Otteson Out As Honors Program Director

Dr. James Otteson seemed to possess all the ingredients the Yeshiva College Honors Program needed in a adirector: his brilliant pedagogical skills captivated students, his sterling academic record commanded respect from faculty, and his strong, decisive style of leadership impressed Yeshiva University administration. This past summer, though, in a story that ignited faculty frustration, administrative lapses, and student outrage, Dr. Otteson resigned under pressure from his directorship of the Jay and Jeanie Schottenstein Yeshiva College Honors Program, and appears likely to end his tenure at Yeshiva University entirely. Though much information has come to light regarding the circumstances surrounding his resignation, much still remains unknown. Dr. Otteson will teach as a visiting professor at Georgetown University this fall, and Dr. Joanne Jacobson will assume the directorship of the Honors Program while a national search for another candidate begins.

This will certainly affect the future of the Honors Program, but the decision's impact also reverberates at the very core of Yeshiva University. The entire account raises issues such as the scope of authority faculty should possess in the university, the role students and alumni should play in determining their teachers and administrators, and the degree of tolerance for conservative political ideology at Yeshiva and other campuses across the country.

The official Yeshiva University announcement, sent by Provost Morton Lowengrub via email to all YC Honors students, only deepened the level of confusion about the circumstances surrounding Dr. Otteson's departure. The email stated that Dr. Otteson "will be transitioning out of the directorship of the Honors Program," but it gave no details explaining what had precipitated the transition. It also said Yeshiva was looking forward "to welcoming Professor Otteson back" as a professor in the 2009-10 academic year, although sources close to Dr. Otteson indicated that he would not be returning. Despite the deliberate vagueness of the email, Provost Lowengrub wrote that Yeshiva University hoped to put any "unfortunate and untrue rumors" to rest. Though the paucity of information confused and frustrated students, both the administration and Dr. Otteson signed a confidentiality agreement barring both sides from disclosing information. Various sources inside and outside YU offered numerous and, in some instances, conflicting rationales for Dr. Otteson's exit, although most sources refused direct quotation for fear of retaliation. Some members of the administration and faculty blamed Dr. Otteson's allegedly poor communication skills, as well as his role in decisions which upset faculty, including faculty hirings, curriculum changes, and fundraising decisions which symbolized growing independence for the Honors Program. The legitimate justifications for faculty discontent, however, seemed to have been swept under the rug by student anger in response to Dr. Otteson's resignation. Other administration and faculty members, as well as numerous students, supported Dr. Otteson's agenda and believed that Dr. Otteson only implemented the administration's plans. Some felt that certain faculty members unfairly tarred Dr. Otteson's reputation due to personal or political differences. Additionally, while no sources denied that the publicizing of Dr. Otteson's pseudonymous blog immediately precipitated his departure, debate continues to rage about the centrality of its role.

 

Dr. Otteson Goes To Washington Heights

Dr. Otteson earned his B.A. from the University of Notre Dame and his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, and he came to Yeshiva in fall 2007 with considerable support from administrators. President Joel hailed Dr. Otteson as "one of the most outstanding young scholars and thinkers in the country." After a nationwide search and a vetting process, the administration was eager to attract Dr. Otteson to Washington Heights. With support from a faculty committee, he was also granted immediate tenure as a Professor of Philosophy and Economics in addition to his position as Director of the YC Honors Program.

Shortly after his hiring, Dr. Otteson won first place in the prestigious Templeton Enterprise Awards for his book, Actual Ethics. The award, which earned Dr. Otteson a $50,000 cash prize, is presented biennially to scholars under 40 years of age who produce the best books and articles on humane economics and culture. This, along with numerous scholarly papers and his previously published book analyzing Adam Smith's morality, cemented Dr. Otteson's reputation as a rising academic star.

 

Highly Acclaimed Professor

Dr. Otteson became immensely popular with students very quickly. Although he taught only one class at Yeshiva University, his students praised him extraordinarily, as a pedagogue, administrator, and person. Zev Lerner (YC '08), who took Dr. Otteson's Capitalism and Morality course, declared that "Dr. Otteson was perhaps the most thought-provoking professor I took in my three years in Yeshiva," someone who could "engage and entertain a class despite difficult material and a demanding grading scheme." Matthew Williams (YC '11), who also took Dr. Otteson's course and regularly discussed the Honors Program with him, celebrated Dr. Otteson as "one of the few faculty members who worked to collaborate with me to help me reach the goals I had for my undergraduate studies." Noah Greenfield (YC '09), a fellow student of Dr. Otteson's, declared that he delivered a "brilliant, innovative and entertaining class." A letter signed by 51 Honors Students asking the administration to reconsider Dr. Otteson's resignation also extolled his virtues, saying he "partnered with students like no other professor to improve our education and overall college experience."

