2008 Woodie Awards
Social Mores of Yeshiva College Students
Morris Kalka
Issue date: 4/18/05 Section: YUdaica
- Page 1 of 4 next >
Whatever else they may think of him, most people would concede that Bill Clinton is an astute observer of the American political and social scene. In his book tour, Clinton repeatedly made the comment that "if you think the sixties brought more good than bad, then you're probably a Democrat and if you think the sixties brought more bad than good, then you're probably a Republican." Yes the era called the sixties (comprising roughly the years between the civil rights movement and the end of the Vietnam War) looms large in the minds of those who lived through it, especially those who were college students at that time. What was it like at Yeshiva? Well, along with my classmates, I spent the years 1967-1971 as a student in Yeshiva College. We saw the tumult of the period through the prism of Yeshiva. Was it so different for us than for the students a few miles down Broadway at Columbia? Probably so, but no matter. Yeshiva, as an institution and Yeshiva students as individuals were affected by the societal changes.
It is always a mistake to ascribe qualities to an institution that deny the diversity of opinions and outlooks that make a university such an interesting place to be. I have come to understand, after nearly thirty years of teaching at universities, that what faculty members bring to a university is not just their knowledge of a subject, or even their ability to help students learn that subject; they bring themselves. By this I mean their personalities and way of looking at the world. Students try us (speaking as a faculty member) on for size and see who among us suits them best. So there was no dominant voice on campus but lots of faculty and students speaking and listening to each other. To some it was the Modern Orthodox, Torah u-Madda voice; to others it was the voice of those who were less comfortable with the secular world, while to some it was the completely secular voice of some members of the College faculty. I believe this is a point worth emphasizing, since those who have written in this (YUdaica) series thus far have been men who have made their careers either in the rabbinate or in Jewish communal service. They see their religious training as the dominant feature of their time at Yeshiva. I have another perspective.
It is always a mistake to ascribe qualities to an institution that deny the diversity of opinions and outlooks that make a university such an interesting place to be. I have come to understand, after nearly thirty years of teaching at universities, that what faculty members bring to a university is not just their knowledge of a subject, or even their ability to help students learn that subject; they bring themselves. By this I mean their personalities and way of looking at the world. Students try us (speaking as a faculty member) on for size and see who among us suits them best. So there was no dominant voice on campus but lots of faculty and students speaking and listening to each other. To some it was the Modern Orthodox, Torah u-Madda voice; to others it was the voice of those who were less comfortable with the secular world, while to some it was the completely secular voice of some members of the College faculty. I believe this is a point worth emphasizing, since those who have written in this (YUdaica) series thus far have been men who have made their careers either in the rabbinate or in Jewish communal service. They see their religious training as the dominant feature of their time at Yeshiva. I have another perspective.