▪ YUConnects-to-Go: On Dating and Marriage
▪ How Older Parenthood Will Upend American Society
▪ Satmar shelling out so voters stay home
▪ The kippa controversy: heat but no light on Hanukkah
▪ Pursuing the Meimad mission from beyond the political arena
▪ Brooklyn DA: Any Yeshivah Found Ostracizing Abuse Victims Will Be Prosecuted By Grand Jury
▪ Rabbi who refused to testify freed after seven months in prison
▪ Israel’s Office Depot chain to close on Shabbat
▪ Israeli Postage Stamp to Mark 50th Anniversary of The Koren Tanakh
▪ SALT Wednesday
▪ Nechemya Weberman Found Guilty of Sexual Abuse
▪ R AL Steinman: No to national service
▪ R Y Cherlow calls on Israel to recognize Reform Judaism
▪ A new rabbinic leadership paradigm for a new chief rabbi
▪ The Salary Shande
▪ Is there a place in religious life for marijuana?
▪ When it comes to eating local, kosher consumers are split
▪ Abuse endemic in Jewish schools: inquiry
▪ Only Jewish day school in New Zealand capital closes
▪ Behind Nobel Prize Winner Mo Yan, a Jewish Translator
▪ R E Goldberg: Holy Candles and Holy Guns
▪ A Tepid ‘Welcome Back’ for Spanish Jews
▪ Israeli beverage maker takes on soda super-giants
▪ SALT Tuesday
▪ Prior news & links posts
Rules: link
Yes, I disagree. The Homosexual act known as משכב זכר is a sin, not a perversion (ref: http://pagesoffaith.wordpress.com/2012/12/02/perspective-on-homosexuals/).
Child abuse, as we define it in Western society, is sometimes halachically permitted. Now what?
To be clear, the reason I raised it at all is because the wrestling with teenage boys, as described, smells to me of (hellinistic) homoeroticism — even if משכב זכר never occurred.
It seems non-Orthodox Jews aren’t too happy about women rabbis either: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-do-female-rabbis-make-people-uncomfortable/2012/12/14/aea5c604-3f1d-11e2-bca3-aadc9b7e29c5_print.html
A related issue is the abuse of power by a Rebbe/HS teacher — the power of a teacher, to impose his twisted will on those least able to resist. More important the turning of a blind eye on such behavior by HS administrators for decades. To a great extent the limiting of attention on sexual abuse leaves out the much more frequent sadistic behavior by coaches, teachers. Rebbes etc. This behavior is even more dangerous when done by a charismatic individual.
A common denominator of such behavior may be a sky high ego. Over a decade ago my schul had a Shabbos guest speaker about a month before his sexual misdeeds with teenagers became public- based on a national organizations recommendation-in his publicized CV he listed at the time talmid muvhak of the Rav-the person was bright charismatic but was clearly never the Ravs talmid muvhak. Obviously organizations accepted lies for dynamism.
Current situation involves a major Orthodox organization that had no problem hiring Rabbis who were known by even non Jews in the community involved to have engaged in completely anti-halachic behavior. Long before the current Forward expose I have complained about the scandal that organizations will hire on a different continent Rabbis who acted way beyond the pale and other organizations ave no problem using them as speakers in their weekly Torah lectures. Personal integrity must come before apparent dynamism.
IH: In your rush to approve homosexuality you are missing the point. The Catholic Church, Penn State, Satmar, NCSY, and YU all disapprove of both child abuse and homosexuality (well, actually Penn State probably approves of homosexuality). But in addition, these institutions all care strongly about their reputation. That is where the conflict lies.
“The Catholic Church, Penn State, Satmar, NCSY, and YU all disapprove of both child abuse and homosexuality (well, actually Penn State probably approves of homosexuality). But in addition, these institutions all care strongly about their reputation. That is where the conflict lies.”
Agreed although I might have added a couple of words
The Catholic Church, Penn State, Satmar, NCSY, and YU all disapprove of both child abuse and homosexuality (well, actually Penn State probably approves of homosexuality). But in addition, these institutions all care strongly about their reputation and care about taking care of insiders. That is where the conflict lies.
YU’s conflict is much deeper as can be seen in: http://abovethelaw.com/2010/05/cardozo-law-school-fights-to-get-yeshiva-university-president-to-affirm-that-its-okay-to-be-gay/
shlomo – the big difference is that satmar uses religious terms and concepts and institutionally shows indifference to child/sexual abuse by rabbis in particular. as well as focusing their ire on the victims in mafia style tactics. it doesn’t excuse the others but their is a big difference imho and reflects on all religious jews as a chilul hashem.
HAGTBG wrote in part:
“I don’t believe YU has (or should have) the ability to silence R’ Lamm, even if advancing age might mean he is not quite at his prime now. It’s appropriate that R’ Lamm was defensive; he knew the responses he adopted then do not pass muster today”
Obviously, hindsight is always a 20/20 perspective.
“Obviously, hindsight is always a 20/20 perspective”
Especially when concern for an institutions financial benefit may have trumped any desire that may have existed to do the ethical action.
My above speculation (1221 PM post) is certainly reasonable if the following paragraph is accurate.
“Besides, Lamm said, during the period many of the assaults are alleged to have taken place, about 30 years ago, he was preoccupied by the university’s dire financial state. “The question of homosexual relations by teachers or principals… was not that clear, and it was not that significant relative to other things that we were dealing with” at the time, Lamm said.
“We were a sinking ship,” he added. “We were very close to going into bankruptcy, and these were matters that occupied a great deal of my time.”
Read more: http://forward.com/articles/167588/student-claims-of-abuse-not-reported-by-yeshiva-u/?p=all#ixzz2FEkn1kGD“
IH wrote:
“YU’s conflict is much deeper as can be seen in: http://abovethelaw.com/2010/05/cardozo-law-school-fights-to-get-yeshiva-university-president-to-affirm-that-its-okay-to-be-gay/”
As a YU and CSL alumnus of its first class, it should be noted that R D Lamm , despite great pressure, ordered that the building and library for CSL remain closed on Shabbos.
Mycroft responded to my post:
Obviously, hindsight is always a 20/20 perspective”
Especially when concern for an institutions financial benefit may have trumped any desire that may have existed to do the ethical action.
In all defense of R D Lamm, the concerns voiced in the linked article were nowhere on the communal horizon at the time of the alleged conduct. That is why looking back at the same is a classical instance of 20/20, regardless of R Lamm’s heroic role in preserving YU.
“In all defense of R D Lamm, the concerns voiced in the linked article were nowhere on the communal horizon at the time of the alleged conduct.”
Whether or not they were on the “communal horizon” the actions alleged were considered serious back then irrespective of whether or not one had bureaucracies set up up to publicize those actions back then. I am much more interested in ” Gordon said that he stopped teaching at Y.U. High School in 1984 and was placed on a one-year leave of absence until 1985 so that his children, who were on scholarships, could maintain benefits as offspring of a faculty member. He said that he left Y.U. as well as his post as a pulpit rabbi in Teaneck, N.J., because of his divorce”
Certainly, the details of what Gordon did in relationship to the divorce were well known back then.
” That is why looking back at the same is a classical instance of 20/20,”
It is 20/20 only inasmuch that the actions were apparently kept quiet back then-certainly an attempt was made to hush things up.
” regardless of R Lamm’s heroic role in preserving YU.”
irrelevant-R Lamm’s role at YU should be a worthwhile historic study-but doubt one would get objective history one way or the other. Frankly his career as a thinker is worth studying-there the record is available.
Mycroft – “Certainly, the details of what Gordon did in relationship to the divorce were well known back then.”
Why would that have anything to do with leaving mta?
In the 70′s and 80′s abuse was not addressed. I, together with my schoolmates, were routinely physically, verbally, and emotionally abused by the principal of a prominent yeshiva day school in Paramus, NJ.
“Why would that have anything to do with leaving mta?”
Note the quote from Gordon-”He said that he left Y.U. as well as his post as a pulpit rabbi in Teaneck, N.J., because of his divorce”
There are causes of divorce which are not inconsistent with being a Rabbi/Rebbe-there are causes of divorce which are inconsistent with acting as a religious guide. Certainly, divorce per se is not a disqualification.
The link IH provided about Cardozo illustrates rather nicely why the gay agenda can be so controversial, and why people may be so unwilling to go along with it: It’s no longer good enough for Cardozo to be completely undiscriminating to homosexuals, accepting them completely*, to have a gay club, to have *courses* devoted to gays in the law, etc. etc.- no, now there has to be positive acceptance of them even by Richard Joel, for some reason. “Tolerate it?” the old joke goes, “It’s a good thing they don’t make it compulsory!” Not so funny anymore.
As a Cardozo graduate, and indeed as a member of the legal profession, I was especially troubled by this line: “one huge thing holding the school back in its rankings and recruitment is its status as a “Jewish” law school”
I had no idea the legal profession was so closed minded. Why doesn’t Einstein suffer from the same problem? It turns out good doctors; period. Is there a different standard here?
In any event, I doubt it’s true. Catholic law schools hardly suffer. Maybe Cardozo just needs to improve. Or maybe there’s some anti-Semitism/self-hating here. Just look at the language in the same paragraph.
*Indeed, quite the opposite: As a student in a clinic with an unusually high percentage of gay students and faculty, I faced a high amount of hostility once I applied to the JAG Corps. I have good reason to suspect it affected my grade, no small matter. When a bunch of rabble-rousing gay Cardozo students (related to the non-kosher pizza guy, I’m sure, poor fool) began asking for complaints about sexual discrimination, I informed them that I had suffered for being straight. They ignored me, of course.
To avoid all the slip-sliding, the point in that 2.5 years old link is that Cardozo Dean Matthew Filler’s statement includes:
which illustrates the point that YU’s institutional position on homosexuality is conflicted. E.g. if homosexuality is the abnormal perversion that Nachum likes to state, then how could YU tolerate it in any part of its institution? Or does it come down to Mycroft’s cynicism about money?
“Note the quote from Gordon-”He said that he left Y.U. as well as his post as a pulpit rabbi in Teaneck, N.J., because of his divorce””
In general I don’t believe in discussing peoples divorces there are two sides to each story-but here Rabbi Gordon has stated that he left YU and his schul because of his divorce. He has publicly stated that his divorce is the reason that he left.
which illustrates the point that YU’s institutional position on homosexuality is conflicted. E.g. if homosexuality is the abnormal perversion that Nachum likes to state, then how could YU tolerate it in any part of its institution?
While I am no great fan of YU, I think the official position is that the University does whatever the law requires and no more. NY State has, among its forms of forbidden anti-discrimination, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. So there is no legal way to run a law school (or any other school, for that matter) in NY state while banning homosexuals.
(The official position was expressed by R. Lamm when the apartments at Einstein were only rented out to married couples (meaning student married couples), not unmarried couples, whether of the same or opposite gender. The homosexuals complained, of course, that this discriminated against them, since opposite-gender couples at least could get married. IIRC, the NY courts at the time said that this was legal because the lack of same-sex marriage was then the policy of NY State, so you could hardly blame YU for that. Of course, that has changed since then, so I presume YU now has to allow married couples of all types who are students to rent apartments.)
Of course this begs the question about whether there is a need for an Orthodox institution to have the full panoply of graduate schools offered by American Universities.
“Of course this begs the question about whether there is a need for an Orthodox institution to have the full panoply of graduate schools offered by American Universities”
A very legitimate question-when Skokie (HTC) was very considering expanding to a 4 year college attached to their Yeshiva-the only other schools they were considering were those related to Yahadus/chinuch. It is my understanding that finances were not the reason why it never came to fruition-sadly there was separate major internal machlokes at HTC at the time.
Perhaps it has something to do with a vision of Modern Orthodoxy: Torah u’Madda.
” Nachum likes to state, then how could YU tolerate it in any part of its institution? Or does it come down to Mycroft’s cynicism about money?”
The “separation” of RIETS from the University in the early 70s was all about money.
“IH on December 16, 2012 at 8:25 pm
Perhaps it has something to do with a vision of Modern Orthodoxy: Torah u’Madda.”
How does eliminating a grad school in Math/Science relate to Torah Umadda?
mycroft, we are talking specifically about Cardozo Law School. My understanding is that when Cardozo and Einstein were first started, they were sold to donors as places where Orthodox Jews could get a professional education without having to compromise their Torah commitment nor face anti-semitism. Query whether those concerns are still valid today.
“if homosexuality is the abnormal perversion that Nachum likes to state, then how could YU tolerate it in any part of its institution?”
Why should abnormality necessarily preclude tolerance?
“Tal Benschar on December 16, 2012 at 8:50 pm
mycroft, we are talking specifically about Cardozo Law School. My understanding is that when Cardozo and Einstein were first started, they were sold to donors as places where Orthodox Jews could get a professional education without having to compromise their Torah commitment nor face anti-semitism.”
Not my understanding-AECOM made a point from its start that it would not give preference to frum Jews.
IH, the last I checked, Torah U’Madda had nothing to do with championing things that are assur d’orayta. YU’s various schools also only serve kosher food. Perhaps you’d like to see some official statement from Cardozo’s dean that he respects and champions the rights of pork-eaters?
Tal: Being in an Orthodox-run school made things somewhat easier, I can attest.
my recollection was aecom (this was b4 my time) was due to quotas at other schools and cardozo was $. belfer was also $ iirc but the other way.
btw even chinucg related (e.g. counseling) creates issues.
KT
“joel rich on December 17, 2012 at 3:55 am
my recollection was aecom (this was b4 my time) was due to quotas at other schools”
Remember being President and an administrator of a University that includes a medical school is much more prestigious to the administrator than being an administrator of a simple small college with a small seminary attached to it. Most universities don’t have medical schools. A lot of money that went to YU as gifts before AECOM went to AECOM after-the desires of a moderate Jewish identity crowd mid century were even better situated by a medical school named after the holy Einstein. BTW-Einstein himself was in favor of establishing Brandeis.
“and cardozo was $.” clearly yes
“belfer was also $ iirc but the other way”-certainly YU got rid of Belfer because of money-but remember they built their gigantic building with government money for Belfer science center-so they used Belfer as a means to get a gigantic building which to be fair was used for Belfer after it was built.
AECOM made a point from its start that it would not give preference to frum Jews.
I didn’t say it gave preferences, I said it made it easier for frum Jews, who did not have to face quotas, and for whom there was accomodation (some built in — like Shabbos and Yom Tov) to their religious beliefs.
Maybe Einstein was less selective in its early days, so a frum student who should have been good enough for a quota school could get in easily, and even one who got into another school may have chosen it for religious reasons. Maybe this is all a victim of Einstein’s success.
Joel: A law school is about the biggest money maker a university can have- costs very little to set up and run and takes in a huge amount.
Mycroft: Do you ever get tired of being so cynical? Belfer was not established to be shut down, as you seem to be implying not-so-subtly. A bunch of YU schools were shut down at that point.
Einstein was a big supporter of YU, raised money for them, and of course approved the use of his name for the school.
R’ Nachum,
Yes, that was my point about the law school. Belfer iirc was set up when there was a lot of federal money going to the sciences. When the money went away so did Belfer. I do have a fond memory of one of the math professors (identity withheld) telling me “Math is ****” when we discussed going for an advanced degree (ergo [at least partially]actuarial career)
KT
I was once at the engagement/housewarming party for a non-Jewish couple I sort of set up and met the husband-to-be’s former teacher from Catholic school- a former (?) nun- who had gotten her graduate math degree from YU.
“Maybe Einstein was less selective in its early days, so a frum student who should have been good enough for a quota school could get in easily”
mY IMPRESSION IS THAT WAS NOT THE CASE-AECOM BENT OVER BACKWARDS IN ITS ORIGINAL ADMINISTRATION TO SHOW NO CONNECTION WITH YU
“Mycroft: Do you ever get tired of being so cynical?”
Or is it being accurate.