Both students and administrators warmly received Dr. Otteson's proposals aimed at fostering a sense of community in the Honors Program. Dr. Otteson brought on Effy Unterman as Student Life Coordinator to help plan a variety of extracurricular activities, and one administration official praised this hiring as a "great move." Though Dean Jacobson hopes to continue the program, Mr. Unterman will likely discontinue his service. Dr. Otteson also pushed to create an Honors Library and Lounge, a comfortable environment where students could discuss ideas with each other and with faculty. He hoped that this would help create a "kind of intellectual community" and even referred to it affectionately as "a secular beit medrash." Students say they felt inspired by the excitement he generated when introducing his innovations, both in town hall meetings and in more casual settings.

With administrative encouragement, Dr. Otteson presented additional proposals for changing the Honors Program by unifying its curriculum, streamlining its course requirements, and hiring additional faculty. Discussions with Dr. Otteson over the course of the year indicated that he hoped to frame the Honors Program as a progression of student growth, both by participating in a series of courses and events and by sampling broader courses. Additionally, he hoped to increase the perceived prestige of the Program both inside and outside the university. Sources close to senior administration officials confirmed that administrators oversaw Dr. Otteson's proposals and program developments, and they felt comfortable with his proposals. Students also applauded Dr. Otteson's proposed changes in the Honors Program, and they appreciated his consideration for students. "The Honors program transformed into something beyond our wildest educational dreams in the hands of Dr. Otteson," according to Mr. Greenfield. "I found his ideas for transforming the Honors Program long overdue," Mr. Lerner added. "It was nice to have someone who was willing to challenge the status quo to make things better for the students."

 

Faculty Upset With Dr. Otteson's Changes

While administrators and students seemed eager for change, numerous members of the faculty disagreed with Dr. Otteson's approach. Several professors reportedly told Dr. Otteson that they disagreed with his appointment from the beginning, for reasons ranging from his political ideology to his religion. Although those personal issues presented a major problem for some, most faculty members alleged that lack of communication between Dr. Otteson and faculty was the central issue. Many other faculty members had no problems with Dr. Otteson at all, but the complaints drowned out the voices of support. At first, the administration urged patience in response to the protests about communication, hoping that these issues could be overcome: "Professors are often unhappy that their pet projects aren't adopted," remarked one senior YU staffer. The senior staffer also noted that Dr. Otteson did not teach a course in the fall semester, limiting his face-time on campus as he transitioned into the directorship and perhaps adding to the perception that he did not communicate with faculty. Despite administrative pleas for patience, faculty discord only escalated. Dr. Otteson entered with a clear mandate to reshape the Honors Program, and multiple sources reported that the administration charged him with formulating a new vision and presenting it to the faculty to get them on board. The administration gave Dr. Otteson the latitude to develop a vision that significantly diverged from the old Honors Program as crafted by the previous faculty committee. An external review of the Honors Program reported that the Honors Program Committee had controlled the day-to-day operations too heavily; Dr. Otteson's directive included developing a freer model. Dr. Otteson himself declared that under his leadership, "One of the program's unofficial mottos will be: 'If it needs doing, find a way to get it done.'" Obviously, this direction ruffled the feathers of the faculty who felt that their ideas, too, could be used to help improve the Honors Program.

At the same time that the administration encouraged independence for the Honors Program and Dr. Otteson, they acknowledged the importance of faculty support. "Like all curricular changes, proposals for the Honors Program curriculum would have to be adopted by the faculty at the end," one senior administration official explained. "Administration members have always been clear on that point." Sources explained that the administration hoped Dr. Otteson would originate his own proposals as well as incorporate faculty suggestions.

