Volume 67, Issue 8

“There is much to be said in favor of modern journalism. By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community.” -- Oscar Wilde

If I were to attempt to write a study on the volcanoes of the Philippines, I would be laughed out of the publishing house because I know absolutely nothing about the subject. Perhaps, after visiting the country and spending endless hours gathering geological data and downloading information from Philippine volcanologists, I’d be able to come up with a manuscript that would at least earn me a second glance. Even then, though, I’d have doubts about the accuracy and scope of the draft, and I’d have to prepare myself for attack from far more knowledgeable scholars.

A few months ago, Naomi Schaefer, a young journalist who’s writing a book on religious colleges in America, spent a few days at Yeshiva University “in order to learn more [read: something] about it.” Hoping to devote a significant chunk of the book to a description and analysis of our institution, Schaefer scheduled meetings with administrators, faculty, and students; sat in on both secular and Judaic studies classes; and read student and general publications to get some sort of impression of what YU is all about. As one administrator told me at the end of her visit, however, “she really knows no more about us now than she did when she stepped into Furst for the first time.” And this purported ignorance is not surprising: it’s exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to gain a thorough understanding of our complex world by visiting it in such a carefully-staged and short-lived stay.

Two weeks ago, a number of articles in two well-regarded newspapers featured Schaefer’s “scholarly” take on YU. Unfortunately, her uneducated perspective – coupled with a clear agenda that was not evident (at least not to me) when she had visited us – tainted what was written to the extent that any reader would immediately assume that YU is crumbling and that the Torah U’Madda ideal (or, in her words, “the centrist, outward-looking vision”) will soon be a thing of the past. In these recent articles, Schaefer describes what are clearly ridiculous, nicely-crafted observations and uses them as evidence for her melodramatic and grossly unsound conclusion.

Schaefer’s “Yeshiva Divided: Orthodox Judaism’s Identity Crisis,” which appeared in The Boston Globe on January 26, disturbed me the most. In addition to its grim generalizations about Yeshiva’s future, the article is riddled with inaccuracies and out-of-context quotes from students and teachers. To note but a few examples:

- To prove that YU is moving strongly in the opposite direction of other religious colleges, Schaefer observes that our new president “will have no authority over the school’s religious curriculum.” This is wrong; one of Richard Joel’s highest priorities is to work with the rabbeim – perhaps even through a well-structured advisory council – and to be involved with the Yeshiva just as much as with the University;
- The author asserts that Stern College “has a less extensive religious program, in accordance with tradition.” Both halves of that statement are clearly untrue (in the first half, one can even say the opposite, given Stern’s wider variety of Judaic studies course offerings for all its students);

- Schaefer explicitly treats two or three unusual cases as representative of what she wants the reader to think is the general environment here: a place where both the rabbeim and the secular faculty expressly champion their own views of the world but openly disregard the synthesis of Torah and madda. She mentions one psychology professor, for example, who is known for being an atheist, but she neglects to specify that he is quite possibly the only faculty member whose heretical ideas are put on public display. Pretending that the professor’s behavior is typical of the entire YU faculty, Schaefer adds yet another piece of “evidence” to her groundbreaking “finding”;

- Apparently, many members of our own community have similar agendas, because “every one of the dozen or so students ... as well as many alumni, faculty, and outside observers” Schaefer spoke to “agree that within 20 years Yeshiva will be completely dominated by the ultra-orthodox.” I don’t know whom she talked to, but she was certainly lucky to somehow find people who played along with her ploy. In truth, no one either myself or my friends know – and many of us have been in YU circles our whole lives – would make such a sweeping generalization. Moving to the right is one thing, but Schaefer’s groundless extrapolation is silly. (And what’s ultra-orthodox anyway? According to her, it’s just those guys who wear black and white – “Oreos,” she labels them in a serious attempt at characterization. Well, I know plenty of “ultra-orthodox” then who serve as some of our University’s best Torah U’Madda products but just so happen to dress conservatively.)

Before I get carried away, I should point out that noticing these specifics is not nitpicking, because many of these remarks stand at the very center of Schaefer’s argument. Because her theory that Yeshiva University’s days are numbered gains its credibility from the inaccuracies of the article, it is our duty to expose that which is wrong, broadcast the truth, and insure that such a distortion does not happen again.

As students familiar with the ins and outs of YU, we don’t need to be convinced of these inaccuracies. If the article had not appeared in such a respected publication, in fact, I’d feel like I’m wasting my time giving it all this legitimacy. But it did. The contents of The Boston Globe – and The Wall Street Journal, which contained a similarly distorted (but not as extensive) perspective by the same author on January 31 that included the observation that “the secular college [of YU] is seen at best as adjunct” – obviously warrant consideration.

Now I’m not usually the biggest fan of PR, but perception is important when we’re dealing with YU at large. Presenting and emphasizing what our institution has to offer is critical for the morale of the Jewish community, and for us as well. True, it’s nice when we’re acknowledged for what makes us unique in the U.S. News & World Report or the Middle States Accreditation Report, but misrepresentations like Schaefer’s will still pop up every once in a while. And we must respond – not only by standing up for Yeshiva’s efforts to keep up the integration of Torah with madda, but by speaking well of our institution, by being openly proud of where we go to school and representing ourselves in a way that makes this clear. 

This is not to say, of course, that Schaefer’s barking up the wrong tree. There are problems with YU. Unfortunately, we do have extensive polarization among the student body, and there is a rift between the Yeshiva and the University that may never fully resolve itself. I would even venture to say that a few extremists here would agree with some of the contentions quoted in the article – those that are not factually wrong, at least. But these opinions are not mainstream. YU is much more than what Schaefer said it is, and it has a very different future from that which she outlined. It is our responsibility to stand up for YU and to prevent, in the words of Oscar Wilde, one “uneducated” journalist from influencing the “ignorant” with an imbalanced portrayal of what we hold most dear.♦

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