Senate meeting minutes – October 26, 2003

I. Call to order (7:11)

II. Roll Call – all present except for Gabrielle Jean-Pierre (TYP Senator)

III. Minutes from last week’s meeting approval

-Mark Samburg’s name is not spelled Marc – correction noted

-Minutes approved

-point of info –do we have chairs for everyone?

IV. Communications

A. Student communications

-Shalwah Evans of BBSO

re: Justice

-BBSO drafted demands:

fire or resign: Passner & Siegel

formal apology & BBSO statements on front page

independant advisor to Justice, possibly from outside Brandeis

same people who edit and administrate is not appropriate

reached some compromises

asked Heyman to step down for one year

failed to work together, Justice did not follow through on promise to BBSO

BBSO no longer working with Justice

asking Senate to take action against Justice

-question from Mark Samburg: will your demands change?

-answer: demands did change (heyman step down for a year vs forever), Justice failed to follow through, no longer interested in working together

-question: Brandfon: do you want the justice to have an advisor w/ control or a mentor to advise?

-answer: both, advisor to give advice but to have say in processs

-question (katz): written demands or verbal

-answer: both

-question: Samburg: satisfied with Siegel’s resignation as it stands

-answer: yes

-question: Brescia: what is Matt Bettinger’s position?

-answer: figurehead

-followup: how did he become the person to talk to

-answer: he approached BBSO, said that Heyman was out, reneged

-question: Katz: was Heyman in original demands

-answer: no, they wanted him to see to resignations of others

-question: Goodman: can comments be accepted from the floor

-answer: in the form of question to the presenters

-point of order: allison: explain parliamentary procedure to senate guests

-gantz answered

-question: danny: did the justice say that they need to consult before giving final answers

-answer:

question: goodman: made a statement, cut off by Gantz

question: Noy Birger: would it be possible for Justice staff to retain current positions

answer: no, there is something wrong with the justice editiorial staff, this is not a slap on the wrist, something needs to be changed

question: alyssa: do you want bettinger to resign or heyman or who?

answer: not bettinger, yes heyman

question: who takes over if eic leaves

answer: managing editor

followup from before: alyssa:

question: mitch: why are you here, to say that you aren’t working with the justice?

-answer: yes, and to ask that the senate does something

question: can the senate take away justice’s money

answer: no

followup: money can only be taken away by a constitutional amendment

question: what about the SAF board?

answer: only if they mismanage funds

question: were BBSO’s original demands met?

answer: justice did not play ball, things changed, BBSO needed to take action, justice failed to meet deadlines on demands

Gantz: stick to order

question: would BBSO be willing at a future point to work with the justice editorial board to reestablish trust

answer:

question: would you be willing to reestablish bridge of trust

answer: can only speak for the present, don’t trust right now

point of information: is justice stu. union club

answer: no, it’s saf, we cannot control them

question: do you want to see money pulled from the justice

answer: we want to use the threat, but maybe, in order to keep them in check

Sugarman: Justice protection as SAF is to prevent political stuff, not to grant infallibility

Chris A. Q: Looking ot take away justice’s Safe status or money

Sugarman: Would be appropriate

Yoni:

Sugarman is director of OJAA

Yoni: As a head of an organization and you’re irresponsible, would you step down.

Sugarman: Any official you should be responsible for its actions.

Office for Judicial Academic Advocacy- Sugarman Director of OJAA.

Xiomara Gonzalez:

1) ICC supports BBSO.

Atmosphere in this room. Senators making remarks, rolling eyes, people not being supportive (senators not making welcoming environment).

2) Issue: rules of conduct, rules sholdnt obscure real meaning of what should be being done. Issue is crucial in our community, it’s affected too many people in our community, that’s the issue. The use of the word mentioned in the article is not appropriate.

We need to be sensitive, and people matter, and they have a right to say what the believe in about this issue.

Chris: Roberts rules. If we want to do something proactive, we can only get this done going through the rule. People asking questions, and making their comments. We wont get anything done if we don’t go by the rules.