Though the administration emphasized the importance of faculty support, the faculty claimed that information sharing and meetings regarding the Honors Program remained infrequent. Some faculty also complained that both inside and outside of meetings, Dr. Otteson's plans for direction stayed hidden from them. "He wasn't always clear what his plans were for the Honors Program, and didn't solicit our input," said one faculty member. "Professors would leave meetings more negative than they entered." Another faculty member, who opposed Dr. Otteson's dismissal, thought that the then-director was far more focused on developing the ideas for the program and spending time with students than in speaking to faculty. He did say, though, that he thought it unfair to blame the lack of communication entirely on Dr. Otteson: "The administration didn't want him to discuss certain things, while the faculty thought it was their prerogative." Further, he said, "We'll never know to what extent the vision was pushed on Dr. Otteson by the administration or pushed by Dr. Otteson."

 

An Open (And Frustrated) Letter

Faculty frustration grew as many felt that their ideas weren't considered sufficiently. Numerous members of the faculty wrote of their criticisms in an open letter dated April 30, which seventeen professors signed publicly. The letter roundly critiqued the Honors Program administration up until that point; faculty expressed their frustration with "the process by which such activities have been undertaken, the substance of those proposals, and the sources of their funding." Dr. Otteson's overall direction both "dismayed and disappointed faculty," as plans "now appear to be taking shape without our consent or input." Though critical of Dr. Otteson's directorship, the faculty insisted that their criticism emerged from a commitment to "developing the Program in directions that will be as intellectually challenging to ourselves as to our students."

Though some faculty bemoaned being left out of the loop, the administration and other faculty remained supportive of Dr. Otteson's direction. Dr. Otteson's vigorous pursuit of donations to supplement the original Schottenstein grant, retooling of the Program's organization, and additional administrative hirings drew support from almost all sides. Even those who took issue with Otteson's directorship acknowledged his "hard work" and praised his "resolve and dedication" in their letter. Most importantly, they noted that Dr. Otteson had been placed in an "ambiguous and unnecessarily awkward position." Additionally, several sources noted that not all faculty who signed the letter were particularly involved with the issue at hand, and at least one professor was not on campus last semester.

One of the primary criticisms launched by the faculty related to fundraising by the Honors Program. Encouraged by the administration, Dr. Otteson had embarked on an intensive search for grants, which led him to two foundations which faculty perceived as controversial. Some faculty alleged that the Tikvah Fund and the Jack Miller Center, from which Dr. Otteson requested grants, would place restrictions on academic freedom. Senior administrative officials, when asked about this objection, asserted that "Yeshiva University would never sacrifice our academic freedom." Sources also report that while Yeshiva officials were at first concerned about academic freedom, they removed any problematic aspects through negotiation with the Tikvah Fund. Dr. Otteson pursued considerable sums of money to increase the quality of the Honors Program, allowing the College to hire more dedicated faculty members rather than increase the number of students in the program. Dr. Otteson also made clear in his Commentator article last November that the grants would "supplement, not replace" the Schottenstein grant, allowing the Honors Program to undergo aggressive expansion under his leadership rather than just remaining afloat.

Two additional administrative hirings for the Program, tied to the Tikvah Fund grant, concerned the faculty signatories. Dr. Otteson reportedly secured a $1.5 million grant for the first year, with the promise of millions more to follow, and the Fund administrators desired that part of the money would be used to bring in top-notch faculty. With both Dr. Otteson and the administration wary of delaying the grant a full year and denying the Honors Program valuable resources, Dr. Otteson moved quickly and found two qualified candidates available to occupy the positions. These two candidates were Dr. John Danford, a political scientist who received his Ph.D. from Yale and currently teaches at Loyola University, and another professor, one who requested anonymity, who received a Ph.D. from Stanford and focuses on French and European Intellectual History while teaching in the Honors Program at his current university.

Several faculty members, however, expressed their displeasure about these decisions. The open letter asserted that the rushed hirings displayed a lack of professionalism and pointed out that these two faculty specifically presented problems. The faculty signatories to the letter asked for a national search, a vetting process, and a faculty committee, which they felt would allow the circumspection necessary for the hiring of new faculty. They felt that the candidates chosen by Dr. Otteson were poor selections; Dr. Danford's specialties did not fill any of the needs expressed by the Political Science Department and agreed upon by the deans. And several faculty members reported that the History Department resented that the new historian's specialty overlapped with the expertise of Dr. Jeffrey Freedman, a well-liked professor. The duplication of specialties, they pointed out, would prevent the already-small department from fulfilling the "need for coverage in multiple areas."

