Home / Legacy /

News & Links

 

Share this Post

 

Related Posts

About the author

Gil Student

Rabbi Gil Student is the founder, publisher and editor-in-chief of Torah Musings.

 
The opinions and facts here are presented solely by the author. Torah Musings assumes no responsibility for them. Please address religious questions to your rabbi.
 

136 Responses

  1. IH says:

    R. Chelow’s comments are another indication the intramural culture wars of the 20th century are not our future.

    The state, wrote the Orthodox rabbi to his students, comes across among non-Orthodox Jews in the United States as “something they don’t want to identify with, because of the occupation, the racism, the control of another people by force … A second reason is the fact that they are not wanted here: The religious movements to which they belong are not recognized and also those who are not affiliated with any stream of Judaism do not want to identify with a state where the Orthodox have a monopoly; their conversions are not recognized, nor are their prayers (Women of the Wall) and so on.”

    מִי שֶׁעָשה נִסִּים לַאֲבותֵינוּ וְגָאַל אותָם מֵעַבְדוּת לְחֵרוּת. הוּא יִגְאַל אותָנוּ בְּקָרוב וִיקַבֵּץ נִדָּחֵינוּ מֵאַרְבַּע כַּנְפות הָאָרֶץ. חֲבֵרִים כָּל יִשרָאֵל וְנאמַר אָמֵן

  2. aiwac says:

    IH,

    And yet Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist denominations continue to maintain a separate existence to this day. ‘Culture wars’ or no, the differences are real and palpable, even without the Orthodox.

  3. Rafael Araujo says:

    Rabbi Cherlow is incorrect. They don’t want to identify with the State of Israel because they believe its an embarrasment, a state based on ethnicity and religion, engaging in apartheid and denying the Palestinians and non-Jews in general dignity and self-determination. Religion has no part in it. Politics has everythig to do with it.

  4. IH says:

    aiwac — I know people active in all 3 movements and there is far more cross-pollination than you may think and not only among the laity.

    Rafael — I disagree based on the same set of people. As further evidence, in August 2011 the JPost reported that “According to Nefesh B’Nefesh, of the 1,300 singles who made Aliyah from North America and the UK last year, over 60% identify as non-Orthodox.” and in April 2012, Ha’aretz included an OpEd by the Vice Chairman of Nefesh B’Nefest who stated “Moreover, as opposed to the image of a uniform religious immigrant from North America, in actuality 65% of young professional olim are non-Orthodox.”

  5. aiwac says:

    “I know people active in all 3 movements and there is far more cross-pollination than you may think and not only among the laity”

    Yet it is still cross-pollination and not a merging or complete breakdown of boundaries. My point still stands.

  6. Nachum says:

    IH: I know lots of non-Orthodox olim. They are, by definition, much more Zionist than the average non-Orthodox Jew. By and large, if they’re not right-wing politically before they get here, they almost always become so, sometimes much to their surprise. (Of course, what makes a person “right wing” here is not the same as what makes them one elsewhere.) And they pretty universally drift into a sort of Orthodoxy (even if it’s a Shira Chadasha kind) or go full secular, if only for practical reasons.

  7. Nachum says:

    In any event, calling to recognize Reform is like worrying what the EU says. They’re both dying; why twist ourselves out of shape to pretend that we have to worry that much about them? (I exaggerate for effect, before you start jumping down my throat with inconvenient facts.)

  8. Joseph Kaplan says:

    “They’re both dying; why twist ourselves out of shape to pretend that we have to worry that much about them?”

    I’m interested in what your “therefore” is, Nahum, since both (a) so therefore we should continue not to recognize them or (b) so therefore there’s no downside in recognizing them, are IMO equally reasonable conclusions.

  9. emma says:

    i am trying to post a link to an article about claims that ethiopian women in israel are encouraged/coerced to accept depo provera (birth control) shots, leading to a drastic decline in the ethiopian birth rate, for possible inclusion in the links. it keeps disappearing despite my apparent ability to comment (hence test post). the story can be found, among other places, on the times of israel under the title “Ethiopian women claim Israel forced them to use birth control before letting them immigrate.”

  10. aiwac says:

    Nachum,

    Is Reform really “dying” any more than the Conservative or Reconstructionist movement? Perhaps “contracting” would be a better term?

  11. IH says:

    The full text by Rav Cherlow can be seen (in Hebrew) at http://www.ypt.co.il/print.asp?id=56143

  12. Shlomo says:

    Rav Cherlow is basically saying that the Reform miskenim have such a weak connection to Judaism that they’ll assimilate completely if we don’t provide them with the vitality they can’t develop on their own. The policies he’s now suggesting appear tolerant, but don’t imagine that he sees the Reform movement as a peer or equal.

