December 19, 2011 9:05 pm at 9:05 pm #837079
I know what Rabbi Blau was trying to do. He’s Orthodox. he was trying to do a public event to publicize what Rabbi Aharon Feldman writes in his letter- you can have feelings and as long as you dont’ act on them, you’re still a frum Jew.
He failed spectacularly. Read the press coverage from jpost, Jewish star, and allthe blogs- what he ended up doing was giving the impression that’s it’s ok to be a practicing mishkav-zacharnik. And the entire crowd cheered these people on. It was a massive chilul Hashem, and it should have been done much more carefully. Having a practicing mishkav-zacharnik getting cheered on by the crowd accomplished exactly this. Someone should have made sure the guest list didn’t include this guy. Again, this just doesn’t happen in Touro. Rabbi Blau didn’t tell the entire crowd to cheer on a practicing mishkav-zacharnik. but they did, which says a lot about YU.
The defenders of the Beacon say they are just publishing things which are relevant to the average YU person instead of sweeping it under the carpet and pretending it’s not true. This is what I’ve seen on various Jewish news sites and blogs. The fact that they had this “hava amina”, and it’s well-supported by the anonymous interviewees in the Jewish news articles, makes the loud protests irrelevant. The fact that there are many on the student body who are accepting of these breaches makes the whole place a sakanah for a frum Jew.
Rav Hershel Shachter may be a tzaddik and a major talmid chochom, but if the price of hearing his shiur is YU then no thank you. Touro or Naaleh.December 19, 2011 9:21 pm at 9:21 pm #837080
Health: When I asked you about acting civilly, I was referring to things like calling someone you don’t know an “am ha’aretz.” When I said “stop lying”, I was not denigrating you on a personal level, but pointing out the fact that things which you type are factually inaccurate.
I can call something false if I know it to be false – even if I don’t want to explain it online. Why don’t you prove that it’s true?
“The school follows all policies he instituted even though he isn’t alive.”
Such as? And how do you know?
HaKatan: I didn’t claim that there were any violations of halacha at Touro. When I wrote “blatantly false” I could have been referring to (and I think I was – I’m not sure if I remember correctly) the assertion that Dr. Lander instituted all policies in any Touro school. But, now that you mention it, there probably have been violations of halacha at Touro.
Also, you’re correct: I’m not sure why Dr. Lander is relevant; if someone wants to explain it to me, that’d be great.December 19, 2011 11:52 pm at 11:52 pm #837081
Jothar: What the blogosphere and press decide to do is not Rabbi Blau’s fault. Anyone who was at the event or read a transcript/watched the video of it cannot call it a Chillul Hashem. No one knew that one guy was practicing until he mentioned a reference to it in his speech. No one cheered that. If the mods will let me (which I highly doubt), I will link the transcription of the event and you can decide for yourself if the press represented it properly.December 20, 2011 12:43 am at 12:43 am #837082
Why did they cheer him for anything, considering he publicly and unashamedly admitted at the YU gathering that he actively engages in the worst sins possible?December 20, 2011 12:59 am at 12:59 am #837083
Stop asking questions and making claims against the event. Read the transcription or watch the video. And no one really realized. It was one line that seemed to imply he is actively violating this and he snuck it in there well. Most people didn’t realize it, I think.
So mods, can someone answer. Will I get away with posting the link to the transcription?December 20, 2011 1:20 am at 1:20 am #837084
Maybe just provide directions of how to google itDecember 20, 2011 2:29 am at 2:29 am #837085
I read the transcript of the event. I have no objections. (Maybe I missed something.)December 20, 2011 2:43 am at 2:43 am #837086
So why did even some of the Roshei Yeshiva of RIETS have objections?December 20, 2011 2:50 am at 2:50 am #837087
I don’t know. Why don’t you tell me what their objections were, and then maybe I’ll understand.December 20, 2011 2:55 am at 2:55 am #837088
Shvartza Wolf -“Health: When I asked you about acting civilly, I was referring to things like calling someone you don’t know an “am ha’aretz.” When I said “stop lying”, I was not denigrating you on a personal level, but pointing out the fact that things which you type are factually inaccurate.”
