Reconciling Institutional Divides

In an effort to reverse trends of disconnect between secular and rabbinic faculty, Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary (RIETS) Rosh Kollel Hershel Schachter and Yeshiva College (YC) Dean David Srolovitz met to discuss issues surrounding YC and its curriculum. The two influential Wilf Campus personalities joined members of The Commentator on Thursday, August 31 in the dean's office for an hour-long conversation.

Despite regular meetings between Dr. Srolovitz and RIETS Dean Zevulun Charlop, the recent meeting served as an introduction for the dean and Rabbi Schachter.

Rabbi Schachter explained at the onset of the meeting that the seldom meetings he has had with past YC deans were held primarily to discuss failed fundraising issues. He lamented, "I fly all over the world, but I am never asked to speak on behalf of Yeshiva University. Everyone knows I work here, but I am not involved in promoting the college."

Much of the conversation revolved around ways in which YC can become more user-friendly to students who seek a less confrontational (as far as religion is concerned) educational environment. Specifically, the two discussed Bible and art history courses.

Further in the conversation, Rabbi Schachter and Dean Srolovitz agreed that students should spend four years on campus. "This, I think, is something that you will get universal agreement upon," explained Dr. Srolovitz. Additionally, both parties thought that pre-semikha track - possibly accompanied by a future education major at YC - would help prepare future RIETS students.

At the close of the meeting, both expressed their desire for further discussing these issues and to possibly form a YC advisory committee composed of RIETS roshei yeshiva and YC faculty.

Dean Srolovitz and Rabbi Schachter cautioned that announcing concrete plans should not be expected any time soon. However, the mood upon Rabbi Schachter's departure from the dean's office indicated a change in both the college and the yeshiva. "The fact that we met is the first step," said Rabbi Schachter.

Below is the full transcript of the meeting between Rabbi Hershel Schachter and Dean David Srolovitz. The Commentator editors Zev Eleff and Eitan Kastner moderated the meeting.

The Commentator: In light of the recent departure of students from Yeshiva College, should YC alter aspects of their curriculum to satisfy students?

Rabbi Schachter: I remember 50 years ago when students who were coming from the Telshe Yeshiva in Cleveland - against Rabbi Gifter's advice - would ask 'Why are you going to Yeshiva? To study the gospels? And they're still studying the Gospels here. There is no reason why they have to teach the Gospels. There is so much literature in the world, why teach the Gospels?

Nowadays everyone goes to college even students from Torah V'Daas. You have to go to college. But students go to Touro or wherever. They should go to Yeshiva College. We should make it comfortable for all students. If they can not afford to attend Yeshiva because it's too expensive, then that's a different story. But others are not going to come because of theological reasons. Why shouldn't we make it comfortable for all students to come and attend Yeshiva? Why shouldn't we allow students to come to Yeshiva without studying the Gospels?

Dean Srolovitz: It is a very interesting to ask what, in a modern college, constitutes an appropriate curriculum - irrespective of the specific topic we are discussing right now. I agree that it is necessary that students should be able to avoid topics which they feel to be offensive. At the same time, I am afraid to make a blanket statement that these topics should be avoided across the whole college. There are examples of things like the Gospels which are important in trying to understand things like Western Civilization and modern philosophy. I see legitimate reasons to discuss these things. But, at the same time, I do not want to force anyone who feels uncomfortable to sit in on these classes. I should also add that another related issue is that students should know what is in a course or what is in a particular assignment before they sign up for that course or before they do that assignment so that they can make a decision about whether it is appropriate for them.

So we should not require things that require compromise on the students' part; we should give students enough information so that they know exactly what they are getting themselves into and, if they feel that it is necessary, to avoid it. One of the questions I need guidance on, is what are those topics that everyone would agree are inappropriate? We need to discuss these issues with the faculty. On those topics for which there is a variance of opinion on what is permissible, I think it would be appropriate to allow students to make those choices. We could use some guidance in distinguishing between these two types of topics.

RHS: It would be a good idea when you have a course where certain things from the Gospels are taught, that a religious Jew should teach it, as opposed to a Christian minister or a non observant Jew.