  13. Anonymous says:

    If Israel adopts a reform view of Judaism, it will make things much easier for millions of Palestinians

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_to_Judaism#Reform_Jewish_views
    “In the United States of America, Reform Judaism rejects the concept that any rules or rituals should be considered necessary for conversion to Judaism. In the late 19th century, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the official body of American Reform rabbis, formally resolved to permit the admission of converts “without any initiatory rite, ceremony, or observance whatever.” (CCAR Yearbook 3 (1893), 73–95; American Reform Responsa (ARR), no. 68, at 236–237.)”

    Step 1) Declare yourself a Reform Jew

    Step 2) Flock to Israel under the law of Return

  14. IH says:

    To the point I have repeatedly made on Hirhurim, note his closing words: ונדמה לנו כי אותן תשובות שהביאו את רבנות ארצות הברית לפני שבעים שנה להחליט את שהחליטו רלוונטיות גם היום ללא לפחות בחינה מחודשת, מעמידה אותנו בפני שוקת שבורה, ובה אנו מאבדים את עצמנו לדעת, מסכנים את קיומה של מדינת ישראל, והולכים ומתרחקים מעצם התפקיד שלנו בעולם “ונברכו בך כל משפחות האדמה”.

  15. abba's rantings says:

    IH:

    “65% of young professional olim are non-Orthodox”

    if i had to guess, i’d say this is a skewed statistic for the context of this discussion. who cares (for the context of this discussion) specifically about the percentage of “professional” olim? if one included all young olim, would the percentage still be the same? what if one included all their non-professional wives?

  16. emma says:

    “young professionals” is modern-orthodox speak for people under 25-ish, usually without kids, and often single. (cf the various “young professionals” minyanim on the upper west side.) people in this category need not be “professionals” at all. not sure what it means in nefesh be-nefesh speak, but i assumed it was similar.

  17. emma says:

    sorry, that should be “under 35ish.”

  18. Shlomo says:

    IH:
    התפקיד שלנו בעולם – ונברכו בך כל משפחות האדמה
    Ironic choice of words, given Reform’s intermarriage and “conversion” rate

  19. Shlomo says:

    From the limited sample size I’ve seen, non-Orthodox olim have a much higher rate of yeridah than the Orthodox…

  20. Steve Brizel says:

    IH quoted R Cherlow as follows:

    “The state, wrote the Orthodox rabbi to his students, comes across among non-Orthodox Jews in the United States as “something they don’t want to identify with, because of the occupation, the racism, the control of another people by force … A second reason is the fact that they are not wanted here: The religious movements to which they belong are not recognized and also those who are not affiliated with any stream of Judaism do not want to identify with a state where the Orthodox have a monopoly; their conversions are not recognized, nor are their prayers (Women of the Wall) and so on”

    R Cherlow’s comments illustrate

    (a)the ignorance of the non-Orthodox world with respect to the events of 1967 and the unwillingness of the Arab world except for Sadat and King Hussein to negotiate directly with Israel;

    (b) that military force is an extension of a nation’s foreign policy when necessary;

    (c) that the Arab media is a cesspool for Anti Semitic rhetoric of the worst kind; and

    (d) the average Israeli long ago voted with his or her feet that the synagogue that he would prefer not davening in was an O shul,knows that R and C were American exports, and that RJ had a long history of anti Zionism that now manifests itself in support by many of its clergy for post Zionist and BDS sympathetic organizations.

    (e) Like it or not, both the Charedi and RZ movements established more than a mere presence. They were both have had a sizeable presence for decades,and built many communities, institutions, etc which cannot be said with any seriousness about RJ and CJ in Israel.

  21. Anonymous says:

    http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-egypt-rival-protests-20121211,0,5856909.story

    “The opposition isn’t just rejecting Morsi. They want to bring down the state and destroy religion,” said Hamed Ahmed Khalil, a carpenter. “I’m an uneducated man, but I have looked through the constitution and I see nothing wrong with it. Morsi must stand strong against the traitorous opposition and the Jews who want to bring down this country.”

  22. IH says:

    So, will anyone comment on the elephant Rav Cherlow spotted in the room: תשובות שהביאו את רבנות ארצות הברית לפני שבעים שנה?

  23. Nachum says:

    Anonymous 2:57: Israel already recognizes overseas non-Orthodox conversions for the purposes of the Law of Return. The Rabbinate (and Interior Ministry, sort of) do not, of course.

    Joseph: Well, being a conservative in most senses of the word, I’d go with “a”, keep on keeping on.

