web analytics
August 1, 2015 / 16 Av, 5775
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘Brandeis University’

Brandeis Commencement Speaker Leads Iran Cheerleader Squad

Tuesday, April 21st, 2015

All those concerned about the dangers of Iran obtaining the ability to produce nuclear weapons have been closely watching the negotiations between Iran and the U.S. and its partners in the P5+1.

Perhaps no country has been more concerned about that danger than Israel, the nation which the Iranian leaders continue to brazenly threaten with annihilation.

It is reasonable to conclude that those who are urging the negotiators to proceed apace, to succumb to Iranian threats and demands without integrating ironclad precautionary methods are not overly concerned about the safety of Israel.

Given the university’s past “sister” relationship with Al Quds University, perhaps that explains Brandeis’s willingness to offer Ambassador Thomas Pickering – the Iran cheerleader and harsh critic of Israel – an honorary degree as this year’s Commencement featured speaker.

But what about Iran’s human rights record?

Don’t Brandeis students think hanging gays and summary executions are sufficiently objectionable to protest a pro-Iran commencement speaker?

And yet, Brandeis University is having as its 2015 commencement speaker an ardent supporter of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ambassador Thomas Pickering.

A few weeks ago JewishPress.com exposed Pickering’s disdain for Israel and his demands that the U.S. stop coddling the Jewish State and only making demands on the Palestinian Arabs (we’re not kidding).

The lack of a response from the university shows that Justice Brandeis’s namesake university doesn’t care so much about Pickering’s lack of support for Israel’s current leadership. But Israel’s existence? Or how about human rights?

STRONG SUPPORT FOR IRAN’S DEMANDS REGARDING ITS NUCLEAR PROGRAM

It is now clear that Pickering is at the forefront of those advocating for the rights of Iran to continue with its nuclear program, without ensuring every possible cautionary step be taken, and for the as-soon-as-possible rapprochement between the U.S. and Iran, human rights failings be damned.

This year’s planned commencement speaker at Brandeis is anxious to improve U.S.-Iran relations. And “improve” means increasing recognition of and hospitality towards the Islamic Republic by the U.S., without any necessary concomitant improvement in, oh, say, antagonism voiced by Iranian leadership towards the U.S. or any of its allies. Or even any improvement in its treatment of its own citizens.

Pickering has a leadership role in the big three pro-Iran diplomatic organizations: the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), the American-Iranian Council and the Iran Project. All three of these entities are focused on normalizing relations between the U.S. and Iran without demanding Iran first improve its appalling human rights record.

Pickering and his colleagues were delighted when the administration announced the P5+1 pre-Agreement Agreement, back on April 2; they immediately lauded the deal.

And then, when there was so much pushback, not only from the Israeli leadership, or from the Republican leadership, but from the leadership of the Democrats in Congress, Pickering and his pals began playing defense for the deal.

Pickering and his pals at the American-Iranian Council feared that the Congressional proposal might “hamper a speedy resolution to the nuclear deal as well as the AIC’s broader goal of rapprochement between the United States and Iran.”

They did not want to lose the momentum that had seemed to have been gained at Lausanne (momentum that began sputtering as soon as the fact sheets put out by the U.S. and Iran differed dramatically on significant points).

The AIC was horrified that Congress might “undermine all the progress and goodwill” that the negotiators had achieved in Switzerland.

“We remain steadfast in our support for a diplomatic resolution to the nuclear issue that would remove a major issue that has bottlenecked a broader rapprochement between the US and Iran,” AIC advised on its website.

It’s Official: Justice Brandeis Wants his Name Back

Wednesday, April 8th, 2015

Of all the absurd positions Brandeis University has taken over the years, the latest really may be the final straw.

Last year Brandeis suffered widespread disgrace for revoking an offer to grant an honorary degree to a Muslim-born advocate for women and children’s rights who had been subjected to female genital mutilation and threatened with murder by Islamic fundamentalists for being “anti-Islam.” This year, Brandeis selected as its commencement speaker a former U.S. State Department careerist who thinks the state of Palestine exists and that “Palestine” “granted” to Israel land that “Palestine” had been “assigned” in 1947.

That former administration official, Thomas Pickering, wrote a public letter last year encouraging the U.S. administration to stop kowtowing to Israel — and we all know how eager the Obama administration has been to take orders from Jerusalem.