Dan Mauer: Co-coordinator of SOAR and part of Union Judiciary.

It is important that the Justice coducts itself in the proper way. Jeremy opened forum on Wedesday, and he opened it with a joke ad that was completely inappropriate. Discussions about how the Justice goes about editing things. The purpose was to say that the Justice was sorry for the event. They should’ve just apologized.

I have noticed at various meetings with Justice and ICC leaders. Justice people smirking, I do not believe this is appropriate.

It’s odd for matt Bettinger was in a meeting by himself with BBSO e-board. Someone please explain to me how that happened.

Mitchel: As a member of the UJ, do you think your opinion should be out like this.

Dan: I have various positions on the campus (he mumbled, I couldn’t hear).

Mark: A comment against Dan is offensive to me, that comment was offensive and inappropriate.

No more questions for Dan.

Jeremy Hamburg (Justice editorial board member).

It has become a witch trial.

Let’s go back to Tuesday. We’ve apologized in multiple ways, and forums. Our comment is terrible, we’ve debated, we’ve made ourselves a whipping post. What we did is terribly wrong. BBSO made four demands, our columnist, sports editor gone, apology on first page, and BBSO statement.

It took us a while, we apologize that it took us so long. We are not prepared for everything that was shot at us in the last 72 hs.

Demands were for the Editor in Chief.

2 reason why we can’t have him leave:

1) EIC not racist, he didn’t make a remark like that, Dan Passner did. He oversaw it at 2 AM. He’s the only person on this campus willing to be EIC. This position entails staying up for 24 to 48 hrs. straight.

2) We have to atone for our sins. And do something concrete.

We created a forum. We were a whipping stick. We are dedicating the entire newspaper to every single letter that’s being sent. For the first time in history we are withholding our paper until friday, so that we can accomodate BBSO’s demands. We are also going to continue forums. A speaker that will address racism on campus.

If you ask the EIC to resign, you’ll lose the Justice. We stand behind the EIC, we can’t have him leave, he’s the only one willing to do the job. If you think that EIC leaving will solve racism on campus, then have him leave.

If you think you can make it better i the future, vote to keep the EIC, having a newspaper with a EIC that made a mistake is better than not having a newspaper at all.

Sara (art section editor):

It’s been brought up that people are smirking and laughing.

I’ve been so overwhelmed by the last four days, if we’re defensive, we don’t know how to act, we’re still students and we’re still learning. We haven’t acting fast enough or done everything that we should. In the process of decided what to do, we don’t have the capacity or history, we don’t know the actions to take.

We don’t want to sweep it up under the rug, it’s an issue present on campus. We’re just students, the only student who has the strength to run and keep us together is our current EIC. He provides our stability. We made a mistake that in a professional situation would’ve never happened. We want to regain trust, we’ve let everyone down, even ourselves. We don’t want to sweep it under the rug, and we want to make change. Please don’t misconstrue our intentions. All we want is for this to never happen, and we ant to bring Brandeis closer together.

Alana: In terms of this columnist, this is an isolated incident. On numerous occasions, this columnist has written anti-semitic comments. How do we trust you that this won’t happen again.

Sara: Dan Passner was an inflammatory columnist for a long time.

In terms of journalism, there’s a fine line that dictates what can and cannot be published. We have reexamined our process, and we have redefined that fine line. Having an outside professional contact, can provide a guiding light, they have a lot of years of experience. Big learning experience, we’ve reflected on what has been published in the past.

Sugarman: Made reference to a nazi. Do you think that was still fit to print.

Jeremy: If we review it now, it wouldn’t have been fit to print. We can review that. You need something to smack you in the head to know what is fit to print. We have to reevaluate what is and is not appropriate speech. It is not appropriate for now. We can’t retroactively go back and say that’s wrong.

From this day forward there’s no doubt that we won’t be more careful from now on.

Andrew: What other measures are you taken as a justice.

Jeremy: Daily Tribune)

Codification of the chain of command for copy editing. 6 editors will be reading.

