2008 Woodie Awards
LETTERS (a lot of them)
Issue date: 3/29/05 Section: Opinion
Stern College For Women
Dear Sir:
Before I recommend that Menachem Wecker go out and buy Modern Manners: An Etiquette Book for Rude People ($9.75 on Amazon.com), I must say that as an Observer staff writer, Stern student, and young woman, I was insulted on all three fronts by Mr. Wecker's editorial. He insinuated that The Observer was smug, outrightly said it contained a "blizzard of grammatical errors," and denigrated the articles of the editors-in-chief. I'm sorry, but what I believe is smug and inane here is Mr. Wecker's attack on The Observer. I am not sure whether this truly nasty piece is indicative of Mr. Wecker's personality or because he hoped to establish a reputation as a chauvinistic he-man, but whatever the case, I would just like to point out that if he is going to refer to Observer writers in quotations, meaning he thinks us anything but, he must include himself in the same category. "Many professors who have taught midtown told me that the quality of education is! much better uptown"- I'm sorry, can professors teach a portion of the city? If he is so intent on proper English (evident by the fact that he berates one editor-in-chief for having a less than perfect sentence), he should have said taught at midtown, or at the midtown campus. He also should have quoted actual sources, rather than simplistically say "many professors have told him". Additionally, to imply that Stern College is nothing but a finishing school is utterly ridiculous- perhaps that used to be true, but the quality of education here at Stern is such that it allows for an astronomically high rate of admissions to graduate schools. We couldn't have done that simply by spending our time with shoes and makeup. Talk about gross generalizations. And calling Stern College students "girls" while asserting that YC students are "men" is blatantly misogynistic- I venture to say the Rav would blush that one of his students was acting like, well, such! a little boy. Mr. Wecker's piece was mean-spirited, chock full of inaccuracies, and just plain self-righteous.
Tova Stulman
SCW '08
Dear Sir:
It is with great disappointment and quite a bit of anger that I direct my words towards a most objectionable piece of writing in the latest issue of The Commentator (Menachem Wecker's "Is The Commentator the Better Paper?"). I will leave it to others to discuss the ironic fact that Mr. Wecker, while purporting to discuss the journalistic value of The Observer in comparison to that of The Commentator, fails to stick to his subject matter and instead digresses in a most unprofessional manner. Instead, I would like to take issue with a number of Mr. Wecker's choice statements about the women (no, Mr. Wecker, not the "girls") and education at Stern College.
Mr. Wecker states that "Stern College shortchanges its students of a real education." It seems that Yeshiva College has shortchanged one of its students of a lesson in tact, not to mention instruction with regard to fact checking. My own experience will prove Mr. Wecker dead wrong; for the past three years, I have been the recipient of an excellent education. I have studied under top-notch professors in such subjects as English Literature, Bible, Jewish and General Philosophy, to name a few. I'm not quite sure what the difference is between my education and Mr. Wecker's "real" education. If, however, Mr. Wecker, in the course of his disorganized rant, means by this quote that Yeshiva University "shortchanges" Stern College students of comparable resources that seem to flood into Yeshiva College, then I agree. May I suggest that Mr. Wecker rectify his grievous misdeed of an article by broaching, in the next issue of The Commentator, this subject of an unequal divvying of resources, by utilizing factual information to rationally and constructively criticize the disproportion, suggesting a means for its rectification.
With regard to Mr. Wecker's inflammatory and untrue statement that "[Stern College] was founded largely to give the girls something to do while the men are in school uptown, to prepare the students for marriage and to bide them time," it seems that Mr. Wecker both neglected to do his research, as well as to differentiate between the expectations of women in 1954 and expectations of women today. Mr. Wecker's implication that my peers and I are at Stern to dally away our days in preparation for marriage angers and frightens me to no end. I was unaware that such archaic views of women are still at large today, and among students at a modern university. I shudder to think that Mr. Wecker may have like-minded friends.
What I find most disturbing about this article is that it was actually published. Shame on you, the editors of The Commentator, for exercising such bad judgement in allowing such an unprofessional and distasteful article to be replicated and disseminated via a publication that emanates from such a reputable institution such as Yeshiva University. I tremble at the thought that perhaps you published it because Mr. Wecker's thoughts about the students and education at Stern College echo your own, and because you believe that Mr. Wecker's thoughts echo those of the rest of your peers at Yeshiva College. I certainly hope I'm mistaken.
Tamar Warburg
SCW '05
Dear Sir:
Allow me to say that I was appalled by the unnecessarily scathing remarks found in Menachem Wecker's article, Towards an Effort of Journalistic Mercy that Simply Won't Work. Mr. Wecker mocked The Observer's writers and editors, stating that the content of their paper is pointless and stupid and that their grammatical skills are sorely lacking. He did so not with an attitude befitting a YU student critiquing fellow students, but with a sardonic, snooty tone. I felt sickened by this display of insensitivity.
At the end of his column, he tried to justify his harsh critique by saying: "But if you think that this column has no purpose other than to point out that [The] Observer writers can't write, you are dead wrong." He then continued to sarcastically list his grievances with Stern College in general. I am sorry, but he failed to convince me. If Menachem wants to write an article suggesting improvements for Stern College, then should go right ahead, but he does not need to spend the first two thirds of it insulting their newspaper and the women who write for it. Furthermore, it is alright, and at times even admirable, to write constructive criticism; however, his article was inappropriate, malicious, and showed no regard for the feelings of the authors whom he either identified by their position at The Observer or explicitly named. His article seems to adhere to the motto, "If you don't have anything nice to say, say something mean."
