2008 Woodie Awards
STAFF EDITORIALS: The Cardinal Rule; Frat Fade
Issue date: 3/8/05 Section: Editorials/Op-Ed
- Page 1 of 1
The Cardinal Rule
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. It's a fact of life and a principle we embrace. To a certain extent then, we cannot completely fault our peers who decided to take matters into their own hands by signing a petition opposing the visit of a delegation of Catholic cardinals to the Wilf Campus. Apparently, RIETS' decision to allow the cardinals back on campus was not unanimous (a number of Roshei Yeshiva opposed the visit), so it was not surprising that a good number of their students were not satisfied with the arrangement either. But at the end of the day, neither we, nor anyone in the Yeshiva leadership, can convince this camp that they were mistaken. In their minds, at least, they are not. However, a few points - some directed at Yeshiva, others at this dissenting camp - are in order.
Firstly, in the weeks and literally days before the cardinals arrived, Yeshiva intentionally kept students and most faculty members, for that matter, in the dark. Only after the petition went public did Yeshiva administrators step forward. And only after the second public announcement were students fully informed of the details. Graciously, RIETS administrators did make themselves available to concerned students, though the damage had already been done. If only Yeshiva had been upfront with its students about the visit in the first place, it probably could have avoided what turned out to be a slap-in-the-face to the institution, and in particular, to the RIETS leadership.
If Yeshiva has an institutional policy about the advisability of sanctioned interfaith dialogue, as it certainly seems to, then that policy needs to be firmly and eloquently conveyed to students and rabbis alike. This would minimize future dissent, acrimony which potentially embarrasses Yeshiva, not to mention the Catholic Church, which has been nothing short of conciliatory in its eagerness to learn from us.
As for the renegade student who circled the oppositional petition, there is more than meets the eye; behind a veneer of stealth ambiguity, students were being riled up and agitated by a culture of suspicion and mistrust. Rather than address the issue out in the open, their subversive whisperings led some to fundamentalist conclusions, the consequences of which were clearly never weighed by the petition's author or by those who chose to endorse it. Contention and conjecture swelled, as murmurings could be heard in the corridors of Zysman and Furst Hall, while intense speculation abounded as to the details of the visit and its repercussions.
Yet the cardinal's visit need not have been a full blown public relations expose or a hushed clandestine run-in. Originally, The Commentator has learned, the World Jewish Congress, who was hosting the group in New York during the week, was not going to bring the group back to campus. But at the behest of one cardinal from last year's delegation, a visit was scheduled through the Yeshiva administration. It was the cardinals who wanted to return to see our Beit Midrash and to speak with our rabbinic leadership. It was they who saw value in us.
It appears as if some members of our student body and faculty have overreacted, yet again. Rather than bring discourse to the table, they have avoided all discussion. At no point in the planning were Yeshiva administrators tempted to talk theology and cross the apparently thin line that separates politics and religious dialogue. Rest assured Yeshiva's administrative and rabbinic leadership know the issues well.
We are fortunate to live in an era where the Pope cares about anti-Semitism, where Christians take the political sovereignty and security of Israel seriously, and where religions can look to each other for support on a common moral agenda. And these topics of discussion do not involve catechism recitation or biblical homiletics. Past Church injustices, the violent murder of innocent Jews included, should not be overlooked, but they should be remembered in this new light: A Catholic hand is outstretched in goodwill towards our people. At the very least, let's accept their gesture.
Frat Fad
Yeshiva's "no fraternity" policy unfortunately does not end the conversation on the recent additions to the Wilf Campus sociology. And though the term fraternity in its formal usage is a misnomer, employment of the word by students associated with these groups has stirred the rumor mill to life. What are these students - who apparently see a void in the undergraduate social calendar - looking for? Are the gross generalizations - that they are only interested in partying and alcohol - absolute truisms? Or is there perhaps a more fundamental issue bothering them, one that can be addressed by administrators and student leaders? Unfortunately, it is an answer we will never know, as the "fraternities," both the notorious members of IHPi and the AEPi faction, have refused to identify their purpose.