Having Justice editors holding office hours, after their last class. Placed into the office so that they have to do their job. They have to be in the office.

Liaison to the student body and the Justice. One person that the student body could contact. To be aware of issue on campus.

Every editor will be on alert- institutional change- every editor has to recommit. People need to do their jobs.

Marc Samburg: Who was the copy editor of the Oct. 21st issue?

Stephen Heyman: This position wasn’t filled at that point. There was a copy editor in training. He is on the editorial board, and he is not responsible for the appearance of any stories that were published.

Andrew: Will this not happen again?

Jeremy: In 1994 the Justice ran a Holocaust add.

Peggy: Is the article that Sugarman referred to, is it online?

Jeremy: Yes, it always be online.

Nicole Amarteifio: Stephen Heyman- if he was doing his job for 24 hrs., why didn’t he catch the quote? How is this strength going to carry on?

Sara: I don’t know how it was missed. If I saw that I would’ve screamed.

It was missed, If I could go back, I would. It was missed, and the only thing we can do is learn from it, and use it as a touchstone to change the way we work. Steve is still learning, we’re all still learning how to do our jobs.

Shalwah: What other positions does he hold beside being a student?

We’re hearing constantly. We all hold other positions, I’m a CA, I have a job, I was part of the Waltham group and part of the BBSO e-board. What other positions does he hold?

Jeremy: Column came in on Monday, it was edited at 2 AM in the morning, too fast.

Stephen: I didn’t read this article. I read almost all the articles. He has never had to read ALL the articles. The sports editor read it and now resigned. Now we have a more rigid system. I pledge to you all, that such a system will be i place from now on.

Mark Samburg: Question for Stephen Heyman

I heard from Jeremy that the Justice is going through the editorial process. Are you Stephen going over you own abilities to continue as editor in chief and do you think you are fit to continue.

Stephen: Yes. I’m a wreck, there’s a reason why these people are standing behind me here, and if one of them wanted me to resign, I would run from the Justice in a heartbeat.

Chris A.: Not rhetorical question, you’re planning to put out an issue on Friday, and your trying to meet all these demands. I would split it into 2 categories: 1) Reparations, 2) Show of responsibility. Do you feel you have made enough of a show of responsibility.

Jeremy: No, we have a lot more to do. We wouldn’t be apologizing if we didn’t know we had a lot more to do. We started to look for a speaker, we’re looking on and off-campus.

We know that there is a problem of racism and intolerance on campus. We’re taking a lot of steps.

Rebecca (Justice): We’re printing every letter to the editor. Please tell us what we haven’t been doing.

Jeremy: We’ll do anything that will advance the cause, so long as you let us continue to exist. We need cooperation also.

Chris: That all needs to be done. That’s what you’re doing to heal the wounds. Do you feel that you’ve done enough to rectify what has happened?

Jeremy: It’s a start, we’re trying to be as responsible as possible. We’re 16, so we’re trying. We hope you consider this to be enough. We’re doing as much as we can come up with.

Nori: It was mentioned before, to include a person who is a professional to have as a friend. Someone willing to go through articles or columns to adivse. Would that be something feasible?

Jeremy: It’s more than feasible, it’s something that should happen. There’s no down side to it.

Justin Moore: Do you in your opinion, do you think you’ve slipped, do you think there are no consequences?

Jeremy: NO

Justin: At what point do you think the EIC is responsible?

Andrew: What will it take for the EIC to resign. Personally, if this comment made it to the pages of our newspaper and he didn’t care and he saw and left it there, then I would be the first person calling his resignation. There was no malicious intent. It’s counterproductive to do this. Racism is the real problem. We are very outraged.

Jeremy: It’s legally codified. Liable or slander. If he knew that it was in there and said it was OK.

Justin: Isn’t it the EIC’s responsible to know what’s going in the newspaper?

Jeremy: Ignorance isn’t the excuse. He’s being censored by everyone including his own Eboard. We take care of this internally. Something came in late, it’s not an excuse, but we’re willing to overlook.

