The Justice

Dear Daniel,

I really appreciate you strong and honest comments on this issue. I really don't take issue with anything you've said, including your criticism of me. I really do apologize if you feel or felt manipulated or that I had been trying to unduly manipulate your feelling/opinion/action. I just did not know what to do. I was strongly discouraged by many within the Union and without that I should not file the case "as a senator/member of the Union government." Further, while I felt justified and willing to take off my shoes as a senator and put on my shoes as a concerned member of the student body in filing a case, I was strongly urged that such a distinction would hardly ever be discerned in a meaningful/understanding way.

So, I then thought, okay, what about the student body, how are they reacting?...But the student body was not at all aware of what was going on or the particulars of what was going on-let alone, unfortunately, the fact that anything like this was going on. I decided then that I wished to begin informing people. I asked another senator to help me inform people, as this senator's purpose in doing so would have been in part to potentially balance out any "over the top or too biased" argument I would make before members of the student body. However, upon reflection, this senator decided it uneccesary to join me in clarifying the issue for students because though this senator was weary at the time that action of any sort at that point would be controversial, this senator felt I was capable of presenting a truthful knowledge and understanding of the facts.

I did my best to explain and answer questions honestly on the issue, and through this process a number of individuals expressed interest and felt that submitting a case to the Union Judiciary arguing the points that ended up being argued (successfully I might add) before the Union Judiciary was "the right and correct thing to do and/or side to be on in this matter." Rivka Maizlish was among this group of individuals willing to associate their names with something potentially controversial because they believe in the values: honesty, integrity, democracy, free and fair elections...

I understand completely (well some/many things surely still elude me of course...) the political and appearance-wise complexities and unfortunate aspects of the situation, and believe me I wish this whole thing had been undramatic. All I've been trying to do is negotiate the bringing to light of the facts of the situation and reasonable interpretation, understanding, and resopnse to them. What with classes, a social life, leadership roles in campus organizations in addition to the senate-an organization through which I have many other duties beyond arguing the fairness/legality of cheating, etc. I feel like the amount of effort I put into raising interest among the student body and encouraging others to do the same was appropriate. I don't know how I could have single-handedly been more successful, and the bottom line to me is that I stood up for what I believed in and for what I believed to be right, being attacked for it publicly all the while.

I wish, as you argue, that student concerns had been more a part of all of this than they have been. Perhaps I was not a strong enough leader in this instance in enabling the student body to draw up entirely on their own concerns in the form of a petition, UJ case, organized forum, re-call vote etc. on the issue. For that I really do apologize. I honestly did not know what to do, was thrown into this whole mess out of nowhere, was on my own insofar as other senators were not standing up with me in this public way in trying to address the serious injustice that occurred. I would have loved if somebody at a meeting or elsewhere had suggested, "Hey Mike, thanks for bringing this to our attention; we now are compelled to take some sort of action ourselves." I'd have LOVED that. I encouraged that originally and made attempt at enabling that to happen, but everybody kept looking to me as the leader and appeared to lack interest at that time in self-organizing. Also, I am still working on developing the style of leadership that campus leaders such as Aaron Voldman so successfullly possess and employ-that is, the kind of leadership that is able to successfully and genuinely empower others. I admire this kind of leadership most of all, and appreciate your bringing its importance and value to everybody's attention here.

I would like to mention briefly that I did consider encouraging a forum on the issue, but was tentative about the possibility of the outcome being the putting of Mike Goldman up as a pinata for direct public attack as an individual (the same concern that originally drove Shreeya to call for a closed executive session).

I guess a part of me just knew so strongly that I was right and wanted the Union Judiciary to verify this for everyone who disagreed as soon as possible. Again, I really am sorry if/that students have felt left out of the process. As I keep saying: if Brandeis had it's own CNN equivalent and everybody watched TV daily, the issue would not have been entirely and solely a matter of simple and factual communication within a deliberately (by some) and inevitably (as a matter of fact) clouded atmostphere of politics. Everybody would have known of it and been outraged and the door open to manipulation of the facts and situation would not have been left open so very wide, for the facts would have been publicly grasped and non-debatable.

