By Joshua Feigin, Business Editor
Anyone who knows of Yeshiva University has likely heard of the legal troubles in which the university finds itself regularly, specifically regarding its refusal to institute the YU Pride Alliance as an official club. When looked at from a more macro perspective, the issues surrounding this case as they pertain to the broader YU community become extremely apparent.
It is firstly important to acknowledge the various merits that each side of the case possesses. YU strives to be a Modern Orthodox institution that adheres to Torah values, while also encouraging the pursuit of secular learning. This model of adherence, observance, and interpretation of Torah values follows a clear sexual ethic, which is undermined by openly financing and permitting an organization that advocates for alternatives. Whether the university is acting ideally according to Torah law is a further question, but regardless, freedom of religion dictates allowing freedom of practice of religious views with which others are allowed to disagree. Therefore, whether one agrees or disagrees with the values of the university, there is a good faith claim that religious freedoms should permit the university to use its discretion with regards to monitoring and restricting university and student activities in accordance with the university’s religious values.
On the other hand, students who do not conform with the sexuality and self-expression of the majority have long been ridiculed and ostracized in social and communal settings. For such a student to understand that they may face these challenges at YU, but nonetheless decide to enroll as a student here, takes a serious commitment to Jewish values, study, culture, community, and Jewish life. Although many would argue that those who do not like YU’s policies shouldn’t attend the university, it is completely understandable for these students, who believe that YU is the optimal place for them, to nonetheless choose to attend and then strive to improve the culture of the university for the better. An official student organization that immediately embraces such unique students who otherwise may struggle to connect with the prevailing cultural attitudes at the university would therefore likely be valuable.
The practical actions of both opposing parties have sadly appeared to stray from their arguably worthwhile causes. Turning again to the university, YU accepted governmental funding which courts have alleged are contingent upon adhering to certain standards of conduct. Banning the YU Pride Alliance from recognition as a student club is one example of where those standards have been violated. Ironically, just as the Pride Alliance seeks to establish itself as a beacon of independence under the shadow of a larger prevailing authority and legitimize a duality of identities, the university is embroiled in establishing its religious autonomy from a secular government while maintaining its status as an entity entitled to government funding for secular institutions. Jewish and queer. Religious and secular. Both attempted syntheses of identity have come with their troubles.
However, opposing court rulings that dictate the secular nature in which the funds may be used under the guise of religious liberty leaves many with a bad taste. In efforts to ally YU with other religious institutions, YU President Rabbi Dr. Ari Berman jetted off to Utah to attend a conference about religious liberties with leaders of Brigham Young University (BYU) – an institution that has an “Honor Code” office where students are encouraged to report each other for spiritual deficiencies and non-compliances. Moreover, an “ecclesiastical endorsement” is required for students at BYU. In simpler terms, this means that a Mormon bishop must sign off on a student’s religious observance, or else the student may quickly face expulsion and revocation of all previously earned credits. If those are the kinds of practices that YU intends to exercise through its “religious liberties,” it certainly feels like a slap in the face to the student body. Furthermore, using any public money to pay for even non-religious ancillary needs of such an institution is questionable.
More recently, President Berman traveled to Japan for an international gathering of clerical leaders to discuss the ethics of artificial intelligence. As a student, it is hard not to wonder what the university’s priorities are in these times. Both the enormous expenses in legal fees paid to lawyers for YU in the Pride Alliance case and travel costs for seemingly frivolous initiatives come out of the university’s budget. This is money that could have been spent to cover the recently increased costs of security, lower cafeteria prices, fix the unreliable elevators, or subsidize dormitories such that the pricing is at market rate for a rental of a bedroom in a shared apartment. All of it is gone, and so, indirectly, every student is paying for these university escapades that benefit the student body in no way whatsoever.
I recall my first semester, when in response to the court requiring that the Pride Alliance be instated as a club, the university decided instead to suspend all clubs entirely. Around that same time, I was also asked to donate to YU and to encourage relatives to do the same in honor of “YU Giving Day.” I quickly disappointed the eager and wide-eyed fundraiser with my refusal. I cannot help but be disappointed and disgruntled with the audacity of the university to request more funds after seeing where the money that they already have goes.
Turning to the YU Pride Alliance, there are YU alumni still involved in suing YU. Specifically, these individuals seek compensation for infringement of their human rights. The claim that one is so damaged that they deserve monetary compensation for not being allowed to run a club is wild. Perhaps what is lacking is the understanding that even once a club is officially chartered as such, the battle against the never ending bureaucracy is just beginning. There is the YU Office of Student Affairs, the Student Organization of Yeshiva (SOY), the Facilities Services, the Office of Student Finance, the Information Technology Services, and many others which need to frequently be dealt with in order to even run one event at YU with success. When a group of friends and I want to get together, we coordinate a time and place via WhatsApp, and the next day we all show up and have a great time. Try doing that at YU and you will quickly realize that organizing activities outside of the university’s purview is radically more successful. The amount of dormant chats for the dozens of clubs that never surpassed all the hurdles is staggering. Therefore, having a small society or group that meets in public spaces and members’ homes, as the Pride Alliance has been doing, may in many cases effectuate reaching the student body faster and provide more consistent programming than an official YU club ever could. Especially for a club that advocates for acceptance and harmony, agitating the wider university in legal drama will only make the Pride Alliance a greater pariah.
I have often wondered who will be the winner once all the dust settles. A recent personal experience in court taught me the answer. Regardless of the outcomes, the time, money, energy, and opportunity costs will never be recouped. Both sides will be bitter. The only ones to emerge with a net gain will be the lawyers and judges who got paid to do their jobs. Therefore, I urge both sides to consider what this case is doing to the university and how much your actions cost the student body.
Sincerely,
A frustrated and tired student
Photo Caption: The Supreme Court
Photo Credit: Claire Anderson / Unsplash