Alana: How is it that a copy editor ca next become an editor in chief? He was copy editor and then become EIC. I didn’t hear of the in between.

Jeremy: It can’t happen. The person who was a copy editor in training, will become EIC. Stephen was the only who applied to be EIC, so we voted for him.

Andrew: He has a lot of skills that make him fit to be EIC.

Alana: You’ve done a good job of separating yourself of being a prof. newspaper. You as an editorial board felt comfortable placing him as EIC as having 1 yr. of experience.

Samantha: EIC is an immense job, it’s a full time job. None of us were willing to do this. So we backed him up when he said. As a copy editor, he changed the layout and everything. We cannot question his qualifications.

Sara: You don’t have to be an editor to run for EIC, it’s open to anyone on campus. It was sent out to our listserve.

Josh (not-senate): I can relate, i was EIC in high school. Now, if you get an article on Monday night, it will go though the new chain of command. There will have a deadline. If you miss it, then it won’t go out to print.

Jane Kim: Were there no rules previously?

Jeremy: Every section editor has their own deadline. Monday night is too late.

Sara: Can’t be lenient anymore, and writers must make deadlines now.

Janet S. Kim: Do you guys go though any training or write any contract? Is there an education process? what kind of things are they educated about?

Jeremy: Answer is yes and no.

Editor goes through training during a year. Learns about layouts, learns about ethics. In reality a newspaper editor or writer, they don’t have to sign a contract. there’s a code of ethics for journalists, and you implicitly accept that. It’s a social contract. We’ll look into people signing a piece of paper.

Igor: We have meetings with writers, we through ethics. We talk about how to quote people, how to conduct interviews, what’s appropriate. List of pages of what we go through. We go over previous issue, we go over how we edited the article, why things were taken out.

AP Styleguide for editors, How do the Justice Handbook, Style guide for each section. All available in the Justice office.

Josh Brandfon: There’s no one to step into the place of EIC. A lot of people are talking about how it’s an accountability issue. Is it only that no one can step up, or is it a moral issue.

Meredith Glansberg (Managing Editor): Stephen is the best and only one. I’m not qualified to do this. No one in this school is qualified to do what he does right now. He is the best one for this job.

Yana: He’s not the EIC by default, the gravity of his mistake does not reflect on his ability to do his job.

Jeremy: He’s the only who can do his job. Everyone on the Editorial Board will step down if he steps down.

Alana: What would happen to an organization that would violate a clause in their own constitution? What can the Student Union do?

Ken: There can be a UJ case brought against them.

Chris: Point of Info: The EIC serves a term of one year [yes]. Is it possible for the EIC to do a double term.? Could Matt Bettinger step in as EIC again.

Answer: [theoretically yes]

Sara: New section was added to the constitution, were about to vote.

Ebone: What’s the purpose of the Justice? What’s your goal purpose as representing the student body?

Jeremy: To reflect things that student body find interesting.

Ebone [follow-up]: This goes out to more than just the Student Body. This is seen by prospective students, they don’t understand or realize the process that the Justice is undergoing. When they see that our newspaper this word to come out in print and to be disrespected in that matter, they don’t see this. How do you plan on this being illustrated to prospective students, to donors, to people who rank this university.

Jeremy: If people looked close enough, they couldn’t possibly miss the coverage on the next issue. You won’t miss the apology on the first page.

Nori: Question about deadlines.

Jeremy: will try to make deadline constitutional.

Nori: Would it be OK to have sports issues o reserve?

Jeremy: We’d love to, but we don’t have that luxury. We don’t have enough writers, we only have 5 writers.

Alissa: Can you guarantee that there is no one on campus as qualified as Stephen?

Jeremy: YES. Asks other editors that feel someone else could do the job? No one else has expressed interest. Announced to the campus.

Marc: Why haven’t you rescaled your organization, seeing that you lay everything on your EIC? Why hasn’t the organizational structure of the justice been reconsidered to not have the EIC be the pillar of your organization?