Pickering has the reputation of being extremely anti-Israel even amongst his peers – and for the State Department, that’s quite an achievement. If Justice Louis Dembitz Brandeis, the ardent Zionist and advocate for the disenfranchised (for him the concepts were naturally compatible) for whom Brandeis University was named, could see what his namesake university was doing, he would demand his name be removed.

REVOCATION OF HONORARY DEGREE TO HIRSI ALI

It was just a year ago that Brandeis University withdrew an offer to award an honorary degree Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a world-class humanitarian, because some dimwitted students, aided and abetted by professors with ossified mindsets, insisted the woman was “Islamophobic.” Hirsi Ali, knows from firsthand experience more about Islam than all the mewling students and professors put together.

The suffix “phobic” means an irrational fear of something. Hirsi Ali’s distaste for Islam is as based in reality as it can get.

Dial forward to this spring, when Brandeis commencement and its speakers is once again a topic.

So what does Brandeis University do? Pick a noncontroversial speaker who is deserving of an honorary degree for being a decent human being, perhaps someone with some connection to the university itself? Nah.

BRANDEIS CHOOSES ANTI-ISRAEL ADVOCATE AS COMMENCEMENT SPEAKER

Instead, Brandeis University announced that its commencement speaker for 2015 is former Ambassador and under secretary of state for political affairs Thomas Pickering, someone who fervently believes Israel is inappropriately coddled by the Obama administration and that the Jewish state has stolen land from the mythical land of Palestine, despite the “Palestinians” having graciously conceded a huge chunk of the land “assigned” to the “Palestinians in 1947.”

That’s right, Israel is coddled by the Obama/Kerry approach to the Middle East conflict, according to Pickering. And the “Palestinians” are the magnanimous yet oppressed party on the losing end of the stick with Israel. This view is out of touch with Zionists – whom Brandeis the justice, if not the university, would have hoped a school bearing his name would graduate.

We know Pickering’s positions and ahistorical understandings because, almost exactly a year ago, Pickering and a few of his like-minded public pals signed a letter published as an op-ed calling on this U.S. administration to stop allowing Israel to walk all over it.

You see, in the eyes of Pickering and his well-known Israel-despising co-signers Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Siegman, Lee Hamilton, Frank Carlucci and Carla Hills, this administration should man up and stop allowing the world to think it shares Israel’s views about its security needs and its history. Also, time to jettison those annoying facts that support reality.

UNABASHED ZIONISM OF JUSTICE BRANDEIS

But first, you need to know what kind of Zionist Louis Brandeis was. While a secular Jew, Brandeis became an ardent and unabashed Zionist. Not only was he an early president of the Zionist Organization of America, but he believed in territorial control by the Jews of all the land promised for a Jewish State by Lord Balfour in 1917.

Louis Brandeis was a firm believer in helping to arm the Jews who were attempting to create a Jewish state. He insisted that the contours of the Jewish state had to extend to the north, to the “Litani watersheds” which is in the south of what is now Lebanon, and to the east, to the “plain of Jaulan Hauran,” which is now in northwestern Jordan and southwestern Syria.

It is in the context of Justice Brandeis’s approach to Zionism that the letter written by Pickering and his fellow anti-Israel pen pals must be understood.

PICKERING PENS SHOCKINGLY ANTI-ISRAEL OP-ED

What follows are some of the more surprising snippets of that letter:

“The United States has allowed the impression that it supports a version of Israel’s security that entails Israeli control of all of Palestine’s [sic] borders and part of its territory.”

“Israel’s confiscation of what international law has clearly established as others’ territory,” Israel’s “illegal land grabs only add to the Palestinian and the larger Arab sense of injustice that Israel’s half-century-long occupation has already generated,” “No Palestinian leader could or would ever agree to a peace accord that entails turning over the Jordan Valley to Israeli control,” “these Israeli demands can hardly justify the permanent subjugation and disenfranchisement of a people  to which Israel refuses to grant citizenship in the Jewish state.”

The Israelis “do not have the right to demand that Palestinians abandon their own national narrative, and the United States should not be party to such a demand.”

The hate-filled five also mocked Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s claims that Israel was prepared to make “painful compromises” in his May 2011 speech to a joint session of Congress. According to The Five, every one of the painful compromises – “regarding territory, borders, security, resources, refugees or the location of the Palestinian state’s capital” are ones required of the Palestinian Arabs and “do not reflect any Israeli compromises.”

