Title: From the Archives of the Commentator (April 15, 1970; Volume 35 Issue 13)
Author: Andrew Geller
Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik has called on the Yeshiva administration to reverse the trend toward secularization upon which it has embarked. His address, delivered during the celebration of Chag Hasemicha on April 12, was seen by many as one of the most significant in Yeshiva’s eighty-five year history.
The Rav defined three specific problems which he fears may soon face the undergraduate divisions if Yeshiva College remains a secular institution. He cannot believe that a non-sectarian school will be able to enforce religious observance in its dormitories. He fears that a rebellious student may soon challenge the college’s requirement of attendance in a religious division, a requirement no longer compatible with Yeshiva’s secular status.
Rabbi Soloveitchik’s greatest fears concern Dr. Belkin’s successor. The Rav pointed out that the religious ideology which is the backbone of Yeshiva today is due to a great extent to President Belkin. But since all men are mortal, he said, Dr. Belkin’s position will inevitably be filled by another, whose competence will not be as great as Dr. Belkin’s. Rabbi Soloveitchik emphasized that the administration cannot allow the character of the entire university to depend upon one man, but that it must be a concrete and legal part of the University’s constitution.
Reaction
Reaction to Rabbi Soloveitchik’s speech was immediate and varied. Dr. Belkin was visibly upset by both the tone and the content of the Rav’s remarks. At several points during the Rav’s speech he interjected denials to accusations made against the YU administration [!!!!!!], but the Rav insisted that he be allowed to speak freely [!!!!!!!].
One member of the Board of Trustees charged that the Rav had chosen a bad time and place for his remarks. Moreover, since the Rav has done little to aid YU’s fund-raising efforts, in was not in his province to criticize the way Yeshiva obtains its money. Even some rebbeim in the yeshiva expressed their belief that Rabbi Soloveitchik had not grasped the financial implications of the situation.
Student reaction was overwhelmingly favorable. Some felt that his complete rejection of present Yeshiva policy made Dr. Belkin’s position untenable and would ultimately force the latter’s resignation. Others were of the opinion that Rabbi Soloveitchik’s personal praise of Dr. Belkin was completely sincere and his threat to leave YU was sufficiently vague so as to allow Dr. Belkin room to maneuver without resigning his position.
The Issue
The issue of secularization has burned fitfully among the student body throughout most of this year. However, the issuance of new catalogues representing JSS and EMC as non-sectarian institutions aroused the resentment of many students who felt the administration was dealing deceitfully not only with Albany, but with its own students as well.
On April 8, four semikha students presented Dr. Belkin with a list of six demands which they termed “imperative.” They asked that:
1) The corporate structure of YU be changed so that RIETS (both undergraduate and graduate), YC, EMC, JSS, Stern and TIW be established as a separate corporation independent of the other divisions of the University.
2) This new corporation be given as assets classroom, dormitory, and library buildings currently used by it as well as an equitable share of the endowment.
3) All new catalogues issued under the pressure of the present charters be immediately withdrawn and new ones stating conspicuously the requirements for a double program be issued as soon as possible and forwarded to Albany.
4) Salaries of the religious faculties be raised to at least parity with those of the college faculty.
5) Faculty councils of the respective religious divisions be empowered to set definitive policy with respect to admissions, curriculum and degree and semicha requirements.
6) The Belfer Graduate School and its buildings should be totally shut down on Shabbat and Yom Tov.
The students, banding together under the banner “Concerned Students’ Coalition,” pointed out that the $300,000 in Bundy funds which the undergraduate divisions would lose if they remained sectarian was an insignificant sum compared to YU’s multi-million dollar budget.
According to the Coalition’s leaders, the six demands were negotiable. They indicated that they might be satisfied with a return to the situation before 1967, the year in which RIETS was separated from the University.
Picket
As no positive response to their demands was forthcoming from Dr. Belkin’s office, the students decided to picket the Chag Hasemicha on Sunday, April 12. This decision was supported by some of the rabbinic faculty and by Rabbi Soloveitchik himself.
At a student meeting on Thursday, April 9, some students expressed the opinion that picketing alone, even with the threat of bad publicity, might not be enough to force a restructuring of the entire University. They believed that only occupation of the college buildings could bring about the changes they had demanded.
The picketing action itself, however, did not receive the support of the entire student body. A declaration of support was signed by the presidents and presidents-elect of JSS and SOY, the president-elect of YCSC, the president of Stern College student council, and the editors of the Observer, the Hamevaser and Hamashkif. Conspicuous by their absence were the signatures of the president of YCSC and the editor of The Commentator. Later, Robert Sacknovitz of JSS and president-elect Robert Weiss of YCSC claimed that their signatures were added to the declaration of support without their explicit consent.
The lack of popular enthusiasm was also evident to an extent when the actual event took place on Sunday. Only 25 Stern girls took part, and of the 200 YC students who marched in front of Furst Hall and the main building, the majority were from RIETS and JSS; few if any were from EMC. Not one member of the YCSC executive council was present.
