On Sept. 13 at 2 p.m., faculty gathered in Rapaporte Treasure Hall to continue the tabled discussion regarding the potential vote of no confidence in Brandeis University President Ronald Liebowitz. Friday’s meeting marks the  first faculty meeting of the semester, change in membership. Prof. Jody Gittell (HELLER) stepped down from the position of Chair of the Faculty Senate, with Prof. Jeffrey Lenowitz (POL) stepping into the role. Small changes to voting processes have occurred with the aim of preventing voting confusion and inaccuracies.

Following the introduction, University Provost Carol Fierke spoke to the faculty on behalf of President Liebowitz as he was not present at the meeting. The speech welcomed new and returning faculty back to campus, encouraging them to get involved by joining faculty governance and speaking at events. Faculty members were also encouraged to join fundraising efforts, as the public phase of the capital campaign is set to begin in about a year. 

Fierke proceed  to provide some updates to the faculty, explaining the statistics for the current incoming class. Class of 2028 consists of 741 new undergraduates and 84 transfer students. She also provided demographic information, stating “The first year class is very diverse.” According to Fierke, 39% of the students are students of color, 18% are first generation, 18% are international, and Pell eligible students are 24% of the incoming first-year class.” Fierke also gave an update on the Graduate Student Union who are in the process of contract negotiation with the University, stating that there was a “productive meeting” with union representatives and explained that negotiations are in the final stages. 

 Early in the meeting , it was proposed that normal activities, typically conducted  during the first meeting of the semester, should e tabled in favor of continuing the conversation regarding the potential for a vote of no confidence, that took place at the end of the 2023-24 school year. 

The first speaker regarding this issue was Prof. Sarah Mayorga (ANTH), who compared Brandeis to six peer institutions, in an effort to specify the responsibility of a university president. She reviewed the college ranking system, which is important to prospective students and pointed out that while many private institutions dropped last year due to the changes in the ranking system, Brandeis had been dropping prior to these changes. Mayorga stated “in eight years we’ve dropped 26 spots.” She also pointed out that the endowment of Northeastern University, once smaller than that of Brandeis, has surpassed the institution in size due to their “aggressive fundraising strategy, including two capital campaigns since 2013.” Mayorga also reviewed increasing graduate student enrollment  at other institutions, countering claims made by President Liebowitz stating that all graduate enrollment is down. She called for a strategic plan from Liebowitz, closing with the statement “by year nine of this presidency, Brandeis needs and deserves more than these concepts of a plan.”

The first speaker against the motion for a vote of no confidence was Prof. Sacha Nelson (BIOL), who began his statement by talking about his first faculty meeting 30 years ago, where the president at the time announced that Brandeis was in a “dire financial crisis.” Nelson explained that he was told to ignore it and continue to work on teaching and research. “Since then, our institution has lurched from crisis to crisis,” he said in the meeting,explaining that Brandeis has never been financially stable and “our vision has always outstripped our resources.” Nelson expressed his belief that most problems with the University are structural, mostly due to the small size and young age of the institution which he says would not be altered by a change in administration. Instead Nelson shared that it would be productive to opt out of rankings and instead “celebrate the strength of our performance despite our small size.” He concluded by stating that the proposed motion is “incoherent and unhelpful.”

Following Nelson, an undisclosed faculty member showed  support of the motion. She questions the potential concerns that people have regarding this vote and the effect that it will have on the University. The speaker believed that the vote would not make Brandeis look weak, nor prevent future students from applying. She stated “morale of our current students reached a low last year and was only enhanced by their perception that we faculty are not doing anything to support them. Staff morale is also precipitously low due [to] cuts and restructuring.” She also went on to discuss claims that these financial problems were inherited by the current administration and questioned why nothing had been done in eight years to reverse them. “I’m sure each of you has sat in your department meetings this week hearing deeply troubling news about the drastic administrative cuts that occurred over the summer and about where we are heading next. More cuts, more service courses, the shutting of graduate programs, loss of R1 status, a hiring freeze, the sunsetting of majors and minors, and so on.” She acknowledged that a change in leadership will not immediately result in resolution of these problems, but if the University makes no changes neither will the course that it is on. 

During the meeting, a member of the the Brandeis International Business School spoke against the motion. He acknowledged concerns held by many, and stated “I think we’re all here also, because we share the same objective, which I think is that we all want a better Brandeis,” and went on to list some things that could be improved such as infrastructure, enrollment, rankings and more. He acknowledges that many are frustrated because they do not feel as if their colleagues are listening to their feelings and concerns, and there are other things to be talking about that could better Brandeis. “I think the option that you are proposing is nuclear,” the member of the business school said.  It “is just going to make things worse.It’s going to take us far away from where we want to be.” The speaker expressed that this vote would lead to more chaos and uncertainty for donors as well as all community members, and explained that he did not feel like the upside of this motion has been explained. 

Prof. John Plotz (ENG) spoke in support of the motion. He expressed concerns regarding the rally that took place on Nov. 10 of last year, where University administration called police on students, ultimately leading to forceful arrests on campus. Plotz explained that Brandeis was founded as a non sectarian institution, on the principles of acceptance of all due to discrimination faced by many.he actions seen from the administration last fall counter that narrative says Plotz. He also shared worries of information being withheld from the faculty by administration and expressed that ties between the Board of Trustees and faculty have been weakened due to Brandeis’s administration. The board has the power to exercise the nuclear option if necessary, says Plotz, but the faculty does not. Therefore, he believes that it is the responsibility of the faculty to provide the board with information and publicly express their dissatisfaction with Liebowitz. Plotz stated “we have a rare chance to speak our piece today, it shouldn’t be rare but in this University right now it is” as his final call to action.

In an email exchange with The Justice on Sept. 14, Plotz elaborated on his concerns around the events of Nov. 10. He expressed that while he among other faculty members have had concerns regarding the leadership of the University for a while, “November 10 however was a precipitating factor for many people to speak out, when they saw how far the university had come from its tradition of defending free expression and free speech and never responding to words with violence — in that case, as I saw first-hand, police violence against protestors who were already dispersing peacefully.” When asked what qualities he would like to see if a leadership change were to take place, Plotz responded “Brandeis is a diverse university with many strengths: its leader does not need to champion one thing about it, but to value all its facets and work tirelessly to promote its 75 year tradition of research excellence, devotion to teaching, and social justice orientation. They should stand for who we are, and make everyone feel welcome, while explaining our strengths to the world so people want to learn and work here, and donors want to support what we do. That is a tall order — but every Presidential search always is!”

In this same email, Plotz expressed that he is not as concerned with the potential results of this vote, but rather is focused on the risks of inaction as a more harmful option. He stated “Where we are now is not where we should be … The Board has already expressed its dissatisfaction publicly with the present administration in many ways.  It will be their decision what action to take to stop our current downward slide  —  our job is simply to pass on faculty judgment, so that they can process that information.” The Justice also asked if he believed that the Board of Trustees would take the faculty opinion into consideration when thinking about the future of leadership at Brandeis. In response, Plotz said “I hope so. Studies show that slightly more than half of Presidents who have gone through a faculty No Confidence vote are on their way out within a year. Our Board in past crises has shown itself capable of hearing from the faculty. It should never have come to this vote, because they should have heard our reasonable criticisms of the President’s way of running the university long before this, It is very unfortunate that in the past few years the President has changed policy to make it harder for the Board to hear directly from the faculty in ordinary course of things — perhaps this crisis will encourage him, and future Presidents, to keep those line of communication wider open as they were in the past.”

The next speaker against the motion was a professor from the biology department, who spoke about the true importance of the vote, and called for people to “look at the data objectively.” The speaker seconded the statement made by Nelson, that when comparing Brandeis to other institutions, it is important to choose ones that align with the size and history of Brandeis. He expressed concerns regarding the bias of the University and expressed that the statistics shared by those who proposed the motion, are not enough to go through this vote. He called for transparency if this vote is related to the political position of the University, rather than the financial one, as this is something that has been discussed in previous meetings.

The seventh speaker in this meeting was Prof. Marya Levenson (EDU), who is also a Brandeis alumna, celebrating her 60th reunion this year. She started by saying “I love Brandeis and am incredibly concerned that leadership is taking Brandeis in the wrong direction.” Levenson spoke of student commitment to social justice, and explained that the University is a place where students can come and learn with and from professors who are passionate about both their own research and teaching. Levenson then expressed that she feels what has happened over the past year has harmed the Brandeis community, and cited the events of Nov. 10 as a main reason. She then went on to focus her statement on the layoffs of 60 administrative staff that took place following graduation last spring, explaining that “some of them have worked at Brandeis for 25 or 36 years.” Levenson explained that these employees were mostly women who were not well paid and ultimately not offered any type of early retirement, but “they loved working here. They were the stalwarts who knew the history of their departments and could answer student’s questions. They provided a sense of belonging in our community. Now even the much smaller cohort of administrators that remains have been assigned double responsibilities and will not be easy to access when one has questions.” She went on to explain that what happened to administrators is now happening to janitorial staff and many are afraid that contract faculty will be the next affected. Levenson continued, explaining that many faculty are unhappy with the current state of the University and only attend now to teach and research, not to be involved. She expressed dissatisfaction with the potential elimination of three hour long classes, and emphasized the need to consult with faculty and staff regarding decisions such as this one. She concluded her statement with a call to action for everyone to consider the future direction of the University.

In an email correspondence with The Justice on Sept. 13, Levenson explained that she “was quite impressed that whether faculty members spoke in favor or against the motion, all of us care so deeply about our university.” She also advised that alumni continue to donate to the University moving forward, just as she does herself. 

Following Levenson, Prof. Eve Marder (BIOL) spoke against the motion. Marder is also a Brandeis alumna, who graduated in 1969 and has experienced every University president during her time as a student and as a faculty member. She expressed that she has heard complaints about every president. Marder then went on to emphasize  that this motion was proposed before the recent changes to the upcoming United States presidential elections. Marder stated “I for one don’t think it makes sense to do anything until we know who the next president of the United States is because if the wrong things happen in the election I think we’re gonna be in a bunch of trouble.” She went on to say “If we have a president who wants to destroy the [National Institute of Health], destroy the [National Science Foundation], destroy the Department of Education, et cetera, then we’re gonna be facing a lot more difficult problems than we’re gonna be facing otherwise.” Marder then closed her statement by stating that she has seen many presidents make many mistakes, but she has never seen the levels of diversity that Brandeis currently has. 

In an email correspondence with The Justice on Sept. 13, Marder shared more of her story as a member of the Brandeis community. She detailed the dismal state she has seen the campus in, including lack of landscaping and leaks left unfixed in Gerstenzang 122. Marder stated “My favorite President was Evelyn Handler (whom most of the faculty hated) because she landscaped the campus, planted flowers, fixed the leaks and built the new field house (which is not new any longer).  She was outspoken and tough and you always knew what she was thinking.” She also shared the difficulties of the Covid-19 pandemic, and what it took to come back from that challenge: “The hardest challenge in recent years was COVID recovery, rebuilding a sense of community. In the sciences our communities have largely recovered because most people have to come to campus for their work, although in the beginning it was hard to get people off Zoom and back in person. They are now back. My undergraduates join a community of scientists in the lab and benefit enormously.” When asked if she had any advice to share with current students or new Brandeis alumni, Marder shared “My advice to you all is to speak your minds, and somehow try to figure out whose realities can be trusted.  As the world is more and more fractionated, it is harder and harder to find real communities. And it is more and more important to find in-person contacts with other interesting people.”

The next professor to take the stand in favor of the motion expressed that he has been at Brandeis for 40 years, and this specific financial crisis is more concerning to him than those he has seen in the past. He addressed the concerns that Brandeis’ fragile position could be worsened by passing this motion, explaining that “someone has put us in this fragile position,” calling the faculty to find a way to think around that concern. He also discussed the erosion of the faculty governance during his time at the University, explaining that “faculty don’t feel like they are really a part of the solution here,” as opposed to other financial crises in the past. The speaker addressed that he has expressed love for "the poverty" of the University, as it has “meant that we faculty were always encouraged to improvise, to find interesting ways of doing interesting things.” He explained that this allowed faculty to be energized by “the poverty” instead of demoralized by it. However, “now we are being demoralized. What has happened with the firing of so much staff and the collapse of departments and majors, with the shrinking of our aspirations, is intensely demoralizing and that is really bad for leadership.”

Prof. Avital Rodal (BIOL) was the next to speak against the motion, expressing that mismanagement of finances does not just fall under the responsibility of Liebowitz. Rodal then emphasized that the staffing cuts were done by the entire leadership team, not just the president. In saying that, she also acknowledged that they “could have been done with much more grace.” Rodal continued on, asking her colleagues to be realistic when it comes to their vote, citing the relationship that Liebowitz has with the Board of Trustees, and explaining that it is unlikely for the vote to culminate in anything other than “bad press and loss of support.” She then goes on to express concern regarding the loss of relationships built by Liebowitz and potential years of interim leadership and reshuffling of the current leadership team. Rodal cited Harvard University as “keeping their interim president until 2027,” explaining that this is not a position that the Brandeis faculty want to be in. She expressed how hard it may be for people on either side to speak up regarding the feelings surrounding the motion, stating “I don’t think the voices that you are hearing actually represent the breadth of worry about this motion across this University,” and concluded her statement by encouraging everyone to vote as they see fit even if they do not feel comfortable speaking out in faculty meetings.

In a Sept. 13 email correspondence with The Justice, Rodal spoke positively about the decision to take the summer and continue thinking about the vote of no confidence, in agreement with the petition that circulated following graduation. In regards to the meeting that took place following the summer, she stated “I'm glad that we had a collegial discussion today and that so many faculty were in attendance to hear each other's voices. I hope that waiting over the summer gave people a chance to think it through and may have contributed to our ability to have a productive conversation.” When asked about her faith in the leadership of President Liebowitz moving forward, Rodal shared “I believe that President Liebowitz can lead us through the changes necessary to remain competitive, sustainable, and true to our values — provided our board and alumni follow through with their support and philanthropy. At the same time there is obviously room for improvement in listening to and taking account of the opinions of our diverse community in his decision-making process, to better serve our interests. With our supporters' backing and a commitment to more open dialogue, I'm confident the faculty can work together with the President to address our long-standing structural challenges and set a course for a promising future.”

The next speaker was Prof. Nina Kammerer (ANTH), who told a personal story about childhood, explaining how her father, an artist, shared with her how Brandeis is a place where all are respected no matter their field of study, and how anyone could come here to receive a liberal arts education. Kammerer went on to discuss infrastructure issues causing studios to be unusable, and stating “the creative arts do not have the value that they had before in terms of the way that they are supported. The same is true for the humanities.” She expressed her love for the sciences, but called for much more evenness in support than is seen now. Kammerer also expressed dissatisfaction in the removal of seminar slots, stating that “seminars are really important in education,” explaining that they provide much needed opportunities for students to practice skills such as critical thinking. She concluded her statement by saying that she felt as though the community has previously been more welcoming, and citing a potential reason for that in President Liebowitz.

The next speaker to speak against this motion was Prof. Bernard Yack (POL), who emphasized that the motion is “not a survey of how well we think the president is doing his job,” instead explaining that it is the faculty expressing that he is doing the job so badly that he should not be able to continue at all. He reviewed what a vote of no confidence could potentially accomplish, and concluded the list by explaining how each of the outcomes could potentially be unhelpful. The only thing that he felt was handled incorrectly were the events of Nov. 10, but expressed understanding that all university presidents had to handle these situations in their own ways. Yack then stated “if you think that the Brandeis Board of Trustees is going to be the only major university board that removes a president because they were too soft on the Palestinian protestors, you’re living in dreamland.” He then expressed his intention to vote against the motion.

Following Yack, Prof. Naghmeh Sohrabi (HIST) provided a short statement regarding her favor of the motion. “If the condition for taking action is certainty that things will get better, then so many things that would be considered progress in the world would not happen. Science is entirely based on not knowing what’s going to happen, but conducting the experiment is taking action to find out.” She then continued on to explain that social movements are based “not on uncertainty for the future but certainty of the morality of the present and hope that something better will come.” Sohrabi emphasized that if nothing is done, nothing can be expected to change, instead expressing that if nothing is done then agency is given to others — the Brandeis administration — to take action or not. She closed her statement by saying “if we act, it might not get better but at least we acted on the moral certainty that things are not ok right now,” and expressed her gratitude for the faculty members on the other side of the issue for what they have taught her through these discussions, but called for them to provide evidence for the claims that they are making regarding what could result in this vote, such as loss of the capital campaign.

In an email correspondence with The Justice on Sept. 13, Sohrabi was asked to further elaborate on comments made regarding the need to take action. In response, Sohrabi stated “I am grateful to the faculty Senate for giving everyone an opportunity to present their case for and against the motion. Personally, I am taking it all in and thinking about the various arguments made and weighing them against each other. The specific comments I made were in response to colleagues who argue that the faculty should vote against the no confidence motion because we do not know what will happen and that uncertainty in these uncertain times will make things only worse. What I said is that if the condition for taking action was certainty about the outcome, we would have no progress — not in the sciences nor in society. From scientific discoveries to social movements against injustice, change happens when people take a leap into the future. That leap is made from a sense of purpose and moral judgment of the present and a hope for a better future.”

The next speaker to express their concerns with the motion was Prof. Anna Scherbina (FIN), who discussed University finances in response to the statement made by Sohrabi. She focuses her research on corporate finance and mutual funds, and explained the potential determinants of loss of leadership, detailing the potential need for mutual funds to shut down. She also detailed the negative consequences of loss of leadership in corporate settings, including uncertainty and the abandonment of projects. Scherbina explained that “In a period of uncertainty investments dry up, new projects dry up because everybody waits for the uncertainty to be resolved.” She also seconded the statements made by Rodal, when referring to the difficulty of finding a new university president, and the potential period between leaders. Scherbina explained that alumni she has had interactions with have been very supportive of the president and voiced concerns regarding the loss of their support if this motion were to pass. In email correspondence with The Justice on Sept. 16, Scherbina stated “The older a university is, the easier it is to do fundraising. Additionally, because we are small, we do not have as many professional schools as the peers that were chosen in the meeting,” in response to the schools that Brandeis was being compared to in terms of finances, endowment and enrollment.