Based on Mr. Wecker's repeated references to an Observer column that criticized The Gates, an art project by Christo and Jeanne-Claude recently displayed in Central Park, I would venture to say that he was upset by an alternate opinion of an exhibit that he held in such high esteem. He should learn to deal with it -- not everyone shares his highly refined taste in art. I think a far better approach would have been to write an article about his view of Christo's work. I'm sure that, like many of his previous articles, Commentator readers would have found it informative and refreshing.
One of Wecker's main points, complete with examples, was that The Observer is always riddled with grammatical errors. Upon proofreading his column, I found numerous examples of incorrect punctuation, as well as several wording, stylistic, and typographical errors. In the spirit of practicing what I preach and due to limited space, I have chosen not to include specific examples of Mr. Wecker's mistakes, but rest assured, I was tempted.
I feel that Menachem's article sullies the reputation of The Commentator as a fair, informative, and above all conscientious publication. Although he may have many real qualms with SCW, its bureaucratic administration, and (what he perceived to be) its objective, Menachem unfairly attacked the women who use much of their free time to write for and edit The Observer. His frivolous remonstrations reveal his clear prejudices against the school. I feel that such an article demonstrates a severe lacking in ethics for a journalist, especially one from Yeshiva.
When writing such a pointedly derisive article, regardless of whether he deemed it so, Menachem comes off as haughty and immature; he seems almost like a schoolyard bully. If that was his intention, then he succeeded admirably. If, however, he only meant to be facetious, and took it a little too far (which I hope is the case), then I wanted to inform him that there are people who are affected by his words. As a journalist representing the student body at YU, he is morally obligated to utilize proper discretion, for there are methods of writing about problematic issues, in which criticism is inevitable, that are far more conducive to improvement and do not needlessly humiliate the people being critiqued. I look forward to future articles in The Commentator exemplifying the ideals of Yeshiva University.
Daniel Wiesenfeld
YC '07
Dear Sir:
Thanks for giving your loyal readership a sneak preview of the coming Purim Edition with Menachem Wecker's satirical column in your last issue. After reading about some of the worrisome things that you have been reporting on recently, it was a nice change of pace to read a well written tongue-in-cheek article.
Shai Barnea
YC '03
Dear Sir:
If fashion inserts and decrying Christo for lack of social responsibility is the substance of the Stern College Observer then Wecker may very well be on target. But don't blame the messenger. Yeshiva University's rightward plunge easily could have relegated Stern College into a harem for frum women until the boys uptown need wives. The tragedy lies not in the characterization but in the dashing of legitimate feminist hopes that Modern Orthodoxy should be championing.
Richard McBee
New York, NY
[Ed: Mr. McBee writes a weekly critical review column in The Jewish Press.. His artwork is in many private collections throughout the country.]
Dear Sir:
As faculty members who teach at both Stern and Yeshiva Colleges, we were disturbed to see the assertion in the article "Towards an Effort of Journalistic Mercy..." (Commentator, March 8, 2005) that "Many professors who have taught midtown told me that the quality of education is much greater uptown." That has certainly not been the case in our experience. We usually teach from the same syllabus at both campuses, so that our students are getting an identical education. Nor have we seen any difference in the quality of our students. Gender plays no role in the distribution of intellectual excellence at the undergraduate colleges of Yeshiva University. The brilliant women are just as brilliant as the brilliant men; the distinctions that do exist are much greater within our classes at Stern and Yeshiva than they are between them.
Ruth A. Bevan, David G. Petegorsky of Political Science
Shalom Carmy, Assistant Professor of Bible
Bryan Daves, Assistant Prof. of Political Science
Jeffrey Freedman, Associate Professor of History
David Glaser, Visitng Assistant Professor of Music
Hadassa Kosak, Associate Professor of History
Joanne Jacobson, Associate Professor of English
Aaron Levine, Samson and Halina Bitensky Prof. of Economics
Richard Nochimson, Professor of English
Ellen Schrecker, Professor of History
William Stenhouse, Assistant Professor of English
Manfred Weidhorn, Abraham S. and Irene Guterman Chair in English Literature
The Editors Respond:
Over the past three weeks we've received a great deal of feedback responding to the column under discussion. It's important for us, however, to underscore a crucial distinction that many of our readers have failed to comprehend. Personal columns do not represent the institutional policy of The Commentator; all opinions, except for the staff editorials, are the expressed opinion of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect those of the editorial board, the student body, faculty, or administration of Yeshiva University. Nevertheless, we realize the said column may have been unnecessarily offensive. We will strive to be more sensitive in the future.
Frat Pack
Dear Sir:
To the casual observer, Zev Nagel's cover story on fraternity life ("Fraternity-Wannabes Pose Challenges for Wilf Campus," March 8) uncovered a scandalous situation brewing on the Wilf Campus. In The Commentator's view, IHPi is nothing more than a group of boisterous frat boys engaging in "riotous indulgence of their ids" through their "hedonistic partying," going as far to accuse them of "public defamation of Yeshiva University." However, while Mr. Nagel may be a fine journalist, in this matter, he has shown an extremely unprofessional disregard for the facts which is highly inappropriate for any journalist, much less the editor in chief of The Commentator.
Allow me to address some falsehoods contained in the article. Let me begin by addressing the assertion that IHPi has "yet to speak with Vice President for Student Life Hillel Davis" about the issue of a fraternity on campus. In point of fact, I personally e-mailed Dr. Davis with regard to this issue. Dr. Davis chose not to meet with me, which is certainly his prerogative. This hardly constitutes a refusal on my part to meet with him.
As for the contention that IHPi has not cooperated with regard to Senior University Dean for Student Affairs Efrem Nulman's concerns about safety and accountability, I met with Dr. Nulman to discuss several issues the University had with IHPi's activities. Dr. Nulman's primary concern was the safety and legality of any activities in which YU students engaged, on or off campus. Whether or not such parties fell under the University's jurisdiction was, to him, secondary to the well-being of each and every student who may have attended. He went through his concerns, point by point, and for the most part, I shared his concerns.
