Representation—Where Now? (Vol. 2, Issue 5)

With meaning sincerity we welcome the appointment of a dormitory supervisor to bring about a healthier dormitory life for Yeshiva students. We hail this step as a concrete accomplishment based, upon the realization that the dormitory is the home of its residents, and that its influence over a period of years is a powerful force, hitherto all but disregardéd. With true earnestness, we pledge our active cooperation in any constructive program which may be undertaken. 

Yet, on the otter hand, we wonder whether all progress must be accompanied by an even greater regress; whether one step forward must be accompanied by two backwards.

We wonder whether the appointment of a dormitory supervisor necessitated the abolition of the students’ right to be heard in matters which affect them so vitally and so directly? 

It had been our opinion that the administration had long accepted as axiomatic the right of students to be represented when questions involving their well being are passed upon.

We were not alone in this opinion. Every student council that took up the dormitory question acted upon the premise that the inalienable right of student representation would not suddenly be denied them. 

The facts, however, do not substantiate their faith in the administration. While all student dormitory bodies were declared non-existent a single individual was assigned to assist the new supervisor in orientating himself in his new surroundings.

No one will concede that any one student, even were he a popular one, could possibly serve instead of an accredited, well-chosen, group of representatives. 

The fact remains, and is generally well-recognized: no dormitory system can be successful without student cooperation. 

And there can be no student cooperation without proper student [illegible]. 

Let us not blind ourselves from the truth.