DDS: I think that is the wrong way to go, personally. I think that it's important for us and the Yeshiva community to figure out how to simultaneously respect academic freedom as well as the halakha on these issues - where we can. There may be areas that it is so clear that we don't want to do them. But the other side of the coin, I am committed to hiring the best faculty to put in front of the students that I can, including faculty who are not Jewish and are not dati (observant). Therefore, I will always have to deal with the issue of what I'll have to tell the faculty - there may be a universally agreed upon list of topic that should be avoided. I realize that there are things that fall into this category, but I think it is a very small list. At least I hope that it is a very small list. I don't want to be in the position of telling faculty members with a blanket statement that we must avoid a whole area of scholarship. So this is clearly an area where we need a serious dialogue. I need this dialogue.

RHS: I think most of our students know more about Christianity than the average Christian on the street. They read Time magazine and the New York Times. I don't think it's really something they need to get a much better understanding of for the world.

DDS: I agree to that point of view that a comparative religion course should be avoided, but, for example, in certain areas of philosophy, you do need a higher level of understanding than a newspaper reading to understand the mechanics of the topic for a course. I just don't know where to draw the line.

TC: How would you respond to a student who feels uncomfortable studying academic Bible?

DDS: Some parts of academic Bible, like putting what you're reading into the context of the society of the time and looking at it in linguistic terms is, I think, a healthy thing for students. These are topics that exist primarily in academic Bible. We at Yeshiva College have generally distinguished between academic Judaic studies and more traditional Judaic studies in terms of approach. The idea is that when we teach Bible, we're not teaching all of a Bible - we are teaching academic Bible. And if the yeshiva feels that the students ought to be taught more traditional Bible then the yeshiva should offer its own traditional Bible course, not Yeshiva College, where our mission is primarily secular in nature.

RHS: When I was in college, the rabbis taught Tanach (Bible). Now, in recent years, the college has introduced more academic Bible. The students in IBC are taking Tanach in IBC and don't have to worry about taking academic Bible. However, students in other programs are stuck taking academic Bible when they want to hear more traditional Tanach.

DDS: It is a question of where they ought to be learning traditional Tanach. I think that is a valid question for the yeshiva and the College to sit together and discuss this. We are reviewing the curriculum now and it will be a year-long process. Everything is on the table. This will be the year for making this type of decision. I welcome student input on this issue.

Zev Eleff: When you say everything is in the table, does this mean that four requirements of academic bible are on the table for removal if MYP comes up with an alternative within their 9-3 time slot?

DDS: It is about flexibility. The number of courses in academic Bible in YC is on the table. We do not want YC to be the only ones that teach bible. We welcome MYP or [S]BMP to teach Tanach. I would really like our students to get Tanach from their rabbis too!

TC: Many students feel that the intensity of a rigorous dual curriculum prevents them from maximizing their potential in either section of the day. How should such a student resolve this problem?

RHS: They used to have a 5-6 year program where they wouldn't charge extra for taking courses and only charge for using the dormitory. We should popularize that now. Everyone is in such a rush at the age of 18 to get out of college.

DDS: This, I think, is something that you will get universal agreement upon. The problem from our perspective is that normally what happens in other colleges is students take 15-16 credits a week and that is the only thing that is required of you - seven days a week for four years. Here we are trying to do the same thing for three years typically from 3-8 and in four days. I think what the solution is what Rabbi Schachter just mentioned - to slow it down. I want our students to be able to put enough time into shiur and night seder, but I also need them to have time for their academic studies. You need the extra year.

RHS: They are just fooling themselves in to thinking that they are accomplishing something. They are not.

TC: How should Yeshiva College approach the teaching of literature?

RHS: We should notify the teachers that this is a Jewish institution and they therefore have to be careful not to teach literature which is inappropriate or avodah zara. I was once asked how we should teach literature and I said "It's not easy. You have to pick out the things that are Kosher."

ZE: How do you teach Shakespeare?

DDS: How do you teach Chaucer?

RHS: I don't know if you have to teach Chaucer.

