 2008

The Hoot

WEEK END FUN Spotlight on Boston

Death Cab For Cutie Concert:

Friday, Oct. 3, 2008, 7:30 p.m.

925 Commonwealth Ave., Boston

In the mood for indie rock? Visit BU's Agganis Arena and check out the Death Cab for Cutie Concert. The grammy nominated band will perform old favorites like "Crooked

Teeth"

and "Soul

Meets Body" and will sing songs from www.bu.edu/agganis

Baked Fresh:

their May released album Narrow Stairs.

SCB releases new application SCB (from p. 1)

sized the importance of a “group dimension.”

Students will work separately during the summer but then come together to give a more complete picture of the area of conflict, Kang explained.

After the summer is over, the participants will then bring “their experience back to Brandeis,” Hillel said. “This is really important to us – immigration and [the Israeli-Palestinian conflict] is cen-

tral to campus.”

Orozco added, “we want them to express their experience how they want…to showcase what SCB is on campus.”

Kang, Orozco, and Hillel hope the SCB experience will extend beyond this year.

“The long term vision is to have students going to different areas of conflict every year,” Hillel said.

Kang added, “I’m thinking about replicating this model on different campuses.”

Sunday, Oct. 5, 2008, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.

540 Harrison Ave., Boston Want to go to a concert this weekend, but don't want to spend the big bucks? Shop at the South End Open Market while local bands perform. This event is free for everyone. Plus, show up early to get a free tote with some www.southendopenmarket.com shwag.

What's going on at Brandeis?

to Sunday, Oct. 3-5, 6:30 p.m.

The Zoo Story: Friday Science Quad Music isn't the only thing you can get for free this weekend. Attend Free Play Theater Cooperative's first production of the year, a play that takes place in real time and deals with the thin

line between sanity and insanity. Don't miss out!

Gameroom Opening: Friday, Oct. 3, 2008, 7 to 11 p.m.

Gameroom, Usdan With free food, free prizes and free games, it's

the perfect time to check out the gameroom

if you haven't done so already. Go with friends or meet new people.

Images courtesy of Google or stock.xchng Insert Comic Here

C O M I C S

laughingwarlock

PHOTO BY Max Shay/The Hoot

www.thehoot.net

By Anthony Scibelli

By Ian Price