“Although Palestinians have conceded fully half of the territory assigned to them in the U.N.’s Partition Plan of 1947″ ignoring at least two monumental facts: one, there were no Arabs claiming to be “Palestinians” in 1947, so there was no assignment of land to “Palestinians,” but instead to undifferentiated Arabs in the region, and two, the Arabs to whom the land was assigned refused that assignment and instead chose to go to war rather than have any Jewish state at all in the region.

What are they talking about? There was no concessions by the Arabs, “Palestinians” or otherwise.  Instead, there was a humiliating defeat of the five Arab nations which attacked the tiny ragtag Jewish army and lost.

Pickering and his four pals, after ignoring history, reality, international law and facts, then cheered on what they consider to be the righteous Palestinian Arabs who “are not demanding a single square foot of Israeli territory beyond the June 6, 1967, line.”

So clueless about history are the Pickering plus four, that they again raise the “assigned” territory, attacking Netanyahu for daring to “establish equivalence between Israeli and Palestinian demands,” and insisting that Israel gets still more of the “78 percent of Palestine it already possesses.” Pickering and his pals call this “politically and morally unacceptable,” and demand that the United States “not be party to such efforts.”

BRANDEIS GRINDS IN

When asked why Brandeis chose to honor Pickering, a known anti-Israel public official, a member of the Brandeis Communications team came back – after requesting two extensions – with a woefully shallow response.

Bill Schaller, Brandeis’s “executive director of integrative media,” emailed back that Pickering has had a “long and diverse career, which has often included staunch advocacy for Israel.”

The one example of “staunch” Israeli advocacy Brandeis offered was Pickering’s “efforts to repeal the UN resolution regarding Zionism.”

That resolution, equating Zionism with racism, was passed in 1975 and was finally repealed in 1991.  So even by the University’s lights, Pickering’s last Zionist stand was 24 years ago. And while Pickering may have played a positive role in helping to revoke that heinous United Nations resolution – most people recall New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan and U.S. Ambassador John Bolton as central players – his actions regarding the Jewish State within living memory are alarmingly hostile.

Even the United Nations at one time was not anti-Israel. But that world body is currently considered anti-Israel because of its recent history. Pickering should be judged similarly.

In its statement, Brandeis officials explained that it “engage[es] an outside firm to vet the candidates,” in addition to involving Board members and faculty.

Perhaps the university should consider engaging an outside firm to educate its board members and faculty on the namesake of their university.

The author of this article graduated from Brandeis University in 1980. To honor Justice Brandeis, she has torn up her diploma.

Brandeis President Responds to Campus Imbroglio over Murdered Cops

Monday, December 29th, 2014

Yesterday The Jewish Press provided extensive coverage of a contretemps over free speech, civil discourse, race and intolerance taking place at Brandeis University, which is located in suburban Boston, Massachusetts.

If you have not yet read about the issue, it involves a black Brandeis student who, in the context of what she sees as a seriously racist nation in which current law enforcement is the direct and unreformed descendent of the slave-catching, capitalist-protecting militia of pre-Civil War America, tweeted that she “had no sympathy for the police officers who were murdered today” on Dec. 20. She also sent out other, profanity-laced tweets reinforcing her position. The article lays out the chronology and the facts.

Until mid-day local time in Boston, the president of Brandeis University had not commented publicly on what has been happening within and about his campus regarding this episode. What follows is his just-released statement, the subject line of which was, “Campus Civility and student safety at Brandeis.”

**************

Dear Members of the Brandeis Community:

As many in our community are aware, subsequent to the murder of two NYPD officers a Brandeis student posted comments to Twitter that expressed a lack of sympathy with the slain officers. Those comments were then re-posted by another Brandeis student on a third party blog. I write to address the nature of the discourse of the past days. Then I want to share my own response to the murders, explaining why I condemn any lack of sympathy with the murdered officers. Let me begin with one key matter – safety of our students. We have no greater concern than the safety of our students at Brandeis. We have taken and will continue to take all efforts to safeguard our students.

The discussion of the past week continues a national conversation on race and law enforcement that is bound to be heated and controversial. We will defend the free expression rights of all students in this debate. Arguments, even heated arguments, are one thing; threats are another. Within our community, we must address each other in ways that do not threaten each other. Any student who feels unsafe should notify public safety immediately.

It is critically important that we be able to have discussions about complex and charged issues in a climate of mutual respect and civility. This is an ambition for the full society – it is a mission for our University. I am proud that most of the discussion on our campus over the past days has been characterized by the kind of respectful and reasoned discourse that is the essence of an institution of higher learning.

