From the Editor's Desk
By Shmuli Singer
Yeshiva breathed a collective sigh of relief this month,
when the ABC news reporter departed campus, stymied in his attempt to broadcast
a lurid story of rape and violence. Subscribing
to the ostrich school of crisis management, we concluded that burying our
institutional head in the sand would suffice to negate the entire Purim
incident’s occurrence. “If it
wasn’t reported, it never really happened,” we presumed, as we returned to
the quotidian life of the Torah U’Madda utopia.
We further relaxed, when we learned that the unimportant
incident merely consisted of a garden-variety case of domestic violence.
Visions of headlines screaming “Yeshiva Students Participate in Rape”
dissolved into the humdrum tale of just another sordid aftermath to an ordinary
wild party. Hey, it’s okay if he
pushed her around a little, as long as there’s no threat of a real scandal,
right?
Meanwhile, to indelibly erase all record of the event,
Student Services wisely adopted a “don’t ask, just expel” policy toward
everyone involved, including their roommates and cousins, just to be safe.
By using the facile two-step of indiscriminate punishment followed by
total disregard, we had cleverly solved all of our problems with minimal fuss.
Unfortunately, even the few individuals who did pay closer
attention to the incident and its underlying causes completely underestimated
the scope of the problems facing our school.
One administrator blamed Yeshiva’s admissions policies for accepting
the students involved, while another suggested that the paucity of dormitory
space had led to a subculture of outside apartments – dens of sin where drugs
and alcohol abound. Yet a third
Yeshiva insider blamed the problem on Student Services, citing poor follow-up on
enrolled students. While each of
these suggestions rings true, all of them miss the institutional forest for the
trees.
What everyone from Roshei HaYeshiva to Student Services
officials fails to recognize is that the incident on Purim night represents a
growing disjunct in our undergraduate schools.
In essence, the unspoken problem lies in our very conception of Yeshiva
as a coherent whole. We blindly
conceive of Yeshiva as a single institution, whose constituents march in
lockstep under the banner of “One President, One University, One Yeshiva” to
the beat of exhortations to avoid strife and discord. We blithely ignore the growing reality that two very distinct
cultures flourish side-by-side on campus, intertwined to the extent that the
Purim debacle occurred merely 100 yards from the Bais Medrash.
Of course, an obvious and easy way to bridge the chasm
between the two sides lies in adopting more stringent admissions policies, and
draconian disciplinary codes. These
suggestions fail to directly address the problem, however.
Tightening religious admissions requirements would certainly homogenize
the student body, but would also represent the shying away by Yeshiva of its
responsibility towards students from less religious backgrounds.
When Rabbi Lamm implored newly ordained rabbis at the Chag HaSemikhah
that “no Jew should be given up on,” presumably he was referring to
Yeshiva’s role in education as well.
Furthermore, despite the best intentions of Admissions, such students
could still slip into the system, leaving us with the same polarization dilemma
we face now.
Enacting a zero-tolerance policy towards enrolled
wrongdoers seems little better. Ejecting
more students would do little to solve the underlying cultural problem at hand,
as it would merely take care of a symptom and not the root cause.
For Yeshiva to truly and effectively deal with this culture
that no one wants to speak about, it must finally break the silence.
RIETS Roshei HaYeshiva must come to grips with the fact that a
significant portion of the students in their undergraduate institutions – some
even in their shiurim - are habitual substance abusers, are sexually active, and
are not subscribing to the same values as they are.
Student Services must cease perpetuating the charade that portrays the
overwhelming majority of Yeshiva undergrads as fitting into a normative mold,
and start discussing ways to reach out to those students whom until now it
merely punished. Most importantly,
as a community, we need to awaken to the fact that our role as a Jewish
educational institution requires us to follow the maxim of chanoch le’naar al
pi darko – dealing with different cultures of students using substantively
different and appropriate means.
In this vein, two Yeshiva anecdotes stick out in my mind:
one recent, and one from my first year on campus. At the inaugural shiur of a RIETS Roshei HaYeshiva lecture
series this year focusing on dating, the speaker began by informing his audience
that he had addressed his remarks only to “people who learn in the Main Bais
Medrash and the Annex” – referring to MYP students.
Aside from the questionable assumption about the relative
religious and cultural homogeneity of the student population learning in the
Main Bais, this comment seemed destructive in its exclusion of non-MYP students.
No concurrent lecture on dating addressed to IBC students is planned, and
the lack of regard for such students by this speaker is striking.
Though he may view speaking to a crowd of presumably non-shomer and even
sexually active young men as beneath him, if these students are not his
responsibility, then who is?
On the flip side, I recall being sent as a sophomore
reporter to cover a student workshop led by former Dean of Students Efrem Nulman
on the topic of substance abuse. The
format involved students submitting anonymous questions, which would be answered
frankly by the dean. Fresh back
from Israel, I naively assumed that substance abuse referred to drinking,
tobacco, and of course, the occasional joint.
Many of the questions, however, unabashedly focused on
heroin, ecstasy and ‘shrooms, and Nulman answered each one with the patience
and care of a Rosh HaYeshiva giving shiur.
At the time I was shocked by the brutal candor of the event, but I soon
realized that Nulman preferred that students abusing hard-core drugs at least be
prepared for the consequences of their actions. To my knowledge, though, Student Services has held no such
workshop since Nulman’s departure later that year. Apparently, at Yeshiva, forewarned is no longer forearmed
when there are questions of bad publicity at stake.
If taking the first step towards addressing the cultural
climate that spawned the Purim incident requires that everyone in the Yeshiva
family accept that such a culture exists, these stories delineate the path
beyond such an admission. If we
accept that a significant portion of students is abusing drugs on campus, our
first goal must be to educate them about the inherent dangers of such abuse.
If we admit that students are sexually active, we must ensure that all
such students understand the importance of safe practices.
Ultimately, we must realize that saving lives and college careers is far
more important than maintaining a faux rosy image in our own minds.
The incident this past Purim can and should serve as a clarion call for us in every part of Yeshiva to candidly reassess the way in which we view both our schoolmates and ourselves. Failure to do so could mean that the next time ABC comes to campus, the reporter will get his story, and then some.