Following Scherbina, Prof. ChaeRan Freeze (HIST) spoke, citing Liebowitz’s term at Middlebury College as a cautionary tale. She explained that “President Liebowitz formed a non-profit joint venture between Middlebury and K-12 to create Middlebury Interactive Languages using the college’s endowment fund.” Freeze explained that the Middlebury faculty strongly opposed this venture, and held concerns regarding the academic standards of K-12. The faculty voted in favor of cutting ties with K-12, and this vote was ignored, as Liebowitz cited “a silver lining about the positive impact of a virtual language program.” This program continued to decline following this statement. A vote of no confidence in Liebowitz took place, and he departed the university. Following the departure, the new president “had to take legal measures in 2016, to sell off 40% stake in the company and regain its trademark name.” After all of this was ultimately settled, “Middlebury shifted to a new direction under a new president.” Freeze ended her statement by reemphasizing that a vote of no confidence did not spell the end for Middlebury and doesn’t have to for Brandeis either. 

The final new speaker of the meeting was Prof. Jonathan Sarna (NEJS), who spoke about the number of transfers previously mentioned by Fierke. Sarna stated “people need to know that many of these transfers came because they were at Universities where Jewish students suffer and they saw our president speaking out for the rights of Jewish students and acting on their behalf, saying he had their back and acting accordingly and they came here in large numbers.” He also detailed that new money has been seen from Jewish donors across the country, explaining that this acceptance reminded them of the reasoning behind the creation of Brandeis, and explaining how Brandeis is moving back in the direction of becoming a safe haven for Jewish students. Sarna explained that the Jewish community is watching this vote, stating “the question really is whether we will support the president in this endeavor, to bring back Jewish donors, to [support] Jewish students, who in many cases are now homeless, or whether we want to subvert that effort, deny our history … which is so much a part of the battle against hate.” Sarna went on to emphasize the importance of the way this affects the community outside of Brandeis, and connects it to support for Israel, explaining that the decision to not support will have negative consequences for the name Brandeis. 

In an email correspondence on Sept. 13, Sarna clarified to The Justice that the phrase “homeless” was referring to his experience “[speaking] to several transfers who told stories about how they were made unwelcome at their (previous) home universities — they were socially ostracized for supporting Israel and in some cases physically threatened.” He also elaborated on the potential outcome for the University as it continues to increase the percentage of Jewish students, explaining “The percentage of Jewish students at Brandeis was about 75% when I was a student.  It went down to about 30% and has risen now to about a third. Given Brandeis' history, it seems to me that now, when (according to studies by Len Saxe and Eitan Hersh), students who are Jewish and/or support Israel pay a huge social penalty for doing so, we should offer those students a haven at Brandeis.  That may well mean that the percentage of Jewish students on campus would rise.” Sarna also was able to clarify the importance of Israel in this situation, telling The Justice “Pres. Liebowitz has won praise among Jews everywhere for his staunch support of Jewish students and of Israel.  A negative vote will be regarded as a no-confidence vote in those policies, and would bode ill for Brandeis' bid to attract Jewish students and to win Jewish communal support.” This email exchange ended with Sarna explaining the true need for a safe haven for Jewish students, explaining “Brandeis is the only non-sectarian Historically Jewish University in America.  Just as I believe there should be Historically Black Colleges so I think our one and only Brandeis should be cherished and nurtured.”

Following all of these speakers, Rodal requested her second chance to speak. She responded to questions about alumni losing faith in the University, explaining that alumni she has spoken with throughout her fundraising efforts for the University have expressed their support for President Liebowitz and his actions. Mayorga then utilized her second chance to speak to clarify the list of peer institutions that had been previously presented, citing G14 boston area schools as Brandeis equivalents while mentioning that the last two on the list, Rice and Dartmouth, were chosen because “Ron, President Liebowitz mentions them as peer institutions, he did that at the community listening session in June.” This meeting then concluded as no one held any objections regarding ending debate and sending the motion to a full faculty vote. This vote will take place through an email sent to the full faculty and the results will be concluded before the next faculty meeting on Oct. 18.