From sex-scandals to budget cuts to credit downgrades, Yeshiva University has had one hell of a year. Student programs have been cut and downsized, and class sizes have gradually increased as course selections have decreased. At the recent Town Hall Meeting on the Beren campus, President Joel told the students to “blame him if they want to blame anybody” for the university’s strained state.
But, as students, we’re not looking to blame. We just want things to get better.
The question of how to make things better has been a matter of central concern among the student publications on campus. The YU Commentator has chosen to report on every piece of negative news, feeding the cycle of condemning headlines. Most recently, the Commentator broke the story about Evan Zauder, a YU graduate who pled guilty to one count of enticement of a minor and several counts of owning and trafficking child pornography. The story was picked and peddled by other hungry news sources, and our university name was once again associated with ‘abuse’ and ‘scandal’, even though the incident had nothing directly to do with YU. Aside from just Zauder, nearly all of the front-page articles in recent issues have chastised the university in one way or another.
On both the men and women’s campuses, students are concerned about the Commentator’s seemingly monolithic approach. Most are merely disgruntled about the never-ending negative press. However, a more radical faction of students at Yeshiva College has taken their dissatisfaction to the next level. This small group of students, preferring to remain anonymous, proposed amendments to the student constitution that would have effectively shut down the Commentator. These amendments included requiring the editor in chief to be elected by the student body and allowing an external board to censor articles before publishing. Thankfully, the General Assembly of student leaders voted down these dangerous amendments. However, the very proposal of these changes indicates a deep and unhealthy rift developing amongst the undergraduate community.
Editor in chief of the Commentator Gavriel Brown dedicated this month’s editorial to defending himself against the student body. Writes Brown, “We tried our hardest to interpret complex data and convey the administration’s hopes against the grim realities of the situation at hand. Our editors strove for neutrality while, at the same time, illuminating stories that would otherwise have remained buried or suppressed.” Through his artful prose, one simple and pleading message surfaces: don’t shoot the messenger.
I struggle with admiration for the Commentator’s journalistic tenacity on the one hand and frustration towards their unrelenting accusations on the other. As YU struggles through these hard times, I have selected an editorial policy of reporting on progress instead of scandal. But I do greatly respect the Commentator for reporting thoroughly on the underside of an ugly turn in YU history, and commend their consistency, bravery and persistence.
Still, I do not think the student sentiment on campus is unwarranted. A newspaper that is supposed to represent the student body should be sensitive and responsive to student voices. If the stream of negative press against YU has grown exhausting, the news source from within should at least attempt to generate a different tone. The Commentator claims that their critical articles have been written only in the interest of helping the university. But is it really helping the university to continue spreading negative headlines that reach far beyond the student body to an audience much less discerning, much less sensitive, and much less caring?
Brown is unequivocally correct on one front: criticism is essential to moving forward. Maintaining forums for open dialogue and self-criticism must remain a priority. Make no mistake: those who attempt to censor the Commentator out of existence are helping no one, and putting our university at grave risk. Those students who proposed the crippling amendments to the student constitution are tragically shortsighted. Though the Commentator and the Observer have been known to disagree on certain issues, when it comes to preserving freedom of press and freedom of expression at this university, we are absolutely and solidly united.
However, disseminating accusatory headlines is not the most productive way to improve our university. There are other, more beneficial, ways to express concerns. Student organizations, such as the Student Life Committee (SLC), are dedicated to promoting productive dialogue between the students and the administration. The SLC has been exceptionally attentive this year, organizing meetings between student leaders and staff on a regular basis. There is also no dearth of student councils (SCWSC, TAC, SOY, YSU, YCSA), each with the primary mission of catering to student needs and concerns. There are ways to move forward without flirting with sensationalist journalism.
The axiom “there is no such thing as bad press” may hold true for publications attempting to increase page views and fan web traffic. But, for student newspapers, there is such a thing as bad press. And, if there is enough of it, students will start to resent the very outlet that is supposed to represent their collective voice.