Sections

The discovery of a forged receipt amongst an unnamed clubs finances brings the University to a thorny crossroads: should the club be revealed, or not? The reasons for secrecy and the reasons for transparency are convoluted, each with varying prices for Brandeis to pay.

Some have felt that the F-Boards response was overkill, that the club in question might have simply been recreating a lost receipt, in order to keep from absorbing a triple-digit sumothers, however, have argued that this sort of fabrication has irreparably damaged the necessary trust between the F-Board and the rest of the student clubs, and that naming this club would help set a stronger message while at the same time exonerating those clubs which have maintained equitable practices.

While we at the Hoot find it admirable that the F-Board has continued to keep the details of this situation secret in order to preserve the club leaders good namesindeed, even insisting that the Hoot not search for the identities of these club leadersit is clear that the campus media are not the only entities who are concerned.

A question we must ask ourselvesboth F-Boarders, Union members, and unaffiliated students alikeis what will help the University learn from this experience more: keeping the forgery discussion in-house, solely amongst the Union and the perpetrator, or by revealing the details throughout the student community and having a instructive discussion and debate on the subject? Indeed, perhaps the members of the University should focus less strongly on the debates with media coverage, and more about the problems at home.