The legal-rational system of power is decidedly based in laws and reason-whether it is in a government, power system or private entity. As coined by political scientist Max Weber, the legal-rational system promotes a specific long-term trend: consistency and predictability. Brandeis University, like most of higher education, is by and large a legal-rational entity. Yet upon further analysis, two recent University decisions regarding outside relationships, appear to lack consistency and predictability.

Over the past few months, Brandeis has made media waves with its decisions related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On Nov. 18, the University formally ceased its partnership with Al-Quds University, a Palestinian University in East Jerusalem, after a Jihadist-style rally occurred on campus, followed by a contentious public statement by Al-Quds President Sari Nusseibeh. 

Exactly one month later, Brandeis' American Studies program suspended its relationship with the American Studies Association, after the ASA voted to enact an academic boycott as part of the "Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions" campaign against the State of Israel. Yet, when one looks at these two decisions side-by-side, inconsistencies in academic standards become apparent. In fact, the basic and tenable standards set for one decision were completely overlooked for the other. 

The Brandeis American Studies program's statement reads, "We view the recent vote by the membership to affirm an academic boycott of Israel as a politicization of the discipline and a rebuke to the kind of open inquiry that a scholarly association should foster...we can no longer support an organization that has rejected two of the core principles of American culture-freedom of association and expression." 

The Brandeis American studies program placed the open exchange of scholarly thought between educational leaders above political disagreements. The ASA's blockade of this academic freedom is what caused Brandeis' program to cease its relationship with the American Studies Association. 

However, the Brandeis statement that suspended the University's partnership with Al-Quds reads that the University is "obliged to recognize intolerance when we see it, and we cannot-and will not-turn a blind eye to intolerance." Many were offended by the Nusseibeh statement University President Frederick Lawrence deemed "offensive and inflammatory"-so much so that it most likely became the underlying reason for the suspension in the first place. 

What happened to the freedoms of association and expression emphasized in our statement to the ASA? Why is a blockade of academic freedom a reason to cease membership in the ASA, yet necessary to put in place after the Al-Quds protest? The University is lacking consistency.

Ideally, yes, Brandeis should never have suspended the relationship with Al-Quds just as ideally the extremist rally should never have occurred. However, the Al-Quds campus rally and the subsequent statement by Nusseibeh forced Brandeis to choose between two values: the fight against anti-Semitism versus the beauty of free academic discourse. At the time, arguments for and against a suspension from Al-Quds were sound. If ties were severed, those striving for academic purity would cry foul. 

Many claimed Nusseibeh's statement was poorly translated, and lacked context about recent events in both the region and on campus (despite the fact that Al-Quds itself translated the speech, and Nusseibeh has the opportunity to clarify these events to Lawrence in their previous conversations). 

Many argued that this event was simply not large enough to throw all the positive attributes of the program out the metaphorical window. Free academic discourse must persevere.
On the other hand, the staunch fighters against anti-Semitism and bigotry unequivocally called for action on Brandeis' part. They argued that Brandeis could not allow this kind of offensive behavior to go without repercussions. If not at Al-Quds where a student rally depicted the death of an Israeli Soldier at the hands of militants, then where do we draw the line? How can we have a partnership with a university president who refers to the "vilification campaigns by Jewish extremists" in the first sentence of his statement? 

I was, and continue to be, in full support of the nullification of our relationship with the American Studies Association. Israel is the only country in the world that has affirmative action programs for Palestinian students and has arguably a higher amount of academic dissent from the government than any other country in the world. Israel is not China which imprisons dissenting academics, or Iran who has publicly executed their dissenters yet Israel is the only country being targeted by the ASA. 

When asked why the ASA chose to target Israel for their boycott as opposed to other countries whose human rights violations far exceed Israel, the ASA President Curtis Marez responded, "One has to start somewhere." This boycott is clearly absurd-nearly two months after blocking Israel the ASA has not gone on to boycott anywhere else. Even Mahmoud Abbas, chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, has publicly condemned the movement against academia in Israel proper. Academic discourse with Israel should not be blocked, and hence Brandeis' removal from the association is the correct response. 

But we must apply this same standard to our relationship with Al-Quds. I agreed at the time with the decision to suspend the Al-Quds relationship because of the nature of the rally and the subsequent Nusseibeh statement. 

But now the message has been sent to the world that Brandeis will not tolerate bigotry and hatred. In fact, because of the suspension, President Nusseibeh has made multiple public and universal condemnations of the rally, such as an interview with Times of Israel. 

Moreover, with the heightened scrutiny on the Al-Quds campus, other disturbing notes of bigotry have come to life, many of which are enumerated by Jewish Press columnist and Brandeis alum Lori Lowenthal Marcus '80. 

For example, a museum on campus is named after the terrorist Khalil Al-Wazir, known by the alias Abu Jihad, most infamous for his connection to the murder of 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics. Nusseibeh's positive statements since the suspension, as well as the heightened scrutiny around the campus, are both exemplary proofs for why the initial suspension was the correct decision at the time. 

But now the time has come to work toward the academic freedom noted by the American Studies program, the academic freedom we should always strive toward. Moving toward the reinstatement of the relationship is the only way Brandeis can take an active hand in deconstructing the bigotry on the Al-Quds campus. We must work to strengthen the moderate voices that have helped form this relationship in the first place. 

Its time for Brandeis to work with Al-Quds to change their practices, and upon the corrections and removal of these various flaws, reignite the shining light we once fostered for the Israeli- Palestinian conversation.