On Nov. 8, faculty gathered for their monthly meeting, eagerly anticipating the introduction of new University Interim President Arthur Levine ’70. The meeting began with comments from Chair of the Faculty Senate Jeffery Lenowitz (POL), who introduced a speech and moment of silence for the passing of Professor Emeritus Graham Campbell (FA). Following this remembrance, Wellington Prize winner Prof. Emilie Connolly (HIST) gave a presentation on her trip to Lisbon. 

After Connolly’s remarks, Interim President Arthur Levine ’70 took the floor to address the faculty of the University for the first time. He began his speech with a joke, commenting on the location of Rapaporte Treasure Hall and expressing his “disappointment” in the treasure, sharing that it would unfortunately not be the answer to the University's “budget problems.” Levine expressed his love of retirement, but that his love for Brandeis brought him back.

Levine made it clear that the decisions made before he stepped into this position were not his and reiterated that he is not looking for another job after this one. He also explained that he is not doing this for the sake of his resume, as he is satisfied with it as it is — instead citing love for the University as his main motivation for taking the job. 

Levine then acknowledged the situation that Brandeis currently is in, highlighting deferred maintenance, declining enrollment and budget cuts. However, he also mentioned the University’s great students and faculty. Levine stated, “I don’t know any University that was made great by budget cuts,” expressing a need to repair the current financial situation of the University. He explained that enrollment management will be reporting directly to him from now on, utilizing his past experience with a goal of regrowing enrollment.

He also stated that he has asked Institutional Advancement to immediately launch a Capital Campaign that focuses on “faculty, students, programming, staffing and infrastructure.” Levine explained that if both of these things go well, this would be a short term solution to the budget-related problems that Brandeis is facing. However, he cited a need to improve operations, with the hope of expanding and moving with new trends in the academic spaces. 

Levine continued, discussing the changing digital landscape by citing pages like Coursera that offer a wider range of online courses than those available at any one university for much lower prices. He explained that this shift will affect every college — from community colleges to Ivy Leagues in one way or another. Levine stated “Covid was not an interruption, it was an accelerator. You all know that.” He explained that he and his co-author, which he did not identify, visited 70 institutions recently, trying to decide what made an institution stand out amongst the rest, and took away valuable information.

Levine told the faculty, “My assignment from the Board is to develop a plan for the future of Brandeis and write a job description for my successor to translate that plan into reality. I want to do that together. I can’t do that alone.” He explained that his plan before winter break is to talk to as many people as possible, asking members of  the faculty to come and talk to him. He wants to hear from community members about what they hope to see change at Brandeis, and he will then come back in January and “suggest a path forward.”

Following this conclusion, members of the faculty were invited to participate in a question and answer session with Levine. The first speaker to approach the microphone was Prof. Sabine von Mering (GER/WGS), who expressed concerns regarding the comparison between Northeastern and the future of Brandeis, explaining “We need to plan, we need to have our own guiding stars instead of trying to copy what Northeastern does.” She continued by broaching the topic of the elimination of the Lydian String Quartet, which was discussed in the October faculty meeting.  She expressed that the quartet is one of the things that makes Brandeis unique. 

Levine responded by explaining that the quartet was eliminated before he entered office and therefore, was not his fault. Although, he did express that it was not eliminated for no reason: “We have to have priorities.” Von Mering, who had returned to her seat, yelled from the audience to encourage Levine to take a pay cut. He explained that it is not just about finding the money this year, it’s about finding the money every year. Levine called on the faculty, stating “Help me! People are complaining about cuts. Help me figure out an alternative that would be healthier for this institution.” 

Levine went on to share that he was a candidate for this position in the 80s, explaining that he had a lot of criticism and ultimately decided that he was not interested in the role. He stated “What we need to know is we’re a family. We solve our problems as a family. We don’t go to the press and tell them we have a problem … I’ll be very honest with you. I’ll work on any issue — I’ll work on any problem — but I won’t after a person goes to The Globe.”

The next speaker was Prof. Nina Kammerer (ANTH), who emphasized the importance of rebuilding community, stating “The onslaught of damage to our sense of community that we have had under the previous administration, and I feel that community is one of the essential as a founding of the institution,” asking Levine to keep community in mind moving forward.

Levine responded by sharing that he has spent much time in the dining halls, at student gatherings and in meetings with the community during his first week back at Brandeis. He stated that “this remains a warm and welcoming campus.” He then asks for the faculty’s trust, stating “I’m asking you to trust me. I get nothing out of this. I’m going to leave. If I’m the worst president in Brandeis history, and I leave when my tenure is over. If I’m the best president in Brandeis history I leave when my tenure is over. I have nothing to prove. I am satisfied with my existing resume.” Levine concluded this answer with the call for action of creating community, comparing Brandeis to larger schools such as Arizona State University and sharing that “this place is too small” to neglect community.

