2008 Woodie Awards
STAFF EDITORIALS: More Crime; Gaza Disengagement; Pell Grants
Issue date: 12/6/04 Section: Editorials/Op-Ed
- Page 1 of 1
Religiously Correct
It's always dicey for American media to editorialize about Israeli politics; often, the product sounds less like an editorial and more like condescending preaching. We'll try not to make that same mistake.
Yeshiva Chancellor Norman Lamm's recent open letter (see front page) condemning insubordination among the ranks of the Israeli security services is worthy of comment, and more specifically, praise. The letter transcends politics, as it speaks to the core of the moral, and perhaps religious, obligations Jews bear toward one another.
As we reported in our news article, Rabbi Lamm felt the need for an open letter independent of his affiliation with Yeshiva. The letter was not a political statement, but an assertion from a halakhic perspective that refusal of orders simply contravenes Jewish law. We wholeheartedly support Rabbi Lamm's call for sanity over disengagement; it is a call that should not need to exist, but does, because of the continual danger of violence between Jews that remains clear and present.
Beneath the surface, the real issue here is a pronounced rift between factions of the religious Zionist camp. In Israel, Rabbi Avraham Shapira's base, seemingly the largest of the factions, has supported the notion that politics and halakha are one and the same. This has manifested itself in that camp's public outcry over Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's disengagement plan, the idea that no Israeli government has the right to dismantle Jewish settlements, or cede holy land to the Arabs for that matter.
The camp that Rabbi Lamm and his co-signers have aligned themselves with has mixed feelings about the wisdom of disengagement, but will not condone a refusal to follow orders. Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, for example, is adamantly opposed to disengagement, but is equally supportive of the notion that religious Israelis of the same opinion are nonetheless required to divorce from a belief that halakha forbids disengagement. Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein has perhaps expressed this position most succinctly, telling the Jerusalem Post in October, "Not every soldier can be a foreign minister. People in the army have a responsibility to obey orders."
A healthy democracy affords its constituents the opportunity to debate its national policies, and Israel is no exception. Indeed, that debate, often vociferous, took place earlier this year. Elements of Israeli society that continue to believe that their opposition will persuade the Prime Minister not to carry out disengagement reserve the right to continue the debate. But under no circumstances can violence, or even incitement-particularly by the religious establishment, be tolerated. Needless to say, but not least of which, critics of Israel dream of the day when another political assassination becomes a reality.
We are thankful that Rabbi Lamm's word carries significant weight, and sincerely hope that his prudence will dissuade those that contemplate refusal of orders, incitement, and violence.
Not Another "Isolated" Incident
Our devoted readers must think we've committed a layout blunder this issue; didn't we already report on the campus mugging last issue? Sadly, there is no mistake here. Another mugging took place on our campus, and this time we're not taking "isolated incident" for an answer.
As our news story reports, the second mugging is only one of many crimes committed in the past month in the vicinity of the Wilf Campus. And from the details of the incident, it seems the perpetrators were well aware of their potential victims. In the IHP case, the muggers attacked prior to midnight, which is still before the "added" security guard commands his post on the corner of 186th Street. The Wilf Campus is alive late at night and students often walk alone on the avenues and into the buildings they consider safe. But this apparently is no longer an option. The places we once considered our own, safe to enter and exit as we please, are apparently no longer.
Unfortunately, by now we recognize all too well the cover-up lingo of Yeshiva's security department. "Gluing" a security guard to the block will not change everything. What about the IHP buildings on 187th Street and on Laurel Hill? What about students who have to park down Amsterdam Avenue in "Angle Parking" late at night? One more guard on 186th Street will not do the trick.
The security mentality needs to change around here. Surely, we admit, security has improved greatly over the years (for a taste of past student vigilantism, see the reprint on page 29). But it is still all too lax. The security fallibility in the IHP truly presents complications for Yeshiva administrators. Many Yeshiva students choose IHP to be away from the ID-showing of the university dorms. But that does not mean that their buildings should be any less safe. The university must find a way to secure these sensitive areas before more of these incidents occur. Because we're no longer dealing with an "isolated" incident.
Mo' money Pell-ease
The mainstream media has an interesting way of distorting real issues, and the recent firestorm over Congress' Pell Grant update is a case in point. Allow us to clear the air.
The Federal Pell Grant, currently limited to a maximum of $4,050, is a key source of financial aid for college students from low-income families. The amount awarded is based on the expected family contribution, which depends on how much state tax a family has to pay. The current controversy revolves around a decision to base grant allotment on 2001 state tax levels, data that is 13 years newer than the currently employed 1988 rates. State taxes have generally decreased since 1988, and Republicans argue that some families are unfairly receiving funds that should be going to poorer students. Although the updated tax figures limit the Pell Grant to fewer students, they will allow Congress to increase the maximum allotment for genuinely deprived college-goers.
Democrats counter that families heretofore receiving federal assistance, including a number of Yeshiva families, will be hit with a severe burden, especially as tuition costs are spiking. They estimate that close to 85,000 students will lose the grants, while over a million will face reduced funding.
The Republicans are right to target the neediest students in America, thus fulfilling the mandate of the Pell Grant program. But the Democratic complaints also have merit, albeit in a different, though intimately related, issue: college is getting too expensive. The federal government has not kept up with nationally rising tuition costs, even as more and more students are asking for help. Currently, over five million students qualify for Pell Grants, an increase in 37 percent over the last ten years.
Both parties agree that our nation's long-term economic stability and competitiveness, not to mention cultural health, is contingent on providing all citizens access to higher education. We applaud Congress' raise of Pell Grant funding to $12.5 billion this year. But shouldn't more be done aside from dedicating a measly 3.2 percent of a $388 billion omnibus bill to ensure college education for all?
