2002-09-11 - The Commentator - From The Editor's Desk

From The Editor’s Desk

By Zack Streit

September 11, 2002

While ravenously turning the pages of the two-time Pulitzer Prize winner Thomas Friedman’s riveting tour de force, From Beirut to Jerusalem, I was struck by the centrality accorded to what the acclaimed Times columnist terms the “existential crisis” confronting Israel.  The latter half of the book practically ambushes us with allegations that Israel has continually skirted questions critical to its identity like:  Should Israel be a Jewish state or a democratic one?  Should Israel encompass the Biblically-ordained borders? Or are the pre-1967 borders satisfactory? 

While recently rehashing these thorny questions, I began wondering if this mid-life crisis was simply an isolated Israeli malady.  Well, it didn’t take long to stumble upon an answer.  Israel has at least one cohort – us.  And here are the eerily similar questions we must tackle: Can our institution truly function both as Yeshiva and a University simultaneously?  Or, better yet, should it function both as a Yeshiva and a University? 

I believe that in the interest of sustaining our sacred Torah U’Maddah creed we must at least earnestly grapple with these questions, if not answer them completely.  However, when reflecting over the course of the year, instead of discovering the heartening seeds of resolution I encountered question after prodigiously vexing question. 

In the wake of September 11th debacle, I feel confident positing that our response categorically divides us from every other yeshiva.  One of the strengths of a yeshiva lies in its innately uniform student body.  Yet, for some reason, we weren’t even able to amass half of our student population for a Mincha commemoration ceremony keynoted by Rabbi Lamm on September 11th itself (These pages reported “more than 425 students” in attendance.  Last year’s total population was well above 1300 students).

Conversely, when, as a student senator, I worked feverishly to enlist the help of the SOY, YCSC, and SSSB Student Councils to assist in planning a September 11th commemoration event last year, the three respective presidents unanimously snubbed such a proposal claiming that “students were uninterested in such an event.” Call me sheltered, but I can’t imagine student leaders at any other university relaying such a callous response. 

But, what really scares me is the thought that these three presidents were accurately representing their constituents’ sentiments.  If so many students were so eager to plan solidarity events commemorating perhaps the greatest tragedy ever to rock this city, then why were so many high-level administrators livid at student “apathy”?  While I applaud the assorted Israel-centric solidarity activities spawned by 9/11, why was there a paucity of solidarity events germane to New York City? Save for a select praiseworthy few, we should be ashamed of our communal inaction.  When the initial shock subsided, the relative uniformity of our student body should have allowed us to emerge as paradigms of solidarity for both yeshivas and universities alike, but instead of capitalizing on an opportunity, we squandered it.  And our identity crisis runs even deeper than this.    

In stark opposition to the no-holds-barred hallmark of the archetypal ivory tower, Yeshiva censors its speakers.  It’s no secret around the Wilf Campus that Michael Lerner – a Reformed rabbi with extreme leftist political leanings – was relegated to speaking at Kaffeine last year because the university would never condone him on campus (It is a little less well-known, though, that prominent people with religious and political perspectives that would clash with Yeshiva’s silent plurality are also precluded from speaking here.).  Additionally, when the Lubavitch controversy peaked last semester, the Chabad Club’s request to host an on-campus messianic speaker spurred a firestorm of opposition from various furious Roshei HaYeshiva and consequently delayed the event (though the speaker eventually came, he was allegedly warned to watch his tongue).   

On the flipside, however, both the university and the student body at large seem to have no problem with a Yeshiva professor signing what could be construed as anti-Israel advertisement in the New York Times.  If the University is so concerned with what its students are exposed to – as their censorship would seem to indicate – then why haven’t they taken action?  And, if the students are so earnestly pro-Israel – as they claim to be – then why haven’t they engaged in a little saber rattling?  Think of it this way: If a professor at a school for homosexuals signed a gay-bashing article, what do you think the administrative and student backlash would be?

Hitherto my last column, I would have also said that anti-Israel propaganda would have generated a similar hostile reaction on our campus.  But I am not so sure anymore.  I thought that Yeshiva students, upon reading the contents of my last column, would have responded vociferously, viewing such rhetoric similar to the manner in which the University does Lerner.  But that clearly wasn’t the case (perhaps the apathy surrounding 9/11 should have tipped me off…).

And let me be very clear here in regards to what we as students should expect of our faculty:  I am not suggesting that students coerce faculty members to “check-in their consciences” prior to entering Furst Hall.  But I am suggesting two other things.  First, that anyone who voices an opinion contrary to the prevalent outlook will have to deal with the inevitable backlash.  And, second, that there are simply certain things that can’t and shouldn’t fly at Yeshiva based on what can only be termed the tacit regulations.  For instance, I don’t think the administration or the students would permit any explicit, gratuitous god bashing (and by this I mean the variety that is not pedagogic).  Such rhetoric would simply rip apart the very fabric of our University. 

So are we a Yeshiva?  A university?  Or a clever amalgamation of the two?  I used to believe we thought we were the latter, but now I am not so sure.  But this much I am sure of.  We already know what happened to Israel when it decided to side step its identity qualms.  Fellow students: are we really going to let that happen to us?

(All rights belong to The Commentator)

Link to the article on the Wayback Machine