Volume 67, Issue 3

From the Editors’ Desk

We like bucking the trend. Over the summer, we spent weeks revamping our Features, Arts & Culture, and Exchange sections. Facing the threat of angering Commentator traditionalists, we also recently decided to change our overall layout style through new fonts and more structured article placement. These developments stem just as much from the mounting demands of the paper as from past Commentator precedents, but in most cases of conflict the former wins out. If we had to choose whether to continue to churn out aesthetically-pleasing newspapers with well-researched and/or investigative articles within the framework of the status quo on the one hand, or to actively respond to relevant issues as they come up even if it means changing what’s usually done and making exceptions on the other, therefore, we would most likely select the second option. It just keeps things more interesting.

 The specific sections and overall layout style notwithstanding, this conflict arises most acutely when we have the opportunity to inaugurate new features or articles that run the risk of undermining or questioning tradition. To follow previous precedents and steer clear from initiating changes that would clearly veer from those precedents is relatively easy and usually safe. But to sit back in this comfort zone often overlooks potentially significant issues that only the derelict journalist would choose to ignore.

Obviously, The Commentator’s nonstop coverage of the search for the next Yeshiva University President is critical to nearly every newspaper issue at this turning point in our school’s history. But our newspaper’s treatment of the Presidential search could have just included frequent updates regarding the latest candidate or the most recent withdrawal, and that’s it. In fact, if we had decided to sit back and continue the trend set forth in The Commentator (and in the Yeshiva community at large, in fact) nineteen months ago when the search began, we wouldn’t be delving into what we expect and what the Yeshiva community wants, all the analysis stuff that normal news articles usually stay away from. Instead, now that we’re “in the middle of nowhere” in the process, with no definite candidates and no scheduled Board meetings, we’ve decided to finally include some nontraditional features relating to the Presidency in this issue (i.e., not just the “what’s been happening” news articles).

The most distinctive change, and probably the most important, is reflected on this page.  In place of the two Editors’ columns, we chose to include an unusually detailed Editorial that outlines the responsibilities of our next President. The Editorial begins by subtly censuring the YU community for not doing a good job in defining such responsibilities, and it goes on to specify precisely what those duties are. It also made a point of noting the silliness of the “but it’s too much for one person” argument by urging Rabbi Lamm’s successor to employ a Cabinet-type system not much different (in nature, not in scope) from that of the US government.

We’ve also incorporated a campus-wide poll aimed at seeing what’s out there, what the students and staff of the University prefer in their future leader. Since the Search Committee’s deliberations seem to be all about prioritizing the various leadership characteristics, that’s what we had our polltakers do. Alongside the poll, we include an informative retrospective on the entire search process up till now with the goal of emphasizing how difficult the task has proven to be.

For the first time in many years, The Commentator has implemented a figurative Israel Corner which will publicize Israel-related news and op-eds from the perspective of the college experience. We plan to work with Yeshiva’s Israel Club and to also keep the students informed as to what’s going on in other colleges with any sort of a Zionist perspective. For this issue, for example, we include remembrances of Yoni Jesner, HY”D, the college-aged Gush student killed in the recent Tel Aviv attack; reflections on recent pro-Israel rallies in New York City and in Michigan; and op-eds dealing with the political ramifications of our foreign relations and how they relate to Israel.

In the future, we hope to explore the perception of students, faculty, and administration at other schools with regard to Israel by analyzing speeches like that of Harvard University President Lawrence Summers’; following editorials on the issue of divestment from or support to Israel; and tracing the activities of pro-Israel groups at campuses throughout the country. In this way, we hope to open up new avenues of journalism that will set the pace rather than keep up with it.

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