Volume 67, Issue 3

Striking a Balance: Dialogue on a Censured Campus

by Jamie S. Hirsch

As we plod through our daily routine at Yeshiva University – some of us longing for the “college experience” absent from this campus, others yearning for a purely spiritual environment shielded from the “evil” that is secularism – a certain observation creeps up.  For all our differences and varied backgrounds – ranging from the overly conservative right-wing traditionalist to the wildly liberal leftist – the Yeshiva student body’s external behavior is relatively homogenous.  Externalities notwithstanding, the majority of students who indeed espouse identical convictions deem all their peers uniform.

We Yeshiva students live in a ghettoized world, naively believing that our observations are the norm.  As a consequence of our self-imposed bastion, we fail to recognize the opposition that lies both inside and outside our walls; we don’t perceive the manifold viewpoints and beliefs held by others.  Rather, we merely concoct a Jewish Orthodox utopian milieu (“Torah U’Madda”) where everyone ostensibly agrees on the rudimentary tenets of a supposedly established set of Judaic morals and ethics.

Contrary to this complacent feeling, however, the opinions on most college campuses, as mirrored in university publications, attest to extant heterogeneity: Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, secular, conservative, liberal… Discourse and actions on other university campuses accurately reflect genuine diversity.

Many students are oblivious to a conspicuous problem plaguing Yeshiva, and those who aren’t tend to remain curiously quiet on the matter.  The quandary?  A balancing act of dialogue versus censure on the Wilf and Midtown Campuses.  A snug, confined façade subsists, with people observing uniformity and cultural suppression; a deeper look into the cracks, however, paints a far different picture, revealing dissidents to popular sentiment – whether they are students, administrators, or professors and faculty.

This issue threatens to break the bond of an already teetering, diametrically opposed ideology that prides itself on the miscibility between Judaism and secularism.  On the one hand, Judaism – Torah – adheres to a unique dogma, one that presently appears to inhibit dialogue and, to an extent, promote censorship.  On the other hand, this is a [“top-tier”] university – Madda – defined by higher learning, discussion, and shockingly enough, dialogue and disagreement.

We must understand and appreciate the other side of the coin, if only to ultimately strengthen our own foundation.  Proper, civilized discussion is integral to any society (especially one as insular as ours), and making sweeping statements closing the door on that prospect causes more loss than gain.  While it’s occasionally necessary to have a certain degree of censure – extreme examples include preventing an anti-God preacher or pro-Nazi speaker from lecturing on campus – to simply preclude all dialogue, no matter how liberal, without compunction is utterly repugnant.

It is essential that we – as Jews, as college students, and as citizens of the world – tackle the copious difficulties afflicting our society, whether regarding Israel, Iraq, Europe, or the U.S.; economics, politics, health, or science and technology.  Our tendency to crawl into the “harmonized” cocoon of Judaism in order to avoid confrontation only inhibits our own metamorphosis of character.  Yeshiva’s mission, to instill its students with the approach of Torah U’Madda, can only be properly attained if we learn to consider and converse on all aspects of an issue, rather than lowering the gate on evocative discussion.

The framework of the Talmud we study daily intrinsically encourages distinction, difference, and a give-and-take mentality.  Regrettably, we blindly recite the words on the page, with an aversion at internalizing the disparity intended for our lives.  800 years ago, Maimonides’ books – which articulated his drastic convictions – were burned due to his “heretical” views, though we now appreciate his righteous scholarship and courageous vision.  Maimonides was a virtuous rabbi, doctor, academic, and philosopher well versed in the secular as well as the religious.  (Could this possibly be an embodiment of an archetypal Torah U’madda?)

Interesting how Yeshiva has reverted back to an archaic era of ignorance.  Or perhaps we are inadvertently accepting Christianity’s medieval creed: effectively banning questions by allowing clergy to dictate religion.  I’m not advocating a confiscation of religious authority from Rabbis, for they are vital to Judaism.  Nevertheless, conferring upon them carte blanche vis-à-vis all religious and societal issues is problematic.

Though not necessarily explicit, an unequivocally implied decree against dialogue and disparity exists at Yeshiva; an oppressive disapprobation of exchange clouds this particular institution of higher learning.

By being inundated with one train of thought, we are being trained to think identically, too blinkered to see the periphery.  Yeshiva has a narrow path and a specific destination.  There can be no exploration, for it is highly discouraged, in the morning, afternoon, and well on into the evening.

Alas, this does not make a good Jewish doctor, lawyer, businessman, teacher, or Rabbi; and it certainly does not promote Torah U’Madda, the ideal Judaism.

All too often, The Commentator is the only advocate of meaningful discussion on campus.  Although Dr. Ellen Schrecker’s view may be flawed, the Editor-in-Chief, Zack Streit, effectively endorsed a viewpoint that runs contrary to the newspaper’s objective when he insinuated censoring a dissident.  Though I may disagree with Schrecker’s view, I certainly grasp her angle and believe in her unalienable right to voice her opinions.  Furthermore, I must concur with Prof. James Vrettos’ sentiment in response to Streit’s column: Through more open debates and dialogues “an appreciation of the diversity of others and realization of the complexity of the issues can come out and which lead to fairer and more just actions and solutions.”  Translation: Intelligent decisions – both religiously and secularly – are made by knowledgeable individuals and groups.

Promoting discussion, professors are indeed rapidly sending in rejoinders to Streit’s column generating a lively debate, albeit heavily one-sided.  The students are glaringly missing from any sort of dialogue on this issue, both in response to Schrecker’s and Streits’s positions.  Therein lies the problem at Yeshiva – a persistent shying away from genuine dialogue.

It has undeniably become difficult to ignore the many sides of the complex Middle East turmoil, particularly those that promote anti-Semitic ideas.  We at Yeshiva, however, have managed to do a fine job of filtering those ideas that we detest. 

While it is truly disturbing to hear of the many anti-Semitic acts occurring worldwide – frequently by academics and fellow college students – often those opinions considered anti-Jewish are simply not.  Everyone is entitled to his or her own belief, and looking objectively, Israel may not always be entirely correct in her actions.  We as Jews, however, like to think that Israel is perfect, and God-forbid we say anything to the contrary lest we be ostracized by our peers.  (Indeed, as I write this I contemplate the risk that a cacophony of retorts will be directed towards my “detestable” viewpoints.)

The lack of discourse on the Yeshiva Campuses in general, and regarding Israel in particular, is troubling.  Ultimately, you cannot be resolutely entrenched in your beliefs if an adequate comprehension of the existent opposition is absent from your awareness and dialogue.

Where does the Yeshiva stand, what is the University’s position, and [what] do the students think?  Will we try to espouse the complex yet proper ideology of Torah U’Madda through discourse and deliberation?  Or will we sit back, relax, and enjoy the complacent ride until we ultimately plunge into a sea of our own undoing?

The floor is open, the mic is free, the podium awaits.  With open-mindedness, thought, conversations, discussions, dialogues, debates, and symposiums, we can combine two highly repulsive ways of life into one stable element.  Then again, it’s probably easier to wade through a status quo Yeshiva University without any contemplation – though beware, the acidic waters of the world can easily erode an unstable foundation.

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