The next speaker was Prof. Thomas King (ENG), who asked for further elaboration on the possible inclusion of digital landscapes and expressed concerns regarding the harmful rhetoric of the word “family.” He spoke about his 32 years at this institution and explained that Brandeis has caused harm to himself and others, “based upon our various differences.” King continued by calling out Levine for the use of intimidation against those who could potentially air their grievances to the Globe. 

In an email correspondence with The Justice on Nov. 8, King elaborated by stating “The purpose of the phrase [family] is to obfuscate problems and to suggest that those who bring problems to light voluntarily exclude themselves from the family. Feminists taught us decades ago that this very phrase has been used systematically to cover over abuses within the family, to excuse abusers, and intimidate victims from coming forward.” He explained that he does not believe this is what Levine meant. However, Brandeis was founded on the values of truth. 

King added to his statement, explaining that “these internal conflicts are opaque. We often learn only about systematic abuses at the university through the excellent reporting of the student newspapers.” He explained that key issues are also often learned about through student-circulated petitions: “Our students do the wonderful work of bringing things to light for us faculty. We faculty are always lagging behind our students.”

Levine responded to this concern by telling the faculty about his own family. He stated that this includes his “Korean son-in-law, his Protestant son-in-law, his gay sister-in-law,” and more. He explained that to him, family is “used in the sense of people who care about each other.” Levine stated, “I’m an academic. You get three of us in the room and you hear twelve opinions,” and explained that that is the kind of community he is trying to build. 

Levine then began to discuss micro-credentials, stating “Students have told me they want us to do more to give them practical skills.”

The next speaker was Prof. Donald Shepard (HELLER), who explained that he has a background in cost analysis. He asked Levine about the financial challenges of the University. Levine responded by stating, “What I’m going to ask you to do is to join me and help me think about it. When I come back to you in January my suggested pathway will not be the answer unless you all agree.”

Prof. Aida Yuen Wong (FA), head of Fine Arts at Brandeis, was next at the microphone. She circled back around to the topic of the Lydian String Quartet, highlighting the petition signed by more than 260 faculty members to bring them back. She stated, “I urge you to reverse this decision — this is something that clearly means a lot to us.” She explained that the members of the Lydian did more than play in concerts, emphasizing that they also teach string instrument lessons to Brandeis students. Wong concluded her statement by saying “I urge President Levine to reverse this mistake. There is a Chinese saying that states: ‘reign in the horse at the edge of the cliff.’”

Levine responded by saying, “Brandeis is at the edge of the cliff.” He explained that he loves music and enjoyed attending musical events while he lived in New York City. However, he said “I would be fiscally irresponsible if what I did was respond to a petition without the money to fund it, and I told you the matter of priorities. Don’t send me an invitation, send me a statement of where we get $350,000, not just once but every year.” He went on to say that he would love to put the Lydian back in place. He stated, “Don’t you think I’d like to walk in the door and get a victory?” 

The next speaker was Prof. John Plotz (ENG). Plotz expressed his pleasure surrounding the classification of Brandeis as a unicorn, saying “In terms of your characterization of the place where liberal arts college meets research university, I think you nailed it.” Plotz continued on, emphasizing the importance of Brandeis as a research university, a place of social justice and a liberal arts institution. He stated, “We have a lot of strengths, and I understand we’re going to change, but I just don’t want us to change in ways that undercut the strength of what’s already here.”

The next speaker brought back the topic of the Lydian Quartet, asking whether or not the money could come out of the tuition of students in the music program who benefit from their teachings. The point he made is that the Quartet brings students to the school, and the loss of it could potentially deter potential applicants. He raised the question of whether this decision could potentially fiscally hurt the University more than help it. Dean of the Arts and Sciences Jeffrey Shoulson clarified that string instruction will still be offered.

Next, Prof. William Flesch (ENG) requested more financial transparency from the administration moving forward. He explained that “a lot of faculty feel that we don’t have a transparent sense of the University’s finances, of where the money is going.” He explained that they had gotten some information in the past, but the missing information was notable. He also called for keeping the Brandeis alumni email addresses, suggesting that they could come up with a forwarding system or something similar. 

Levine responded by sharing he will do what he can, stating “I really have no reason to lie to you. Think of the worst you could do to me, vote no confidence in me? What’s gonna happen? I don’t care.” 

Prof. Amy Singer (HIST) and Prof. Michael Willrich (HIST) spoke about the future of Brandeis as a Research 1 institution, and they highlighted both the importance of liberal arts studies, such as history, and the need for future fundraising. Singer asked if the donors Brandeis will target will be diversified, citing the large number of Jewish donors. Levine responded by explaining “I do not care about the diversity of our donors. I care that they give.” 

After this question, the meeting was concluded by Lenowitz as time had run out.