By: The Commentator Editorial Board  | 

A College Unique (Vol. 1, Issue 14)

Of the ten suggestions submitted to the administration last year by the Commentator in the issue of May 20, the ninth one read as follows:

“That a committee consisting of three members of the faculty, three representatives designated by Student Council, and the chairman chosen by mutual agreement be formed to consider student and institutional problems as they directly affect the student body.” Suggestion number nine has never emerged from the realm of suggestion unto this day. 

Although it was planned last term to appoint three students to this committee as representatives of Student Council, the preoccupation of both the faculty and Student Council with other matters resulted in further postponement of the formation of this group. 

However, the necessity for the presence of such a committee now can no more be overlooked. New problems affecting the student body are constantly cropping up with no method of solution. Increasingly, pressing matters of student concern are being brought to the administration for discussion—matters which really should be under the sole jurisdiction of the faculty-student committee. 

Probably the greatest advantage of this committee to the faculty and to the undergraduate body will be the removal of personal motives from the solution of common problems. That principle has been the sore spot from the student point of view. And we are firmly convinced that the removal of this sore spot will only be achieved when the discussion of student problems will be relegated to their proper sphere, namely the faculty-student committee. 

A limited amount of editorial space does not permit a detailed outline of the cases we believe should come under the jurisdiction of this committee. To cover all student problems, it will necessarily have a wide scope. But its exact nature, purpose, and the problems it shall. concern itself with can very easily be worked out by the committee and submitted for ratification to the faculty and Student Council, respectively. 

One extremely important point, however, remains to be made. It concerns the choice of faculty representatives to serve on the committee. Every member of the faculty from the rank of instructor to professor, barring only a few, are all equally aware of the problems that confront the faculty. This will readily be admitted.

Each one of these men is thus a potential representative of the interests of the faculty to the faculty-student committee. It is, therefore, our fundamental conviction that Student Council should have the right to ask for those members of the faculty in whom they have confidence to serve on the faculty student committee. 

We feel that Student Council has every right to ask for those men only who have a Jewish background, an appreciation of the ideals of the institution, and a sympathetic understanding of the peculiar problems that confront the students of Yeshiva College.

These men, as mentioned above, are fully capable of representing the interests of the faculty. But most important of all, they alone are capable of working harmoniously with the student body by virtue of the confidence of the undergraduates they enjoy and the similarity of the ideals of both.

That such a system exists in no other college should be no means serve to invalidate our contention. As Dr. Revel has emphasized on innumerable occasions, Yeshiva College is a unique institution whose ideals set it apart from all other colleges.

We heartily agree with this opinion. That Student Council should have the right to choose those faculty men whose ideals conform to those of the institution and who have an understanding of student problems is merely the consistent application of Dr. Revel’s most justifiable contention.