A group of Brandeis students has been urging that this discussion transition away from social media, where the lack of face-to-face interaction, the instant ability to post and the brevity of posts can enable destructive language, and transition instead into settings based on direct human connection and into more rational forms of expression. I support these students’ efforts to make this discourse shed less heat and more light. In the new year we plan a forum for respectful dialogue on these issues.

Let me now share my own views of the killings in New York a week ago last Saturday. I have deep sympathy and respect for the slain officers and for their families, colleagues and friends. Those who were present on our campus the day of the “lock down” following the Boston Marathon bombing in April, 2013 will remember the sense of security that our own campus public safety and city police officers provided. These are brave, dedicated public servants who, when necessary, willingly go into harm’s way to protect us. What New York City Police Commissioner William Bratton properly described as the assassination of the two officers was a horrific crime. I thus join those who have condemned any lack of sympathy with these officers and with those who mourn their murder.

A War of Words (Some More Accurate Than Others) at Brandeis

Sunday, December 28th, 2014

There’s an ugly tempest brewing at Brandeis University and it’s based, at least in part, on free speech, tolerance and student safety. The storm grew out of a more generalized anger with the state of public discourse and of the safety of individuals in our society at large.

But at this point, one black self-described revolutionary and one Jewish conservative journalist, both Brandeis students, are the figureheads in a battle for the soul of an institution.

That institution, Brandeis University, was founded so that Jews, barred from most colleges by anti-Semitism, could find an open door to attain the education they desired. The school was named after the Supreme Court justice Louis D. Brandeis, whose distillation of the essence of freedom of speech has stood for decades as the lynchpin for America, and, in turn, much of the western world.

It was also Louis Brandeis, in an earlier incarnation as a lawyer, who brought humanity into the justice system. His famous “Brandeis Brief” for the first time opened the way for courts to consider human facts, not just legal doctrine, when making decisions about the lives of those people.

DEATHS BY POLICE OFFICERS FOLLOWED BY DEATH OF POLICE OFFICERS

The deaths of black unarmed men at the hands of police officers, Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri and Eric Garner in New York City this summer led to days of protests which increased in fury and exploded in violence after grand juries in both cases declined to indict the police officers involved.

Those deaths were followed by the execution-style murder of two random New York City police officers by a man pledging vengeance for the murders of Brown and Garner.

In response to the death of  the two officers, Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu on Dec. 20, a Brandeis junior, Khadijah Lynch, tweeted the following: “i have no sympathy for the police officers who were murdered today.” She followed that bleet with another, the next day: “lmao, all[,] i just really don’t have sympathy for the cops who were shot. i hate this racist f[expletive deleted]ing country.”

Justice Brandeis might have been first in line to offer to defend Lynch if she were threatened with expulsion for expressing her views publicly. But no one made any such threats. Instead, another Brandeis student took what Lynch placed in the public arena, and wrote and published an article about it for his site that same day. Daniel Mael, a Brandies senior and journalist for the site TruthRevolt.com, merely sent out further what Lynch had already launched.

What Mael wrote was little more than a description of Lynch and what she tweeted. All facts. All taken from public information. All fair game. And then some commenters to Mael’s article posted some seriously ugly talkbacks. Also free speech. Also fairly common in the world of Internet websites with any political orientation.

PUBLIC REACTION BY BRANDEIS COMMUNITY

It was at this point that certain members of the Brandeis community decided to rally ’round Lynch, raising the issue of “community” and “safety.” But it was too late for such hamishe invocations. Once Lynch chose to make her views public by using social media (one that could have been set on private, but was not), she left the cocoon of the university; her righteous defenders were unlanced. But that did not stop them.

No Brandeis Lynch defenders publicly praised her lack of sympathy for the murdered police officers, but one student, Michael Piccione, sent an email on Dec. 22 to more than 200 members of the Brandeis community. Piccione’s statement condemned Mael for “compromising” Lynch’s security and for continuing to endanger her. What Piccione demanded, in his own and in the name of others, was that “action [be] taken to hold this student accountable for his actions.”

You’ve Got Mail: Brandeis Professors’ Hate-Filled Emails

Wednesday, July 16th, 2014

Since its inception in 1948, Brandeis University has been regarded as one of the nation’s finest institutions of higher learning. With a $61,000 yearly tuition bill, students and parents enter the suburban Boston School with the highest expectations.