Even Rabbi Soloveitchik declined in the end to back the pickets. In his speech on Sunday he claimed that he had put a stop to the picketing, and only upon being informed that students were indeed marching, at that very moment did he declare his wholehearted support for “those fine young people” and their demands.
A number of students declined to join the coalition of essentially right-wing students, some of whom had previously been involved in protests not approved of by the general student body. Some who did march did so because of the influence of the Rav’s speech, not because they supported all of the Coalition’s demands.
Publicity
Many of the pickets had opposed publicizing the affair through the news media, fearing chilul Hashem. Nonetheless, the leaders of the Coalition insisted upon obtaining a demonstration permit and requesting a police contingent, moves designed to attract publicity.
Among the administration as well there was some confusion. It was Rabbi Israel Miller, the Assistant to the President, who arranged for WYUR coverage of Rabbi Soloveitchik’s speech, apparently in the mistaken belief that the Rav’s speech would mollify rather than inflame student opinion.
The most crucial credibility gap is the one which seems to exist between the executive officers of the administration and the rest of the University. Rabbi Soloveitchik made it quite clear that he no longer believes the public relations office or Yeshiva’s attorneys. He is not at all impressed by the machination of the “snobs” at Einstein, Belfer, Ferkauf and Wurzweiler and is convinced that we can get along without these graduate schools.
Some doubt if even Dr. Belkin is truly aware of the implications of Yeshiva’s drive toward secularization. Or it may be that he indeed understands the situation, and that he allows it to continue is the greatest tragedy of all.
In either case, until the various segments of the University reestablish trust in one another, there can be no fruitful negotiations within the University. If there are no meaningful discussions, then those issues which face YU in this crisis may never be properly resolved. And if that happens, there may no longer be a Yeshiva.
----------
What would Rav Soloveitchik say to the following if he were alive?
Judge Lynn Kotler of the New York County Supreme Court ruled that YU is not an exclusively religious organization, and as such, subject to the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL).
Following that, Kotler ordered the school whose roots go back to the Etz Chaim Yeshiva founded in 1886 on the Lower East Side of Manhattan to “immediately grant plaintiff YU Pride Alliance the full equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges afforded to all other student groups at Yeshiva University". This made her cousins in Lakewood VERY unhappy!!!!
A YU spokesperson told The YU Commentator that “the court’s ruling violates the religious liberty upon which this country was founded,” adding, “The decision permits courts to interfere in the internal affairs of religious schools, hospitals, and other charitable organizations. Any ruling that Yeshiva is not religious is obviously wrong.”
“As our name indicates, Yeshiva University was founded to instill Torah values in its students while providing a stellar education, allowing them to live with religious conviction as noble citizens and committed Jews. While we love and care for our students, who are all – each and every one – created in God’s image, we firmly disagree with today’s ruling and will immediately appeal the decision,” the spokesperson argued.
On April 26, 2021, the YU Pride Alliance, alumni Molly M., Amitai Miller, and Doniel Weinreich, along with an anonymous student, launched an LGBTQ discrimination lawsuit against the school, its president, Rabbi Ari Berman, and Vice Provost for Student Affairs Dr. Chaim Nissel. The lawsuit alleged that YU had violated its own non-discrimination policies and New York City Human Rights Law. Plaintiffs argued that YU itself had long ago classified itself as a non-sectarian academic institution to collect millions in New York State funds and benefits.
Forty-eight associate deans and professors of YU’s own law school, Cardozo Law, in downtown Manhattan, signed an email to Rabbi Berman pleading with him to acquiesce to the demands of the LGBTQ students and their supporters.
The 48 law professors wrote: “Discrimination against a student organization solely because of its focus on LGBTQ+ issues has no place in a University that holds itself out as a community committed to the flourishing and equal dignity of all its members. We have a collective obligation to ensure that each student is supported and given the opportunity to thrive, and refusing to extend access to University facilities to this student group on the same terms all other student groups enjoy will prevent LGBTQ+ students, together with their allies, from creating the space to find that support. Particularly as our students grapple already with the effects of a catastrophic public health crisis and deepening racial divide, insisting that LGBTQ+ students bear this avoidable additional insult is hard to fathom.”
They added: “Indeed, at Cardozo, where LGBTQ+ students are a vital part of our community, with an active and engaged student group, no such discrimination is practiced or tolerated. We find it unacceptable that our parent University would adopt such a hurtful policy towards the undergraduate student body.”
Yes, Mishkav Zochor is a toeva - but this USA 2022 where toevas are not only tolerated but celebrated.
Plaintiff Molly M. told The Commentator back then: “I want Yeshiva University students, faculty, staff, and administrators to know that I am partaking in this case out of love for the university [!!!!!!!!!]. The institution has so much potential to be a safe, loving, and supportive environment for queer students and allies. This potential has yet to be realized. Hopefully, this case will provide queer students with the club they deserve.”
YU responded to the lawsuit by citing its Torah Umadda mission which emphasizes Torah values. It also pointed out the daily religious services being conducted on its undergraduate campuses. Finally, regarding its “non-sectarian” status, YU argued that it is only used in its admissions policy which does not discriminate against non-Jewish applicants.