Our problem with the fraternities is two-fold. Firstly, their poor attempt at anonymity has only escalated public knowledge of their reckless behavior. In an effort to hide from the media and obscure attention to themselves, they have merely increased speculation and questioning. Their antics, rather than being discussed openly in a responsible forum, have been relegated to blogs and informal web postings. Their dodging of the lime light has invited scrutinization leading to unflattering disclosure. To a certain extent, they are still part of the media-fearing Yeshiva culture, part of the administrators, faculty, and students who continuously shy away from expressing themselves in the these very pages. The cold shoulder treatment suggests at best taciturn aloofness, and at worst, furtive concealment.
Secondly, the notion of a "frat" at Yeshiva seems paradoxical and misplaced. Sure, many college fraternities were established on the foundation of public service and charity. But the identification of fraternity on today's college campus, and the manner in which Yeshiva students associating with them have utilized the term, indicate a behavior and mindset that is uncharacteristic of what Yeshiva stands for. Yeshiva may be many things, but it is not a place for hedonistic partying. Students wanting that kind of collegiate life cannot act on those impulses while waving a Yeshiva banner. Yet last month's incident at the University of North Carolina and last week's party on the Wilf Campus suggest these frat groups are moving in such a direction. Their public defamation of Yeshiva has caused enough damage to our reputation. For better or for worse, Yeshiva students are icons of this institution. It is a heavy responsibility demanding fastidious character and resolve; but it is a noble calling, and one we should treat with self-respect and dignity.
Their antics aside, the simultaneous emergence of these two groups may indicate consent that student life on campus is lacking. While the student councils have a wide-array of interests to cater to, they still need to be more accommodating of a campus demographic that feels ignored. Assuming their interests jive with the morality and sensitivity becoming of a Yeshiva club, we have no reason to deny them. But if they truly are only interested in riotous indulgence of their ids, then they have no place at Yeshiva. We welcome these students to engage us in conversation and articulate their agenda. But we cannot stand for their silence, especially if they falsely stand for whom we are.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. It's a fact of life and a principle we embrace. To a certain extent then, we cannot completely fault our peers who decided to take matters into their own hands by signing a petition opposing the visit of a delegation of Catholic cardinals to the Wilf Campus. Apparently, RIETS' decision to allow the cardinals back on campus was not unanimous (a number of Roshei Yeshiva opposed the visit), so it was not surprising that a good number of their students were not satisfied with the arrangement either. But at the end of the day, neither we, nor anyone in the Yeshiva leadership, can convince this camp that they were mistaken. In their minds, at least, they are not. However, a few points - some directed at Yeshiva, others at this dissenting camp - are in order.
Firstly, in the weeks and literally days before the cardinals arrived, Yeshiva intentionally kept students and most faculty members, for that matter, in the dark. Only after the petition went public did Yeshiva administrators step forward. And only after the second public announcement were students fully informed of the details. Graciously, RIETS administrators did make themselves available to concerned students, though the damage had already been done. If only Yeshiva had been upfront with its students about the visit in the first place, it probably could have avoided what turned out to be a slap-in-the-face to the institution, and in particular, to the RIETS leadership.
If Yeshiva has an institutional policy about the advisability of sanctioned interfaith dialogue, as it certainly seems to, then that policy needs to be firmly and eloquently conveyed to students and rabbis alike. This would minimize future dissent, acrimony which potentially embarrasses Yeshiva, not to mention the Catholic Church, which has been nothing short of conciliatory in its eagerness to learn from us.
As for the renegade student who circled the oppositional petition, there is more than meets the eye; behind a veneer of stealth ambiguity, students were being riled up and agitated by a culture of suspicion and mistrust. Rather than address the issue out in the open, their subversive whisperings led some to fundamentalist conclusions, the consequences of which were clearly never weighed by the petition's author or by those who chose to endorse it. Contention and conjecture swelled, as murmurings could be heard in the corridors of Zysman and Furst Hall, while intense speculation abounded as to the details of the visit and its repercussions.