DDS: Do we have to teach Chaucer? A student does not necessarily have to take Chaucer but to not be able to offer Chaucer to our students would be a problem. For a student to choose not to take it is not a problem. But, it is part of the canon of a liberal arts education. To address the question explicitly: it has to be done with great sensitivity and with advance information given to the students to make a proper decision. We have to be prepared to have a discussion with the faculty to help them figure out where the problems are and helping them develop strategies about how to deal with these problems. Except for very special topics, I would imagine that there is very little that can not be taught if it is taught in the right way. I would also say that there is the question of choice. The literature is vast. It is a sensitivity issue.

RHS: Chaucer is part of the canon of world literature but that canon is so vast. You are not going to be able to study every part of it. Whatever a university will offer, there will always be more to study.

DDS: There is a sense of what an educated English major needs to have at his finger tips. There is an assumption in graduate schools, that students are familiar with basics like Chaucer. It's not so easy. What do you do when there is an explicit conflict? Many times there are problems that lie in gray areas where conflicts have several opinions attached to them - as long as we can find a range where at least in principal it is acceptable, then students can decide if it is appropriate for them or not.

RHS: We also have to keep in mind that we may be losing students because of it.

DDS: We are a university and a yeshiva. When students sign up, they know that they are coming to a university too. There will be some students who feel it to be inappropriate for them.

RHS: Touro is getting more students now and we may be losing students with these decisions.

DDS: The number of Orthodox Jewish students choosing to attend the University of Maryland is also going up so we are at risk to losing on both two sides. I think from the perspective of attracting the best students, we need to have a superior academic program. At the same time I am sensitive to students who find what we offer at Yeshiva may be inappropriate.

Eitan Kastner: To go back to the original question, courses that offer what may be considered to be controversial topics by some students; those types of courses don't have to be required of the whole student body. But for students who are taking them, who don't have a dilemma with taking such a course, it is still within the bounds of the college to offer them. Is that something along the lines of what we have come to?

DDS: That is consistent with my thinking.

RHS: It has been the tradition here since time immemorial that many types of courses are offered at the college. The problem is that many students come in and think that many courses are approved by the rabbis. They don't realize that none of the courses are approved by the rabbis. Students return from Israel and don't realize whether a course is questionable.

DDS: We do need a way to tell students that certain courses may be a problem for them and then they will make the final decision.

ZE: Is there a difference between core requirements - which every student must take - and elective courses? Is there a problem, philosophically, with Yeshiva offering a course that is problematic like teaching the New Testament even if a student may never need to take such a course to graduate?

RHS: I personally feel that it is a problem that it is offered. The deans have always said that Dr. Revel had it and Dr. Belkin had it and I think that it wasn't right since day number one. But at least we should make the school comfortable for students who are not interested in taking these things in classes.

DDS: Would you and your colleagues agree that certain subjects are always inappropriate under all circumstances?

RHS: I would have to consult them.

EK: Just to give an example: I took a course last semester in which we discussed the origins of the synagogue. One of the earliest written sources for synagogues is in the Gospels. So for one class we looked at a few verses in the New Testament that mentioned synagogues. Would it be necessary for this to be scrutinized by the RIETS rabbis?

RHS: I don't think such a small number of lines for just a historical purpose is a problem.

DDS: So there are circumstances where things like this may be appropriate but in another circumstance, may not be. This is an example where we need and welcome guidance.

TC: Due to the fact that Yeshiva awards 32 credits to students studying in yeshivot in Israel, should Yeshiva College insist that the ideology of those institutions be in accordance with that of Yeshiva University?

RHS: When schools were taken off in the past, it was because they discouraged people from coming back to Yeshiva College. Those schools were taken off as a business decision.

DDS: If a school does not subscribe to our ideology, I do not think that is enough of a reason to sever ties with them and not keep them on the program. On the other hand, if they are espousing views that discourage students from coming here and are acting in opposition to our ideology (as opposed to simply not subscribing to it) that would make it a negative connection with them. But again, there is a business decision to it.

TC: Being that many students plan to pursue smikha, should Yeshiva College offer a pre-smikha track?

