Volume 67, Issue 3

Picking a President:  Not As Easy As It Looks

By Ariel Brandwein

Five hundred eighty-four days ago, Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm announced his decision to the Yeshiva Board of Trustees to resign from his position as President of Yeshiva University.  Since the day of that heartfelt declaration, the Board has attempted, for only the third time in University history, to find a proper replacement for Rabbi Lamm, a task that has proven lengthy and arduous. 

Throughout the past year and a half, The Commentator has published numerous articles on this issue, whether informative or op-ed.  As of yet, however, no article has clearly illustrated the difficulty inherent in choosing a University president.  This journalist will attempt to delineate the search process, as it has occurred to this day, as well as the difficulties that have plagued those involved.

At first, the major issue facing board members and search committees was defining the role of Yeshiva President, a position that has always been obscurely defined.  A letter sent from the Advisory Committee to administrators and faculty of Yeshiva in September of 2001 defined the role as being an individual of “scholarly Torah erudition, spiritual stature and strong academic credentials.”  In other words, committee members were looking for an individual who would embody the Torah U’Madda ideal that Yeshiva has stood for since its inception.  Nonetheless, the intricacies of this role have never been clearly outlined, leading to confusion among committee members and an added difficulty in nominating suitable candidates.

In fact, the first serious candidate was not officially announced to the public until March of 2002, almost a year after Lamm’s decision to resign.  Dov Zakheim, the Undersecretary of Defense for the United States, was seen by many as having the proper administrative qualities that would carry Yeshiva into a new era.  As rumors of his candidacy spread, however, administration, faculty, and students alike gathered in opposition.  It seemed that although Zakheim possessed superior administrative traits, many feared that his lack of Torah scholarship (as compared with other possible candidates) would split the presidency.  As Lamm decried at last year’s Chag HaSemicha, “If you separate them [RIETS and the university], Yeshiva University is a body without a soul, without a spirit: a corpse.  And RIETS without Yeshiva University as its body is but a ghost.”  Following demonstrations to oppose Zakheim’s ascendancy to the presidency, he withdrew his candidacy for undisclosed reasons. 

            This occurrence was an indication that there was division not only amongst the higher echelon of Yeshiva’s family but amongst its students as well.  In fact, Zakheim’s withdrawal led to even more complications in the presidential search process.  Constituents of the Wilf campus now began to ponder the idea of having two separate presidents; one to preside as a Rosh HaYeshiva and the other to serve as a secular administrator.

            Fear of splitting up the presidency ebbed, however, with the announcement of future candidates.  Among the list were Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, Chief Rabbi of Efrat; Dr. David Shatz, Professor of Philosophy at Yeshiva and editor of The Torah U’Madda Journal, and Dr. David Schnall, Dean of Yeshiva’s Wurzweiler School of Social Work.  All these candidates were viewed by the board of Yeshiva as possessing the necessary qualities to serve as both President and Rosh Hayeshiva. 

            Unfortunately, each of these contenders withdrew his name from the candidacy, each for personal reasons, leading to new doubts in the presidential search:  Would the proper candidate, when found, accept the highly acclaimed position?  The president of Yeshiva University has often been regarded as being one of the most respected figures in the Modern Orthodoxy movement.  As Robert M. Beren, former chairman of the board, once noted, “The University is the world center of Modern Orthodoxy and that’s where we intend to stay.”  Nonetheless, boundless responsibilities inherent in this role may in fact deter candidates from pursuing a career as Yeshiva president. 

            These latter withdrawals, the most recent news in the laborious search process, have forced search committees and board members to return to the drawing board to seek alternative candidates. 

            But aside from the various technical difficulties inherent in this procedure, faculty and students throughout the campus have voiced their opinions as to the obstacles that remain before us in the choosing of a new leader.  Although many chose to speak off the record, this journalist was able to garner some consensual ideas from various members of the Wilf campus.

            One issue surrounding Lamm’s replacement is the fact that many see his shoes as difficult ones to fill.  When YU was on the verge of collapse, Lamm was an integral figure in resuscitating the institution, elevating it to one of the top forty colleges in the nation.  Some feel that committee members are too interested in finding a replacement to equal Lamm’s enormous stature.  However, as one faculty member noted, they fail to realize that Lamm has had many years to mature to the prominence that he now holds.  A senior in YU echoed these sentiments saying, “The ideal candidate may not be out there, but the proper one most certainly is.”  Another student noted that “the person who is hired will step up and meet the challenges that will face him.”

            Yet, some feel that comparisons should not be made between Lamm and any future candidates.  While he was exceptional in some areas, future candidates may excel where Lamm may have been lacking.  For example, one senior at YU has noted that while fundraising may have been an important aspect to the presidency in the past, the University has accrued a great deal of financing to the extent that it no longer needs to focus its time and energy in these matters. 

            Other students and faculty feel that the greatest blockade in finding Lamm’s successor is in assuring that he or she will be respected by the entire University.  This becomes extremely significant when considering that members of the University do not share the same religious ideals.  “There’s a large spectrum of people to satisfy,” commented one student, “and we must understand that this is not an easy task.”

            Whatever the case may be, one must realize that finding a president may take five more days or it may take five hundred eighty-four more days.  Difficult times may lie ahead, but only time will tell when and who will become the next president of Yeshiva University.

What do you think? Click here to send a letter to the editors.
All content is copyright © Yeshiva University Commentator.