So it may come as a shock to mom and dad that the university founded to “embody its highest ethical and cultural values and to express its gratitude to the United States through the traditional Jewish commitment to education” has an official university faculty listserv (email list) consisting of prominent professors who promote anti-Semitic stereotypes and have great disdain for America and the State of Israel. First reported by Brandeis student Daniel Mael in Breitbart.com, the “Concerned” listserv was created in 2002 “out of concern about possible war with Iraq.”

Mael wrote, “It contains 92 subscribers, including professors from outside of the university. Participants express their fear and disdain on issues ranging from United States foreign and domestic policy, the ‘American system’ and ‘the Israelists,’ to ‘President “Obomber” ’ and ‘Hillary “Obliterate Iran!” Clinton.’ ”

The free exchange of ideas is tolerated only if those ideas hail from the left side of the political spectrum. “Concerned” co-creator Gordon Fellman explained in a 2009 email: “It is rude to post a recipe for pork roast on a vegetarian listserv or an orthodox Jewish one, or right wing harangues on the concerned list.” Critics argue that the private institution has already engaged in stifling free speech.

Brandeis attracted international attention in April when it withdrew an invitation for an honorary degree from Somali-born women’s rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali. A petition protesting the university’s honoring of this survivor of female genital mutilation, as well as one of the hundred most influential people in the world according to Time magazine, was signed onto by 87 professors. “Houston, we have a problem,” explained Brandeis English professor Mary Baine Campbell: “Ayaan Hirsi Ali claims to have had a difficult early life, and it may be true. However, she’s an ignorant, ultra-right-wing extremist, abusively, shockingly vocal in her hatred for Muslim culture and Muslims, a purveyor of the dangerous and imaginary concept, born of European distaste for the influx of immigrants from its former colonies, ‘Islamofascism’ – which has died on the vine even of the new European right wing. To call her a ‘women’s rights activist’ is like calling Squeaky Fromm an environmentalist.”

What students, parents and alumni may regard as the most troubling rhetoric by a “Jewish-founded college” that bears the name of the first Jewish Supreme Court Justice, are emails infused with anti-Semitic stereotypes and Israel-bashing. On June 30th of this year, East Asian Studies Professor Donald Hindley forwarded a newsletter from an anti-Israel group and characterized the Jewish state in the body of his email as “the vile, terrorist Israeli government.”

In a September 12, 2012 email to the “Concerned” list, he blasted the notoriously “progressive,” left-leaning National Public Radio’s coverage of the Benghazi attack, querying:

“Anybody hear this evening’s NPR report on this ‘incident’? Made no mention of the Israeli Jew film creator and his American Jewish financiers. None. But a lot about the Christian cleric. Typical for NPR News, serving what the Israeli government wants us Americans to know and believe – or not know and not believe. Profoundly shameful and anti-American.” The film creator, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, is an Egyptian-born Coptic Christian.

Hindley is not afraid of invoking Holocaust imagery in his emails and especially in reference to retired university president Jehuda Reinharz. A November 21, 2010 email bears the subject line “The Reinharz Reich in Perspective,” and a December 24, 2009 email refers to the head of the institution as the “Brandeis führer.”

Brandeis Unbecoming: Chloé Speaks In Defense of Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Wednesday, May 21st, 2014

It has become a very confusing time for those who wish to appease the latest and the loudest and the brashest arbiters of human rights priorities.

Brandeis University is only the latest and most painfully public example of western institutions losing their moral moorings.

Earlier this year, Brandeis offered to bestow an honorary degree on Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an African woman who spent the early years of her life as a victim of her native African Muslim culture. It inflicted upon her, first, the physically painful and permanent agony of female genital mutilation. Later, she fled the emotional and permanent agony of a forced marriage. Eventually, Hirsi Ali arrived in Holland – the bastion of liberalism and modernity. And there, Hirsi Ali thrived. She learned the language – several, in fact – and become an unflagging and outspoken human rights advocate, eventually achieving the exalted status of a member of the Dutch Parliament.

But Hirsi Ali stumbled in the eyes of a previously adoring world when she dared to name and openly criticize the religion which had physically maimed her, and which sought to emotionally enslave her.

When Hirsi Ali, based upon her personal, brutal, experience, named Islam as an enemy of freedom, a door slammed shut. The Human Rights Priority Police have decided that the name of Islam is the highest and greatest good, the virtue of which must be preserved at all costs.