Jeremy: Alternative, group of people wouldn’t be as accountable.

He’s not the pillar of our organization. We rally behind him. He’s our pillar of strength, not of our organization.

Josh: Have you found a new sports editor?

Jeremy: I’m acting in place.

Janet Kim: You talked about editor training, and reexamining editorial process. Everyone is open to write for the justice. What precautions are you going to take to ensure that prospective writers will know what to write. What kind of training do you propose to go through now?

Igor Pedan: We’re trying to start workshops where professionals come in and educate our writers about what is appropriate. We’ve also created new positions. Splitting news editor job to allow other people to teach them what is and is not appropriate.

Sara: When recruiting new writers. New rules will be explicitly conveyed.

Jacob Kim [directed to Stephen]: I know there is no other individual on campus to accept his responsibility. I understand all his amazing qualities. The bottom line is, this happened and someone needs to be responsible. To what degree does the EIC have to screw up to actually resign? Has he accepted his responsibility?

Stephen Heyman: I assume responsibility for what happened. That culpability is not coupled with resignation. I hope I’m still qualified to do my job. What happened doesn’t warrant my resignation. If one of my editors says that, I will resign immediately.

Shalwah: Did anybody read the Sept. 16th article read it before it went out to press? Why wasn’t anything done about it?

Sarah: apparently it felt under a grey area that was acceptable enough to print and that’s why it made it into the paper.

jeremy: Does it matter now that it’s a different Editor in Chief?

Yoni Goodman: I was concerned with what happened. Dan Passner and the sports editor stepped down. A lot of things need to be seen. I do not think that Heyman should step down. This was a racist indigent, and Stephen was negligent. You need to decide if we want to put him on trial for negligence. Club leaders can also be negligent from another 100 directions. Should Mitch be put on trial for missing a meeting he called. if Stephen steps down, Yoni will have to step down out of fear. He has seen many groups, including the ICC, submit articles late. If rules were followed there would be less ICC representation in the Justice. The speaker writes for the justice, is a roosevelt fellow, president of BOO, representative at large for the ICC, a student, etc. He is speaking as a student and as a club leader, not specifically as president of BOO. The justice will be changing the late acceptance policy for the first time in the last 3 years. If the student senate takes action against heyman for being negligent as a club leader, it is setting a new precedent: we will put club leaders on trial for negligence. Yoni has done stuff against his club’s charter. This is a horrible incident and people should be fired, those people have already lost their jobs. We have not focused on racism, we have put the editorship of the justice on trial

Samburg: isn’t there a difference between an act of negligence that isn’t going to inject racism into the campus media and one that doesn’t?

answer: bad intention vs bad act, there is a practical difference, but is it enough to put a college student on trial. there is no reason for heyman to step down, he did nothing racist. I was guaranteed that it was a safe space at the ICC the other night, and that was violated. putting heyman on trial is ridiculous.

Samburg: personal privilege: while we are on air do not violate FCC speech regulations

Alana Hamlett: Are you speaking as a rep for the ICC, or as you speaking as a leader of BOO, or are you speaking as a student? I don’t believe you have the right to speak on behalf of the ICC. Who are you speaking for?

Yoni: When I speak, I’m speaking under all 4 groups I represent. I was invited to be an ICC rep at large because people respect my opinion. the ICC should represent diversity on this campus. I am speaking as an ICC member.

Alana: Are you prepared to state that your statement is on behalf of the ICC?

Yoni: NO

Jeremy: In the hours and days following this incident, I was called a number of things. I was told that I don’t represent anyone. Can I hear what was told to you?

Yoni: I heard a number of people say that Hayman was a jew. Sometimes directed to me, directly or indirectly. I heard: “This is the place that the jews have a party because they have 50%, where jews have somewhat of a majority.” I was horrified to hear that.

Mitchel: We’re here to talk about things that are upsetting people. What hapened at Culture X.