Shortly after my meeting with Dr. Nulman, IHPi began to take measures to address Student Affairs' concerns about student safety. The first step was hiring a professional security guard to make sure no one got out of hand. The security guard's presence was meant to make sure that no disorderly conduct occurred and, by all accounts, he did one hell of a job. The dean's next concern was the alleged presence of recreational drugs at our parties. As anyone who attended the first and second "frat" parties can attest, I personally threw out four different students who attempted to smoke marijuana in our house.
As far as being refused to be interviewed for this article, not only did I not refuse to be interviewed for this article, but I actively campaigned for an interview over two months ago. But no one from The Commentator got back to me. The editors informed me that the "Fraternity" article had been put on hold and that an interview would not be necessary. But nevertheless, an article was printed and insinuated that IHII was unwilling to talk. Indeed over two months ago, I submitted to The Commentator a two-page article outlining IHPi's mission statement. In it, I addressed our raison d'être, as well as our grievances with campus life (or lack thereof).
In response to Mr. Nagel's contention that the frats "refuse to publicly make a case for their organizations," I can ask only this: What could be more public than publishing our goals? I challenge The Commentator to print my article outlining IHPi's agenda.
But while I may be able to forgive Mr. Nagel and The Commentator for these first two oversights (namely, my refusal to meet with Vice President Davis and our unwillingness to cooperate with Dean Nulman), it is his third oversight that is the most deplorable. For him to misrepresent IHPi's dealings with school faculty could possibly (though it is highly unlikely) be chalked up to a lack of leg work and fact-checking on his part. However, to print OUTRIGHT LIES regarding our "refusal to be interviewed for this article" is a complete lack of journalistic integrity that is unbecoming of a staff writer, much less the editor of the paper.
Not only did I not refuse to be interviewed for this article, but I actually actively campaigned for an interview over two months ago. At that time, Mr. Nagel informed me that the "Fraternity" article had been put on hold and that an interview would not be necessary at that time. He further assured me that he would not 'print anything without letting (me) tell (my) side of the story first.' It sounds to me like his March 8 cover story did just that, as he certainly did not interview me nor inform me of its pending publication.
Through this entire affair, I have been upfront with the University about my involvement with IHPi and will continue to be so. I trust that the knowledgeable and educated readers of The Commentator will view this situation with an open mind, and reserve judgment until all the facts have been allowed to come out.
Gideon Shiffman
Founding Member, IHPi
SSSB '06
[Ed: The Commentator was forwarded an email from the leadership of IHPi which was originally sent to Dr. Hille Davis, Vice President of University Life, on Sunday, October 31, 2004. Additionally The Commentator has printed their statement at http://www.yucommentator.com/news/2005/03/29/Opinion/Ihpi-Statement.Of.Aims-906788.shtml ]
Cardinals Redux: Combating Prejudice
Dear Sir:
Rabbi Lamm is certainly correct in welcoming the Roman Catholic Cardinals to Yeshiva University and explaining that Christians today do not fall under the halakhic category of idol worshippers ("Cardinals Visit Again Amid Student Pressure"). He is also correct that we Orthodox Jews--indeed all morally serious people--should not "judge the world by instincts."
However it is not our instincts that are the source of attitudes of fear and demonization of others. No one is born to hate or hold prejudices. People learn these attitudes from formal and informal education. For millennia, the Catholic Church taught Catholics an attitude of contempt toward Jews and Judaism. Thank God today the Church has repudiated these old theologies. Most importantly, the Church has committed itself to re-educating Catholics and ridding them of any anti-Judaism and anti-Semitic animus. The Church has a long way to go in meeting this goal.
Similarly, we Jews have been taught to be hostile to Christians. In the past, such Jewish hostility may have been warranted as a defensive reaction against hateful Church actions against Jews. Today, however, when the Catholic Church and its representatives who come to Yeshiva seeking friendship have committed themselves to civility with the Jews and Judaism, our learned attitudes of hostility are misplaced and unjustified. We need recognize this profound change in circumstance and re-educate ourselves as Jews, refocusing our concerns from our painful past to the good of Jews today and in the future. Yeshiva should lead this educational effort away from prejudice and denigration of outsiders to an honest understanding of the world around us. This necessary Jewish re-education also has a long way to go.
Rabbi Dr. Eugene Korn
Bergenfield, NJ
[Ed: Rabbi Dr. Korn is the editor of The Edah Journal].
Dear Sir:
I am amazed every time I log onto The Commentator website, because the more things change, the more they stay the same. Yeshiva is a world-known university, where the synthesis of Torah and Madda has produced generations of well educated, well read orthodox Jews, who have enhanced our standing in the "goyisha" world. Now a group of OUR fundamentalists, no different than the Taliban of Afghanistan or the Shiite extremists of Iraq, protest a courtesy visit by the clergy of another religion. Now I understand that good Jewish boys are not blowing up cars, or killing anyone, but do they understand that they are members of a university community, not a shtetl, participants in a wonderful educational system that is the envy of all and not participants in a post-graduate high school?
Jeffrey Krantz, D.D.S.
YC '76
Six Kicks, Five Doesn't Jive
Dear Sir:
I write in response to the three letters you printed in the previous edition of The Commentator, which disagreed with the editorial regarding a six-semester residency requirement. The students who wrote these letters each miss several important points.
In the financial realm, students forget that if they were to attend another comparable private college (which would not accept credit for their year in Israel), they would be paying four years of tuition - thus, by attending YU for six semesters and then adding the year of tuition for yeshiva in Israel (which, at least in my experience at Har Etzion, was about 1/2 to 1/3 of a year's tuition, room, and board at YC), they are still saving significantly.