So Hirsi Ali was forced, once again, to flee. She left Holland and settled in the United States: Land of the Free and Home of the Brave. At least, it used to be.

When certain fringes of the American branch of the Human Rights Priority Police learned that Hirsi Ali was about to be given a public honor at a university – the home base of those whose position is obtained by judging the actions of others, but never actually acting on the public stage themselves – they whipped their forces into a frenzy of spitting, swirling defiance.

Brandeis faculty members and students – few if any of whom have done more to advance the cause of human rights than sign an online petition or write a research article – decided that they could not permit their home base to honor someone who had insulted Islam, no matter how much good Hirsi Ali had done for persecuted women.

And so, caught broadside by the feverish outrage hurled at him by faculty and students, Brandeis University’s president, Fred Lawrence, stumbled and fell. He chose to embarrass himself and his administration by claiming not to have known about Hirsi Ali’s “extreme statements” – not her actions, mind you, nor the actions of those who, in the name of Islam, have tortured, mutilated and murdered scores of women across the globe. He withdrew the honor he had extended to the honorable Hirsi Ali, causing still more harm by feeding the insatiable hunger of the Morality Arbiters.

In fact, the death sentence he uttered was not for the honor of Hirsi Ali, but for his own honor, and that of his university’s, and perhaps for so much more unless people are shaken out of the death march away from truth and justice.

Everyone should listen to what Chloé Simone Valdary, a college junior from New Orleans, has to say.  Imbibe the information provided in her video. And allow her to help you remember how to stand firmly on solid moral ground. Pull yourselves and those you know up out of the abyss of moral relativism, of equating words with actions, of punishing truth and rewarding intimidation.

Brandeis Honorary Degree Recipients Disappearing Fast

Friday, May 16th, 2014

Less than two months ago, Brandeis University publicly released the names of the people who would be given honorary degrees at its 2014 graduation, scheduled for Sunday, May 18.

Who could have predicted that within the short time-span between the announcement and the awarding of the honorary degrees, the two women slated to be honored by Brandeis would both be scrubbed from the event?

One woman – Ayaan Hirsi Ali – was scrubbed by Brandeis. The other – Jill Abramson –  just pulled out because, as explained at the faculty meeting by Brandeis President Fred Lawrence, she “was not looking to take part in the celebratory nature of the weekend” due to her having been fired as executive editor of the New York Times this week.

However, Abramson is apparently a rapid healer as Wake Forest University confirmed that Abramson will be the commencement speaker at that school’s graduation on Monday, just one day after Brandeis’s ceremony.

Geoffrey Canada, the current (he’s leaving sometime this summer)  president and CEO of  Harlem Children’s Zone is still slated to be this year’s graduation speaker. Canada will also be receiving an honorary degree, along with Eric Lander, one of the principal leaders of the Human Genome Project, and longtime Brandeis University Trustee Malcolm L. Sherman.

But the two women on the original list of 2014 Honorary Degree Recipients, international women’s rights advocate Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Jill Abramson, first female executive editor of the New York Times, will not be joining the Brandeis graduating class of 2014 in Waltham, Massachusetts.

Brandeis unceremoniously dumped Hirsi Ali in April. That happened after members and fellow travelers of the school’s Muslim Students Association, in cahoots with a myriad of leftist professors – including a huge chunk of the women’s studies department – brought tremendous pressure on Brandeis University President Fred Lawrence to punish Hirsi Ali for “insulting Islam.”

And now Abramson, in the wake of having been fired, has decided the Brandeis gig doesn’t fit in with her weekend plans.

One Brandeis student is especially disappointed with what has transpired.

“I’m graduating from Brandeis this year and had the university not exercised bad judgment by disinviting Hirsi Ali, we would not be in the position we are in now,” Josh Nass told The Jewish Press by telephone. “How can it be that in 2014 there will not be a single woman honorary degree recipient from Brandeis?”

Rumor has it that the NYT fired Abramson in the wake of her having recently hired a lawyer to represent her in discussions with the paper after discovering she was paid less in two positions at the paper than had the people whom she replaced.

Brandeis junior Daniel Mael commented to The Jewish Press that “beyond the issue of Abramson not showing up at Brandeis’s graduation, it is ironic that the New York Times has become the new icon for the leftist war on women.”

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/brandeis-honorary-degree-recipients-disappearing-fast/2014/05/16/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: