In an open letter to the Brandeis community on March 28, 2024, University President Ronald Liebowitz called for an examination of the University’s Principles of Free Speech and Free Expression. Liebowitz declared that Brandeis has a proud history of openness and said that the University is “at an appropriate juncture to conduct a review of these principles and how university policies and procedures relate to them.” 

The University’s Principles of Free Speech and Free Expression were adopted by the Board of Trustees in 2018. They include guiding tenets related to how Brandeis should operate as an institution that aims to be what Liebowitz describes as an “open, civil and secure environment for the pursuit and creation of knowledge.” The Principles are as follows: “maximizing free speech in a diverse community,” “developing skills to engage in difficult conversations,” “sharing responsibility,” “rejecting physical violence,” “distinguishing between invited speakers and university honorees” and “University restrictions.” The “University restrictions” maintain that the University will restrict expression that, for example, breaks the law, constitutes harassment, invades confidentiality interests or is “otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the University.” With these principles in mind, the task force was created to assess how Brandeis needs to adapt to an ever-changing and ever-volatile conversation about free expression and its place on college campuses — especially in the context of the escalating war between Israel and Hamas and the resulting impact on affected communities across the United States. 

In a highlighted portion of his letter, Liebowitz described the goals of the task force, which is chaired by Philosophy department chair, Prof. Kate Moran (PHIL). Liebowitz said that the task force “is expected to engage in information gathering, examine applicable law and regulation, consider policies and practices at other universities, and participate in civil and respectful discussion and debate among its members.” In Moran’s words, “the role of the taskforce is to examine the currently existing principles of free expression and to decide if we want to make any recommendations about amending them.”

On Thursday Sept. 19 at 2 p.m., the task force conducted its first listening session open to the Brandeis community in Levin Ballroom. Attendance was almost non-existent: seven students attended in person, collecting themselves in the front row of the room and leaving rows of folding chairs behind them empty. Given the awkwardness of being up on a stage in front of only a handful of students, the task force wished to adapt to the dismal turnout and sit down with the attendees instead, but the limitations of recording the meeting on Zoom did not allow for this proposed spontaneous round-table.

The listening session began, and what became an unexpectedly intimate and personal discussion between the task force and the attendees offered a special opportunity to reflect on the problem of trust between the Brandeis administration and its students. 

Moran first thanked task force members for their time and emphatically told the students present to “please know that [they were] invited to reach out to any [task force member] personally about matters related to their work and free expression.” Task force members in attendance were the Director of Communications, Director of Student Affairs, and Family Liaison, Dvora Pemstein;  Graduate representative and Ph.D candidate Nathaniel Walker; recent graduate Eitan Marks ’24; Prof. Anita Hill (LGLS/WGS); Prof. David Katz (HIST); and Prof. Shai Feldman (HIST). Feldman ironically quipped that “he didn’t know why” he was there, but that he was a founding member of the Crown Center for Middle East Studies at Brandeis and that he “has been through a number of, let’s say, dicey situations and dilemmas that [have] needed to be addressed.”

Moran explained that the goal of the listening session was to “allow for us to come together.” She said that she imagined herself saying that “in front of 200 people,” but no matter the turnout, the task force “would like to hear [student] ideas… and experiences.” Moran added that in terms of the type of feedback the task force hopes to get as it works to formulate recommendations to the administration, it would be helpful for students to attend the listening sessions. “All student opinions “[are] on the table,” Moran said. 

When it comes to the issue of accountability, Brandeis students are critical of their administration and the first student to speak started off the session by pulling on this thread. He asked Moran, “How do you see this task force as a potential solution?” 

Moran explained that the taskforce was created “by the faculty senate in response to the events of last year,” and that “the administration formed this task force… [as a] response to these requests.” Going deeper, she identified within his question another question:“If we already have principles of free expression… what do we need to supplement?” The task force wants students to help them answer this question, and as Moran said, “they doubt the answer will be that “everything is fine.” Instead, they anticipate that “the University’s principles about expression can be adjusted… [as well as] their implementation.” Moran noted that the task force will not be the last stop because the suggestions that the task force eventually makes “will be up to the administration to take.” In hoping that they can have some influence on policy moving forward, Moran and the task force need to solicit feedback. She emphasized that the task force has no “particular agenda” and that the work that the task force does is “an expression of really caring about the University.”

Second among the attendees to address the task force was actually not a student, but a fellow professor. Professor Emeritus, Bernadette Brooten (NJES/WGS/CEMS), brought a unique perspective to the discussion as a faculty member uninvolved with the task force. Brooten “respectfully request[ed] given the size of the audience that [she] might take a little more time,” as originally questions were supposed to be limited to two minutes, to which Moran joked, “I don’t have a buzzer.”

Brooten spoke of her decision to tape a sign to her body that read “from the river to the sea, peace and equality,” which she also “translated into Hebrew and Arabic with a little help,” during the 2024 Brandeis commencement. To Brooten, these words are an “explanation… [or] reformulation” of how she understands the original phrase, “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”, having listened to students explain its meaning to her at demonstrations last fall. The usage of the original phrase was banned on campus on Nov. 6ww of last year. 

The phrase, “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” has long been associated with the Palestinian independence movement. Its earliest usage dates back to the 1960s when Palestinians were seeking to break away from the control of not just Israel but Egypt and Jordan as well. For many Palestinians, the phrase indicates a desire to have equality in their homeland, but after being adopted by the terrorist organization Hamas, for many Jewish people the phrase has become a threat to Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. 

Walker  wished to clarify Brooten’s thought process behind her decision to wear her poster. He asked if the fact that she had adapted the phrase was exactly why she thought she was allowed to wear it, and additionally wondered if she thought that if “a student had [worn] that poster, would they have been allowed to [wear it].” To the latter question, Brooten could not speculate. To the prior, she responded that yes, her understanding of the phrase’s meaning was allowed to be expressed, yet the actual phrase was not. She believes, however, that her meaning is “how many people on November 10th understood it.” Brooten’s Nov. 10 reference was to student demonstrations at Brandeis last year, protesting the University’s derecognition of the Brandeis chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine. 

Brooten said of her personal protest at commencement: “I largely had very positive responses as I walked in and as I walked out [of commencement],” most of which came from “students of color and parents of students of color.” She elaborated on an interesting moment of tension she remembered, describing a man that told her, in Hebrew, “may the people of Israel live,” to which Brooten exclaimed “of course [she] fully believes this,” as in her mind there is no difference between what he said and the phrase on her poster. 

“Everyone in the region should be free and have equality,” was Brooten’s main point. She believes her rendering of the phrase to be a common thread that people should be able to agree upon. Arguably, rhetoric is the paradoxical culprit of misunderstanding, but also a vehicle of education. Brooten urged the task force to consider that “no specific phrase or word should be prohibited from the beginning.”

Feldman also questioned Brooten, asking her to definitively say if she believed her rendering of the phrase and the original phrase conveyed the same meaning. They are, in meaning, “the same,” Brooten said. The only difference was that her phrase has not been restricted. This revelation about the importance of context was where the session found its most potential for nuanced discussion. Through Brooten’s story, the session had struck on the “sticky point,” of defining hate speech versus defining free expression, as Moran later explained. 

Moran wondered aloud about the capacity of the task force and the wider Brandeis community to decide on how to restrict hate speech as it comes to an intellectual head with the idea of free expression. Another Brandeis student offered her thoughts as a first-year hoping to major in linguistics. She explained that she “understand[s] language to be very contextual,” and related that “everyone has their own interpretation,” of rhetoric. She proposed that there be an “operational definition of what constitutes hate speech,” advising that situations should be assessed according to this operational definition “versus just having a list of words and phrases that students are not allowed to say.” This operational definition would take into account the possibility of the volatile quality of words and phrases used towards others in a violent or oppressive way. 

Brooten added on to this point, questioning whether the idea of fair process “might be built into the definition of free expression.” She proposed that “if students say something that others feel is hateful, [this] should go through the student conduct process — that’s the way hate speech should be dealt with, with careful due process for all.”

The intellectual debate about free expression poses a question regarding the adjacency to violence that is commonly attributed to certain rhetoric: if words can be given a violent quality, what does this mean for language as a symbol and who decides what words are violent or deserving of restriction? Here, Walker brought the University’s Principles of Free Expression back into the conversation. The sixth principle allows for the University to restrict speech as it sees appropriate, making the administration the decision-makers when it comes to choosing which words are violent. The list of banned phrases is new — as of Nov. 6, Liebowitz restricted three phrases in the light of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Task force members noted that conversation about what to restrict is “slightly different from the issue of process, which happens when [we have to decide] what we do when there is an issue of violation.” To this, Brooten stated that the “sixth principle should either be cut or altered so there is a fair process.”

The issue of authority and accountability as it relates to Brandeis administration was also addressed in the context of the organization of student clubs on campus. Rani Balakrishna ’25, president of the Brandeis Student Union, brought her perspective to the discussion on this matter. Applying the guidelines from 2018 to last fall, Balakrishna remembered that “[Brandeis] administrators went over [the] Student Union… [when they] made the decision to derecognize [Students for Justice in Palestine],” and wondered what the task force could do to rectify this. Moran said that this point was “certainly something [the task force] can include [in their information gathering],” because it is “important [to note] that there is a difference in speech and expression [and] expression includes [student organizations].”

Katz, who worked for 41 years at Tel Aviv University before coming to Brandeis, added “this taskforce is not just about freedom of expression relating to Israel-Palestine, [but] about free expression regarding all things.” For Katz,this brought up his thoughts about the upcoming election. Katz asked attendees to remember that the recommendations that the task force makes will encompass a whole range of issues. He asked, for example, how might Republican students be treated on campus, or what about students’ views on the issue of abortion: how will Brandeis handle difference of opinion?

Continuing the discussion, Katz came down on the idea of influence and bias. He revealed that there was faculty pushback on the decision to “emphasize [the] Jewish element of the Brandeis community [in order] to make itself distinctive and raise more money, “ and likened this to how Boston College has emphasized its Catholicism. 

The fourth student to speak also touched on this idea of influence when it comes to drawing the line between free expression and hate speech. He told the task force about a time during his childhood when he was sent home from school for saying the word “Jew,” because “the word ‘Jew’ is considered a slur where [he is] from,” Arizona, and shared his experiences about being called a “self-hating Jew” at Brandeis because of his political beliefs. He said that he believes that “the University has a clear directive, [as] students on one camp are excused of virtually all behavior and on the other side they have faced consequences” for their words and actions. 

Fleshing out his point, he explained that the Brandeis administration sent an encouraging email for those who wanted to attend the vigil for Israeli victims of the terrorist attack on Oct. 7th, 2023, but the administration sent no similar email for subsequent student-held vigils for Palestinian lives lost. This student shared that he remembered “police surrounding the [Palestinian vigil], and students laughing [while] filming Palestinian students talking about [their] dead family members.” When it comes to remembering the 1,200 Israeli lives lost on Oct. 7th and thinking about the violence in Gaza where the currently reported Palestinian death toll is over 40,000, this student wondered how the University would prepare for possible student demonstrations this year. 

The task force was not able to comment directly on this as they do not have the authority to create new policy or control the administration’s current protocols, but Feldman said that “to answer [that question] at least regarding one aspect,” on Oct. 8, the Crown Center will be holding a session in Goldfarb Library including “a senior researcher who is a Palestinian ..., an Egyptian colleague and [himself],” and assured that they “will try to represent different narratives.” Feldman said that he and his colleagues at the Crown Center “are committed to balanced and dispassionate discussion and speech.” 

Students have previously expressed their frustration with how the University handled the police presence and arrests made on Nov. 10. A walkout was held last Nov. 13 to protest police brutality after three students were forcibly arrested during the demonstrations. Moran said that she “doesn’t feel like she can announce any opinions of the task force at this stage,” regarding how the University has handled student demonstrations. She said that the task force had “been meeting over the summer to discuss Supreme Court cases and the case at Brandeis,” and stated that this was an “example of the prime problem” when it comes to the “application” of the Principles of Free Expression, “which is what we’re thinking about,” explained Moran. Moran said that recommendations would be “not just abstract recommendations,” but also “some more concrete guidelines about these principles … can be implemented in the moment,” such as when responding to student demonstrations. Walker added that it is important to remember the “principle of rejection of violence,” saying that “there is a precedent for dealing with violence,” and that there will be “room … to discuss this on the task force and in the community.” 

At this point in the session, the first student who spoke took another turn at the microphone. He admitted that even though the task force representatives were “well-respected members of the Brandeis community,” to him, he decided that he had “something to say that no one has said yet:-the task force is literally just a show of goodwill”. Going further, he would “very politely have to say no,” to the question of “will this task force solve anything?” 

This student relayed to the task force the main issue that he had found with the administration: “even though the University prides itself on providing resources for students of color and faculty of color,” to him they seem to “push for one side of the argument.” In his words, the ideal function of the task force would be to “keep the administration accountable,” when it comes to supporting and allowing for diversity in student perspective. He added that accountability was especially important when concerning President Liebowitz — “when has he ever connected with the community?” Last year, Liebowitz “offered to talk to the Muslim Student Association, but not to the Network of Arab Students,” the student recalled. He pointed out this failure of attention and understanding of Liebowitz’s part because “beyond Jews and Muslims, there are [also] Christians dying in Gaza,” which points to complexity of the situation in the Middle East and also on a campus that includes students from diverse backgrounds. 

Katz acknowledged when fielding the student concerns about how little Liebowitz is seen on campus, that the Dean of Arts and Science Jeffrey Shoulson who gets the most facetime with staff and students. Liebowitz’s job is more concerned with “money raising,” he said, but Katz praised Shoulson’s active presence at least with faculty and staff. 

Pemstein took this moment of reckoning to jump in and take an opportunity for action. She asked if it would be okay if she shared that feedback as she works in student affairs, and could specifically address providing support to the Network of Arab Students. Pemstein said she would try to solve this unequal treatment — she “hope[d that it was] never too late,” for this and that she “hope[d] that outreach would still be helpful.” Pemstein acknowledged that this was out of the hands of the task force because of their inability for direct action, but reassured the students present that although “we’re not here for that, [their concerns were] quite important and I think there are students that could benefit from outreach from the administration.”

Brooten added that she wanted the University to conduct research “on what non-Jewish, non-zionist students or Jewish students that are non-zionist, are feeling.” She added that “especially considering Palestinian, Arab and Muslim students, a colleague [of hers] did an anonymous survey that found a “horrific” impact on such communities,” relating to how the Israel-Palestine conflict has been addressed on the Brandeis campus. 

There is a definite lack of trust between  Brandeis University and its students — this conclusion was agreed upon by both the task force members and the students. Even yet, Moran wants to work for change. She said that if she was “100% sure that [she] was just checking a box to make things look better, [she] wouldn’t have agreed to this job,” but admitted that she is “also a realist,” and so she understands student concerns that they “do all this work and don’t make a dent.” Moran said “speaking personally,” she still has hope.

In seeking to rebuild this trust, Hill related a point she wanted to consider, saying “that [the task force] need[s] to actually hear from [student] voices,” in order for change to happen. In creating a “just and inclusive community,” she “would encourage [the students that came to the session] to come back [and] bring [their] friends,” because “this is a community function that we are engaged in… [to] make the community safer for people to express themselves.” She asked students to “see this as a community conversation of people who have different perspectives and different concerns.” 

Essentially, for the task force to do its job, they need student support in the form of participation. For this to happen, students need to trust, and perhaps this actually means trusting that they can rebuild trust that has been broken. This was concerning for Hill and other task force members. She identified that students were “here because [they] have a position [on this issue] but [they] don’t necessarily expect that there will be an outcome that matches [their] concern.” She said that was “troubling” to her as she and other faculty members “can only ask for you to let us know how we can regain that trust.”

Moran agreed with Hill and said that she expected that “the reason why we’ve had low attendance [at the listening session] … is because of a lack of trust,” related to the University’s communication and messaging. Besides the issue of the trust, the session’s timing was less than ideal during the middle of the school day. Moran closed the session by expressing her “wish to affirm [the task force’s] sincerity.” She vouched for the task force’s genuine intentions to reflect on and convey student opinion through their feedback to the Brandeis administration. Moran said the faculty, staff, and students on the taskforce have a “real love of the University and our students in particular motivating us.” 

On record with The Justice after the event, Moran gave a closing message about student participation: “in order to do our job as we would really like to do it in a way that represents the whole community, that takes everybody’s views into account where we do the information gathering that we really want to do, we really do need people to participate.” She added that “of course we understand that people may be uncomfortable saying things in public or with their names attached, so there will be other opportunities to say things anonymously if they want to, but that even if they come to listen to their colleagues and friends, that is a really important part of this process too.” 

Hill commented, “It is important for the community to trust that we are deeply committed to change … [and that] everyone in the community feels that they will be protected and heard  —– the responsibility falls on the task force to make sure their job is not just ‘performative;” Only by deeply committing to this change, as Hill believes the Brandeis community can do, will Liebowitz’s description of the University as an “open, civil, and secure environment for the pursuit and creation of knowledge” ring true.  

The task force hopes to hold more events, and the next Free Expression Listening Session will be on Tuesday, Sept. 24, again from 2 to 4 p.m. in Levin Ballroom. Students are also invited to register for the webinar. Continuing their engagement with the Brandeis community as they strive to gather information and eventually garner traction and support for their recommendations to the administration about the Principles of Free Expression hinges on how willing students are to share their voices.