What I Think of The Commentator

It seems that there are three main controversies surrounding The Commentator: how it criticizes the college administration, how it criticizes student council, and that it appears to be rather left-wing from a hashkafic standpoint - which according to many, greatly affects its content. Each party involved has responded in its own way, making for some interesting attitudes and occurrences surrounding the sixty-four year old paper. Let it be noted that I am not, nor have I ever been a staff member of the Commentator; however, being a third-party observer to some of the action which has engulfed the paper over the last year-and-a-half has left me with some thoughts which I intend to elaborate below.

The first two controversies are somewhat similar: how The Commentator criticizes the college administration and student council, although the former seems far more prevalent than the latter; in fact, The Commentator has remained relatively silent this year in regard to student council, while appearing to unleash its full fury on the administration. However, over the past year-and-a-half, both have been sharply scrutinized by the paper, and not surprisingly, both have responded rather similarly--by attempting to silence "the most powerful student voice on campus."

We are all familiar with the infamous newspaper-removal actions of the administration, and for those who do not remember, the proposed amendments to the YCSC constitution which came out of nowhere and surprised us all on election day last year by attempting to make student council The Commentator's sole publisher. Such a role would certainly have given student council the power to partially silence, or censor, the newspaper. (Other interesting actions taken by student council against the paper occurred behind-the-scenes; however, they will not be put into print.)

Though the feud between the paper and the administration appears to have died down, and that between The Commentator and student council seems relatively non-existent this year, the roots are most certainly there, since they tend to be omnipresent wherever the domain of authority and government crosses with that of the press. Thus, it is important, in this time of relative tranquility, to elaborate on a few thoughts. Rabbi Lamm did so during dorm talks with regard to criticizing the administration. The topic has been much discussed and elaborated; therefore, remarks on this subject will be omitted.

It is important to note that student council officers ran for office, and in so doing, placed themselves in the public domain, and are thereby subject to public scrutiny (as per their public positions, not their personal lives), just as any politician is. Even I, simply by writing in the student newspaper, am putting myself in the public domain, subject to criticism from those who dislike this article. Within the bounds of decency (which happen to be quite debatable, but which certainly exclude profanities, obscenities, and personal slander), freedom of the press is absolutely essential in any democratic society, even if the press may say that which is hostile. The fact is undeniable--The Commie, as it is affectionately known, is highly critical. However, taking away its voice is far more dangerous to our college community than even the worst trash it can print.

The removal of freedom of the press is reminiscent of the most despised forms of government in the world--communism and dictatorship. Lehavdil, the world has seen time and time again (including present-day Cuba and the former Soviet Union), the negative effects on civilian lives caused by these types of governments. On a much smaller scale, in the interest of the student body, the University must always remain a limited democracy, the limit being the guiding theocracy. BUT--much of the criticism of student council last year, both in The Commentator and outside it, was quite undeserved. Such has no place in journalism or society at large, democracy or not. So please, before putting a critical thought into print, make sure it's responsible.

This brings me to my last point. Often, there are complaints that The Commentator is too left-wing religiously, and contains content which is anti-Torah. While this may be the case, there are many who spend time reading every line of the paper, and then writing a letter to the editor which proclaims it as pure trash, yet they never contribute prior-facto. If one peruses through different newspapers from around the country, it is quite apparent that each has its own opinions about different issues, and obviously, those opinions belong to the staff and contributors of the different papers (since they are the ones writing the articles and columns which contain the opinions).

If more right-wing students contributed to The Commie, it would certainly be more right-wing. Even the editors-in-chief see the need for this. In a conversation with Alex Traiman last year (he was already installed as co-editor-in-chief at the time), he told me that, "Every newspaper, in order to be successful, must reflect, to some degree, the opinions and thoughts of everybody it represents. Likewise, The Commentator is going to have to be more central if it is going to be successful, but it's pretty hard [to centralize it] because very few guys who are more right-wing contribute. There's nothing to balance the paper."

Obviously, this does not pertain to those who have practically no interest in The Commentator. They certainly should not feel the need to involve themselves. But for those who have an interest in reading the paper, and who care enough about it to write in a complaint, I urge you to contribute, and thereby make "the most powerful student voice on campus" more right-wing.