At the same time, sources close to Dr. Otteson point to his recruiting of Dr. Peter Achinstein, the highly-regarded Professor of Philosophy who left Johns Hopkins University to become the current Jay & Jeanie Schottenstein Professor of Philosophy at Yeshiva College. As with the other two candidates Dr. Otteson sought, there was no national search or vetting process, but due to his prestigious status, YC faculty did not reject him. Dr. Achinstein himself acknowledged that Dr. Otteson played a large role in his decision to join Yeshiva. A source knowledgeable of the situation, while praising Dr. Otteson for recruiting such a first-rate academic, argued that the two situations did not compare: Achinstein's position as a renowned scholar excited the Yeshiva College faculty, who wanted Achinstein and did not mind the unconventional process used, while the other two professors were not considered quite as accomplished. Several faculty members also argued that Dr. Achinstein would fill a need for the University, while the positions the other two candidates would fill - both in their academic specialties and as administrators for the Honors Program - were considered unnecessary by many faculty members.

Despite the faculty's objections about the nature of the hirings, administrators hoped that they would accept the two candidates, just as they did in the case of Dr. Achinstein. The administration urged the faculty to realize that a delay or cancellation could jeopardize the Program's growth. Still, administrators knew faculty would need to have their say: one senior administrative official explained that hiring these professors certainly would have required faculty approval, and sources close to administration officials noted that both Dr. Otteson and the administration understood that. However, several sources also reported that the administration perceived the History Department's objections as unreasonable.

While no administration sources placed responsibility for bringing in new professors on Dr. Otteson, many professors thought he handled it inappropriately. "Dr. Otteson planned to appoint an historian without having conducted a search and without having consulted with the History Department," Dr. Freedman said via email. "Many of us found that to be highly irregular." Once the professors visited Yeshiva, faculty raised objections about their credentials as well, and in the wake of Dr. Otteson's resignation, the two professors did not join the Yeshiva College faculty. The Tikvah Fund retracted its grant offer as well, reportedly because they would deal only with Dr. Otteson. The university, with whom Dr. Otteson did not communicate much regarding the negotiations with the Tikvah Fund, was unable to convince the Tikvah Fund to reconsider, costing the Honors Program significant funds.

 

Broader Direction of the Honors Program: Its Own Empire, Or Under Faculty Domain?

The issues about grant sources, faculty hirings, and communication all relate to a broader point: the faculty wanted a larger role in the shaping of the Honors Program, and they wanted the Program to better integrate into the College. Dr. Otteson's attempts to bridge the communication gap after the delivery of the faculty's letter, including lunching with several faculty members to explain his programs, had some positive impact - one attendee of the following faculty meeting felt that there was no major clash because of Dr. Otteson's outreach - but several professors remained anxious about Dr. Otteson's direction. The open letter acknowledged the "conciliatory gestures" made by Dr. Otteson and the administration, but faculty remained uneasy about their lack of "influence on the outcome." Pointing out that the requirement for "broad-based teaching participation," the faculty also stated that the senior administration "missed many opportunities for "oversight, bridge-building, and cross-departmental conversation." Asserting that "since the Program is part of our curriculum, the faculty has final authority over its curricular policies and practices," the faculty attacked the "unilateral" manner of decision-making, asserting it "undermine[s] the very project we are all engaged in, do[es] great harm to faculty morale, and ultimately fall[s] short of our mandate to best serve our most talented students." The faculty also insisted that they be given more control over the Honors Program, harking back to their decision when creating the Program that they "specifically rejected the creation of an Honors College." According to a senior faculty member who did not sign the letter, but agreed with most of its content, "Most faculty probably hold the same view today [against a separate Honors College], and we can vote it down without dismissing the Director."

This view of faculty primacy, however, was not echoed by several members of the administration. While they acknowledged the importance of faculty involvement, senior officials felt that the direction should come from the top. "The impetus for the Honors Program comes from the office of the President," one senior administration official said. At the same time, he acknowledged that without the faculty, it would be impossible to run a vibrant Honors Program. As another senior administrator explained, "Conceivably, a group of faculty could hold hostage an administrator by denying approval." The administration's requests for a fresh proposal for the Honors Program, without immediate involvement from the existing faculty committees, further underscored the administration's commitment to an Honors Program led from the top. The senior official also declared that while he understood the faculty's concerns over academic freedom, they needed to "trust the integrity" of President Joel and his administration to deal appropriately with the balance between the need for fundraising and academic freedom. "Fundraising is led from the office of the President," he declared, "and we would never accept a grant that would demand a certain ideology." Notwithstanding that strong declaration, another senior administration official explained that all grants make certain requirements and that the distinction is often a matter of degrees. "If a donor demands a focus on early American history, is that necessarily ideological?" he asked.

