As a Cardozo student, I find the Jurist’s content informative, enjoyable, and usually reflective of Cardozo’s zeitgeist. In recent issues, readers could not fail to notice the Jurist’s recurring theme of disagreement regarding school policies stemming from Cardozo’s religious denomination. It seems that the current ballyhoo concerning Yeshiva University’s gay policy (or none thereof) and Chancellor Joel’s attendant comments have become the Jurist’s cause célèbre. After reading the innumerable columns routinely denouncing Cardozo and Mr. Joel, I feel that if only for monotony’s sake, it is time to open up the conversation to other perspectives.

The Jurist frequently asserts that Cardozo’s gay policy prevents the school from breaking into the fraternity of the more eminent law schools. As I have never attended any law school besides Cardozo, I am unequipped to fully compare and debate where Cardozo should rank among schools. However, to insinuate that a staunchly pro-gay policy would lift Cardozo into the realm of the uber schools is disingenuous. Did it not occur to anyone that law schools more widely regarded than Cardozo have similar sectarianism? Notre Dame, Georgetown, and our perennial rival, Fordham, are all religious law schools that share much of Cardozo’s religious outlook. Friends at Georgetown and Fordham relate that there is a religious aura present, which makes them slightly uncomfortable. (Incidentally, I took my Sabbath observers LSAT at St. John’s law school, where the room full of yarmulke wearers had a plainly visible cross over the blackboard. Admittedly, it was disconcerting.) Yet, it wouldn’t occur to my friends to complain about their schools’ religious standing. They voluntarily attend these schools and realize that many of the school’s donors who make it possible to enjoy scholarships, excellent professors, or other amenities, have an affinity toward the school precisely because of its religious affiliation. Further, they recognize that some of their classmates and dear friends attend these schools because of its sectarianism. Should we not afford Cardozo the same right of identity?

In truth, it is particularly regretful that the gay community and the orthodox community are at odds. Our minority communities share special commonalities. From the fact that we can easily “pass” if we so choose, to the fact that in a different era we would share a last drag of Zyklon B together, demonstrates that our strategy should be one of allies and not adversaries.

Regardless of whether Joel’s comments were smart politick, the content of his comments were not his own. It is intransmutable that orthodox Jews believe that while the Torah doesn’t speak to gay marriage per se, it unquestionably prohibits males engaging in homosexual activity. I do not understand the outrage against this prohibition in contrast to the Torah’s other constraints. Where is the outcry concerning the Torah’s other commandments?

Homosexuality does not make you less of a person or less of a Jew. To illustrate, an orthodox friend stopped wearing his yarmulke to work, uncomfortable wearing his religion on his sleeve, while a gay acquaintance proudly wears a pink Star of David hat to college every day. Nevertheless, the Torah is unequivocal on the matter, and for Richard Joel to have said otherwise is akin to a traffic court judge in the Solomon Islands ruling that Puerto Rico is entitled to three senators.

If the Cardozo gay community takes offense at the Torah’s prohibition then (1) the very large Cardozo cheeseburger community should take offense as well; and (2) do hold Richard Joel personally blameworthy for staying true to his beliefs.

As an orthodox student, I feel the same toward a gay student as I do toward any other student, which I believe is the most important thing. Perhaps I even feel even more compassion toward my fellow gay students than my other classmates, as I believe that the gay community deserves a special sensitivity. Gays, unlike other minorities, do not “enjoy” the multi generational persecution that affords a degree of inoculation to discrimination. They do not have gay parents and grandparents imparting the special tools needed to stay strong in the face of intolerance.

I hope that the gay community knows that it is as much a part of Cardozo as anyone else. I think that the Jurist, trying to emulate Emile Zola, mistakenly borrowed from Julius Streicher. I have just two requests. First, if the Jurist honorably seeks to defend gay rights, then please do not do so indelicately at the expense of orthodox Jews. Second, while I apologize on the school’s behalf to anyone from the gay community who feels that they have been slighted, I plead with you to address the matter yourselves in the Jurist’s pages, and do not let others speak for you.