A New Chapter For Brandeis
The OAJ is currently looking for interested students to join our team! If you’ve read our work before (or if this is your first time), and you like what we do, please email OAJ Executive Editor Paulina Campos at openair@brandeis.edu to join the journal.
The piece below is part of our weekly blog post series written by the Open-Air Journal team where we explore issues at Heller, current events, or whatever is presently on our minds.
Last Wednesday, September 25, 2024, Brandeis President Ron Liebowitz announced that effective November 1, he will be stepping down from his position. The announcement was not a complete surprise to the Brandeis community, as the Faculty Senate announced that they had passed a vote of no confidence in his leadership just two days prior in a motion on the table since at least April of this year. To say the least, President Liebowitz’s eight-year tenure has been defined by discontent – from fundraising woes to program cuts and aggression toward student protestors. While the resignation seemed inevitable for many members of the Brandeis community, questions remain about the university’s fate. Interim President Arthur Levine and others in power at Brandeis must find a new approach to tackling the university’s challenges that prioritizes program sustainability, student well-being, and social justice.
The motion for the vote of no confidence cited several reasons why faculty lost faith in Liebowitz’s administration over the past year, chief among them his brutal handling of campus protest and freedom of speech regarding the Palestinian genocide, his strict austerity cuts to the arts and social sciences (including the Heller School, home to Brandeis’s top-ranked graduate programs), and his inability to fundraise for the university. Several other embarrassing PR moments stemmed from these conflicts, such as his March 2021 arguments with the Board of Trustees over his contract extension being leaked to the Boston Globe and his November 2023 comments comparing pro-Palestinian protestors to the Ku Klux Klan. While any public parting words between President Liebowitz and the Board may be cordial, he leaves a negative legacy among many students, faculty, and staff. Voices across campus and among donors have also been hyper-critical of his slashing of music and arts scholarships and programs, over 60 job cuts this past summer, and reductions in campus freedoms of expression and movement. Evidently, most blame President Liebowitz’s decisions for the reputational damage that has resulted in mounting financial losses and dwindling enrollment.
Despite President Liebowitz’s impact on the school’s atmosphere and stability, it is unproductive to scapegoat him for all of Brandeis’ flaws. Many of the issues present on campus predate his tenure and will last beyond him. For one example, the Board of Trustees have been full-throated in their backing of Liebowitz’s antagonisms toward the Palestinian liberation movement, supporting his mobilization of Brandeis and Waltham Police against students last November. These circumstances suggest that the trustees mirror the oppressive attitudes of the former president. One must wonder what shape political liberties on campus will take in a post-Liebowitz world, whether his draconian codes will be phased out or wielded with more strength. Zionism at Brandeis exists independent of who leads the school, and discourse around it will shift in this new era.
One also should question how the new administration will handle the financial crisis the university currently faces. Removing an unpopular leader may boost the confidence of some observers, but it can also signal instability. Such a state of affairs is not smart to publicly display when the school already struggles with maintaining enrollment and retaining donors. The previous administration’s efforts to raise revenue by accepting more students caused tremendous strain on campus facilities, doing nothing to stave off shrinking student morale. This strategy lacks a realistic end goal as well, requiring an exponential growth in accepted students to match spending. The reality is that, for many reasons, a growing pool of prospective students is not there. How then does the school pursue financial gains in ways that do not damage the existing student body?
With all these realities in mind, one has to consider what futures Brandeis has in store. Interim President Arthur Levine will not be the same type of leader as President Liebowitz. Levine’s publications suggest a wildly different ethos on higher education than his predecessor. He moves away from the austerity model of management toward a more inventive restructuring of schools. While these ideas are novel and improvements on previous policies, they do not disrupt the neoliberalization of higher education. A managerial class still subjugates the interests of students, faculty, and workers, and costs of entry remain sky-high. While Levine may be more social justice-minded and easier to bargain with for protecting certain at-risk programs than President Liebowitz, we as a student body should stay engaged in negotiations with the administration. Our new interim president must prove himself on whether he truly represents the interests of students and is committed to pursuing social justice beyond paying lip service.
 | A guest post by
|
 | A guest post by
|