DDS: I think that's a wonderful idea. You can be a psychology major, but be on a pre-smikha track. I think it would be wonderful to work with RIETS to determine the types of classes that would benefit students who want to go into smikha. Just as we advise students which courses to take if they want to do pre-med, we could do pre-smikha in the same way. That is, just as pre-med students take a prescribed set of courses towards pre-med while fulfilling requirements in a particular major, so to a pre-smikha student would fulfill the requirement, but the student would still have to fulfill his requirements as a major. If RIETS tells us that we need A, B and C for a pre-smikha track, I would love to offer it. One of the things we are discussing now is creating an education track to help students who get smikha and go on to teach around the country. This is specifically designed for smikha students who need to get certified in teaching and make them more saleable when the go off to the chinuch job market. It would be an incredible opportunity. The question I have for you is what type of courses would be included in such a track?

ZE: I would like to think that such a track would include psychology and finance courses.

RHS: Jewish History courses too. We could have used courses in college to teach us how to teach and how to speak. It makes sense to have a major and special courses for a pre-smikha track.

TC: Is it appropriate for a student to treat Yeshiva College as a trade school?

RHS: When I was a student, Torah u-Madda under Dr. Belkin did not mean as much as it does today. Rabbi Belkin wanted to provide a more available yeshiva and college and environment than City College. What's wrong if a student treats college as a trade school? Just let him. We should make him feel comfortable. You won't be changing the nature of the college. That's the question: should you accept such a student whose head is screwed on differently because he believes in Torah u-Parnasa - I don't think you need to reject him for that. Why should we chase away students? They are coming to this school and participating in this college. We do not need to keep on emphasizing that we are Torah u-Madda and not Torah u-Parnasa. We should allow all students to feel comfortable in attending YU.

DDS: I think the university needs to make more room for students who really want to come out with a non-standard, non-liberal arts education. The question is, "Is this compatible with raising the academic reputation of the College?" I think raising our academic standing is important for attracting the serious, academically-oriented student who does not want to compromise their academic education in order to get a serious Torah education. Perhaps a way the university can deal with this is by having the College here and adding another arm, which would be more trade oriented or a college of general studies. The question is how do you do this in a way without compromising the academic standing of the college? While there will always be easier majors than difficult majors with the College, there are certain majors that we do not offer and which no (few) top ranking universities offer.

TC: Should works be censored in a Yeshiva College Art History course?

RHS: Fifty percent they can teach but I don't understand how they can teach the other half - it's avodah zara and gilui arayot (licentiousness). There was a professor here years ago who claimed that there was a difference between nakedness and nudity - I think they both do not belong here. I find it very offensive that such a thing is even offered.

DDS: I am not prepared to answer the specific question you ask without discussion with the faculty; personally, this is one of those places where I don't know where the line should be. I think we need to work as a community to address it.

The tension we have in all of these areas is that we in the secular academy have academic freedoms on one side versus halakhic issues on the other. It seems to me that there is some spread and nuance on how one can approach these issues and we do want to approach it in a way that will make as many people as comfortable as possible without compromising legitimate academic inquiry. Every society needs to establish its own boundaries and we are no different. Our boundaries do not have to be in the same places as those used by popular society.

We do need to have discussion. Since the discussion is a sensitive one, we need to figure out how to have it in a way that is most likely to produce reasonable results for the entire institution.

RHS: We should have fives rabbis represent the whole group to discuss this in some sort of committee.

DDS: And maybe the same number of faculty. I think we have a commitment on both sides to make this discussion happen. I think it's the kind of thing we need to have such as this and later bring students explicitly into the conversation. The art will be to keep the discussion at the right level of debate to ensure an outcome that works for all of us.

RHS: I see these questions come up every year where students come over to me complaining how they took a problematic Bible course with such and such a professor ... or complaining about a sociology course.

DDS: I have a feeling that the questions that are coming up now have been questions since the earliest days of Yeshiva.

RHS: They have been around since the beginning and nothing was ever done about it. We lose students because of this.

DDS: The only way to change this is to do deal with these things upfront and where people are willing to deal with these controversial matters in public.

If I say that academic freedom is more important than anything else - that's what people expect the dean of Yeshiva College to say. Similarly, people will expect to hear a certain type of approach coming from a rosh yeshiva. We need to work together on these issues.

RHS: The fact that we met is the first step.