Yoni: The relevance of this question on trial, we have to be willing to put every club leader on trial. What happened at culture x (night in celebration of diversity) was planned on a sabbath. Negligence thorough, planned on a Sabbath. My whole community wasn’t able to attend. It excluded 300 people. I was upset. Pres. Reinharz suggested he write a letter. I was invited to be an ICC rep at large. Now there’s an Orthodox person on the ICC board. Enough people have left. Justice should have serious reforms.

2 minute time cap for each speaker.

Yoni: I’m extremely grateful to the ICC for listening. I want to commend the ICC on that.

Allan Chanenwald [speaking as an individual]: I have 8 years of journalistic experience. Speaking as a former editor with controversial issues on paper.

1) There is a practical distinction and every other organization, Justice is SAF organization. It means that you have more obligations than an ordinary organization. You represent the entire student body. Negligence therefore more relevant than any other small club.

5 minute presentation extension.

Suggestions:

1) Need a faculty advisor. You’re not experienced or capable of running a paper independent of professional oversight.

2) Different editorship process. 6 senior editors for sharing burdening of reading articles. Everyone will be held accountable is something like this happened.

3) Undergo training to know how to prevent something like this. Other universities do this. Get professional advice and do it every single year.

Ben Fried: The Justice is an independent student newspaper. A faculty may have an agenda being bound to the university. Would an external advisor be more appropriate?

Allan: An external advisor would be more appropriate.

Ben Brandzel [alum]: This is very tough. Extreme example to the call of leadership.

This is not about a trial of negligence. It’s a question of preventing harm from happening. where is the accountability? There are a lot of different answers. I feel the justice has embraced the question, but it cannot be a final resolution. Breach of trust o a personal level. Betrayal. Those relationships need to be healed. I want to assert to you is that no resolution will ever be sufficient until everyone feels it’s sufficient. You can’t expect to walk away from demands and expect it to be sufficient. Everything has to be on the table because that’s the feeling here as well. It’s not a judicial problem, it’s a problem of trust.

instead of saying we will not resign or have him resign, you should understand why BBSO thinks it’s necessary. Accountability of power structure. If they screw up it’s your ass that’s on the line. This is how power works. It’s important to acknowledge that the EIC was negligent it makes sense that he should be asked to resign. Bring other factors to the table.

All sides points of view need to be seen. Understanding of respective sides need to be seen.

Justin: One of the demands was to have Stephen resign for a year, but still stay there as help.

Ben: If it’s necessary for them to reorganize their process to not have to rely only on one person. Top priority must be to regain trust of communication.

Josh B. [sen. ‘04]: Are you aware of the fact that the four original demands weren’t made at the right time? They are asking for their newspaper to be postponed?

Ben: Issue is the trust that was damaged in the community is restored. Good solution, anything that doesn’t do that is not. I can’t say that the four demands that were met as adequate. Let’s figure out what is a good answer.

Josh B.: Do you think in fostering this community of communicating that a little bit of a delay is worthy of forfeiting that communication?

Peggy: It wasn’t a delay, it was NO.

Ben: If we take away emotions, and look at it on logic it would be different. What matters is that the trust was breached. I don’t think it’s unreasonable that the answer was not fast enough. When we have large numbers of people trying to do their best, for us to say whether or not they’ve done enough. Community bonds need to be repaired. We’ve already done enough is NOT ENOUGH. That statement will never work to a person who is in pain. All parties need to be represented.

Jeremy: Appealing to your experience at Brandeis, we see the divide. As a leader, as someone who understands, shouldn’t people start from scratch, build a trust on demands and counterdemands? What can we do to start over?

Ben: There are diff. kinds of demands. One is the core demand that trust needs to be restored. There’s a next level of demand, how can we restore the trust that needs to be restored. It should change from demands to requests to this would work for me, maybe it would work if the EIC resigned. The senate could craft a resolution that would help. Key thing is for all parties involved to step up. absolute demands must be softened and be moved into a context of dialogue

Jeremy: what do you suggest we resolve, specifically, either as participants or as the senate.