Though Dr. Otteson was placed directly between the faculty struggle for a greater role in the program they once helped create and the administrative wishes for a more independently developed program, after the delivery of the open letter, the administration and Dr. Otteson largely accepted the letter's recommendations. And Dr. Otteson thought that faculty and administration were "satisfied." He related further that "everything that the 'open letter' recommended at the end of the letter we actually did: we slowed down, we decided not to move forward with the Jack Miller Center, we did not make offers to the two faculty candidates who were brought out, we reorganized the procedures for going forward in ways to involve more faculty." Dr. Otteson felt that he had done everything possible to assuage the faculty's concerns.

 

Sweet Home, Alabama

Although not necessarily indicative of Dr. Otteson's leadership at Yeshiva, it is noteworthy that his tenure at Alabama was highly commended. His colleagues at the University of Alabama praised his leadership of the Philosophy Department there: when told of the issues at Yeshiva, his former colleague and current chair of the department, Dr. H. Scott Hestevold, stated that "under his leadership, the Department functioned well as a unit." Dr. Brad Birzer, a close friend of Dr. Otteson, also praised him as a "natural leader" and said that "his tenure at the University of Alabama as the chair of the Department of Philosophy was a great success, and he was perceived as one of the best administrators on that campus." Dr. Max Hocutt, an Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Alabama echoed that same firm confidence in Dr. Otteson's leadership. When the Department Chair of Philosophy became open, "Otteson was the unanimous choice for the job, which he proceeded to do as superbly as he had done everything else," he said. "Otteson was department chairman for only two or three years, but he provided the best example of energetic and effective leadership that I have observed in my 43 years here, not exempting my own 13 year tenure in the position." Dr. Hocutt also noted that, in addition to the great improvements Dr. Otteson brought to the Department, "it was done in peace and harmony." However, these words of praise came from Alabama, where Dr. Otteson headed a department that he had taught in for years, leading a faculty he knew well. In Yeshiva, Dr. Otteson came in as an outsider, and his attempts to reach a larger faculty already suspicious of him fell short.

 

Blog Controversy

Dr. Otteson's pseudonymous blog, Proportional Belief (proportionalbelief.blogspot.com), also raised controversy with the faculty, and allegedly cost him administrative support. A few faculty members disliked the general tone of the blog, with one terming it "juvenile." The harshest reactions, though, came in response to a few entries in particular, whose offensiveness was strongly disputed by supporters of Dr. Otteson. Sources pointed to his comments on government funding of Katrina relief, comments which some termed "mean;" defenders thought Dr. Otteson was mainly referring to wasteful government spending. Another entry questioned the usefulness of Braille at a drive-through ATM, which some considered an affront to the blind; supporters dismissed the comments as playful and inoffensive. Some alleged that Dr. Otteson's passage entitled "How To Be A Good Husband" implicitly demeaned women and showed anti-gay bias; Dr. Otteson's advocates found it an inspiring siren song for how a spouse ought to behave. "A RIETS Rosh Yeshiva could have given that talk as a sichas mussar," one student said. Perhaps most contentious was a post quoting a woman who stated that women do not deserve the right to vote. Some were infuriated, and claimed the article quoted was only a mask for Dr. Otteson's own views, but others maintained that Dr. Otteson was merely quoting an provocative article to spur conversation, a position Dr. Otteson himself later declared in an asterisk on the blog. Though Dr. Otteson generally presented others' views, often to reject them sarcastically, some faculty deemed the overall tone "unprofessional." Other professors felt outraged or even insulted, especially by Dr. Otteson's allegedly sexist comments.

