On Friday, Feb. 7, faculty gathered in the Rapaporte Treasure Hall for their monthly meeting. The meeting began with a presentation from Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Dean Charles Golden. Golden presented on cuts to open admissions spots this year, explaining that they are “going for roughly 55 admissions across GSAS.”

Golden also explained that “The master's programs are incredibly important to us as a university” and will be “ more flexible or as flexible as we can with financial aid.” He added that programs and departments will aim to work together “to make it affordable for our students, for new students to join us.” This led to a discussion of the implementation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, as new requirements have been put in place. Golden described it as “making the best of a difficult situation,” as “we did not have a prior model that allowed us to accommodate the new CBA requirements, up to 20 hours maximum.”

Golden stated “as GSAS, we are more able to recognize the different level of work put into different [Teaching Assistant] assignments and I think going forward into the fall we’ll be much more prepared for how we are able to think about those.” Currently, the standard is one teaching assistant for every 30 students. 

He concluded his presentation by explaining that they are in discussions with the graduate student union, stating “we are going to be more creative, we are going to try to be flexible.” He also assured all faculty in attendance that “we are not alone in this,” referring to the need to increase revenue in order to increase admissions. “We are a small university committed to being an R1 institution,” Golden stated.

The first professor to ask a question was Prof. James Haber (BIO) who inquired further regarding the R1 status of the University, and how the cuts in graduate admissions would affect this status. In a Feb. 7 exchange with The Justice, Haber explained “It is a concern but certainly not an immediate one.” He highlighted Golden’s response to his question by stating “as the Dean of Graduate Studies said, the danger to lose R1 status would only become a problem if (a) Brandeis did not increase its graduate enrollment back to about 70 (from 55) and (b) only after 5-6 more years from now, since the present cohort of grad students will fulfill the expectations of number of degrees.” Haber also explained “As the Dean said, this concern would assume that the Carnegie Foundation did not reduce its expectations, in view of the fact that a number of R1 schools have reduced their admissions numbers this year.” 

The Carnegie Foundation defines R1 institutions as a school that meets “a threshold of $50 million dollars in research expenditures and 70 doctoral research/scholarship degrees awarded.” 

In an email exchange with The Justice on Feb. 6, Golden assured that “We are not close to losing R1 status. We continue to meet the Carnegie Classification for doctorate granting universities with very high research activity. As Interim Pres. Levine made clear in his message to the community on January 17, graduate education and research excellence are central to our mission as a university, and deeply intertwined with the liberal arts and undergraduate experience. This will remain true as we strengthen graduate education and build towards the future.”

Speaking next was Prof. Rebecca Torrey (MATH). Torrey stated “The university is telling us that we have to have our Ph.D. students grade for 20 hours a week, four hours five days a week of grading. Can you imagine? Can you imagine trying to finish a math Ph.D. in five years when you’re doing this? This is more than double the work that our graduate students have done historically.” She also explained that the same 20 hour restriction applies to research assistants, however “the 20 hours for research assistants is 20 hours that's going towards their progress towards degree, and so grading an undergraduate math class is great for a lot of reasons but is not helping our grad students progress towards their degree at all.” 

Torrey shared that “our graduate students are actively talking about leaving the university.” She later confirmed this statement in a Feb. 10 exchange with The Justice. Torrey explained that Brandeis keeping its status as an R1 institution is based on graduation rates. She highlighted how hard it is to graduate if graduate students are expected to do this much work on top of being a student, and encouraged meeting attendees to sign a petition created by these graduate students.

Prof. Dmitry Kleinbock (MATH) spoke in solidarity with his department, as the undergraduate advising head. He began by stating “I don’t know how many people were here in 2008, probably some of you were,” and sharing that due to the financial concerns at the time, Brandeis either needed to cut graduate admissions in half or skip a year entirely. Kleinbock stated “At that time we chose to skip a year. It was a disastrous year, we didn’t have any graduate admissions, everything was very bad, but that is what we chose because cutting admissions from our five to six slots to essentially two is not sustainable.” He explained that one of the three spots for graduate students in the math department comes from a donation, “so the school now only supports two slots.” 