Sorry to inform you, but you didn’t read my post totally. I said you are a hypocrite because you tell me to act civilly and then you call me a liar. What I wrote after that you seemed to miss -I wrote without a SHRED of Proof! If you call s/o a liar and you don’t prove it -just we should take your word for it -this is very far from any civil behavior. Calling s/o a liar is far worse than calling him an Am Haaretz!
“I can call something false if I know it to be false – even if I don’t want to explain it online. Why don’t you prove that it’s true?”
Look – you’re starting to sound incoherent here. You can call s/o a liar without proving that they are lying because they didn’t prove that they were speaking the truth? I don’t think you have any clue what the term “Civil” means and you lack in basic Menchlichkeit!
“The school follows all policies he instituted even though he isn’t alive.”
Such as? And how do you know?”
Such as not being open Erev Shabbos afternoon, Shabbos, Erev Yom Tov afternoon, Yom Tov and the list goes on. I went there as a student.
“HaKatan: I didn’t claim that there were any violations of halacha at Touro. When I wrote “blatantly false” I could have been referring to (and I think I was – I’m not sure if I remember correctly) the assertion that Dr. Lander instituted all policies in any Touro school.”
So who instituted all of Touro’s policies of which none have changed since Rabbi Dr. Lander’s death? You???
“But, now that you mention it, there probably have been violations of halacha at Touro.”
Now you’re starting to speak Motzay Shem Ra! But don’t worry the “Beacon” will condone any of your bad behavior.
“Also, you’re correct: I’m not sure why Dr. Lander is relevant; if someone wants to explain it to me, that’d be great.”
This was already explained twice -once by me and once by Hakatan.
Go back to sleep!December 20, 2011 3:07 am at 3:07 am #837089
Google curious Jew and being gay in the Orthodox world. It’s on the curiousjew blog on blogspot. I have found that it’s one of the best transcriptions and I don’t think there was anything else on the page that would be offensive to this site. I did not read all of the comments so I can’t vouch for them.December 20, 2011 3:38 am at 3:38 am #837090yid.periodMember
One of the reasons various Roshei Yeshiva were against it because of the way it was portrayed in the press and may be perceived, ie the way people here thing YU gave a psak that its okay to do mishkav zachor. This whole forum is proof to the phenomenon of “broken telephone”, but hindsight is 20/20.
Also I know specifically from Rav Twersky’s speech, that with regards to those people suffering themselves, they should not discuss their taivas in a public forum, the way everybody else does not discuss their taivas in a public forum since it is inappropriate. And that when they seek help, which they should, it should be done privately.
If my memory serves me correctly, the idea of being more supportive (in a way that enables these unfortunate yidden to believe it is possible for them to gain control of their taivas and stay frum) is a positive one, but this was not the way to go about it.
I just googled it, “curiousjew” blog that sam2 said to look for also has a transcript of R Twersky’s response.December 20, 2011 3:43 am at 3:43 am #837091
Now, I’d just like to point out, that both of those reasons are sort of “external” reasons. Meaning, that they don’t speak to the substantive issue, but whether it was a bad idea for a different reason.December 20, 2011 3:49 am at 3:49 am #837092
So this active mishkav zacharnik says he was cheered on and given support for his activities. Is he lying?
furthermore, even if the press got it all wrong, the bottom line is the way the event was understood publicly. And publicly, it was understood as the Orthodox approving mishkav zachar like a YCT grad.December 20, 2011 3:55 am at 3:55 am #837093
I think that the public discussion of the issue is a substantive objection. It borderline provides legitimization for it. Hence Rav Twersky’s point. It would be equivelent, as I believe R. Twerski himself pointed out, having a public forum at YU for adulterers to discuss their taivos for other folks’ wives.December 20, 2011 3:59 am at 3:59 am #837094
I haven’t read Rabbi Twerski’s objection. But from yidperiod’s post, it sounded like he was objecting to public discussion of sexual issues. Which has nothing to do with providing legitimization, since there is nothing illegitimate about sex.