However, many supported Dr. Otteson's blog as a different avenue for expression, one that freed him from the constraints of academic publishing. Dr. Hocutt drew a clear distinction between Dr. Otteson's "carefully researched and precisely articulated documents" and his blog, which expressed "some unconventional thoughts in the hope of eliciting friendly conversation." Dr. Hocutt also took care to note that "even a superficial acquaintance with the thing reveals beyond all doubt that it was meant for friends, with whom Otteson could be not only unguarded but also playful and provocative." Thus, the thoughts expressed on the blog may not have actually represented Dr. Otteson's beliefs, but rather pointed to ideas and occurrences he found interesting. Yeshiva students who read the blog described some of its passages, including "How to be a Good Husband" as "inspiring" and expressed confusion over the "disproportionate response to the blog" by the University. Dr. Birzer, as well, described himself as "struck by what appears to be a desire for conformity in thought and viewpoint on the part of those who oppose Jim's views."

While those who found the blog refused to comment, several sources theorized that links from other blogs, which referred to Dr. Otteson as the author, led the faculty to unearthing Dr, Otteson's Internet identity. The Commentator found the blog in that way. According to several faculty members, once found, a senior faculty member took this information to Dean Srolovitz. In response, Dean Srolovitz called a meeting with a cross-section of senior faculty, including one professor with expertise in academic freedom. The attendees of the meeting agreed that the blog did not constitute enough of an issue to fire a tenured professor. However, they did feel that Dr. Otteson's administrative position necessitated a higher level of professionalism and responsibility, a level not reflected in the blog.

While some sources claim that the blog constituted a "final straw" in the faculty's arguments against Dr. Otteson's leadership, other sources differ. Numerous faculty members and sources close to Dr. Otteson allege that the blog offended certain faculty personally, who only then presented it as a lack of professionalism. Dr. Otteson himself, who communicated before the legal agreement was finalized, alleged that the blog seemed an important factor, but that he suspected something else also played a role. President Joel informed Dr. Otteson that the blog influenced the administrative decision to halt the support of Dr. Otteson.

 

Under Pressure

With the administration no longer supporting him and with certain faculty members opposed to his decisions, Dr. Otteson was forced to resign. Though Dr. Otteson was shaken by the experience, students felt he maintained his dedication to them. Several were moved by his statement that "this has been a devastating and shocking turn of events for me and my family, but I am also deeply pained at the effects it may have on students." After hearing of Dr. Otteson's pending resignation, 51 Honors students signed the aforementioned letter arguing against the administrative abandonment of Dr. Otteson. The students pointed to President Joel's comments on Dr. Otteson's arrival, "We know that his keen erudition, creative pedagogy, and commitment to imparting the highest ethical values will have a profound impact on our students, as well as our institution as a whole," and the students asserted that Dr. Otteson never fell short of that charge. The students also applauded Dr. Otteson's upstanding character, saying "His award-winning work in ethics is mirrored by his refined character. For those of us who have come to know Professor Otteson personally, he has never been anything but a model of prudence, reason, and goodness."

How the College and the Honors Program will move past this unfortunate series of events remains to be seen. The program will continue under the leadership of Dr. Joanne Jacobson, who will serve as Director, and Dr. Gabriel Cwilich, who will serve as Associate Director. This arrangement will continue for the 2008-2009 academic year, while a national search will soon start for a Director who will assume the position in Fall 2009. Both facts promise that faculty will back Honors Program initiatives more firmly in the future; Dr. Jacobson, as a longtime Yeshiva faculty member, is experienced in dealing with her peers, and the new search will account for greater faculty voice in order to prevent a breakdown of communications again. A senior administrative official noted that "Dr. Jacobson's position is not an interim one; she may well be a candidate for the position permanently." President Joel, Provost Lowengrub, and Dean Srolovitz all declared their confidence in Dr. Jacobson. Administration assured that the planned Honors Center in Furst Hall will also open soon, and the community-oriented extracurricular activities are planned to proceed as scheduled.

Yet the debate certainly fractured the university and diminished trust between administration, faculty and students, and lessened morale within the Honors Program. Effy Unterman acknowledged that despite the rigors of his schedule, he would have been "excited" to return as Student Life Coordinator to work for Dr. Otteson. One administrator said that he himself disagreed with the decision to force Dr. Otteson out. And students on the whole ranged from disappointment to disgust. Hopefully, the Honors Program will be able to recapture this past year's energy. And hopefully Yeshiva University will find another professor that students find as dynamic and charismatic as Dr. Otteson. Undoubtedly though, the events of this past summer will leave their mark on the Honors Program and its students.