It's always dicey for American media to editorialize about Israeli politics; often, the product sounds less like an editorial and more like condescending preaching. We'll try not to make that same mistake.
Yeshiva Chancellor Norman Lamm's recent open letter (see front page) condemning insubordination among the ranks of the Israeli security services is worthy of comment, and more specifically, praise. The letter transcends politics, as it speaks to the core of the moral, and perhaps religious, obligations Jews bear toward one another.
As we reported in our news article, Rabbi Lamm felt the need for an open letter independent of his affiliation with Yeshiva. The letter was not a political statement, but an assertion from a halakhic perspective that refusal of orders simply contravenes Jewish law. We wholeheartedly support Rabbi Lamm's call for sanity over disengagement; it is a call that should not need to exist, but does, because of the continual danger of violence between Jews that remains clear and present.
Beneath the surface, the real issue here is a pronounced rift between factions of the religious Zionist camp. In Israel, Rabbi Avraham Shapira's base, seemingly the largest of the factions, has supported the notion that politics and halakha are one and the same. This has manifested itself in that camp's public outcry over Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's disengagement plan, the idea that no Israeli government has the right to dismantle Jewish settlements, or cede holy land to the Arabs for that matter.
The camp that Rabbi Lamm and his co-signers have aligned themselves with has mixed feelings about the wisdom of disengagement, but will not condone a refusal to follow orders. Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, for example, is adamantly opposed to disengagement, but is equally supportive of the notion that religious Israelis of the same opinion are nonetheless required to divorce from a belief that halakha forbids disengagement. Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein has perhaps expressed this position most succinctly, telling the Jerusalem Post in October, "Not every soldier can be a foreign minister. People in the army have a responsibility to obey orders."
A healthy democracy affords its constituents the opportunity to debate its national policies, and Israel is no exception. Indeed, that debate, often vociferous, took place earlier this year. Elements of Israeli society that continue to believe that their opposition will persuade the Prime Minister not to carry out disengagement reserve the right to continue the debate. But under no circumstances can violence, or even incitement-particularly by the religious establishment, be tolerated. Needless to say, but not least of which, critics of Israel dream of the day when another political assassination becomes a reality.
We are thankful that Rabbi Lamm's word carries significant weight, and sincerely hope that his prudence will dissuade those that contemplate refusal of orders, incitement, and violence.
Not Another "Isolated" Incident
Our devoted readers must think we've committed a layout blunder this issue; didn't we already report on the campus mugging last issue? Sadly, there is no mistake here. Another mugging took place on our campus, and this time we're not taking "isolated incident" for an answer.
As our news story reports, the second mugging is only one of many crimes committed in the past month in the vicinity of the Wilf Campus. And from the details of the incident, it seems the perpetrators were well aware of their potential victims. In the IHP case, the muggers attacked prior to midnight, which is still before the "added" security guard commands his post on the corner of 186th Street. The Wilf Campus is alive late at night and students often walk alone on the avenues and into the buildings they consider safe. But this apparently is no longer an option. The places we once considered our own, safe to enter and exit as we please, are apparently no longer.
Unfortunately, by now we recognize all too well the cover-up lingo of Yeshiva's security department. "Gluing" a security guard to the block will not change everything. What about the IHP buildings on 187th Street and on Laurel Hill? What about students who have to park down Amsterdam Avenue in "Angle Parking" late at night? One more guard on 186th Street will not do the trick.
The security mentality needs to change around here. Surely, we admit, security has improved greatly over the years (for a taste of past student vigilantism, see the reprint on page 29). But it is still all too lax. The security fallibility in the IHP truly presents complications for Yeshiva administrators. Many Yeshiva students choose IHP to be away from the ID-showing of the university dorms. But that does not mean that their buildings should be any less safe. The university must find a way to secure these sensitive areas before more of these incidents occur. Because we're no longer dealing with an "isolated" incident.
Mo' money Pell-ease
The mainstream media has an interesting way of distorting real issues, and the recent firestorm over Congress' Pell Grant update is a case in point. Allow us to clear the air.
The Federal Pell Grant, currently limited to a maximum of $4,050, is a key source of financial aid for college students from low-income families. The amount awarded is based on the expected family contribution, which depends on how much state tax a family has to pay. The current controversy revolves around a decision to base grant allotment on 2001 state tax levels, data that is 13 years newer than the currently employed 1988 rates. State taxes have generally decreased since 1988, and Republicans argue that some families are unfairly receiving funds that should be going to poorer students. Although the updated tax figures limit the Pell Grant to fewer students, they will allow Congress to increase the maximum allotment for genuinely deprived college-goers.
Democrats counter that families heretofore receiving federal assistance, including a number of Yeshiva families, will be hit with a severe burden, especially as tuition costs are spiking. They estimate that close to 85,000 students will lose the grants, while over a million will face reduced funding.
The Republicans are right to target the neediest students in America, thus fulfilling the mandate of the Pell Grant program. But the Democratic complaints also have merit, albeit in a different, though intimately related, issue: college is getting too expensive. The federal government has not kept up with nationally rising tuition costs, even as more and more students are asking for help. Currently, over five million students qualify for Pell Grants, an increase in 37 percent over the last ten years.
Both parties agree that our nation's long-term economic stability and competitiveness, not to mention cultural health, is contingent on providing all citizens access to higher education. We applaud Congress' raise of Pell Grant funding to $12.5 billion this year. But shouldn't more be done aside from dedicating a measly 3.2 percent of a $388 billion omnibus bill to ensure college education for all?