To accuse YU of a "money grab" is simply ridiculous - by requiring students to remain on campus YU increases its own operating costs - more students mean more classes and more professors, facilities are used, etc. Students need to recognize that tuition alone doesn't cover the cost of their educations, and I'd guess that each additional student makes the university's financial burden increase rather than decrease.
I disagree with Benyamin Moalem's claim that this policy will cause "the students at YU [to]...feel that their university is a prison." I don't see anyone being forced to do anything. The university is within its full rights to enforce certain requirements before allowing students to graduate; students are within their rights to leave the college at any time - if you don't like the rules (or the educational philosophy they reflect), feel free to find another university that is more to your liking. Your degree at YC or SSSB is not something you are entitled to; it is something you earn.
Finally, and most importantly, each of the three writers claims that if a student can complete the course requirements in five semesters, why stick around for six. First, I disagree with the notion that one can receive the same education by taking 17 credits for each of 5 semesters as he can by taking 14-15 credits for each of 6 semesters. Having had both 14 credit and 17 credit semesters myself, I am certain (and this is perfectly logical) that I had more time to dedicate to each class when I took a lighter course load than when I took a heavier one. When I took only 14 credits, I had a much easier time keeping up with readings, homeworks, etc.
Additionally, these students reflect that attitude that taking an extra class to satisfy intellectual curiosity, knowing full well that the class doesn't fulfill a requirement and the class isn't needed to reach the required number of credits to graduate would be a terrible thing. Maybe other students have no problem juggling 17.5 credits, a Judaic studies program, and a few extra-curriculars. So take an extra semester - a few courses that look interesting, a minor or a second major. It wouldn't kill you.
I can't challenge the claim that "I received a quality education and experienced tremendous personal growth in the five semesters I spent on campus," but I disagree with the sentiment that "An extra semester on campus would not have educated me any more than the five semesters I spent on it receiving my education." If the first five semesters were so good, I fail to understand how the sixth will be completely worthless.
Kudos to the editors for standing behind our administration on this important issue.
Avi-Gil Chaitovsky
YC '06
Where Should Rabbis Draw the Line?
Dear Sir:
In his article, "The Pulpit and Da'at Torah," Shaya Lerner displays a fundamental lack of understanding of Judaism. Unlike Christianity, Judaism does not recognize the idea of "Render unto G-d what is G-d's and render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's." Judaism encompasses all of life and has an "opinion" on every aspect of life. Although discovering Torah's viewpoint on every issue is not easy, the implication isn't that people shouldn't try. Rabbis, being the leaders of the Jewish people, should, to the best of their ability, endeavor to discover those "opinions" of Torah and share them with the masses. Relegating religion to the private "spiritual" sphere is to make Judaism irrelevant to this world, a position I might expect someone from the Yeshiva world to make, not someone from Yeshiva University.
Elliot Resnick
Yeshiva College '05
At Least They Let YOU in the Building
Dear Sir:
I just read "At Least They Let Me in the Building: A Siyum HaShas Perspective" by Etan Bednarsh and have a question for you. Why doesn't Yeshiva or one of the students invite more of the Agudah Gedolim to speak at Yeshiva? That way, you could meet them more than once every seven or so years. Isn't part of the Yeshiva experience seeing the broad range of orthodox scholars and not just your own crowd?
Why doesn't Rav Matisyahu Solomon of Lakewood come to Yeshiva at least once a year, or why doesn't Yeshiva sponsor a Shabbat at Lakewood experience? Why not have an Agudah shabbaton once a year?
F. Smiles
YC '85 RIETS '90
Dear Sir:
It was most saddening to read the editorial regarding the Siyum HaShas. I have no knowledge of the young man who wrote it, but it brings up several issues which are crucial to understanding the inability to communicate with people of different hashkofos. To begin with, there is a certain lack of gratitude that is apparent in his tone and writing which needs to be pointed out. Agudath Israel was the sponsor/organizer. It was their "party". The themes of Agudath Israel center around the holiness of prior gedolim. Their functions always give the proper respect to those whose shoulders we stand on. Additionally, the idea that too much was referenced to the Holocaust shows exactly why not enough is being done to educate young people today to understand what was lost. The author's admission that he feels no loss is a shame. If he feels that way about something that at least affected his grandparents, I can only imagine what his Tisha B'Av is like. In conjunction to his lack of understanding regarding Klal Yisroel's loss, his lack of appreciation for the Keil Malei goes hand in hand.
The writer echoed a sentiment that was quite widespread- the Yiddish speeches for the most part were awful. The speeches would have been awful in English as well, so his inability to speak or understand Yiddish shouldn't make him feel bad. Where he misses the point is that Yiddish is still a language used in yeshivas throughout the world. I am somewhat out of touch with the current status of YU shiurim, but in my day there were always shiurim in all three languages. This was a result of Dr. Belkin's efforts to save some of those very Rabbonim whose lives and yeshivos were destroyed by the Holocaust. He allowed them positions of respect at a cost to the Yeshiva student body, but purchased merit beyond price for rebuilding their shattered lives. I bring this up because one of the Yiddish speeches was quite heartrending regardless of what he said, that of the Mesayem, Rav Stein. I have spoken to many who also didn't understand the Yiddish, but looked at the face a man who has given his life to replace that Mesorah that was broken, torn, and murdered. Here to stand before 100,000 fellow Jews, who came to give kavod to Torah. Allow your heart to listen and reflect on the life of a 90+ year old man, in what is probably the culmination of a dream to see a vibrant Torah in America.
You do your father an injustice by reviewing such an event as if it were like the other times you visited such arenas or theaters. The greatness in Daf HaYomi is that people like your father, and my father-in-law, who with minimal or no background in Torah can link to and give kavod to limud haTorah is a debt we all owe Agudah. Instead of bemoaning why it wasn't more designed to give you pleasure, open your mind to appreciate a different world.