Yet the cardinal's visit need not have been a full blown public relations expose or a hushed clandestine run-in. Originally, The Commentator has learned, the World Jewish Congress, who was hosting the group in New York during the week, was not going to bring the group back to campus. But at the behest of one cardinal from last year's delegation, a visit was scheduled through the Yeshiva administration. It was the cardinals who wanted to return to see our Beit Midrash and to speak with our rabbinic leadership. It was they who saw value in us.
It appears as if some members of our student body and faculty have overreacted, yet again. Rather than bring discourse to the table, they have avoided all discussion. At no point in the planning were Yeshiva administrators tempted to talk theology and cross the apparently thin line that separates politics and religious dialogue. Rest assured Yeshiva's administrative and rabbinic leadership know the issues well.
We are fortunate to live in an era where the Pope cares about anti-Semitism, where Christians take the political sovereignty and security of Israel seriously, and where religions can look to each other for support on a common moral agenda. And these topics of discussion do not involve catechism recitation or biblical homiletics. Past Church injustices, the violent murder of innocent Jews included, should not be overlooked, but they should be remembered in this new light: A Catholic hand is outstretched in goodwill towards our people. At the very least, let's accept their gesture.
Frat Fad
Yeshiva's "no fraternity" policy unfortunately does not end the conversation on the recent additions to the Wilf Campus sociology. And though the term fraternity in its formal usage is a misnomer, employment of the word by students associated with these groups has stirred the rumor mill to life. What are these students - who apparently see a void in the undergraduate social calendar - looking for? Are the gross generalizations - that they are only interested in partying and alcohol - absolute truisms? Or is there perhaps a more fundamental issue bothering them, one that can be addressed by administrators and student leaders? Unfortunately, it is an answer we will never know, as the "fraternities," both the notorious members of IHPi and the AEPi faction, have refused to identify their purpose.
Our problem with the fraternities is two-fold. Firstly, their poor attempt at anonymity has only escalated public knowledge of their reckless behavior. In an effort to hide from the media and obscure attention to themselves, they have merely increased speculation and questioning. Their antics, rather than being discussed openly in a responsible forum, have been relegated to blogs and informal web postings. Their dodging of the lime light has invited scrutinization leading to unflattering disclosure. To a certain extent, they are still part of the media-fearing Yeshiva culture, part of the administrators, faculty, and students who continuously shy away from expressing themselves in the these very pages. The cold shoulder treatment suggests at best taciturn aloofness, and at worst, furtive concealment.
Secondly, the notion of a "frat" at Yeshiva seems paradoxical and misplaced. Sure, many college fraternities were established on the foundation of public service and charity. But the identification of fraternity on today's college campus, and the manner in which Yeshiva students associating with them have utilized the term, indicate a behavior and mindset that is uncharacteristic of what Yeshiva stands for. Yeshiva may be many things, but it is not a place for hedonistic partying. Students wanting that kind of collegiate life cannot act on those impulses while waving a Yeshiva banner. Yet last month's incident at the University of North Carolina and last week's party on the Wilf Campus suggest these frat groups are moving in such a direction. Their public defamation of Yeshiva has caused enough damage to our reputation. For better or for worse, Yeshiva students are icons of this institution. It is a heavy responsibility demanding fastidious character and resolve; but it is a noble calling, and one we should treat with self-respect and dignity.
Their antics aside, the simultaneous emergence of these two groups may indicate consent that student life on campus is lacking. While the student councils have a wide-array of interests to cater to, they still need to be more accommodating of a campus demographic that feels ignored. Assuming their interests jive with the morality and sensitivity becoming of a Yeshiva club, we have no reason to deny them. But if they truly are only interested in riotous indulgence of their ids, then they have no place at Yeshiva. We welcome these students to engage us in conversation and articulate their agenda. But we cannot stand for their silence, especially if they falsely stand for whom we are.