  24. Steve Brizel says:

    IH-who says that R Cherlow’s comment is accurate either in its assessment of the problem or the solution that he proposes? If one read the comments at the NYT website re the initial stance taken by BJ’s spiritual leaders, I think that a fair reading of the same would find that a majority of the same have incorrectly elevated universalistic concerns at the almost complete dispensation and expense of particularistic concerns. That’s ignorance of Judaism writ large in the next generation.

  25. Nachum says:

    IH: Nu, Norman Lamm addressed that years ago, in one of our “Dorm Talks” in the 1990′s. I’m quoting from memory: “Well, back in the 50′s, the attitude was ‘Better dead than red,’ that is, better to be nothing than Reform or Conservative. Now, we see the alternative is much worse.”

    I’m not sure if he meant that the alternative was worse even back then or only in the last few decades, but it shows why that whole to-do when he spoke about Conservatism dying a few years ago was so ridiculous.

    But you simply can’t say that admitting that Reform is a needed stopgap in the US means:

    1. That it’s intrinsically worthwhile and the equal of Orthodoxy, or,

    2. That it’s at all needed or desired in Israel.

  26. NACHUM:

    “2. That it’s at all needed or desired in Israel.”

    clearly there is a vacuum in israel when it comes to providing for the religious and spiritual needs of non-datiyim. reform/conservative argue they can respond to those needs. i would love nothing more than for R/C to be proved wrong. but in the meantime i don’t see datiyim stepping in (on a large scale) to provide for those needs. i wish you were right that R/C isn’t needed in israel, but let the datiyim prove this is so.

  27. Anonymous says:

    It is quite sad to think about, but can anyone suggest why R/C will perform better at inspring religious observance in Israel than in the US?

    In Israel today a higher percentage MORE chilonim have some form of shabbat seuda and observe the yomim tovim in some form than reform in the US. I would argue that introducing reform would see that number go down!

    On the comment regarding American rabbonim, the attitude of those rabbonim was about saving Orthodoxy, which was dying 70 years ago and it was successful. It was not worrying about those already R/C, but rather those who might join them.

  28. MiMedinat HaYam says:

    if R and C are dying breeds, where will the masses go? answer — to the “unaffilliated” branch (which tolerates, even encourages, intermarriage, anti israelisms in all its forms mentioned above, etc). and a small minority to that fourth branch, chabad; and a much lesser minority to O judaism (including aish hatorah, etc)

    salaries — if the high salaried indiv is a (successful) fundriaser, he deserves a concomitant %age of his funds raised as salary. the question is, how much of his (or her, but that is very little, face it) fundraising is legacy, and how much is the fundraiser’s skills. (note — the individ no one wants to name here, didnt bring any $ from his previous fundraising job to his current institution.

    from the translator article — “Goldblatt said he gets along better with his hardcore Republican handyman who keeps a .38-caliber gun under his pillow than his bearded, religious neighbor who refused to shake his wife’s hand.”

    from “holy” article, contrast above with “…The only things people talk about are cars and girls” in high school america. and “The Rav looked at Rav Lichtenstein and wondered out loud, “why would he need to change, he is wearing bigdei Kodesh (holy clothing)?” “

  29. IH says:

    Your take on Rav Cherlow’s final paragraph, Gil?

  30. Hirhurim says:

    I agree that times have changed but that doesn’t mean we don’t need to be careful about our policies.

  31. IH says:

    A surprisingly muted response to a strongly pointed assertion. Perhaps the times they are a changin’…

  32. Hirhurim says:

    Perhaps I’m not always as right wing as the straw man with which you like to argue.

  33. Charlie Hall says:

    “In May, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo released regulations that set a limit of $199,000 on the amount of state money that contractors can put toward paying their executives, both not-for-profit and commercial.”

    The federal government limit is currently $179,900/year.

  34. Charlie Hall says:

    ‘Is Reform really “dying” any more than the Conservative or Reconstructionist movement? Perhaps “contracting” would be a better term?’

    In the US the Reform movement has over two hundred more congregations today than 35 years ago, and in terms of dues paying members it still has approximately double our membership. (And dues to Reform congregations are substantially larger than dues to Orthodox congregations.) Many of those members may only attend services twice a year, but it isn’t disappearing.

  35. Charlie Hall says:

    “The Rabbinate (and Interior Ministry, sort of) do not, of course.”

    We are having trouble enough getting the Rabbinate to recognize Orthodox conversions!

    Since the government recognizes non-orthodox conversions but is giving orthodox converts a hard time, an orthodox convert should consider going to a reform “beit din” and having a second conversion.