Besides, if the public gets the impression of legitimization when it wasn’t intended, that is not a substantive issue- that is external.
(Sorry about the bluntness. I don’t want to be misunderstood.)December 20, 2011 4:19 am at 4:19 am #837095
Health: Let me attempt to address your various points.
I didn’t call you a liar, I said you lied. And (to paraphrase Rabbi M.D. Tendler) that’s NOT an insult; it’s a fact.
I’m not calling false statements lies because I haven’t seen proof that they are true. I’m calling them lies because I (personally) know they’re lies.
I’m glad they’re closed Shabbos and Yom Tov, and I’m glad you went there as a student…um, yeah, I don’t think the post-Lander administration has changed those things.
Dr. Lander is now 96 or so years old and dead for nearly 2 years. The idea that he “instituted all policies in any Touro school” – some 30 schools, at least one of which did not belong to Touro in his lifetime – is, I think, hard to believe.
No, for the most part, Touro policy is not dictated by me.
Also, for something to be motzi shem ra, I believe it has to be false.December 20, 2011 4:34 am at 4:34 am #837096ultrajew94Member
licho’oireh, one could shtel a chakirah in the matziv that you could be meyashaiv a terutz between the cheftzeh of the yeshiva and the gavra of the bochur. limaisah it is dependant on the educational institution which the individual in question wishes to attend.December 20, 2011 4:35 am at 4:35 am #837097ultrajew94Member
sorry not sure if im yeshivish or notDecember 20, 2011 5:12 am at 5:12 am #837098
Shvartza Wolf -“Health: I didn’t call you a liar, I said you lied. And (to paraphrase Rabbi M.D. Tendler) that’s NOT an insult; it’s a fact.”
Your Gaavah is one of the worst I’ve ever encountered. I don’t care if you insult me but stop with the semantics -“I didn’t call you a liar, I said you lied.” If you have a Shred of Proof that I lied -post it!
“I’m not calling false statements lies because I haven’t seen proof that they are true. I’m calling them lies because I (personally) know they’re lies.”
Why should we or anybody believe you that they are lies, without any proof? Your Gaavah at work again!
“I’m glad they’re closed Shabbos and Yom Tov, and I’m glad you went there as a student…um, yeah, I don’t think the post-Lander administration has changed those things.
Dr. Lander is now 96 or so years old and dead for nearly 2 years. The idea that he “instituted all policies in any Touro school” – some 30 schools, at least one of which did not belong to Touro in his lifetime – is, I think, hard to believe.”
Do I care whether you believe it or not?
“No, for the most part, Touro policy is not dictated by me.”
“Also, for something to be motzi shem ra, I believe it has to be false”
Oh, did you actually learn Chofetz Chaim in YU?
Since I know No violations of Halacha in Touro and you have not proved that there was any, just Informed us that there was, acc. to Halacha (You do know what this word means?) you have to assume that there wasn’t any!
Your bitterness towards Touro was caused by what reason? Were you there and failed out? Or did you cheat and get thrown out?December 20, 2011 5:18 am at 5:18 am #837099yid.periodMember
I dont think I was clear then. To avoid misrepresenting what R Twersky said, (my fault for being unclear sorry) please read his response.
I don’t think he was making a chiluk between sexual issues and other, but more that one’s taivas and dealing with them in personal cases should be private matters.
Again, institutions make mistakes, YU readily admits this event should never have occurred. But don’t make it into something it wasnt. It was never intended to provide any legitimization for mishkav zachor. Unfortunately, the event was construed by people to be such, which is partially why the event was a bad idea. Also, hence all of this discussion.