Ben: have a caucus, work the language and ask those questions. if anyone will feel affirmed , do it, if attacked. dont

ERICA: Motion to recess for caucus till 11:00 (currently 10:38) seconded passed.

Mark S: Motion to move University Comm reports ahead of Administrative Communities

Passed

Trustees not ready. Josh B tables.

Executive Officer Reports

Alwina: Everyone hurt. Justice needs to think about whether they can be a strong paper without the support of the Inter cultural community. Hard times ahead. I wrote a letter to the Justice, and there I said that I had faith in the community to heal and to get past this. We know it’ll be with struggle and pain and we need to acknowledge that. I have a lot of respect for Stephen, but everything needs to be on the table and we all need to get past this. I understand that BBSO and the ICC is not giving interviews, administrators cancelled interviews with the Justice. It’ll be hard for the Justice to recover without regaining the trust of the community.

I do feel moved by the risks people here have taken in this room to share some of their feelings.

Jeremy: As someone trying to rationalize. To what degree do you consider the justice to be the whipping board for a broader problem on campus?

Alwina: Racism is so pervasive that it’s invisible. We don’t know it when we see it. I think that Dan thought that was witty or funny. I don’t think he intended to hurt people, but I don’t think he ever intended to hurt anyone. But it happened. Is the Justice the focus for it right now, as WBRS was before? It’s a focus, because it’s. “I have the luxury of not dealing with this issue, because I’m white, because I chose to.” It may not be fair, but it’s there.

Kassian: To what degree would the administration would be willing to step in?

Alwina: I don’t think the Senate will be able to pass a resolution that’ll make both sides happy. I don’t think you can effectively pass a resolution that will make everyone happy. It’s not enough. Perhaps you owe it to the Student Body to take a stance. It’s your choice. People need closure and need to go on with their lives.

Chris: You said the “cultural” community. I want to bring up a thought. Just because I’m white doesn’t mean I’m without race. We should all open our eyes to see this, and that each and everyone had something to say what was hear.

Alwina: You’re absolutely right, you we should all address issues of discrimination of any realms. Until we can talk about this, we can’t talk about it effectively.

Robyn: I’ve keep quiet because I want to form my own opinion. It was expressed through various presentations tonight that actions will be taken by the two parties. You said that it was beyond mediation or you’re afraid of it, my question is, do you believe that the resignation of the EIC will stop the greatest conflict of racism?

Alwina: I don’t believe that, I don’t think it’ll enable to regain trust within people. It’s going to take time and a lot of dialogue. Do I think if he doesn’t resign, will they be able to partake in dialogue? I don’t think his resignation will end racism on campus. It’s his decision and it will remove a barrier to dialogue.

Alissa: If he resigns, you mentioned it would bring more dialogue. How do you see this community being repaired?

Alwina: Everybody involved has some responsibility. You’re going to need help from a lot of places, and the Student Government will play a major role. I would ask some folks to come in to facilitate dialogue and workshops. The Administration has obligation to do some stuff too. I interviewed a group of first year students and asked them how we were doing at preparing people to living with people that are different. They didn’t feel prepared. They felt that we then dropped the ball. I have an obligation to prepare first year students. BBSO could provide a liaison to the justice. The justice could reach out to the community. We could make an advisory board from the community. Everyone who has the potential to put something in print or over the radio has this problem. Racism is so pervasive we don’t even know it half the time.

Shalwah: Do you think Stephen’s resignation would be a significant step?

Alwina: I care about everyone here and everyone who’s not here. I believe that if Stephen were to ask me my advise, I believe that he should step down, I think he should. That’s my personal opinion.

Becky: Not everybody that comes here come from diverse backgrounds, how do you thin, what are some of the tangible changes to address this as a university. Fundamental aspects of Brandeis? What do you foresee of how the university can train people?

