2008 Woodie Awards
Vote Absentee
DANIEL ORTNER: "Epic trial" alienates and truly disappoints
by Daniel Ortner
Columnists | 10/9/07
Posted online at 9:46 PM EST on 10/8/07
/ Last updated at 7:17 PM EST on 10/8/07
- Page 1 of 3 next >
[Correction Appended]
For a trial that Union Judiciary Chief Justice Jamie Ansorge '09 declared "one of the most epic in Brandeis history," something clearly was missing. Most distinctly, the complete lack of student attendance was staggering. When one notes the origins and execution of the trial, however, perhaps this is not all too surprising.
By my count, the total amount of people in the trial room, including the three sitting Judiciary members, members of the media and Union representatives never exceeded 20. A trial of a sitting representative should have generated explosive and constant student attention. The question of whether Union Secretary Michael Goldman '08 would be impeached or remain in office should have been on everyone's lips. Enormous student movements should have been formed expressing support, or opposition to the legal actions taken. Instead, there was absolutely nothing.
This reveals a lot about the basis for this extremely artificial trial. Instead of coming in response to student agitation and demand, this trial was pushed for from the top down. At a Brandeis Democrats and Brandeis for Barack-sponsored viewing of a Democratic debate a few weeks ago, Village Senator Michael Kerns '09 went out of his way to solicit students to file the UJ lawsuit. Several students, myself included, signed on to a listserv to which Kerns sent out a copy of the lawsuit he wanted students to file and essentially take ownership of. Student concerns weren't factored into this suit. This process was akin to telling students what harms they should be feeling. He had originally intended for multiple students to sign on to the suit, but he went along with the lawsuit under the name of a single student, Rivka Maizlish '10.
The genesis of this case should reveal all we need to know about it. In an attempt to combat an impeachment-worthy and unconstitutional offense, Kerns and other Union officials covertly crafted the case and searched for figurehead student representation. In secret, and without true public discourse, a trial was born. Just as a behind- closed-doors session produced the Goldman censure, a trial that should have been a publicly launched endeavor became part of a backroom maneuver.
For a trial that Union Judiciary Chief Justice Jamie Ansorge '09 declared "one of the most epic in Brandeis history," something clearly was missing. Most distinctly, the complete lack of student attendance was staggering. When one notes the origins and execution of the trial, however, perhaps this is not all too surprising.
By my count, the total amount of people in the trial room, including the three sitting Judiciary members, members of the media and Union representatives never exceeded 20. A trial of a sitting representative should have generated explosive and constant student attention. The question of whether Union Secretary Michael Goldman '08 would be impeached or remain in office should have been on everyone's lips. Enormous student movements should have been formed expressing support, or opposition to the legal actions taken. Instead, there was absolutely nothing.
This reveals a lot about the basis for this extremely artificial trial. Instead of coming in response to student agitation and demand, this trial was pushed for from the top down. At a Brandeis Democrats and Brandeis for Barack-sponsored viewing of a Democratic debate a few weeks ago, Village Senator Michael Kerns '09 went out of his way to solicit students to file the UJ lawsuit. Several students, myself included, signed on to a listserv to which Kerns sent out a copy of the lawsuit he wanted students to file and essentially take ownership of. Student concerns weren't factored into this suit. This process was akin to telling students what harms they should be feeling. He had originally intended for multiple students to sign on to the suit, but he went along with the lawsuit under the name of a single student, Rivka Maizlish '10.
The genesis of this case should reveal all we need to know about it. In an attempt to combat an impeachment-worthy and unconstitutional offense, Kerns and other Union officials covertly crafted the case and searched for figurehead student representation. In secret, and without true public discourse, a trial was born. Just as a behind- closed-doors session produced the Goldman censure, a trial that should have been a publicly launched endeavor became part of a backroom maneuver.
0 
Viewing Comments 1 - 4 of 4
Michael Kerns
posted 10/09/07 @ 11:39 AM EST
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. (Continued…)
blah blah blah
posted 10/09/07 @ 3:01 PM EST
Jesus christ man. Blah blah blah blah..... I'm really crying now that you and Rivka are friends... what a great story
Jamie Ansorge
posted 10/09/07 @ 4:39 PM EST
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. (Continued…)
Adam Schwartzbaum
posted 10/15/07 @ 9:27 PM EST
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. (Continued…)
Post a Comment