Spring Break
EDITORIAL: The record speaks for Itself
Editorial | 8/28/07
Posted online at 11:32 PM EST on 8/27/07
/ Last updated at 6:04 AM EST on 8/27/07
A feeling of anticlimax is tangible on campus. Last year, we seemed to be facing a donor crisis as magazines such as the New York City based Jewish Week predicted the withdrawal of several major financial bankers over Former President Jimmy Carter's visit. High profile academics and organizations such as Daniel Pipes and the Zionist Organization of America called on donors to reconsider their support for Brandeis. It seemed as if our University would be penalized for taking a stand in favor of free speech. Instead, Brandeis broke its all-time fundraising record this year, with a staggering $89.4 million in cash gifts, topping last year's record by 10 percent.
This achievement shows that a truly vibrant campus discourse is not incompatible with fiscal prudence and targeted growth. In the end, the potential harm of offending the sentiments of donors was clearly outweighed by the prestige of our institution.
Senior Vice President of Institutional Advancement Nancy Winship said no donors withheld their contributions because of last year's controversy. Regardless of whether that's true, the University's robust financial record speaks for itself.
The campus' courteous welcome of President Carter, whose book offended some, shows our community's ability to uphold open dialogue above all. Most of our students welcomed President Carter and other controversial speakers last semester and listened with contemplation.
Throughout the torrid affair of Carter-Dershowitz-Pipes-Finklestein (oh my), this editorial page and the campus at large continued to advocate for free speech and dynamic discourse. Hosting this range of speakers shows the University's even-handed approach to debate.
University President Jehuda Reinharz deserves praise for successfully navigating the tight rope between censorship and sanction. Although outsiders and insiders alike demanded that Reinharz not allow certain speakers on campus, he maintained that this University's academic landscape belongs to the students and faculty alone. They, not donors, are in charge of inviting speakers. His actions show that the potential risk of hosting controversial speakers doesn't outweigh his commitment to upholding vibrant discussion. This is the type of clarity and vision that we hope he will continue to display.
This past year should provide a template for our intellectual growth. We wisely avoided falling too far into self-censorship in regard to the Middle East, and must continue to guard against lapsing into a comfortable and insular academic community.
We should also learn to let rationality rather than fear mongering be our guide. The sky is not falling, and as long as we do not begin to panic and act against our integrity we are not in danger of financial destruction.
This achievement shows that a truly vibrant campus discourse is not incompatible with fiscal prudence and targeted growth. In the end, the potential harm of offending the sentiments of donors was clearly outweighed by the prestige of our institution.
Senior Vice President of Institutional Advancement Nancy Winship said no donors withheld their contributions because of last year's controversy. Regardless of whether that's true, the University's robust financial record speaks for itself.
The campus' courteous welcome of President Carter, whose book offended some, shows our community's ability to uphold open dialogue above all. Most of our students welcomed President Carter and other controversial speakers last semester and listened with contemplation.
Throughout the torrid affair of Carter-Dershowitz-Pipes-Finklestein (oh my), this editorial page and the campus at large continued to advocate for free speech and dynamic discourse. Hosting this range of speakers shows the University's even-handed approach to debate.
University President Jehuda Reinharz deserves praise for successfully navigating the tight rope between censorship and sanction. Although outsiders and insiders alike demanded that Reinharz not allow certain speakers on campus, he maintained that this University's academic landscape belongs to the students and faculty alone. They, not donors, are in charge of inviting speakers. His actions show that the potential risk of hosting controversial speakers doesn't outweigh his commitment to upholding vibrant discussion. This is the type of clarity and vision that we hope he will continue to display.
This past year should provide a template for our intellectual growth. We wisely avoided falling too far into self-censorship in regard to the Middle East, and must continue to guard against lapsing into a comfortable and insular academic community.
We should also learn to let rationality rather than fear mongering be our guide. The sky is not falling, and as long as we do not begin to panic and act against our integrity we are not in danger of financial destruction.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 2
David Sternlight, Ph.D.
posted 8/28/07 @ 4:26 PM EST
Your editorial writer says, "It seemed as if our University would be penalized for taking a stand in favor of free speech." and repeats this notion in several places. (Continued…)
Post a Comment