Ragen Pipes Up on Joel's Fundraising Game
First, a kid from UCLA who got a column in the YU Commie last year protesting the appointment of Richard Joel as president. Then, there was that incident last week with the rabbi of the UCLA Hillel. Now someone with a far fetched axe to grind takes on Joel, YU, and the whole establishment.
Naomi Ragen weighs in: “Some of the people honored at fundraising dinners for Hillel, included Edgar Bronfman, notorious for his Israel-bashing, who is — surprise — International Hillel Chairman. But so what? They raised $500,000 in one night. And that’s what counts, apparently. Even to the trustees of Yeshiva University, an Orthodox Jewish institution of higher learning that includes a Rabbinical school. I’m sure President Joel, who I understand is a great guy, will raise a great deal of money for Y.U. But what will be left of its students’ Jewishness, and its support for its Israeli brethren is another question altogether.”
>Now someone with a far fetched axe
>to grind takes on Joel, YU, the whole
>establishment.
People say this everytime Naomi Ragan writes an article. Instead of taking intellectual short-cuts and using terms like “axe to grind” or “witch-hunt” (you didn’t actually use the latter), why don’t you actually address her article point by point?
Here’s an example of an article Naomi Regan wrote in 1999 regarding Rabbi Ze’ev Kopolevitch ( http://www.theawarenesscenter.org/kopolevitch ):
http://naomiragen.com/Columns/MrRubinstein.htm
People attacked her using the same type of language:
>Now someone with a far fetched axe
>to grind takes on X, Y, the whole
>establishment.
Then a few years later, OU and the Lanner affair.
Cuz obviously has an axe to grind and is obviously clueless as to the extend of identity with Israel Yeshiva University has and will continue to have.
>Cuz obviously
Another argument lacking intellectual content.
>exten(t) of identi(fication) with Israel (,) Yeshiva
>University has and will continue to have.
So? Try actually adressing the points she raises.
I think by quoting just a small piece of Naomi Regan’s article you’ve removed the context that it needs to be read in.
I think thats the point. She twisted and reached beyond that task at hand which started as covering thealleged assault of a student at a lecture by a rabbi, and somehow ended up bashin the jeiwsh identityof the jewush university. You wanna tell me Miss Sotah doesnt have an axe to grind with yu? BULL SHIT
I think by quoting just a small piece of Naomi Regan’s article you’ve removed the context that it needs to be read in.
Sorry for the hiccup.
>Miss Sotah doesnt have an axe to grind with yu
You apparently have an axe to grind with her. You could have properly referred to her as the author of the book Sotah rather than calling her an adulterous woman.
See:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1902881516/103-9122169-3532621?v=glance
Again:
Instead of taking intellectual short-cuts and using terms like “axe to grind”, bame-calling and profanity, why don’t you actually address her article point by point in a reasoned fashion? Or are you simply incapable of intellectual thought that goes past 3 lines?
Lay off, anonymous “me,” you also seem to have a beef with something here. They are correct in their assertion that the chron whatch article is a sick twisting of issues that have more than 6 degrees of separation. She could have very well taken up her issues with joel and yu, which may be valid with out using an incident of which there was no criminal charge, and a digrunteled student’s letter to the editor as her evidence in making a baseless point – without anything to back it up but roundabout specultion.
Hey, I like Joel and YU but Regan has some valid points and no one, and no institution should be above criticism. Is Rabbi Chaim Seidler-Feller an appropriate person to be employed by Hillel, I personally don’t think so.
Regardless, of the criminal aspect of the assault (hey O.J. was never convicted), I can’t imagine you are condoning the use of physical violence by any jew against another during a verbal argument. By no standard can their be any excuse for Rabbi Chaim Seidler-Feller’s behavior. There is also no question that he resorted to physical violence here.
Please show me where i condoned violence by a rabbi agains a student???? now who is reaching to insult? i said nothing of the sort, I mere made my concise point that the events and ties she made had aboslutely nothing to do with each other, the paralels are far fethched and pointless in making her case, you should learn to practice what you were preaching.
I probably could have made my statement better. (Then again you were being particularly nasty to me: “Lay off, anonymous “me,” you also seem to have a beef with something here.”) But I certainly didn’t say you “condoned violence by a rabbi agains a student”.
I said “I can’t imagine you are condoning the use of physical violence by any jew against another during a verbal argument.”
And apparently you weren’t.
I certainly felt you were being dismissive of the very disturbing behavior by using the phrase “using an incident of which there was no criminal charge”. Criminal charges are irrelevant. The assault happened by all accounts regardless of what the DA in the end decides to do (likely anger management counselling).
WTF she really has no clue…
The woman involved in the incident was not a student, it was a right wing journalist who had called Seidler Feller worse than a Capo. Plus, Ragen’s analysis of this whole situation is totally skewed. Joel really cares abut klal yisrael and is a man of vision. Seidler Feller also cares about Jews and Israel very much, plus he’s a great teacher of torah.