We've held off on this one because it seemed that the point would be too obvious to merit a spot on this page, which is generally reserved for more innovative observations. Apparently, we were wrong.

It seems that the search process for Yeshiva's next President has gotten off to a rocky start. Legally, Yeshiva University, like any other institution, belongs to its Board of Trustees. And our Board has done a fine job in continuing our rise to the ranks of the elite. Practically, however, for Yeshiva to maintain that status and, more importantly, its place at the helm of Modern Orthodoxy, Yeshiva, unlike any other institution, must remain a possession of the broader community. And, Yeshiva's President must - to carry such a mandate - be selected by a process that most of all boasts sincere breadth. That's sincere breadth. Keyword: sincere.

Putting together an expansive advisory panel, whose sole charge is "formulating the role of a President," and leaving the real choice of a President in the hands of parochial search, selection, and approving committees that consist almost exclusively of Board members falls far short of that goal. The businessmen who sit on the Board, as in the 1976 search, deserve to play a role in the process; but so do rebbeim (after-all we are choosing their Rosh Yeshiva), faculty members (it's their president too), students, and members of a community that we hope to lead in the coming years.

And the quest for breadth is not one that is solely goal-oriented. Even if our Board were to select the very candidate that is coincidentally selected by the host of constituents that currently stands outside the true search process, the process set down by Chairman Beren will serve as one of the few statements that Yeshiva makes to its constituents regarding the relationship that we sustain with them. We lead by example; they look to us because we care about them. That assumed statement is in danger if the unique opportunity to make it is squandered.

There, we said it. If we were right in assuming this point obvious, we apologize for the superfluity. Forgive us; we figured it's better to err on the side of caution.