Irwin Lowi
JSS, YC '76
Dear Sir:
Before I recommend that Menachem Wecker go out and buy Modern Manners: An Etiquette Book for Rude People ($9.75 on Amazon.com), I must say that as an Observer staff writer, Stern student, and young woman, I was insulted on all three fronts by Mr. Wecker's editorial. He insinuated that The Observer was smug, outrightly said it contained a "blizzard of grammatical errors," and denigrated the articles of the editors-in-chief. I'm sorry, but what I believe is smug and inane here is Mr. Wecker's attack on The Observer. I am not sure whether this truly nasty piece is indicative of Mr. Wecker's personality or because he hoped to establish a reputation as a chauvinistic he-man, but whatever the case, I would just like to point out that if he is going to refer to Observer writers in quotations, meaning he thinks us anything but, he must include himself in the same category. "Many professors who have taught midtown told me that the quality of education is! much better uptown"- I'm sorry, can professors teach a portion of the city? If he is so intent on proper English (evident by the fact that he berates one editor-in-chief for having a less than perfect sentence), he should have said taught at midtown, or at the midtown campus. He also should have quoted actual sources, rather than simplistically say "many professors have told him". Additionally, to imply that Stern College is nothing but a finishing school is utterly ridiculous- perhaps that used to be true, but the quality of education here at Stern is such that it allows for an astronomically high rate of admissions to graduate schools. We couldn't have done that simply by spending our time with shoes and makeup. Talk about gross generalizations. And calling Stern College students "girls" while asserting that YC students are "men" is blatantly misogynistic- I venture to say the Rav would blush that one of his students was acting like, well, such! a little boy. Mr. Wecker's piece was mean-spirited, chock full of inaccuracies, and just plain self-righteous.
Tova Stulman
SCW '08
Dear Sir:
It is with great disappointment and quite a bit of anger that I direct my words towards a most objectionable piece of writing in the latest issue of The Commentator (Menachem Wecker's "Is The Commentator the Better Paper?"). I will leave it to others to discuss the ironic fact that Mr. Wecker, while purporting to discuss the journalistic value of The Observer in comparison to that of The Commentator, fails to stick to his subject matter and instead digresses in a most unprofessional manner. Instead, I would like to take issue with a number of Mr. Wecker's choice statements about the women (no, Mr. Wecker, not the "girls") and education at Stern College.
Mr. Wecker states that "Stern College shortchanges its students of a real education." It seems that Yeshiva College has shortchanged one of its students of a lesson in tact, not to mention instruction with regard to fact checking. My own experience will prove Mr. Wecker dead wrong; for the past three years, I have been the recipient of an excellent education. I have studied under top-notch professors in such subjects as English Literature, Bible, Jewish and General Philosophy, to name a few. I'm not quite sure what the difference is between my education and Mr. Wecker's "real" education. If, however, Mr. Wecker, in the course of his disorganized rant, means by this quote that Yeshiva University "shortchanges" Stern College students of comparable resources that seem to flood into Yeshiva College, then I agree. May I suggest that Mr. Wecker rectify his grievous misdeed of an article by broaching, in the next issue of The Commentator, this subject of an unequal divvying of resources, by utilizing factual information to rationally and constructively criticize the disproportion, suggesting a means for its rectification.
With regard to Mr. Wecker's inflammatory and untrue statement that "[Stern College] was founded largely to give the girls something to do while the men are in school uptown, to prepare the students for marriage and to bide them time," it seems that Mr. Wecker both neglected to do his research, as well as to differentiate between the expectations of women in 1954 and expectations of women today. Mr. Wecker's implication that my peers and I are at Stern to dally away our days in preparation for marriage angers and frightens me to no end. I was unaware that such archaic views of women are still at large today, and among students at a modern university. I shudder to think that Mr. Wecker may have like-minded friends.
What I find most disturbing about this article is that it was actually published. Shame on you, the editors of The Commentator, for exercising such bad judgement in allowing such an unprofessional and distasteful article to be replicated and disseminated via a publication that emanates from such a reputable institution such as Yeshiva University. I tremble at the thought that perhaps you published it because Mr. Wecker's thoughts about the students and education at Stern College echo your own, and because you believe that Mr. Wecker's thoughts echo those of the rest of your peers at Yeshiva College. I certainly hope I'm mistaken.
Tamar Warburg
SCW '05
Dear Sir:
Allow me to say that I was appalled by the unnecessarily scathing remarks found in Menachem Wecker's article, Towards an Effort of Journalistic Mercy that Simply Won't Work. Mr. Wecker mocked The Observer's writers and editors, stating that the content of their paper is pointless and stupid and that their grammatical skills are sorely lacking. He did so not with an attitude befitting a YU student critiquing fellow students, but with a sardonic, snooty tone. I felt sickened by this display of insensitivity.
At the end of his column, he tried to justify his harsh critique by saying: "But if you think that this column has no purpose other than to point out that [The] Observer writers can't write, you are dead wrong." He then continued to sarcastically list his grievances with Stern College in general. I am sorry, but he failed to convince me. If Menachem wants to write an article suggesting improvements for Stern College, then should go right ahead, but he does not need to spend the first two thirds of it insulting their newspaper and the women who write for it. Furthermore, it is alright, and at times even admirable, to write constructive criticism; however, his article was inappropriate, malicious, and showed no regard for the feelings of the authors whom he either identified by their position at The Observer or explicitly named. His article seems to adhere to the motto, "If you don't have anything nice to say, say something mean."
Based on Mr. Wecker's repeated references to an Observer column that criticized The Gates, an art project by Christo and Jeanne-Claude recently displayed in Central Park, I would venture to say that he was upset by an alternate opinion of an exhibit that he held in such high esteem. He should learn to deal with it -- not everyone shares his highly refined taste in art. I think a far better approach would have been to write an article about his view of Christo's work. I'm sure that, like many of his previous articles, Commentator readers would have found it informative and refreshing.
