The Justice

Brandeis administrators should stop trying to prevent criticism of this type. The fiasco around the Rose Art Museum speaks for itself - poor planning and an erosion of integrity toward the arts. Having received a Ph.D. in History in 1990 - from an outstanding department with superb faculty - the latest developments at Brandeis are a great disappointment to me. And Harper's - to which I subscribe - is one of America's finest critical popular magazines, far more truthful than most of US media, print or otherwise. A defamation lawsuit?! What a terrible waste of money and time - I'll stand by Harper's on that one.

- Dr. David Palmer, Senior Lecturer in American Studies, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia

As an '03 alum of Brandeis I believe that a large portion of the capital projects are at a minimum, misguided. The new "student center" is an absolute disgrace, a monolith of wasted interior space that houses more administrative offices than student facilities that does not fit in with the general look and feel of any New England school, let alone Brandeis. There is a fine line between modern and plain old ugly.

There was a dire need for housing when I left Brandeis and I cannot fault the school for adding a science center. I only hope that these costs are being absorbed by donors and amortized over the many years that these facilities are used as opposed to providing an excuse to wallop new and current students with unwarranted prestige-based tuition increases. Only the education industry could justify massive increases from students with dismal job prospects in a recession. Now that all is said and done, I say with absolute conviction that I would have been no worse, and potentially better off academically, attending one of the several state schools I was accepted to. I guess the republican party can thank Brandeis for creating a whole new class of republican-by-default voters who simply can't afford to be as liberal as they were during their student days.

The final extinction burst of a failed, defensive, embattled captain at the helm of his sinking reputation... and the once fine institution he's financially gutted.

As a (happily) former employee, the erosion of accountability, integrity, and community at Brandeis during the present administration's reign of ruin is shameful. There is literally nothing for Yehuda to hang his hat on (seriously, they had to sell the coat racks) and he and his wife are left badgering student activists at the Rose Museum to take off their protest pins while Trustees desperately implore Faculty to do the same.

The current administration is a farce and its failures have unfolded in such a sad public display. Given the marketing hype of "creating leaders for social justice" this lame-duck Brandeis President is a controlling, manipulative, patriarchal ego maniac and his lack of leadership, trust, and business acumen will forever preceded him.

Couldn't agree with Dr. Palmer more.

It's a shame...

Are statements of opinion based on factual errors or that are insulting actionable as defamation in any jurisidiction where Harper's is distirbuted? I doubt it. The University has been in court enough lately over the Rose Art Museum controversy. As a lawyer and an alumnus, I hope the President gets sound legal advice before pursuing a libel case on the University's dime.

So far, I agree mostly (if not completely) with all these comments. I'd just like to add a positive note: Jehuda will be gone, at least partially, by 2012, maybe earlier.

I am not religious, but I really PRAY that the next president is to Reinharz as Obama was to Bush.

Maybe the school will focus on providing BETTER meal-plans, BETTER Waltham-Boston transpo., and MORE FUNDING for AAAS and the arts, for example.

Dear Miranda,

As a former News Editor of the Justice, I would like to commend you on a marvelous piece of reporting. I know how difficult this type of story can be, and you have done a truly wonderful job.

Keep it up!

Dave Cutler '06

As a Harper's subscriber, veteran journalist (and long-ago Brandeis grad), I was surprised and put off by the article -- not so much because it was highly critical of Brandeis but because it offers virtually no evidence to support its one-sided point of view.

Beha may have a few points to make -- but his piece is lazily prepared, too polemical -- and ultimately unconvincing to anyone who reads it closely. It simply doesn't pass muster as a reporting job.

There is little evidence that he actually interviewed anyone at Brandeis, or did any investigative reporting. Or that he wanted to do any. He provides no quotes from the administration -- or anyone else. Not even any off-the-record quotes, however misleading, to convince the reader, except one blind comment from a an unnamed "committee" involved in the Rose controversy.

If Beha had really wanted to get the story, he would have interviewed several well-informed Brandeis sources, and provided quotes from at least a few of them. (Or at least quoted from one or two on 'deep background.')

Beha damages his credibility further by implying that some students might actually have decided to attend Brandeis -- despite its high tuition -- because of the presence of the Rose Art Museum. Really? He provides no evidence for this absurd contention. Who would choose Brandeis over UMass simply because of the art museum? He offers no anecdotal or survey data to support that notion.

Beha even implies that Brandeis' tuition is significantly higher than that of other private institutions (he compares Brandeis with publicly funded UMass Amherst, not with comparable private universities) -- so his comparison in that respect is utterly worthless.

Rather than threaten a law suit against Beha, however, I believe the Brandeis administration should focus its rebuttals on the substance of the article. If, as President Reinharz has asserted, Brandeis has not been severely damaged by the Madoff debacle, then the administration might want to provide evidence that it is still in good health. Address the issues.

Don't expect any apologies from the author, however. Remember that Beha would never have written this article in the first place if he had intended to make it a balanced one. Otherwise, he would not have overlooked the first rules of objective journalism in putting it together.