In an email correspondence with the chair of the mathematics department, Prof. Jonathan Touboul (MATH), Touboul shared “Here are the facts. The math department used to admit between [five] and [six] graduate students all funded by GSAS for many years, and the program has been incredibly successful. This support dwindled in the past two years and was reduced to [two] GSAS-supported students this year.” He further explained, “the University allowed to admit [four] graduate students this year, [two] funded by GSAS (so, down from the steady [five] to [six] admissions by a fact of [two and a half] to [three]), one funded by the Palais donation, and one admission which will only exist if we can find money to support it.” 

Golden responded to these statements by reiterating that he “[does] not have the increased revenue that we need to bring in more students this year, [he thinks] everybody is aware that we do not have enough doctoral students.” Golden also explained that he is an “enthusiastic supporter” of the decision to not add additional doctoral graduate programs at this time, instead focusing on the already existing ones.

Prof. Amy Singer (HIST) joined the meeting via Zoom and stated “everything that my colleagues in mathematics have said holds true for the history department as well.” Singer explained that due to these cuts the program doesn’t have enough teaching assistants, nor does it “have enough people to make a sustainable cohort.” She explained that one of the aspects that makes the history department so special is the small but coherent group of students that they are in danger of losing. Singer also explained that the department has “had its own endowment that helps sustain the program for over 50 years and that endowment is now being parceled out in a somewhat more parsimonious manner. Why the University no longer lets it function how it was intended, which was to help us be competitive and recruit students.” Singer concluded her statement by sharing “none of us are suffering more or less than the others but this is a university-wide problem, and so what we need are not necessarily individual siloed solutions, but we need university-wide conversations, about sustaining our R1 status, about sustaining viable and healthy thriving programs.” 

Following this presentation, the faculty members were greeted by Jordan Tannenbaum ’72 and Stephen Rodriguez from the department of Institutional Advancement. Tannenbaum introduced himself, explaining that the department is “committed to a comprehensive campaign, a comprehensive campaign will include capital, endowment and annual.” He explained that he has “great hopes for this campaign and [believes] it will be a success.

Tannenbaum then moved into a short explanation of his qualifications for the faculty, sharing that he ran a very successful capital campaign at the Holocaust Museum that took place over 10 years. He shared that the goal for fundraising this year is one hundred million dollars, and he has “every reason to expect that we will hit our goal this year.” To conclude his presentation, Tannenbaum shared that the University is entering the quiet phase of the campaign, and all can expect it to get “louder” in the spring of 2026. He explained that the first thing on his list is working to receive the funds that are necessary to “achieve Arthur’s vision.” 

Rodriguez explained that they have raised $53.4 million  so far this academic year, putting them just over halfway to the final fundraising goal as they move into the second semester. Rodriguez stated that “the real stars of the University are our faculty and our students.” He shared some main fundraising highlights of the year so far, speaking about the Engineering Science Program which has reached the seven figure level. Rodriguez stated “this is unheard of for a program that has no alumni yet.” He also highlighted an 18 million dollar gift from a faculty emeriti, and a 1.2 million dollar gift that was received from the “single largest taxpayer in the United Kingdom.” According to Rodriguez, this was the “first gift to say hello” as this donor is very interested in the work that Brandeis has done regarding antisemitism.

Rodriguez also spoke about working to get the eight and nine figure gifts for the University, as those are faster to obtain than the same amount of money from lower-scale donors. He highlighted that the “cost per dollar raised at Brandeis is seventeen cents” and explained that Brandeis has a 500,000 person database, which is a lot to get through. Rodriguez stated “we’re not asking for the check on the first date,” gaining a laugh from attendees.

Prof. Ian Roy (BUS) ’05 has been very involved in the fundraising for the Engineering Science Program. In a Feb. 10 email to The Justice, he shared “The success of the fundraising efforts for engineering speaks to the strength of the program’s vision and its alignment with the broader mission of Brandeis. This initiative was approved by the faculty in 2021 with the goal of integrating engineering with our liberal arts foundation, fostering interdisciplinary collaboration and preparing students to tackle global challenges through innovation and technology.” 