One of Wecker's main points, complete with examples, was that The Observer is always riddled with grammatical errors. Upon proofreading his column, I found numerous examples of incorrect punctuation, as well as several wording, stylistic, and typographical errors. In the spirit of practicing what I preach and due to limited space, I have chosen not to include specific examples of Mr. Wecker's mistakes, but rest assured, I was tempted.
I feel that Menachem's article sullies the reputation of The Commentator as a fair, informative, and above all conscientious publication. Although he may have many real qualms with SCW, its bureaucratic administration, and (what he perceived to be) its objective, Menachem unfairly attacked the women who use much of their free time to write for and edit The Observer. His frivolous remonstrations reveal his clear prejudices against the school. I feel that such an article demonstrates a severe lacking in ethics for a journalist, especially one from Yeshiva.
When writing such a pointedly derisive article, regardless of whether he deemed it so, Menachem comes off as haughty and immature; he seems almost like a schoolyard bully. If that was his intention, then he succeeded admirably. If, however, he only meant to be facetious, and took it a little too far (which I hope is the case), then I wanted to inform him that there are people who are affected by his words. As a journalist representing the student body at YU, he is morally obligated to utilize proper discretion, for there are methods of writing about problematic issues, in which criticism is inevitable, that are far more conducive to improvement and do not needlessly humiliate the people being critiqued. I look forward to future articles in The Commentator exemplifying the ideals of Yeshiva University.
Daniel Wiesenfeld
YC '07
Dear Sir:
Thanks for giving your loyal readership a sneak preview of the coming Purim Edition with Menachem Wecker's satirical column in your last issue. After reading about some of the worrisome things that you have been reporting on recently, it was a nice change of pace to read a well written tongue-in-cheek article.
Shai Barnea
YC '03
Dear Sir:
If fashion inserts and decrying Christo for lack of social responsibility is the substance of the Stern College Observer then Wecker may very well be on target. But don't blame the messenger. Yeshiva University's rightward plunge easily could have relegated Stern College into a harem for frum women until the boys uptown need wives. The tragedy lies not in the characterization but in the dashing of legitimate feminist hopes that Modern Orthodoxy should be championing.
Richard McBee
New York, NY
[Ed: Mr. McBee writes a weekly critical review column in The Jewish Press.. His artwork is in many private collections throughout the country.]
Dear Sir:
As faculty members who teach at both Stern and Yeshiva Colleges, we were disturbed to see the assertion in the article "Towards an Effort of Journalistic Mercy..." (Commentator, March 8, 2005) that "Many professors who have taught midtown told me that the quality of education is much greater uptown." That has certainly not been the case in our experience. We usually teach from the same syllabus at both campuses, so that our students are getting an identical education. Nor have we seen any difference in the quality of our students. Gender plays no role in the distribution of intellectual excellence at the undergraduate colleges of Yeshiva University. The brilliant women are just as brilliant as the brilliant men; the distinctions that do exist are much greater within our classes at Stern and Yeshiva than they are between them.
Ruth A. Bevan, David G. Petegorsky of Political Science
Shalom Carmy, Assistant Professor of Bible
Bryan Daves, Assistant Prof. of Political Science
Jeffrey Freedman, Associate Professor of History
David Glaser, Visitng Assistant Professor of Music
Hadassa Kosak, Associate Professor of History
Joanne Jacobson, Associate Professor of English
Aaron Levine, Samson and Halina Bitensky Prof. of Economics
Richard Nochimson, Professor of English
Ellen Schrecker, Professor of History
William Stenhouse, Assistant Professor of English
Manfred Weidhorn, Abraham S. and Irene Guterman Chair in English Literature
The Editors Respond:
Over the past three weeks we've received a great deal of feedback responding to the column under discussion. It's important for us, however, to underscore a crucial distinction that many of our readers have failed to comprehend. Personal columns do not represent the institutional policy of The Commentator; all opinions, except for the staff editorials, are the expressed opinion of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect those of the editorial board, the student body, faculty, or administration of Yeshiva University. Nevertheless, we realize the said column may have been unnecessarily offensive. We will strive to be more sensitive in the future.
Frat Pack
Dear Sir:
To the casual observer, Zev Nagel's cover story on fraternity life ("Fraternity-Wannabes Pose Challenges for Wilf Campus," March 8) uncovered a scandalous situation brewing on the Wilf Campus. In The Commentator's view, IHPi is nothing more than a group of boisterous frat boys engaging in "riotous indulgence of their ids" through their "hedonistic partying," going as far to accuse them of "public defamation of Yeshiva University." However, while Mr. Nagel may be a fine journalist, in this matter, he has shown an extremely unprofessional disregard for the facts which is highly inappropriate for any journalist, much less the editor in chief of The Commentator.
Allow me to address some falsehoods contained in the article. Let me begin by addressing the assertion that IHPi has "yet to speak with Vice President for Student Life Hillel Davis" about the issue of a fraternity on campus. In point of fact, I personally e-mailed Dr. Davis with regard to this issue. Dr. Davis chose not to meet with me, which is certainly his prerogative. This hardly constitutes a refusal on my part to meet with him.
As for the contention that IHPi has not cooperated with regard to Senior University Dean for Student Affairs Efrem Nulman's concerns about safety and accountability, I met with Dr. Nulman to discuss several issues the University had with IHPi's activities. Dr. Nulman's primary concern was the safety and legality of any activities in which YU students engaged, on or off campus. Whether or not such parties fell under the University's jurisdiction was, to him, secondary to the well-being of each and every student who may have attended. He went through his concerns, point by point, and for the most part, I shared his concerns.
Shortly after my meeting with Dr. Nulman, IHPi began to take measures to address Student Affairs' concerns about student safety. The first step was hiring a professional security guard to make sure no one got out of hand. The security guard's presence was meant to make sure that no disorderly conduct occurred and, by all accounts, he did one hell of a job. The dean's next concern was the alleged presence of recreational drugs at our parties. As anyone who attended the first and second "frat" parties can attest, I personally threw out four different students who attempted to smoke marijuana in our house.
As far as being refused to be interviewed for this article, not only did I not refuse to be interviewed for this article, but I actively campaigned for an interview over two months ago. But no one from The Commentator got back to me. The editors informed me that the "Fraternity" article had been put on hold and that an interview would not be necessary. But nevertheless, an article was printed and insinuated that IHII was unwilling to talk. Indeed over two months ago, I submitted to The Commentator a two-page article outlining IHPi's mission statement. In it, I addressed our raison d'être, as well as our grievances with campus life (or lack thereof).
In response to Mr. Nagel's contention that the frats "refuse to publicly make a case for their organizations," I can ask only this: What could be more public than publishing our goals? I challenge The Commentator to print my article outlining IHPi's agenda.
But while I may be able to forgive Mr. Nagel and The Commentator for these first two oversights (namely, my refusal to meet with Vice President Davis and our unwillingness to cooperate with Dean Nulman), it is his third oversight that is the most deplorable. For him to misrepresent IHPi's dealings with school faculty could possibly (though it is highly unlikely) be chalked up to a lack of leg work and fact-checking on his part. However, to print OUTRIGHT LIES regarding our "refusal to be interviewed for this article" is a complete lack of journalistic integrity that is unbecoming of a staff writer, much less the editor of the paper.
Not only did I not refuse to be interviewed for this article, but I actually actively campaigned for an interview over two months ago. At that time, Mr. Nagel informed me that the "Fraternity" article had been put on hold and that an interview would not be necessary at that time. He further assured me that he would not 'print anything without letting (me) tell (my) side of the story first.' It sounds to me like his March 8 cover story did just that, as he certainly did not interview me nor inform me of its pending publication.
Through this entire affair, I have been upfront with the University about my involvement with IHPi and will continue to be so. I trust that the knowledgeable and educated readers of The Commentator will view this situation with an open mind, and reserve judgment until all the facts have been allowed to come out.
Gideon Shiffman
Founding Member, IHPi
SSSB '06
[Ed: The Commentator was forwarded an email from the leadership of IHPi which was originally sent to Dr. Hille Davis, Vice President of University Life, on Sunday, October 31, 2004. Additionally The Commentator has printed their statement at http://www.yucommentator.com/news/2005/03/29/Opinion/Ihpi-Statement.Of.Aims-906788.shtml ]
Cardinals Redux: Combating Prejudice
Dear Sir:
Rabbi Lamm is certainly correct in welcoming the Roman Catholic Cardinals to Yeshiva University and explaining that Christians today do not fall under the halakhic category of idol worshippers ("Cardinals Visit Again Amid Student Pressure"). He is also correct that we Orthodox Jews--indeed all morally serious people--should not "judge the world by instincts."
However it is not our instincts that are the source of attitudes of fear and demonization of others. No one is born to hate or hold prejudices. People learn these attitudes from formal and informal education. For millennia, the Catholic Church taught Catholics an attitude of contempt toward Jews and Judaism. Thank God today the Church has repudiated these old theologies. Most importantly, the Church has committed itself to re-educating Catholics and ridding them of any anti-Judaism and anti-Semitic animus. The Church has a long way to go in meeting this goal.
Similarly, we Jews have been taught to be hostile to Christians. In the past, such Jewish hostility may have been warranted as a defensive reaction against hateful Church actions against Jews. Today, however, when the Catholic Church and its representatives who come to Yeshiva seeking friendship have committed themselves to civility with the Jews and Judaism, our learned attitudes of hostility are misplaced and unjustified. We need recognize this profound change in circumstance and re-educate ourselves as Jews, refocusing our concerns from our painful past to the good of Jews today and in the future. Yeshiva should lead this educational effort away from prejudice and denigration of outsiders to an honest understanding of the world around us. This necessary Jewish re-education also has a long way to go.
Rabbi Dr. Eugene Korn
Bergenfield, NJ
[Ed: Rabbi Dr. Korn is the editor of The Edah Journal].
Dear Sir:
I am amazed every time I log onto The Commentator website, because the more things change, the more they stay the same. Yeshiva is a world-known university, where the synthesis of Torah and Madda has produced generations of well educated, well read orthodox Jews, who have enhanced our standing in the "goyisha" world. Now a group of OUR fundamentalists, no different than the Taliban of Afghanistan or the Shiite extremists of Iraq, protest a courtesy visit by the clergy of another religion. Now I understand that good Jewish boys are not blowing up cars, or killing anyone, but do they understand that they are members of a university community, not a shtetl, participants in a wonderful educational system that is the envy of all and not participants in a post-graduate high school?
Jeffrey Krantz, D.D.S.
YC '76
Six Kicks, Five Doesn't Jive
Dear Sir:
I write in response to the three letters you printed in the previous edition of The Commentator, which disagreed with the editorial regarding a six-semester residency requirement. The students who wrote these letters each miss several important points.
In the financial realm, students forget that if they were to attend another comparable private college (which would not accept credit for their year in Israel), they would be paying four years of tuition - thus, by attending YU for six semesters and then adding the year of tuition for yeshiva in Israel (which, at least in my experience at Har Etzion, was about 1/2 to 1/3 of a year's tuition, room, and board at YC), they are still saving significantly.