The way all of this came up in the thread was people claiming YU supports mishkav zachor, or at one point did. That has never been the case. Now that that point specifically was cleared up, can we move on from that faulty assumption/accusation and stick to the original focus of the thread. The only thing that event proves that is counter-YU is that the oversight committee in YU made a mistake. LOTS has changed as a result of that event. Admitting fault and learning from mistakes is a maileh; as opposed to ignoring mistakes and sweeping them under the carpet, pretending nothing ever happened, IMHO.December 20, 2011 6:16 am at 6:16 am #837100
Jothar: The way it was presented in the press was before the event. You can hardly blame YU for how that happened. It was an event that Rabbi Blau (and others) felt was very important because Lema’aseh these are Jews that want to be Frum that are pushed out of any Frum society because of something out of their control. Can you honestly defend the Rav who told a 10-year-old that he had tried every Ta’ava in the world before settling on Mishkav Zachor or the Rav who called the 14-year-old (who still had not done anything Assur) “evil”? Can you defend them? And can you honestly fault that person and Rabbi Blau for wanting to make sure that things like that don’t happen again?December 20, 2011 12:47 pm at 12:47 pm #837101HaKatanParticipant
Why is it so hard to believe he “called the shots” at the various Touro campuses? By the way, schools don’t get bought and sold overnight so I imagine he could easily have had some input into that new school as well. Would the YU board and President Joel not “call the shots” at YU satellites as well, like the Torah MiTzion Kollels?
I believe Rav Daniel Lander is the new Chancellor, so that should resolve that question.
I’m sure you know that Lishon HaRa is an aveirah even if true, so your post about Motzi Shem Ra was irrelevant as it’s still assur by your own implication.
Sam2, in case the prior responses have not sufficed to make the point, I humbly offer the following notes on your response.
>> My remarks should begin with these characters at the beginning of each paragraph.
HaKatan: I don’t even know where to begin with this.
>> I was sincerely hoping that you did; I’m sorry to hear that.
>> For instance, I was hoping you might start by addressing the terrible hashkafa these incidents portray and especially the point I made at the end about the objection being the attitude more so than the practice.
You are taking an article by one Overes Aveirah as an indictment on a whole community. I would hope that someone who knows what Jews have gone through throughout our history would be able to see past that.
>> I will begin by reiterating that I know many YU people who are fine Binei Torah, and I am happy to believe the kaf zechus that much of that population is likely tinokos shenishbu. So none of this was or is an attempt to besmirch any person(s), CH”V, but rather to address the ideology and its practice.
>> First, as I indicated, any serious talmid from YU that I have asked about these scandals, simply brushes it off as not nogeia to them, but not that it’s *wholly* non-indicative of the school’s hashkafa. Anecdotal comments bear this out, though that is not proof, of course.
>> As well, from reading the various intellectual pseudo- (and actual) kefirah plus azus neged HaTorah combo pieces that spring forth from various student publications, it clearly is a serious indictment of the community even if not its individuals. I’m sorry that’s too hard for you, but a pattern tends to indicate the underlying reality. When you have one “winner” after another, it *almost* gets to be predictable and, as stated, indicative of the underlying ideology.
Rav Schachter talks about when the cardinals visit and why and why YU lets them in the Beis Midrash. Before they come, someone always announces in the Beis Medrash that they should be ignored and that learning should continue as normal.
>> Seriously? And therefore? The Commentator still glowed how the Cardinals had such nachas from seeing how the talmdim “sharpen their minds” in the Talmud as the Cardinals engaged them in conversation. So maybe Rav Schachter gave some students permission to be Mevatel Torah and those did not have to follow the directive you mentioned?
>> Besides, it’s still a Bizayon HaTorah (and bittul Torah), and my understanding is that the R”Y there were not exactly BiSimcha about it. A Beis Midrash is a Makom Torah, even more so when seder is in session, and not an object of interest for curious observers, not to mention the Avodah Zarah issues. I suppose it made for some good halacha limaaseh shu”t. Hashem Yiracheim.
>> Honestly, you really expect anyone to believe that when a handful of regally attired Catholic Cardinals walk into the Beis Midrash that it will have absolutely no impact on anyone’s learning even if the Commentator hadn’t reported as it did and even with Rav Schachter’s alleged directive?
>> This is another example of modernity *trumping* CH”V the Torah. Let’s be egalitarian, regardless of what happens to seder; we’ll just have Rav Schachter issue edicts that we know won’t solve the issue. I’m sure Rav Schachter did his best so I mean no disrespect towards him, CH”V, but that doesn’t make the issue disappear.