Alwina: I think students are good people, and I know good people can screw up. I’ve made a lot of mistakes in my life. there were people who saw past my mistakes. I think that as a community we need to develop better ways for people to get to know each other, and talk, articulate our vision better. I’m committed to creating dozens of opportunities for students. I’m committed to spending money, and to teach people skills, empowering people in being part of the process. I have faith in the community and we can come past this. People really care, if not, people wouldn’t be here tonight. I would ask students and ask them what they need to be prepared.

Committe Communications

Board of Trustees-->

Ebone: Committees:

1) Academic affairs: new Masters program in coexistence and conflict. Bringing Brandeis into a more globalized area in what students can study. Most of the meeting were presentations by the Deans of each of the Schools. No real pressing or points of contention during these presentations.

alissa

2) Investment committee. Presentation by the Undergrad group. They will give autonomy to the students. Very well received

Ebone:

3) Physical facilities: Going to go forward with the reorganization of Brandeis Infrastructure. Fire safety, roads, steam and others will start undergoing repairs. Long process, that will cause disruption, but it needs to go forward.

Alissa

4) Students and Enrollment: Presentation by Residence Life. Theory and ideology behind Village. Interesting concept. Handed out Grad initiatives and other initiatives. Go to them for more info.

Ebone:

5) Main meeting- communicated on behalf of BBSO, ICC, the Justice and the Student Union. And in those presentations we presented the sentiments of each groups and their plan of actions, and their hopes. Each one was directly quoted, we condensed the info. Presentation well received. Pres. Reinharz made a statement on the issue, as well as other members of Board of Trustees. They were happy to hear about this issue.

Ken: Did you know that the response was held in high regards by the administration?

Reps: Thank you

Mark: Any word in beautification.

Ebone: It will be outlined in the future when they begin the process. We brought up the issue, and it was well received. This project is not in its final stages, but Jean Eddy is very supportive of it and she wants it to happen.

Ebone: We need to think about how we present our school to the public.

Alissa: Classroom improvement is part of it, as well as roadway and pedestrian passages is incorporated as well.

Ebone: As a rep for the students and as one of your peers, I know you have a hard task in fron of you tonight. And I don’t know if there will be an end that satisfies both parties. challenge yourselves on a personal level. Be able to see yourself in the mirror and look at your peers in the upcoming days knowing that you’ve done the right thing. I can’t tell you how to vote, but challenge yourselves.

Alissa: It’s important to take time and really think and observe and formulate your opinions. Don’t rush anything that might not be pertinent, there’s been so much evolution. It’s important not to rush anything. It’s important to take time and it’s evolving before our eyes. Carefully consider the resolution you’re about to pass.

Motion to move into excecutive session- Passed

Executive officers can stay.

MOVE OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION

Erica reads the resolution

Mark Brescia: Do you think this is a strong enough resolution if they don’t take a stand on the issue of the EIC?

Shalwah: Basically no, it would be much stronger. This is a racial issue, and it must be included and it would make it much stronger.

Mark Samburg: Motion to ammended

Ammendment passed around.

Motion withdrawn

Motion to move to speaker’s list on the addition of clause.

Marc S. [For]: Justice failed to come through, they failed to meet BBSO’s demands. I stand 110% behind BBSO’s demands. I don’t Stephen is a bad person, I think he’s a bad EIC, and with him as the EIC there will be no productive dialogue on campus.

Peggy [Against] I think it’s vague. I don’t think this resolution is strong enough.

Ammendment to the ammendment- slash the word directly. It should read only responsible.

Mark [favor]: Student Union will not tolerate racism AT ALL. And we feel they should be held accountable. It’s a question of availability.

Motion for strawpole

Vote for the amendment – 15/6 in favor

Vote for resolution – 15/6 in favor

Resolution passes

Money Requests

SMR #7-F03 – student union club resource center opening/meet your representatives event – passed – full amount granted

SMR #9 – Middle east forum – made emergency and granted full amount

SMR #10 – Student Union Tent – tabled

SMR #11 – Bomha – tabled

Project Reports – see online version

Meeting adjourned at 5:45am