To accuse YU of a "money grab" is simply ridiculous - by requiring students to remain on campus YU increases its own operating costs - more students mean more classes and more professors, facilities are used, etc. Students need to recognize that tuition alone doesn't cover the cost of their educations, and I'd guess that each additional student makes the university's financial burden increase rather than decrease.
I disagree with Benyamin Moalem's claim that this policy will cause "the students at YU [to]...feel that their university is a prison." I don't see anyone being forced to do anything. The university is within its full rights to enforce certain requirements before allowing students to graduate; students are within their rights to leave the college at any time - if you don't like the rules (or the educational philosophy they reflect), feel free to find another university that is more to your liking. Your degree at YC or SSSB is not something you are entitled to; it is something you earn.
Finally, and most importantly, each of the three writers claims that if a student can complete the course requirements in five semesters, why stick around for six. First, I disagree with the notion that one can receive the same education by taking 17 credits for each of 5 semesters as he can by taking 14-15 credits for each of 6 semesters. Having had both 14 credit and 17 credit semesters myself, I am certain (and this is perfectly logical) that I had more time to dedicate to each class when I took a lighter course load than when I took a heavier one. When I took only 14 credits, I had a much easier time keeping up with readings, homeworks, etc.
Additionally, these students reflect that attitude that taking an extra class to satisfy intellectual curiosity, knowing full well that the class doesn't fulfill a requirement and the class isn't needed to reach the required number of credits to graduate would be a terrible thing. Maybe other students have no problem juggling 17.5 credits, a Judaic studies program, and a few extra-curriculars. So take an extra semester - a few courses that look interesting, a minor or a second major. It wouldn't kill you.
I can't challenge the claim that "I received a quality education and experienced tremendous personal growth in the five semesters I spent on campus," but I disagree with the sentiment that "An extra semester on campus would not have educated me any more than the five semesters I spent on it receiving my education." If the first five semesters were so good, I fail to understand how the sixth will be completely worthless.
Kudos to the editors for standing behind our administration on this important issue.
Avi-Gil Chaitovsky
YC '06
Where Should Rabbis Draw the Line?
Dear Sir:
In his article, "The Pulpit and Da'at Torah," Shaya Lerner displays a fundamental lack of understanding of Judaism. Unlike Christianity, Judaism does not recognize the idea of "Render unto G-d what is G-d's and render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's." Judaism encompasses all of life and has an "opinion" on every aspect of life. Although discovering Torah's viewpoint on every issue is not easy, the implication isn't that people shouldn't try. Rabbis, being the leaders of the Jewish people, should, to the best of their ability, endeavor to discover those "opinions" of Torah and share them with the masses. Relegating religion to the private "spiritual" sphere is to make Judaism irrelevant to this world, a position I might expect someone from the Yeshiva world to make, not someone from Yeshiva University.
Elliot Resnick
Yeshiva College '05
At Least They Let YOU in the Building
Dear Sir:
I just read "At Least They Let Me in the Building: A Siyum HaShas Perspective" by Etan Bednarsh and have a question for you. Why doesn't Yeshiva or one of the students invite more of the Agudah Gedolim to speak at Yeshiva? That way, you could meet them more than once every seven or so years. Isn't part of the Yeshiva experience seeing the broad range of orthodox scholars and not just your own crowd?
Why doesn't Rav Matisyahu Solomon of Lakewood come to Yeshiva at least once a year, or why doesn't Yeshiva sponsor a Shabbat at Lakewood experience? Why not have an Agudah shabbaton once a year?
F. Smiles
YC '85 RIETS '90
Dear Sir:
It was most saddening to read the editorial regarding the Siyum HaShas. I have no knowledge of the young man who wrote it, but it brings up several issues which are crucial to understanding the inability to communicate with people of different hashkofos. To begin with, there is a certain lack of gratitude that is apparent in his tone and writing which needs to be pointed out. Agudath Israel was the sponsor/organizer. It was their "party". The themes of Agudath Israel center around the holiness of prior gedolim. Their functions always give the proper respect to those whose shoulders we stand on. Additionally, the idea that too much was referenced to the Holocaust shows exactly why not enough is being done to educate young people today to understand what was lost. The author's admission that he feels no loss is a shame. If he feels that way about something that at least affected his grandparents, I can only imagine what his Tisha B'Av is like. In conjunction to his lack of understanding regarding Klal Yisroel's loss, his lack of appreciation for the Keil Malei goes hand in hand.
The writer echoed a sentiment that was quite widespread- the Yiddish speeches for the most part were awful. The speeches would have been awful in English as well, so his inability to speak or understand Yiddish shouldn't make him feel bad. Where he misses the point is that Yiddish is still a language used in yeshivas throughout the world. I am somewhat out of touch with the current status of YU shiurim, but in my day there were always shiurim in all three languages. This was a result of Dr. Belkin's efforts to save some of those very Rabbonim whose lives and yeshivos were destroyed by the Holocaust. He allowed them positions of respect at a cost to the Yeshiva student body, but purchased merit beyond price for rebuilding their shattered lives. I bring this up because one of the Yiddish speeches was quite heartrending regardless of what he said, that of the Mesayem, Rav Stein. I have spoken to many who also didn't understand the Yiddish, but looked at the face a man who has given his life to replace that Mesorah that was broken, torn, and murdered. Here to stand before 100,000 fellow Jews, who came to give kavod to Torah. Allow your heart to listen and reflect on the life of a 90+ year old man, in what is probably the culmination of a dream to see a vibrant Torah in America.
You do your father an injustice by reviewing such an event as if it were like the other times you visited such arenas or theaters. The greatness in Daf HaYomi is that people like your father, and my father-in-law, who with minimal or no background in Torah can link to and give kavod to limud haTorah is a debt we all owe Agudah. Instead of bemoaning why it wasn't more designed to give you pleasure, open your mind to appreciate a different world.
Irwin Lowi
JSS, YC '76