>> As I said in my previous post, Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionists don’t claim fidelity to OUR Torah; MO does, so MO has the uniquely impossible job of reconciling our holy and pure Torah with, lihavdil, the incredible cultural morass around us. This would be extremely comical if it weren’t just as extremely sad. (At least by Rav JB’s times there might have been a hava aminah so it’s understandable why he said what he did, given the prevailing winds at that time. But clearly traditional orthodoxy is quite obviously not a “museum piece”, B”H, despite his prediction to the contrary.)
I cannot answer why Broadway shows are Muttar. I know people have been given Heterim (I also know of several people who bring iPods to listen on during Kol Isha parts), but I do not know why they would be Muttar.
>> People are given legitimate heterim for all sorts of things (within limits), but that doesn’t therefore make it generally acceptable halachic practice for anyone and everyone. I happen not to believe anyone ever received a heter to attend a typical Broadway show. But, regardless, the arguments they put forth for Broadway shows have nothing to do with heterim other than inventing ones that never did, and never will, exist.
>> Please forgive my cynicism here, but should those people be applauded for bringing an iPod for the Kol Isha parts? First of all, the whole proposition of doing so is farcical at best and I’d be embarrassed to try to rationalize such behavior to anyone, even to a school-child.
>> But even suggesting such a “solution” only underscores the point I made in my last post of secular culture de facto trumping halacha. It’s assur, but since secular culture is more important than, er, also important in addition to, Torah, let’s find some laughable pseudo-solution and fool ourselves that we’re following halacha. And we wonder why non-MO disagrees.
>> Second, what about the seviva and the visuals in the theater, even with an iPod to somehow protect against Kol Isha? I guess that’s muttar lichol HaDeios? Or do they not watch the shows and also come in a protective bubble-suit? This is absurd.
>> I assume further that “Uvikuseihem lo seileichu” is also, CH”V, moot in favor of elevating secular culture?
You seem to have a very strong complaint against a group of people and are not giving a real support for your indictment of a large group of Frum Jews, unless you think that Broadway shows are enough to Passul an entire group.
>> As I stated, the whole *attitude* of Modernity trampling the Torah (as most recently indicated in the Beacon incident where they are not even apologetic for publishing such nivalah and azus) is deplorable, even if the overwhelmingly vast majority of individuals mean well, and I would be open to that possibility.
>> By way of example, and not to open another can of worms, just because some people really believe Rabbi Schneerson Z”L is, CH”V, their “Borei” doesn’t make the opinion in any way tolerable. It’s still absolutely unacceptable. So is any intentional dilution of our Torah, large or “small” by anyone.
>> So you have a group that openly ignores their own Rav JBS (and does the same with Rav SR Hirsch – who really has nothing to do with MO – by ignoring his Austritt provision and misunderstanding his whole philosophy to begin with – on top of that convenient omission of Austritt). This group has no shame in publicly glorifying their toeivos and their worst aveiros (the editors had no problem publishing it in the name of intellectual opinion and other non-svaras, so it wasn’t just the baalas aveirah’s clear mistake in writing the piece, particularly the way it was written).
>> Incidentally, going to Broadway shows (in addition to the clubs and other mekomos hatinuf they unabashedly and proudly speak of patronizing and even review in their publications) would likely make them Prutzim BaArayos, which means, for example, that it would be assur for a woman to be miyacheid with (not only 1 man) but even 2+ men who attend these shows, as the heter of 2+ only applies to kisheirim and not to prutzim.
>> This *attitude* is obviously a big problem, though of course each individual stands in his own chezkas kashrus. Regardless, the point is that you’re playing with dinei nifashos, as in ruchnius, by ignoring all this.December 20, 2011 4:01 pm at 4:01 pm #837102
HaKatan: I disagree. I don’t think there is any attitude of modernity trumping Halacha at all. Ad’rabba, when you want to do more borderline things, you have to be much more cognizant of the intricate details of Halacha so you can know what is Muttar and what is not. You’re assuming these people want to do things then search for Heterim. In my experience, it’s the opposite. They know and research what is Muttar and how, and then they know what they can do.
I don’t want to get into an argument about every Commentator and Kol Hamevaser article, but once again it’s fallacious to assume that it represents anywhere near the ideas of the whole student body. As a general rule (but it’s not true about everyone), the more intellectual/academic students are the one who write and the “Frummer”/people who learn more stay quiet to themselves. One of the best passtimes of parts of the Frum crowd is to read through those on Friday nights and laugh at the humor, mistakes, idiocy, and borderline Apikorsus contained therein.
And stop bringing up the Beacon. We get it. The editor’s not Frum. Why does constantly reiterating that make it any more indicative of the Frum people there? One of the founders (the one who originally thought of it and has since moved on) was completely anti-religious. The Beacon says nothing, nothing about YU as a whole.December 20, 2011 4:09 pm at 4:09 pm #837103
Sam: Why would someone quote “completely anti-religious” attend YU, and moreso even publish a periodical under the YU name?December 20, 2011 4:23 pm at 4:23 pm #837104
Sam 2 – Let me ask you this – Is the Beacon a publication of YU?
If it is, why would they allow such a publication to exist which by your admission was started by an anti-Frum person? Did they think that only Kosher articles would be written?
And don’t tell me discrimination -I’m very familar with these laws. This is a Private institution, not a Public one!December 20, 2011 4:42 pm at 4:42 pm #837105
Passfan: She wanted a “Jewish experience”. She was very into cultural Judaism.
Health: No. The Beacon is not a publication of YU. It’s not. It’s a publication by some YU students. Many of the writers never even attended YU (some of the editors may not have either). YU couldn’t stop the girl from making her own website. I guess they could have fought over having the word “YU” in the name but no one really cared and the Beacon was (and still mostly is) considered a joke by most people around YU and is viewed as just a way for a few journalism majors to boost their resumes. No one cared about it and it wasn’t a big deal until this piece went viral. People complained a lot about at least one article every week in the Beacon, even articles about inappropriate sexual things. This one just got a lot of press for some reason.December 20, 2011 4:45 pm at 4:45 pm #837106
Sam: Until this recent incident, YU provided official student funding for the YU Beacon.December 20, 2011 4:46 pm at 4:46 pm #837107zahavasdadParticipant
The Beacon is not a publication of YU, It was run by a bunch of student orginally it had gotten student funds, but it does not.
An Anti-religious person might attend YU because he is anti-religious NOT Anti-Jewish and might want to learn about jewish traditions and spend college time with his fellow tribesman.
Besides YU has an excellent reputation so you can attend and still get into the top law and medical schoolsDecember 20, 2011 4:48 pm at 4:48 pm #837108
And even after the incident, official YU spokesman Meyer Fertig when addressing the YU Beacon incident refused to condemn it, equivocally stating that YU respects their right to publish such stories and saying they should enjoy freedom of speech and press to publish whatever suits them.December 20, 2011 5:03 pm at 5:03 pm #837109
Passfan: Right, because YU cannot stop students from expressing their freedom of speech. That doesn’t mean they condone anything.
Just to clear things up. The Beacon has nothing to do with YU. Nothing! It was never an official publication. All of last year it was just people writing whatever they wanted. This year, since a fair number of students were involved, they successfully petitioned Stern’s student council to receive money as a student club. This means that they got t-shirts and money for pizza once a month or so. It still wasn’t an official YU publication. And everyone knew all along that this wouldn’t last, and that at some point their mission statement of being “censorship free” and not necessarily caring about Halacha would wind up with something happening that would end their status as a club. No one just thought it would blow up this badly.December 20, 2011 5:54 pm at 5:54 pm #837111
Sam 2 – Now after all the posts -why would they give a dime or T-shirts or Pizza to a club/publication started by an anti-Frum person? Again I ask -Did they think that only Kosher articles would be written?
“I guess they could have fought over having the word “YU” in the name but no one really cared”
This I don’t really understand! Why didn’t they care? Why didn’t they care about the YU name being associated with Bizayon Hatorah? Why did they disassociate from them after it made a stink in the rest of the world, but not before?
These type of things just don’t happen in Touro!December 20, 2011 6:01 pm at 6:01 pm #837112
Sam: The least YU should have done was to officially denounce the YU Beacon after they published that. They went in the opposite direction with their official comments of no censorship, freedom of speech, etc. Where were the condemnations for such an egrigious incident? They too have freedom of speech to condemn something they don’t agree with.
If they didn’t agree with it, that is.December 20, 2011 6:38 pm at 6:38 pm #837113
Health: I’m saying that no one cared. No one cared at all about the Beacon. It was just a place where people wrote random things and everyone ignored it. It was completely irrelevant until it all blew up.
Passfan: As a university, the school can in no way infringe upon the students’ free speech. The students themselves and the organization both protested loudly against the article representing YU at all. What more do you want?December 20, 2011 6:50 pm at 6:50 pm #837115
Are you kidding, Sam? I am willing to wager any money that if the YU Beacon published a story of a YU guy who proudly recounted how every Sunday night he hangs a noose on a tree in front of his black neighbors house as he and some of his YU friends yell racist comments, the YU administration would very quickly officially and publicly condemn that in unequivocally strong words.
Racism no but znus yes??
YU also has freedom of speech to register their opposition to something. YU saying they oppose something does not infringe upon anyone else’s speech.December 20, 2011 7:03 pm at 7:03 pm #837116
Passfan: YU did oppose it. They very strongly said that they were embarrassed by it, disagreed with it, and disassociated themselves from the Beacon completely. So what more do you want?December 20, 2011 7:05 pm at 7:05 pm #837117
YU didn’t condemn it in official YU Administration capacity. There spokesman was very equivocal without a word of criticism for the Beacon.
Even if it were milder, and an author published an article in the YU Beacon expressing support for slavery and segregation on buses with blacks in the back and wished there was still a poll tax, I’m quite sure that the YU administration would strongly condemn it in no uncertain terms. Despite the authors constitutional freedom of speech and press to express racist views. Yet for one of the worst averias they do less?December 20, 2011 7:16 pm at 7:16 pm #837118
Passfan: You are making an assumption and I think that it’s wrong. I think that the YU administration, as a university in this country, would say the exact same about any freedom of speech issue.December 20, 2011 7:28 pm at 7:28 pm #837119optimusprimeMember
You said “Rabbi, Dr. Lander A’H, is the one whom instituted all policies in any Touro school. These are all acc. to Halacha. The school carries on his tradition to this day.”December 20, 2011 7:44 pm at 7:44 pm #837120
Health: I guess you have the right to be insulted by whatever you want, but the facts remain: I didn’t call you a liar, I said you lied. (Yes, there is a difference.) And, that’s not an insult; it’s a fact.
You’ve claimed around a dozen times on this thread (by my estimate) that people have said motzi shem ra (in the thread) about Touro. I searched through this thread (when I condemned you for lying) and I couldn’t find one instance of this. Ergo, I’m convinced that you lied.
With regard to the second lie you said, it’s false that Dr. Lander “instituted all policies in any Touro school.”
Also, I’ve got a few questions for you?
1. Why do you think I have ga’ava?
2. Why do you think I attend YU?
3. Why do you think I am bitter at Touro?
HaKatan: I don’t know how much involvement he had at various campuses (I would assume that each campus is basically run by people on campus, but who knows for sure), but I’m quite certain that he didn’t “institute all policies” in any Touro school. And my guess is that, no, Richard Joel doesn’t call the shots at Torah MiTzion Kollels.
Rav Daniel Lander is a person who is currently chancellor of Touro. Dr. Bernard Lander was a different person who used to be president of Touro. I’m not sure what this resolves.
Lashon Hara is an aveirah, true enough. I was responding to Health accusing me of motzi shem ra, which was an inaccurate claim. I think my offending statement was “ut, now that you mention it, there probably have been violations of halacha at Touro.” I’m not sure if this is lashon hara; maybe it is. Maybe I shouldn’t have said it.
December 20, 2011 7:45 pm at 7:45 pm #837121
optimusprime – What you think he okayed it? Secondly, even if he did, does that mean he knew what he was going to speak on?
I said policies, not speeches.December 20, 2011 7:48 pm at 7:48 pm #837122
Sam2 -“I’m saying that no one cared. No one cared at all about the Beacon.”
You didn’t answer my question – I’ll repeat it – “This I don’t really understand! Why didn’t they care? Why didn’t they care about the YU name being associated with Bizayon Hatorah?”December 20, 2011 8:12 pm at 8:12 pm #837123
Seriously Sam? If the YU Beacon ran an article advocating the reinstatement of slavery and the New York Times, CNN, the Slate, etc. were running leading stories titled “Racism at Orthodox University”, when they contacted Mr. Fertig you think he would not condemn the article? He would start equivocating about no censorship, etc? I think we both know quite well that YU’s administration would officially condemn it, unlike their response to the znus article.December 21, 2011 12:06 am at 12:06 am #837124
Passfan: I do not know anything about Mr. Fertig so I can’t say anything. I can say that any institution of higher learning, in such a case, would quote Voltaire: “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.
Health: You’re missing my point. No one viewed it as any sort of Bizayon because no one cared. It was the same as any other random blogger or nutcase saying silly things. No one gave the Beacon any relevance, therefore no one viewed anything they said as having any effect (positive or negative) on anyone.December 21, 2011 2:26 am at 2:26 am #837125
As I said, I know perfectly well what he was trying to do. But in a case like this, where it is apt to be misunderstood, he should have made sure he was super-clear beforehand what is and what is not happening. And he should have made sure none of the speakers were active mishkav-zacharniks. This was a slow-motion train wreck that anyone could have predicted.
The writers of the Beacon claim support from a lot of YU students for their writings. You can’t just brush it off with “nobody listens to them anyway”. It is clear they thought they were representing a large part of the student body. And in fact, this same student body cheered on an active mishkav-zacharnik and gave him support. Finally, the atmosphere inevitably affects people. A school in which a large part of the student body thinks mishkav zachar and gross violations of halacha are ok is clearly not for a frum person. Saul Lieberman was Orthodox too, but nobody would have said to go to JTS.
Mistakes happen. Some of them, like YU, endure for years.December 21, 2011 2:41 am at 2:41 am #837126
Jothar: I guarantee you that over 90% of the YU student body thinks that Mishkav Zachor should never be practiced. And that’s because almost 10% aren’t frum anyway.December 21, 2011 3:03 am at 3:03 am #837127
Jothar: It’s clear that the Beacon wants to be representing a large portion of YU students, not that they actually are or even honestly think they are.December 21, 2011 3:09 am at 3:09 am #837128
Sam 2 -“You’re missing my point. No one viewed it as any sort of Bizayon because no one cared. It was the same as any other random blogger or nutcase saying silly things. No one gave the Beacon any relevance, therefore no one viewed anything they said as having any effect (positive or negative) on anyone.”
If this paragraph is true, why in the next paragraph do you claim they were embarrassed? What did they have to be embarassed about -it had nothing to do with them? It was just some random blogger or nutcase saying silly things!
“They very strongly said that they were embarrassed by it, disagreed with it, and disassociated themselves from the Beacon completely. So what more do you want?”December 21, 2011 3:23 am at 3:23 am #837129
Health: Once it became clear that people actually cared about what the Beacon said (which only started with this article, they’ve had worse stuff before; no one cared at all), YU felt the need to show that they didn’t have anything to do with them.December 21, 2011 3:28 am at 3:28 am #837130
Sam2, the articles in the secular Jewish press and the MO Jewish blogs clearly indicated that many students agreed with the beacon. And the mishkav-zacharnik clearly indicated that many at YU agreed with him. So your claims of only 10% seem a bit far-fetched. If not a a majority, it’s clearly a vocal minority. Whatever the ratio is, it’s large enough to negatively affect one’s ruchnius.
- The topic ‘Touro or YU?’ is closed to new replies.