When asked why these fundraising efforts in particular were so successful, Roy shared “Institutional Advancement has done an excellent job by working closely with faculty, staff and students to communicate the program’s unique strengths. Their ability to tap into a new community of supporters who are particularly excited about this initiative has been key to its fundraising success. Going forward, continuing to engage with the broader university community, emphasizing the program’s role in strengthening Brandeis as a whole and highlighting the intersection of engineering, science research, liberal arts, entrepreneurship and social impact will be important.”

Tannenbaum concluded by sharing the main groups that IA is currently working on connecting with, “alumni, the Brandeis National Committee, and parents.” He called for the faculty to remain involved with fundraising efforts by sharing “development is a team sport and you are all members of the team.” Tannenbaum explained that in this quiet phase, they are “looking to folks that would be a part of campaign leadership,” referring to people who have made large donations in the past. He explained that they are working closely with marketing, and hoping to solicit the Board of Trustees, as they are the closest potential donors to Brandeis. 

The floor was then opened for questions, and Prof. Sabine von Mering (ENVS/GERM/WGS) approached the microphone. She explained that she felt fundraising should be marketed as a liberal arts concept, stating that “anything they want to support on the science side for example has a connected piece in the arts and the humanities, so someone who supports engineering could also support the Lydian String Quartet.” 

In correspondence with The Justice on Feb. 7, von Mering shared “It struck me as I looked at the money that had been raised for the engineering chairs this year and also at our 'four buckets' that if we are truly intent on being innovative for the "digital knowledge economy" of the future, these efforts sound far too conventional.” She elaborated,“That's why my suggestion was that our fundraisers should approach donors with the explicit suggestion to make more interesting donations that support multi-/trans-/interdisciplinary work. Instead of faculty having to build those connections once the funds are secured, we should actually excite donors to make such donations from the get-go.”

To conclude her statement to The Justice, von Mering stated “I could see those being innovative so the donors would feel they are very "cutting edge." At the same time, such initiatives would be extremely attractive to prospective students while providing faculty with many opportunities for digital cooperation with other institutions worldwide. I am certainly seeing young scholars who are currently writing dissertations move in those directions.”

Rodriguez responded by explaining that IA is shifting from thinking about what they need donors to do to asking donors what they care about. Dean of Arts and Sciences Jeffrey Shoulson then took the stand, explaining some of what he had learned during approximately seven meetings with potential donors in South Florida the week prior. He stated “it is important for me to do a lot more listening than talking in some cases, to hear what matters to the donors and to think about how those align with our priorities and where some of the meshes are.” 

The meeting concluded with remarks from Interim President Arthur Levine ’70. He explained that throughout the meeting “There has been a lot of talk about Arthur’s vision. I think in many respects the way I’ve put it is Arthur’s vision matters to Aurthur. To Brandeis what matters is our vision.” Additionally, he spoke on the goal of raising money effectively. Levine stated “Raising money, it’s really about listening. Meeting people and hearing what’s really important to them. What do they want to build? What do they want to make happen? We’re giving them an opportunity to build that, to make it happen.” 

Levine explained that since he arrived at Brandeis, he has taken on a role as an internal president, getting to know the community. Now it is time to step outside and get more involved in the outer community, meaning that others will have to take charge of some of the more internal matters. He shared that Senior Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs Joel Christensen (CLAS) will take on the lead role in terms of his new restructuring plan. Levine also explained that three members of faculty have been assigned to each of the new four categories of the school, two from the practice and one member of administration.

In a Feb. 10 exchange with The Justice, Christensen shared “The faculty selected as conveners are meant to lead conversations about what the new units will be like. Everyone involved in leading these conversations is a current faculty member. We are not far enough along in the process to know what the units will look like or what kind of leadership they will need.” He is also one of the individuals that will be a part of each division, the Arts, Humanities and Culture section being made up of Prof. Olivier Bernardi (MATH), Prof. Harleen Singh (WGS) and Prof. Joe Wardwell (FA). The Social Sciences and Social Policy Representatives are the Director of the Lurie Institute for Disability Policy Monika Mitra, Dean Charles Golden and Prof. Aldo Musacchio (BUS). For Science, Engineering and Technology, the representatives are Prof. Sacha Nelson (BIO), Provost Carol Fierke, and Prof. Sara Shostak (HSSP). For the Economics and Business section, Prof. Sarah Mayorga (SOC), Prof. Linda Bui (ECON) and Prof. Ben Shiller (ECON) have been chosen. In a Jan. 17 email from Levine, he stated “The conveners will share what they have learned with the President, Provost and Faculty as the proposed plan is shaped over the coming weeks and months.” He also explained that Christensen will “be responsible for the conveners and collaborating with faculty and staff on re-imagining and implementing our vision for a vibrant future.”

Levine continued his address by explaining “We’re holding town meetings. I’ve been talking to you a lot but I haven't been talking to the staff and I haven't been talking to the students. In the next few weeks I will be meeting with each of those groups at town halls.” He also explained that he is trying to meet with as many departments as possible 

Levine then shared with faculty that he has presented to the Board of Trustees three stages that are as follows: “stage number one is stop the cuts, stage number two: raise revenue, enrollment reports to me. And we’re going to go into a capital campaign, we have some great leadership for that. Stage three was even if we raised a ton of money it wouldn’t be enough because the world of education is changing. And we’re gonna lead it.”

Levine explained that the board asked if he wanted a vote from them and he stated “no, you don’t get to make that decision. You have to approve it, but you don’t get to make it.” Levine however also explained that the board loved the plan and are very excited to move forward with it. 

He concluded his address by sharing that there is not much that can be done regarding the admissions number from this year. Levine stated that “by the time I arrived in November what was going to happen was done. Our first chance to have a real effect is next year.” He also spoke briefly on the budget, explaining “What we’re trying to do is no cuts this year, I can’t make any promises yet but no cuts. That’s our mantra.”

The floor was then opened for questions, and a member of the International Business School faculty explained that he believed the four proposed groups need not just governance but also a structure of financial planning in order to ensure their success. Levine responded by agreeing, stating that they are still working to compile information regarding financial models. 

The next speaker was Prof. John Plotz (ENG) who spoke to Fierke and EVP of Finance and Administration Stewart Uretsky with concerns regarding the recent announcement of the new Student Support Team. He explained that he had sent them a letter that received no response stating some of his concerns regarding lack of transparency surrounding the team. In this letter, Plotz explained “That is no way to build trust or foster a climate of mutual reliance and trust. Trust is at an understandably low ebb now, and it must be earned from those (students especially) who have to be shown they are not just the objects of the university’s actions, but subjects and participants in its life." This letter also brought up three questions, regarding “when will this initiative be drought to the various venues that are set up for students, faculty and staff to weigh in,” “when will the names of the members of this proposed SST be made public,” and will it be publicly stated that the SST would not have policing or reporting authority.” 

Uretsky and Fierke responded by explaining that they had never received the letter and that many of these concerns had been addressed due to certain individuals being consulted prior to the announcement of this program. 

In a Feb. 10 correspondence with The Justice, Student Union President Rani Balakrishna ’25 stated “The Student Union was closely consulted before the implementation of the Student Support Team by the Provost’s Office, and our executive board gave feedback and overall liked the approach and structure of the SST. Personally, I believe that the SST is a great third party, neutral group to ensure that all students are safe and following Brandeis guidelines. We are in support of it, and we look forward to the group’s effective de-escalation tactics (if need be), so that all students are supported.”

Singer then took the stand again, expressing distress as she stated “buckets are made to hold things but by definition they also keep things out.” 

Levine responded to this concern by stating “the buckets that I am imagining are mesh walls,” emphasizing the collaborative nature of his new plan by sharing “what we’re doing is creating natural connections among applications and disciplines.” 

As faculty left the Rapaporte Treasure Hall, they were met with a member of the graduate student union, handing out printed QR codes that lead to the petition the math department representatives had spoken about previously in the meeting.

The faculty will be busy, as in addition to the March meeting they are set to convene for Special Faculty Meetings on Feb. 28 and March 28 to continue conversations regarding the reconstruction.