  36. Charlie Hall says:

    “unwillingness of the Arab world except for Sadat and King Hussein to negotiate directly with Israel”

    Actually there were two other Arab leaders who were willing to negotiate with Israel: Bachir Gemayal, and King Hussein’s grandfather King Abdullah. Both came to the same end as Sadat.

  37. IH says:

    Further to Charlie’s point about misconceptions of the American Reform movement: Having gotten to know a young Reform Rabbi, I have had many assumptions flattened in the past few years. Before HUC she attended Pardes for a year and, as with all HUC Rabbinical students spent a mandatory year in Israel. Since becoming a Hillel Rabbi at an Ivy 2 years ago, she has led 2 Birthright trips. Incidentally, she is married to an MTA graduate, whose father went to Mir and grandfather to Torah Vodaas and then YC. She is now my niece.

    If anyone is on the East Side for Shabbat, I recommend attending the Friday night Shabbat service at Central Synagogue — also broadcast on ShalomTV so you may be able to record it. Central Synagogue has a multi-year waiting list for membership (I kid you not).

  38. Anonymous says:

    Anonymous 7:35: Actually, Conservatism and Reform in Israel is pretty serious- maybe because a lot of their members are olim who are by definition serious about their Judaism; maybe because you have to actively work at being Conservative and Reform in Israel, so it’s sort of self-selecting. Ironically, they are sometimes considered “dati” in trying to classify them (and sometimes, of course, “chiloni”), and you can sort of see the logic in both points.

    One may then wonder if recognition would ruin them. :-)

    “The federal government limit is currently $179,900/year.”

    Of course, it’s very easy to play with those numbers. (“Oh, the million bucks we paid him was all *non*-state money!”) And the guy who walks the President’s *dog* makes six figures. :-)

    So, Charlie, they’re basically living on a legacy.

    Also, re: Conversions: Ha! Of course, we’re talking about two different things here. But no doubt reform (small “r”) is needed. I just had an odd experience at the Rabbinical Courts on behalf of a converted friend of mine. It went smoothly enough, but was completely unnecessary (as was the inevitable fee).

    IH: Lovely. And I can name a relative of mine whose father was president of the Central Synagogue and couldn’t read Hebrew and didn’t know what a “brit” was. It’s well-known that rabbis are rabbis and lay people are lay people in Reform and Conservatism.

  39. Nachum says:

    That was me, sorry.

  40. The Dude says:

    On “Holy Candles and Holy Guns”

    Why must every d’var Torah by a MO Rabbi tie in the holiday, current events, and shul programming?

    Teach Torah for once without tooting your horn about your successful joint program w/ the Conservative Synagogue or the upcoming youth dinner….for cryin’ out loud…

  41. IH says:

    Nachum – Nu, and I remember R. JJ Schacter telling me about certain JC members who arrived just in time for Ne’eila in their chauffeur driven limos on Yom Kippur. It’s not just among the non-Orthodox that “rabbis are rabbis and lay people are lay people”. Any United Synagogue shul in London will also demonstrate the distinction you make as a retort.

  42. Nachum says:

    Indeed. Less so than before, of course.

  43. http://www.vosizneias.com/119226/2012/12/12/ramat-gan-israel-bar-ilan-lecturer-sends-student-out-for-not-wearing-kippa

    i have mixed feelings about this, but in any case i predict the unfortunate reaction of a chiloni professor in HU or Haifa U. kicking out a kippah-clad student.

  44. IH says:

    Abba — The Times of Israel reporting on the story contains more information about what happened and why it became news.

    —–

    On the previous discussion, a friend pointed me to a 3.5 min promo on YouTube for an Israeli documentary: פרומו – ”קהילות מדליקות” – בוסטון, ארה”ב at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjjE1UClMfg. The fisrt 1:57 mins in particular.

    הסדרה “קהילות מדליקות” מאפשרת לצופה הזדמנות להקשיב לאופן התמודדות שונה מהמוכר לנו בישראל למשמעות “להיות יהודי”. הסדרה מעלה על סדר היום של הצופה כי קהילות יהודיות רבות בעולם מתפקדות ויוצרות צורות נוספות של יהדות. בסיומו של בכל פרק מדליקה קהילה אחרת נר אחד מנרות החנוכה .

  45. IH:

    if you don’t tell me what TOI reported or provide a link, then how am i supposed to know what you are alluding to?

    in any case, i tend to sympathize with BIU. it is chartered as a religious institution and it isn’t unrealistic to require students to wear kippot in jewish studied classes. (should shul goers in israel have the option to attend bareheaded because the shul is subsidized by tax money?) one who elects to attend must play by its rules. and there shouldn’t be a need to apologize for the propriety of this rule.

    on the other hand BIU is in a perfect position to spread yiddishkeit, ahavas torah and achdus among non-datiyim (which, as i commented earlier here, is sorely lacking in much of the dati world). perhaps what the lecturer did reflects bad policy, or at very least bad practice.

  46. does YU require kippot in jewish studies classes? (i refer to non-RIETS programs, as RIETS is chartered separately and to avoid these types of problems.) although i assume YU’s student body is more monolithic than BIU and even the most YU lax student wouldn’t dream of attending without a kippah?

  47. Anonymous says:

    Further explanation by R Cherlow about his letter:

    http://www.ypt.co.il/show.asp?id=56230

  48. emma says:

    R. Gil, curious why you linked to the older parents article.
    Seems to both validate frum culture of early childbearing as well as criticize frum practice of continuing childbearing into late years (“la-erev,” if you will…)

  49. Anonymous says:

    ▪ Pursuing the Meimad mission from beyond the political arena

    “Meimad is a party that contains endless dedication to the Jewish values and identity of Israeli society and yet consistently opposes any form of coercion and religious legislation; a party whose worldview honors both heresy and fear of Heaven simultaneously”

    Huh?

  50. Anonymous says:

    ▪ Pursuing the Meimad mission from beyond the political arena

    “Meimad is a party that contains endless dedication to the Jewish values and identity of Israeli society and yet consistently opposes any form of coercion and religious legislation; a party whose worldview honors both heresy and fear of Heaven simultaneously”

    Huh?

  51. Nachum says:

    It could also be summed up as “We never had real support. We only got into the Knesset due to being allowed to run with Labor, as they saw it to their advantage to have a religious person on their list. They finally ended that in the last election; we ran together with a fringe left-wing party (much as we do in local elections) and got nowhere. That other party is now running with Livni, and we have nothing.”

    Of course, gracefully admitting that no one supports you and bowing out of politics simply never happens in Israel. (See Livni, above. Probably true of most of the world.) Better to write a “I planned it that way” piece and pretend it’s true.

  52. abba's rantings says:

    http://m.forward.com/articles/167588/student-claims-of-abuse-not-reported-by-yeshiva-u

    on the one hand i don’t think the “scandal” at YU has any contemporary relevance. at least i hope not, and there doesn’t seem to be any indication of allegations of a more recent nature. (it would also be nice for YU to to explain what safeguards it has in place to prevent this type of thing from happening in the future.)

    on the other i’m appalled and embarased by r. lamm’s responses, to say the least.

  53. ruvie says:

    abba’s ranting – i think yu should not let r’ lamm comment due to his age and other reasons – its only downside for the school. agree on the other point that this was along time ago and has no bearing on today’s school but wonder like you what safeguards have been put in place. it was only a few years ago that yu – college -hired mental health professionals (or had a real department). on the other hand i could comment on mta – since i was there and had dealings with both named individuals. the question will be – what else is lurking if anything on this matter.

  54. abba's rantings says:

    RUVIE:

    right. so the question is what if anything has changed since then to make it more difficult for it to occur again. does MTA today require employee fingerprinting (for whatever that’s worth, but at least it sends a message)? more importantly, is there a mandatory reporting policy in place? are teachers educated about these issues? do administrators understand the dangers of shifting alleged abusers to other communities? i’d be surprised if MTA, as other MO day schools, is so “progressive” in these matters.

  55. ruvie says:

    abba’s ranting – i believe that mta is totally separate from the university. but i would have to surmise that since the lanner episode (he taught at mta – i also had him as a teacher) that there must procedures in place.

  56. abba's rantings says:

    RUVIE:

    MTA is probably a separate corporate entity (much the way RIETS is), but otherwise is it anything other than YU’s boys high school? and if the forward article is accurate, it seems these allegations certainly worked their way up chain of yu and not mta officials.

    unless MTA (or YU) states categorically, i wouldn’t surmise anything about which safeguards are in place. (i do know that in my son’s old yeshivah there is no fingerprinting or manditory reporting policy. i have no reason to suspect it is different than other schools.)

  57. ruvie says:

    abba’s rantings -good point. i see that reb harry has posted on the issue – pretty even handed. the issue will be how will richard joel handle this issue to assure the community that something that happened 30 years ago – different time and standards- is over and no longer is covered up.

    http://haemtza.blogspot.com/2012/12/sex-abuse-yeshiva-university-and-satmar.html

  58. ruvie says:

    abba’s rantings -at least richard joel’s response is the proper one – notice his comment on r’ lamm’s statements:

    http://blogs.yu.edu/news/2012/12/13/statement-from-president-joel/

  59. Rafael Araujo says:

    What I want to know is that after one of the alleged perps was asked to leave and supposedly moved on to another institution, were there or are there any allegations of abuse at that particular institution.

  60. HAGTBG says:

    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. Not that his being defensive was helpful to his presentation in the article.

    We may never know answers to what R’ Lamm or other senior administration officials knew and when. The article lists 3 persons making allegations against a person who was eventually the principal of MTA. Were multiple allegations known to the administration before his promotion?

    I also went to MTA and, truthfully, that principal was helpful to me and I still remember his help with gratitude; I hated that high school but certainly not because of any acts he did to me. Except to the degree managerial and leadership decisions of his contributed to the awfulness that was MTA, I have no personal issues with him. The things he is alleged to have done, as described, were both abusive and pathetic (and possibly criminal).

    Concerning how this might affect R’ Lamm’s legacy, I still consider R’ Lamm a great man. Knowing great men have flaws doesn’t change the underlying facts.

  61. abba's rantings says:

    HAGTBG:

    1) some of the story extends into the 1990s. i think that is long engough ago to state that (hopefully) what is alleged has nothing to do with the current state of affairs and shouldn’t tar YU today (assuming proper mechanism are now in place). on the other hand, the 1990s isn’t *that* long ago and it wasn’t the 1960s or 70s or even 80s. i find it much more difficult to swallow the “we didn’t know any better” line when applied to something that extended into the 90s.

    2) i can accept to a certain extent that there is some merit to the “we didn’t know any better” defense, but
    a) the greater the man, the less merit there should be to this defense, and i otherwise consider him a very great man.
    b) his statements in the forward seemed so cold and were full of excuses (passing the buck, extenuating financial concerns, etc.). what was missing was any remorse or personal concern for alleged victims.

  62. abba's rantings says:

    RUVIE:

    it’s a good statement to make sure YU is headed for a safe future and is appropriate in its condemnation of any alleged abuse. but i’m not sure he acknowledged the cover up accusations (it hinges on how one interprets his statement about r. lamm’s comments, which i’m not sure how to read).

  63. HAGTBG says:

    abba’s rantings,

    Except concerning personalities I was exposed to who remain employed there, I don’t make any comments about YU today as I have not been on the campus in years. With the internet now and these things in the news multiple times over the last 15 years, the environment has completely changed.

    We simply lack details to know who was told what and when. That there are three people that the Forward states spoke with them making these allegations doesn’t tell us whether R’ Lamm knew of 1 or 100 allegations in regard to each of these teachers or whether he got multiple allegations in the 70s or the 90s.

    Yes, R’ Lamm sounded like someone who knew that his response was wrong but didn’t want to accept at some level responsibility for that wrong.

  64. HAGTBG says:

    I should add that we don’t know the content of the allegations R’ Lamm received either. If R Lamm was told “Rabbi X likes to wrestle with his students for no good reason and people think he’s gay” that’s different then “Rabbi X got an erection while wrestling he made me engage in.”

  65. abba's rantings says:

    HAGTBG:

    even if one dismisses the student who claims to have contacted r. lamm directly with allegations (ok, he said-he said), it seems from r. lamm’s own statements that he was aware of other cases.

  66. shaul shapira says:

    R Aviner isn’t MO. And he’s not a Hellenist either.

    http://www.ravaviner.com/2012/12/no-to-hellenization-and-compromise.html

  67. Nachum says:

    HAGTBG, that was exactly what people said when I was in MTA. No one alleged anything more nefarious than that, and it seems like little more has been added now. Yes, he was helpful to me to, so I’m biased, but facts are facts.

  68. Nachum says:

    That “Yekum purkan” story is a myth, right? And does Rav Aviner know that Sephardim never said it?

  69. HAGTBG says:

    Nachum,

    More nefarious then which? I can’t recall any rumors about him but if I’d heard something general I probably wouldn’t remember it all these years later. Anyway, I found out it was a different administrator who helped me out (or so have said my parents) so now I just am back to resenting him for running a terrible school.

  70. Shlomo says:

    That “Yekum purkan” story is a myth, right? And does Rav Aviner know that Sephardim never said it?

    Why is the latter point relevant? The Sefardim never refrained from eating kitniyot (to the extent that Ashkenazim do), but wouldn’t it be a problem if some Ashkenazim one day decided to start eating kitniyot again?

    (And yes, I know some Ashkenazim have, and say it’s not a problem, and they’re wrong.)

  71. Shlomo says:

    R’ Amsalem: I will fight for the operation of public transportation on Shabbat [in Israel]

    http://www.kipa.co.il/now//50276.html

  72. Nachum says:

    Shlomo: OK, I stick to my first point.

    HAGTBG: More nefarious than wrestling and teenage snipes about sexual orientation.

  73. mycroft says:

    My comments are based on the assumption the following quote from the Forward represents reality

    “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.”
    Placed on a leave of absence?
    “He said that he left Y.U. as well as his post as a pulpit rabbi in Teaneck, N.J., because of his divorce, not because of any allegations of abuse.”
    Divorce per se would not cost someone a job at YU-the circumstances that surround the divorce could.
    “”He added that his personal circumstances were known to Lamm, who “okayed everything.””
    The general reasons of his “personal circumstances” were widely known thus it doubtful that I believe the following quote which may or may not be accurate reflects reality
    “Lamm said that he had no recollection of the details concerning Gordon’s departure.”

  74. Tal Benschar says:

    That “Yekum purkan” story is a myth, right?

    Which one, the part about the Pope and the Imam (which the writer said is a joke) or the part about Reform?

  75. Nachum says:

    Tal: The latter.

    What’s kind of sad about these stories is the way people thought their connections would help them- it’s not everyone who can just call R’ Lamm or have Israel Miller come to visit them. The families, of course, were complicit, if not the driving force, behind this. (The lawyer in me especially appreciates how the university is blamed but parents are not- deep pockets theory?- and how the first thing demanded is money. That makes this all quite lovely.)

  76. abba's rantings says:

    NACHUM:

    perhaps true, but all you’re doing is deflecting. your comments don’t absolve the institution or specific individuals.

  77. Nachum says:

    Abba: True. If anything, this points to something of an old-boys network of a sort that may even make things worse.

  78. mycroft says:

    “Nachum on December 14, 2012 at 6:02 am
    Abba: True. If anything, this points to something of an old-boys network of a sort that may even make things worse”

    Which clearly exists-examples involve parties to this story-even if the whole current Forward story is false.

  79. IH says:

    The NYT story indicates there may be a 3rd “staff member who was dismissed for inappropriate behavior”.

    Since both people implicated thus far were also pulpit Rabbis, more stories may yet come out.

    Finally, I find it curious that those who rant so frequently about homosexuality, do not seem to be ranting about YU’s seeming toleration of it amongst its own staff.

  80. ruvie says:

    IH – this is not homosexuality – its child abuse. big difference. i think they were complicit and clueless hoe to handle this stuff – same as the ou with lanner. unfortunately for r’ lamm its a black eye – especially after his statement (but its hard to know if he knew the details or failed to look).

  81. abba's rantings says:

    IH:

    it’s clear from the original forward article that there were other cases of allegations besides the 2 it highlights

  82. IH says:

    Ruvie — seems to me it’s both. Clearly, child abuse is the bigger issue here, but it sounds like the Principal’s sexual preferences were well known — the students gossiped about it and the administration was deaf.

    One can only wonder if the wrestling abuse would have occurred had he felt able to work out his sexual issues among adults.

  83. ruvie says:

    fascinating article about the soloveitchik family and christianity: interesting analysis about the rav and r’ meir s.

    http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/books/119176/soloveitchik-jesus?all=1

    money quote:
    “R. Elijah Zvi continues in Kol Kore to cite Maimonides’ Thirteen Principals of Faith, widely considered to be the doctrinal framework of Judaism, and then proceeds to explain how each one of Maimonides’ principles is upheld by Christianity, juxtaposing Torah and New Testament verses to support one another.”

  84. abba's rantings says:

    IH:

    “the students gossiped about it”

    doesn’t mean he was gay. (i have no idea other way.)

    “One can only wonder if the wrestling abuse would have occurred had he felt able to work out his sexual issues among adults.”

    i don’t understand your point. what exactly do you mean by “working out his sexual issues among adults”?

  85. IH says:

    Abba — when there’s smoke, there is generally fire. And what I meant is that I expect that repression finds outlets (consciously or not).

  86. abba's rantings says:

    IH:

    what exactly do you think might have been repressing?

  87. ruvie says:

    IH – i think you are wrong in your assumption or possible conclusion. i don’t think its the male attraction of homosexuality here. to early to tell but i wouldn’t jump to that conclusion or that it would have been different if…

  88. IH says:

    It is also ironic that these revelations of the MTA Principal’s (Hellenistic) wresting with boys are being publicized on Chanukah.

    —–

    Riveting article in Tablet! Perhaps Prof. Berger can be enticed to write a response as a guest post?

  89. Tal Benschar says:

    R. Elijah Zvi continues in Kol Kore to cite Maimonides’ Thirteen Principals of Faith, widely considered to be the doctrinal framework of Judaism, and then proceeds to explain how each one of Maimonides’ principles is upheld by Christianity, juxtaposing Torah and New Testament verses to support one another.

    Rather strange since the Rambam himself explicitly states it is both Minus and Apikorsus.

  90. IH says:

    Everyone claims Rambam as their own, including the Briskers :-)

  91. mycroft says:

    “Tal Benschar on December 14, 2012 at 11:42 am
    R. Elijah Zvi continues in Kol Kore to cite Maimonides’ Thirteen Principals of Faith, widely considered to be the doctrinal framework of Judaism, and then proceeds to explain how each one of Maimonides’ principles is upheld by Christianity, juxtaposing Torah and New Testament verses to support one another.

    Rather strange since the Rambam himself explicitly states it is both Minus and Apikorsu”

    The categories of min and apikorus are distinct. Due to censorship one must be very careful in quoting the Rambam in this area-eg often the Kapach edition flips min and apikuros from the standard European edition.

  92. ruvie says:

    Tal – read the article.

    “R. Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik, the traditional rabbi from Lithuania, pre-dates most of these men and is actually more sympathetic to Christian doctrine, even the doctrine of the Trinity, and much more positive about the symbiosis between Judaism and Christianity than almost all of the rabbis mentioned above. He was not primarily interested in the historical Jesus but in Christianity itself. ”

    “…the doctrine of the Trinity as follows: “As to the doctrine of the Trinity to which the modern Jew so much objects (which was a doctrine really held by many of the most learned of the Rabbis) it is a very sublime thing, more extended than the circumference of the earth, and more expanded than the sea, and has many sublime principles depending on it, and truly does the Apostle say: ‘Great is the mystery of Godliness’; for not everyone can fathom the depth of that mystery.”

  93. Nachum says:

    IH, if you’re going to offer one non-sequitor, I’ll offer another: Funny how people (like you, still digging your hole as you respond, and the “rabbi” [onetime classmate of mine] Hoffa cited) who have no problem with the perversions of homosexuality get all excited about child abuse.

    Turnabout is fair play…

  94. Nachum says:

    By the way, there’s one thing here that leaves a really bad taste in my mouth: It’s not as if any of these stories are new. They’ve been on the internet a while. If you read between the lines, the main motivating factor here seems to be that some reporter called Norman Lamm- who, it bears pointing out, is long retired and turns 85 this coming week- and got him to say some unguarded things. Draw your own conclusions.

    The Magid piece, if I may be so bold, is more sensationalistic than anything else. The culture we live in.

  95. IH says:

    Machum — equating homosexuality with child abuse: קטן עליך

  96. Nachum says:

    Hey, you’re the one who brought it up. כל הפוסל, במומו פוסל, and it’s nowhere more obvious than here.

    But yes! I am equating them! They are both sexual perversions. The Lord God himself has told me that the former is, and my innate morality tells me the latter is. Do you disagree on either point?

  97. IH says:

    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?

  98. IH says:

    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.

  99. mycroft says:

    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.

  100. Shlomo says:

    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.

  101. mycroft says:

    “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.

  102. ruvie says:

    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.

  103. Steve Brizel says:

    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.

  104. mycroft says:

    “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.

  105. mycroft says:

    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

  106. Steve Brizel says:

    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.

  107. Steve Brizel says:

    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.

  108. mycroft says:

    “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.

  109. Ruvie says:

    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?

  110. The Dude says:

    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.

  111. mycroft says:

    “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.

  112. Nachum says:

    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.

  113. IH says:

    To avoid all the slip-sliding, the point in that 2.5 years old link is that Cardozo Dean Matthew Filler’s statement includes:

    Cardozo is a diverse law school that welcomes people of all religions, races, backgrounds and sexual orientations. We are proud of our community and value the many contributions of our past and present gay and lesbian students, faculty, administrators, and staff to building our Law School and to our nationally recognized success. … Cardozo is part of Yeshiva University, which is committed to a non-discriminatory policy and honors the dignity of all individuals. …

    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?

  114. mycroft says:

    “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.

  115. Tal Benschar says:

    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.

  116. mycroft says:

    “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.

  117. IH says:

    Perhaps it has something to do with a vision of Modern Orthodoxy: Torah u’Madda.

  118. mycroft says:

    ” 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.

  119. mycroft says:

    “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?

  120. Tal Benschar says:

    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.

  121. Machshavos says:

    “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?

  122. mycroft says:

    “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.

  123. Nachum says:

    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.

  124. joel rich says:

    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

  125. mycroft says:

    “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.

  126. Tal Benschar says:

    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.

  127. Nachum says:

    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.

  128. joel rich says:

    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

  129. Nachum says:

    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.

  130. mycroft says:

    “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.

 
 

Submit a Response

 

You must be logged in to submit a response.