Also, I did not sign on as counsel in this case until just a few days before the actual trial. I had made excessive attempt at encouraging/asking individuals and representatives of campus organizations to participate, however on every occasion I received the same reaction: "I am busy" or "I don't want to thrust myself into the public controversy like that" or "my organization does not want to meddle in Union affiairs, especially as taking sides might be detrimental to my group's future ability to get what we want/need/deserve from the Union." I can't help others' decisions, though I wish I had not been so involved in this case at all-HONESTLY I wish this case had not involved me whatsoever.

Rivka is now my friend, although I did not even have her cell phone number in my cell phone until just the other day. She's great, and I'm excited that I may now call her my friend, but I think it's important to address the public misperception that I simply "got" someone I'd been friends or close friends with to fiile the case "as any friend would do." Yes I've been acquainted with Rivka this semester through our activist work, but no, until this past week we were not "close friends," but rather new aquaintances becoming more and more friendly (which I have been excited about because Rivka is genuinely cool!).
The fact that her name as opposed to any of several others' was/is on the case is just chance. She voluntarily decided she felt comfortable and justified in submitting the case, as did other individuals I know even less well than...not to mention as did other individuals I know much more well.

But it's most of all unfortunate in my book that so very few were capable of leaving emotion/politics at the door. The bottom line is that traditionally the particular individuals involved in a case are not relevant to the issues up for debate in a case. I really wish everyone would stop arguing regarding Mike Goldman and Rivka Maizlish as individuals, and begin debating the issues brought up in the case, which could have arisen from anyone and against anyone, and are the only aspect of the trial that is of lasting and utmost importance (or should be).

Again, thank you for your very valuable input, Daniel. I appreciate it.

Michael

Jesus christ man. Blah blah blah blah..... I'm really crying now that you and Rivka are friends... what a great story

Dear Daniel and Readers,

I would just like to say the following:

I was not present at the "debate watch" mentioned in this article. Also, it is my understanding that Democracy for America was not an official sponsor of any kind. It was held by The Brandeis Democrats and Brandeis for Barack.

I believe that the lack of attendance at Sunday's trial may be attributed to the fact that the trial date, time, and place were not adequately publicized. This is not anyone's fault in particular, but the nature of the situation dictated the unsure nature of the trial's physical hearing. As such, I doubt many people actually knew when or where it was going to be held.

Thanks,

Jamie

Daniel,

As a Brandeis Alum, I have only the vaguest notion of what this trial is all about, so I can't really speak to most of the issues you raise in this article. However, as the brother of a former Student Union president and politics major from Brandeis, I feel like I know enough about the UJ process to say that there is no reason for President Sinha to be criticized for not attending the trial; on the contrary, I think it would be highly inappropriate for her to attend. The government of our country (and our Student Union) is wisely based on the idea of checks and balances, with independent branches of government acting according to their own rules and traditions in a delicate balancing act. Just as it would have been highly inappropriate for President Bush to sit in on the trial of Scooter Libby (a former member of his Vice President's staff), so too would it have been inappropriate for Shreeya to sit in on any UJ case. Her presence in the room could easily be interpreted as putting political pressure on the justices to deliver a certain kind of verdict. Her presence at a UJ trial would be a distraction for the court. I can think of no benefit for her to be there, and am actually quite befuddled by your comparison of this trial to Jehuda Reinharz's absence from the Jimmy Carter event last year. Brandeis Presidents seem to make easy targets for political potshots, and on occasion they may be deserved. But in this instance, they ring hollow.

"Several other things about this trial were revealing. It was troubling indeed to see that Student Union President Shreeya Sinha '09 wasn't in attendance. Her absence can only reinforce rumors of the high level of politization in this censure and trial. When a Union officer, a member of her Executive Board no less, is on trial, Sinha should be the first to arrive. Whatever her personal feeling for Goldman, Sinha's absence spoke volumes. Just as I was appalled by University President Reinharz's absence at the Jimmy Carter event last fall, I felt betrayed by our student-elected leader. If there is a retrial, as now seems likely, I hope she will attend."