The Justice

University President Jehuda Reinharz recently sent an e-mail to the faculty listserv in response to the November 2009 Harper's Magazine article "Voodoo Academics: Brandeis University's hard lesson in the real economy." In this e-mail, Mr. Reinharz explained the problems he had with the article and claimed that the article's financial figures were inaccurate or, at times, completely false. Additionally, Mr. Reinharz explained that the article's author, Christopher R. Beha, was motivated to write an article casting Brandeis' finances in a negative light because his aunt Ann Beha's architectural firm was rejected by the University in its bid for a 2004 building project. In response, says the e-mail, Brandeis is considering taking legal action against Harper's. While this editorial board believes that the University should take action to correct any incorrect facts Harper's published, we do not believe legal action is the correct choice.

While Harper's Magazine's descriptions of the University's economic woes may be exaggerated, there is no denying that Brandeis' financial status is less than ideal; thus, another lawsuit is the last thing the Brandeis community needs straining its pocketbook. The University is currently playing defendant in two high-profile lawsuits-one involving the Rose Art Museum-and recently reached a settlement on a third involving the demolition of the Kalman Science Building, and we imagine these lawsuits are coming at a hefty cost to the University, win or lose. At a time when Brandeis is looking to cut funding to nearly every one of its departments, Brandeis simply does not have the resources to spend on a lawsuit that Mr. Reinharz admitted in his e-mail "is an arduous task and one that is difficult to prove."

We additionally believe that, whatever the cost, this lawsuit is not one in which the University has a solid basis for success. Mr. Reinharz claimed that Mr. Beha's article is "rife with factual inaccuracies and unsupported conclusions." However, many of these so-called "factual inaccuracies" were simply a matter of interpretation. Mr. Reinharz's first example is this sentence from the article: "What that $28,000 surcharge buys-the financial and social return on a degree from an elite private university-cannot be found in a classroom." The president responded that "our students year after year talk about the outstanding quality of their educational experiences at Brandeis and the exceptional and world class faculty here. My view is that these more than justify the expense of a Brandeis education." This, and several of his other points, are grounds for being upset but not for filing a lawsuit-and especially not for winning one. The University must understand that however upsetting an opinion article may be, it is simply the opinion of the writer as allowed by freedom of speech. We encourage Harper's Magazine to work with the University to clarify any misleading statements in Mr. Beha's article, but the courtroom is not the place for the University and the magazine to have such a discussion.

Lastly, Mr. Reinharz's e-mail to faculty was, in our opinion, unprofessional and sent in poor judgment. This e-mail is the first time the public is hearing about the University's complaints against Harper's; Mr. Reinharz should have waited until some form of action was decided upon so that he could send a full summary of the magazine's alleged offenses and the University's response rather than a lengthy e-mail about why the administration is bothered by Mr. Beha's article.

Mr. Reinharz stated early in his e-mail that "this is in no way a 'sour grapes' reaction to an unfavorable story about Brandeis." Unfortunately, what with the heavy-handed management of the reaction, appearances are to the contrary.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools