Yeshiva University Observer

I think that if the Observer ever consented to such an advance by the Commentator, the staff would lose any respect/power that they currently control.

Take the new Jewish Studies Council(SLC) at Wilf, for example. Last year, Student Life Committee proposed a bill to combine the morning program student councils into one centralized board. The catch: only someone from MYP could preside over it. When I asked SLC why someone from any other morning program couldn't do as good a job, they answered that it had nothing to do with prejudice, but rather because MYP has the majority of students. They claimed the move was merely pragmatic in getting a "necessary" bill passed: The only way they would be able to combine the boards and have fair, effective programming was to assure the students of MYP that their power would be maintained - by giving them half of the votes one the board and the final presiding decision.

This year, the president of the new council, Jason Jacobs, does not even acknowledge this new board. He signs his emails "President, Student Organization of Yeshiva." On top of that, getting him to support any program that does not serve MYP's purpose, is like trying to get Prime Minister Stephen Harper to support... alright that joke was going nowhere but you get what I'm saying.

Should the Observer allow itself to be taken over by the Commentator, the women at Stern can say goodbye to ever being an editor, a writer on a important, etc. (Which would be sad because sometime the editors/writers on the Observer have more balls than the writers on the Commentator staff). JSC's unfairness arose from just some silly religious/image prejudices. I believe the sexism that is bound to exists on an all-male, Orthodox campus will prove much harder to combat. Even though they'll probably tell you it has nothing to do with sexism, it's just that Wilf has a majority of students...

Well done. Even though, as a former opinions editor for the Commie, I hadn't really heard this idea proposed before this year, it is believable that there have been some guys clamoring for a merger for a while. A vocal minority, I'd call them [/him].


I, too, can't understand what would motivate someone to push for a merger between the Commie and the Observer. And I don't really think they even want one. Even if this one editor does, I can assure you that most of the staff probably doesn't. And even if the WHOLE staff somehow did (and they don't), I don't think the STUDENTS, who are your READERS, would want it. Sure, a Fashion section and a Sports section coexist in the New York Times, but the Commie and Observer are NOT the times, and they shouldn't strive to be. That's not what the students want. They can already get the Times. They want a campus newspaper they can turn to for some quick info about the goings-on when they are short on time, and a few longer pieces they can check out when they get around to them. Always keep in mind who you serve.

I think it has to do with a desperate plea for attention ("hey everyone look how progressive I am!") more than chauvanism or even insecurity. It's tough to really say they're being chauvanistic, especially when you ignored the fact that Mr. Horowitz [admittedly, rather weakly] suggested making some kind of hyphenated or combined name for the paper.

And for insecurity... really? Did we HAVE to go there? Why did the title have to be "Separate, But BETTER"... do you really think the Observer is "Better" and if so, why did you not prove that in this article? As much as I diliked the Commie article, I don't think Mr. Horowitz was being sexist, why did you have to take offense and launch a counterattack to something that was not initiated? That one stupid little word in the headline made the article seem whiny... even though it really wasn't! Big turn-off for your male readers, to go ahead and insult their campus paper like that. Unless you're also looking for attention??

As far a jealousy is concerned, I think the proponent(s) of any campus merger (this newspaper merger specifically, but also the old Kastner lunacy/legacy) are a only envious of other American universities. And that needs to stop. If you wanted to go to Penn, you should have. Don't try to transform YU to meet every little standard you see elsewhere. Sure, academically you'd like to see high standards being met or surpassed, and yes we do need to make some progress in that area, but not for the sake of being "progressive." For the sake of education.

I really think he was just trying to get attention. And unfortunately, he succeeded. Now he's got you all riled up and saying your paper is Better, which makes you vulnerable to challenge. Let's see if he goes there, or if he can be the bigger... individual... and just let you be "Better" and get on with it. Like I said, I like the message INSIDE the article, mostly, but the petty bickering about who is Better and who is a bigot, we could really do without.

Mr Horowitz did want attention-pure and simple. The quality of The Observer last year-under Olivia Wiznitzer's leadership was very good. Both papers need to learn to exist side by side and concentrate on the news of their individual campuses.

This is the most brilliant opinions piece in The Observer since Ariella Goldwag single-handedly persuaded Winston Churchill to take a stand in World War Two in an article entitled "Why Winston Churchill should take a stand in World War Two" (we still talk about that in the Oval Office sometimes, you know). In any case, kudos to the Opinions Editor for standing up for the autonomy, innovation, and involvement of the avid fans of The Observer. May the wellsprings of your opinions ever inundate us with your fertile knowledge. -The President of the United States of America (and that includes Alaska).

Uri, you said it best:

"Both papers need to learn to exist side by side and concentrate on the news of their individual campuses."