YU Is Not Homophobic
In his recent opinion piece “Overhauling Student Clubs: When Homophobia is All Too Obvious,” Nissim Farhy argues that YU acted homophobically by instituting stricter requirements for clubs which in effect rule out a pride club. This is a harsh attack and one which must be closely examined. But, just like the antisemitic protesters accusing Israel of committing a genocide, Farhy’s attack is imprecise and ignores the many nuances of the situation as it is going on.
Mr. Farhy’s claim simplifies a complex issue into an accusation which is overly harsh. He argues that YU as an institution is homophobic because there is no pride club; no other explanation or understanding is needed. But by the same line of reasoning, by oversimplifying the point while ignoring the complexities of the position, Farhy would have to conclude that the YU Pride Alliance is anti-Torah — they want a pride club even though the Torah explicitly prohibits homosexual actions. But neither Farhy nor I make this claim because I do not believe it, and it ignores the realities of who members of YUPA are and what they stand for.
Before I proceed, it is important to note that there have been extremely despicable, frustrating and worrying homophobic events in YU perpetrated by individual students, like when a member of the Pride Alliance was pushed and verbally assaulted at the club fair. However, the individuals who commit such terrible acts are certainly not representative of the student body. Moreover, Mr. Farhy made a claim against the institution of YU, not its students.
It is natural to rally for a pride club while realizing at the same time that YU can never have one in the typical sense of the phrase. It is logical that queer students at YU would yearn for the camaraderie that a pride club could provide. However, I believe that YU cannot ever have a pride club in the typical sense. Pride means, according to Merriam-Webster, “an event or series of events celebrating and affirming the rights, equality and culture of LGBTQ people.” The first two celebrations of rights and equality are totally consistent with YU’s values, and YU fulfills them to the best of its ability. But the third? An Orthodox Jewish institution cannot celebrate queer culture, which is clearly against the Torah.
From this tension and after years of rallies and litigation, which rose all the way to the Supreme Court, Hareni was born in the spring of 2025. The club would “operate in accordance with the approved guidelines of YU’s roshei yeshiva as it seeks to support our LGBTQ students with planning for events,” said Dean Sara Asher. Yet, after a few weeks and mutual allegations of settlement violations, YU shut down the club.
The beauty of Hareni, and perhaps previously the YU Pride Alliance, lay in that it redefined the focus of the club from a celebration of a culture inconsistent with the Torah to a celebration of what is the ultimate Torah value: struggling and growing together.
To expand this idea further, we need to understand what a club at YU is. A club is formed when a group of people come together with a shared interest and YU gives them its blessing and some funding. This shared interest has to be consistent with YU’s values, or at least not against them, for YU to support it. Supporting a traditional pride club would mean YU supports the celebration of LGBTQ culture. Hareni, on the other hand, was a testament to YU’s inspirational student body that looks to help and support each other while they undergo serious religious challenges, which is a tremendous achievement for both YU and Hareni.
To my disappointment, bad communication by both YU and YUPA led to Hareni’s collapse. Everyone outside of YU, from The New York Times to Yeshiva World News, thought that it was a full-fledged pride club, whereas most of the parties inside YU, including roshei yeshiva and students, wanted it to be an LGBTQ support group.
I conclude that YU is not homophobic; it is just awkward. It is an awkwardness born out of being too closely examined and criticized by outsiders, but also of the complicated fact that YU is a large bureaucratic institution that both harbors a large range of viewpoints from students and faculty and maintains strict adherence to halacha while trying to remain connected to the modern world. Because of its complex identity, YU has to pursue change slowly and cautiously, so after years of feeling the waters and carefully considering the situation, the administration designed the Hareni club, which was the best thing that it could offer considering all constraints.
Merriam-Webster defines homophobia as “discrimination against, aversion to or fear of homosexuality or gay people.” YU is not that. At most, they object to a group joining together over the shared value of homosexuality. But on an individual level, they really do want to support LGBTQ students, as much of a mess as Hareni turned out to be. Hareni failed because too many factors were moving very quickly, which was too much for YU to handle, so they shut it down.
By authorizing the Hareni club, YU took a courageous step and knowingly exposed itself to the whole world, which led to internal and external pressure to cancel the club. They thought that by dictating the terms, they would be able to fend off critics by communicating the true intention of the club. There was a lot of finger-pointing over who broke the rules, and I am in no position to judge who is correct. But in my opinion, Hareni mishandled the situation by not doing exactly what YU required. It may have been uncomfortable, and it was not on a standard that other clubs were held to, but if YU was willing to “take the heat,” it would have been wise to proceed on their terms. This is not to say that the terms should forever have stayed the same. Had Hareni had time to develop, it would have supported and brought the students together in the best way possible while working steadfastly within the halachic framework. It was definitely not perfect on day one, but most organizations are not. YU forming Hareni and dissolving it before it got a chance to perfect itself was not an expression of homophobia, but awkwardness.
Mr. Farhy asks where the rabbi or administrator who will support queer students is. In truth, it is most of them. Walking around Belfer, I constantly see signs and stickers expressing support for queer students. From what I have heard, the fact that most rabbis did not protest Hareni at the time of its founding was because they really are sympathetic to the challenges of being an Orthodox LGBTQ person, and they realized the need for a supportive environment. Although it is not clear or resounding, the silence of the rebbeim was tacit approval.
Why were there no loud statements from rabbinic leadership in support of the club? Firstly, it is very uncomfortable to insert yourself into a culture war. Secondly, as Kohelet 9:16 writes, “Divrei chachamim benachat nishma’im miza’akat moshel bakesilim,” “Words spoken softly by wise men are heeded sooner than those shouted by a lord in folly” (JPS 1985). Screaming and attention are great for creating combative environments, but for truly creating the positive change they desire, our roshei yeshiva chose the way of wise men, which befits their nature. They explained their positions in smaller settings to those who could appreciate the complexity without running to extremes. With their soft-spoken words they explained their efforts to bring everyone into their warm embrace while remaining tethered to the halacha. So please, do not do YU the injustice of simplifying its complexities into claiming it is homophobic; it isn’t.
Photo caption: A view of Rubin Hall and the Five Core Torah Values
Photo Credit: Jonathan Levin / The Commentator
