The Justice

This write up is extraordinary! Not just because my cousin (Mr. Andrew Brooks) is featured in it, but as a former newspaper writer in highschool myself. The description and positive feelings that are leaping off this article is fantastic! Great job!

The Justice is a ridiculous publication for believing that Brooks offers a fresh change. Get real.

This article calls Andrew Brook's ideas inovative. What the Justice fails to mention is that these "inovative" ideas really suck. Moreover, they reveal Brooks' lack of understanding of the SAF, the role of the student government, and the power of the student voice. On his website, Brooks writes:

"I would like to propose a $200,000 increase to the SAF by lobbying the Board of Trustees and the Brandeis administration."

Let me deconstruct all the problems with this statement. First of all, the SAF increases as tuition goes up. Over the course of the next few years the SAF will increase by approximately $50,000 per year. There is no reason to make it increase faster. Tuition is high enough as it is. Why should students have to pay even more money for fees?

Second, and most importantly, Brooks fails to mention the most factor in the advocacy equasion: the students.

If Brooks knew anything at all about getting things done, he would talk about how he would work with students to pass a constitutional amendment to increase the SAF--any changes to the SAF must be made through an amendment to the Student Union constitution. Administrators and members and the Board of Trustees are irrelevant.

Does Brooks realize that the SAF is a fee that is seperate from tuition, not simply a part of it? Does he understand anything at all?

I just don't think he gets what the Union is all about. I don't think he knows how to implement ideas. I can't find anything substantial in any of his past project reports. I can't believe that the Justice endorsed this guy.

Well this is embarrassing for the Justice?sort of reminds of what happened last time the Justice endorsed a candidate, haha.

Maybe you guys should stick to ?reporting? the news?

So much for your endorsement guys.. you show real dedication to understanding student opinions and voices. He didn't even come third. Shreeya was clearly the winner at the Debate and the Justice just lost all credibility in my eyes.

Shreeya Sinha proved to be an ineffective advocate for the Student Body. The SAF is now capped, and we were forced to spend $100,000 of OUR STUDENT money to fix the weight room. This should have came from administrative money, not the STUDENT'S money. Senator Brooks has fostered excellent relationships with administrators, and his capacity for effective leadership would have prevented this stupid mess from ever happening.

Shreeya was weak and pathetic, instead focusing on ousting student leaders who dared to disagree with her. The "Brandeis Citizenship Campaign" was a total farce...nothing ever came of it. It was merely a renaming of what the Student Government does already, providing nothing new to our campus.

The campus made a big mistake by not electing Senator-at-Large Andrew Brooks, whose dedication and commitment to the students on this campus has sadly gone unrecognized. We need leaders in the Student Union who are genuine and have integrity...people who never miss a meeting and demand accountability from their peers in government.

holy shit i had no idea the justice endorsed brooks for president over shreeya in 2007. i guess the justice was smart and saw through shreeya's bs. sadly, brandeis voters seem to have a penchant for falling for semi-attractive phonies over run-of-the-mill typical Brandeis students who clearly are better at getting the job done. the justice got it right made excellent points. even though jason was shreeya's closest advisor i think he'll be 20X more competent if not any less politically corrupt. as for brooks, his loss of his senator-at-large seat was the biggest loss for Brandeis since the Celtics left. he's a geniune hard-worker who doesn't play politics when it comes to what's best for students.

I was an editor when we wrote this editorial and looking back on it now, I am uncertain if we were right or wrong ultimately. There is something to be said about an efficient opposition to a political regime. Republicans in congress in general are incredibly efficient as an opposition party and great at log jamming efforts of progress. They are far less useful when given the reigns of power, as their core ideas turn on what government should not be doing rather than what it should be doing. Brooks, Sulsky and Goldman along with a few other senators ( Tanya K was sometimes part of this alliance but a bit less rigid along its axis) were very efficient as sticklers for rule, order and more conservative positions on the whole in the senate, but I am not sure they would make a good ruling body for the senate. Andrew was a hard working senator and deserved in my opinion to be re-elected to the senate, but I feel that might be the optimal role for him.