Explaining the Yeshiva University v. YU Pride Alliance Settlement

Introduction

Many were surprised by the recent settlement by YU of this lawsuit and YU’s agreement to open a student club named Hareni. This club will support YU’s LGBTQ students and will operate under the guidance of YU’s senior rabbis. (Its name is a clever reference to a prayer many say daily endorsing the idea that “I hereby take upon myself to fulfill the commandment of loving your neighbor as yourself.”) But no one should be surprised by the settlement: some may be unhappy over YU’s seeming “capitulation” — though not I — but surprised? Certainly not.

Five Critical Ideas

There are five key reasons why the creation of such a student group is wholly consistent with YU’s mission and the enduring legacy of Rabbi Norman Lamm zt”l, the president, chancellor and rosh hayeshiva for decades, whose leadership value and style continues to shape YU.

First and foremost, Rabbi Lamm, along with many current roshei yeshiva, have always shown compassion for Orthodox LGBTQ students. Rabbi Lamm’s foundational article on homosexuality from 50 years ago laid the groundwork for a more understanding approach. More recently, YU President Rabbi Ari Berman stated about a prior attempt to craft a compromise in 2022, “We are eager to support and facilitate the religious growth and personal life journeys of all of our students to lead authentic Torah lives…,” and Rabbi Hershel Schachter offered his thoughtful endorsement of that proposal: “I add my blessing to this initiative and new student club, which we hope deepens our students’ commitment to the Torah and leads to harmony in our Yeshiva University community.” These statements reflect a long-standing recognition that some Orthodox Jews are LGBTQ, committed to being shomrei mitzvot and deserving of guidance. Offering such guidance is no concession — it is a mitzvah.

Second and equally important, YU’s legal right to discriminate based on sexual orientation was debatable. Though it has operated with a religious mission since creation, it was rechartered as a secular institution more than 50 years ago. Every court that reviewed the case thus far has ruled against YU’s position as a matter of secular law. While there was some hope that the U.S. Supreme Court might take the case and reverse course — with four justices indicating such — five votes were never guaranteed. Supporters of YU with a legal background were uncertain what would be the outcome of the litigation. I was always inclined to think YU would not triumph under American law; furthermore, since this case was resolved through settlement, both sides now have a duty of good-faith in implementing the settlement.

Third, these controversies had financial repercussions. Though YU’s fundraising remains strong overall, it did experience some setbacks, and several board members — longtime supporters, including individuals who have named schools and buildings at YU — resigned or declined to renew their terms. These departures were painful and best avoided when possible.

Fourth, the current rise in antisemitism in the U.S. made many at YU, and beyond, question whether an internal communal battle was worth pursuing. We find ourselves in an era when enemies of the Jewish people — regardless of whether those Jews are gay or straight — are vocal and active. In this context, a prolonged public battle over LGBTQ inclusion seemed risky, especially when the students sincerely sought Torah-based guidance for living lives of religious commitment.

Fifth and related, even within our Modern Orthodox community, few believed that an uncompromising stance was wise. Many now accept that sexual orientation may be innate and deserve a sincere and thoughtful Torah guidance to their realities. Even YU’s own community was divided, and this encouraged practical compromise as well.

Conclusion

Rabbi Lamm and Yeshiva University consistently rejected the notion that Orthodoxy requires fighting every possible battle. This worldview values wisdom, compassion and restraint with measured responses — qualities that defined his decades of leadership at Yeshiva University. That spirit continues to animate the institution today. Those who believe that same-sex attraction can be “cured” will not accept this approach; they remain aligned with communities that endorse “conversion therapy” or other methods not grounded in medical reality. No one is surprised that this community would rather YU fail than settle. But that is not the path of Modern Orthodoxy or YU.

Yeshiva University faced a complex situation with no perfect solutions. As an institution committed to Orthodox standards and halacha, it will not and should not validate moral positions that run contrary to halachic norms, as Rabbi Ari Berman noted in his elegant statement on this matter read at the recent RIETS dinner by Rabbi Mordechai Willig. Yet, as Rabbi Lamm recognized over fifty years ago, students who are genuinely gay cannot be changed: wishing them away is neither morally sound nor practical viable — especially if our goal is to keep them within the fold. Pushing people away increases the risk that they will leave. Furthermore, YU can ill afford to lose the legal battle that it is in — and this might explain why Rabbi Schachter opposes “establishing any additional club[s] in any orthodox institution,” without withdrawing support from YU settling this litigation with the establishment of this club.

This new club represents an effort to thread the needle: offering support and guidance to LGBTQ members of our community, even while a full LGBTQ lifestyle cannot receive halachic endorsement. Some may mistakenly portray this compromise as a betrayal of YU’s commitment to halacha, an incorrect view, as Rabbi Berman’s most recent statement makes clear. In truth, YU has long demonstrated a willingness — often publicly and at reputational risk — to confront complex realities and engage the non-ideal in pursuit of better results. Just as its rabbis cooperated with non-Orthodox groups on shared non-religious causes — engaging in careful collaboration without endorsing opposing views — so too, in this case, YU seeks to uphold core Orthodox values while including LGBTQ individuals in our community. Of course, Rabbi Twersky’s observations about chillul Hashem remain an important insight, but perhaps this is a moment where YU felt it had no real choice — given the fear of losing the litigation and the chillul Hashem that would cause or settling and in this context “respectfully, lovingly and empathetically support all Jews in their efforts to live authentic Jewish lives” as Rabbi Twersky posits so elegantly — leaving denouncing for a different moment. Hard situation with no simple answer.

YU specifically and the Modern Orthodox community generally remains steadfast in guiding all members of the Modern Orthodox community — gay and straight — with integrity, compassion and in a spirit grounded in taharat hakodesh. While success is far from assured, and the road is always bumpy, one can hope that YU continues to succeed in this sacred, albeit complex, mission.

Michael J. Broyde (YC ‘84, RIETS ‘91) is a yoreh-yoreh yadin-yadin musmach of YU, as well as a graduate of its college and high school. He is a professor of law at Emory University and the Berman Projects Director in the Emory Center for the Study of Law and Religion. He was the rabbi of the Young Israel in Atlanta and the Director of the Beth Din of America.

---

Photo Credit: Yeshiva University

Photo Caption: Former YU President Norman Lamm speaking with current YU President Ari Berman