Bill,
Since you know a couple of UJ faculty members (the editors of your Passion book, for instance), I would have hoped you would have double-checked with us before running Luke's salacious post.
#1. This isn't news -- it happened over a year ago. I believe that names were not released to the Journal because the parties were in the hospital (and at least one was still in a coma) at the time the story ran.
#2. The incident happened in early June. The administrator thereafter did not return to the UJ campus.
#3. Luke's post does not reflect current staffing / administrative positions at the UJ.
Bill,
Since you know a couple of UJ faculty members (the editors of your Passion book, for instance), I would have hoped you would have double-checked with us before running Luke's salacious post.
#1. This isn't news -- it happened over a year ago. I believe that names were not released to the Journal because the parties were in the hospital (and at least one was still in a coma) at the time the story ran.
#2. The incident happened in early June. The administrator thereafter did not return to the UJ campus.
#3. Luke's post does not reflect current staffing / administrative positions at the UJ.
(My personal opinion) #4. There is no excuse for what happened. That said, there is an important moral and legal difference between a consensual affair between a student and a university administrator (an admissions officer, no less, who does not interact with enrolled students) and a much-less-than-consensual encounter between a student and her own professor (who exercised direct authority over the student in question). Both are wrong, of course, but I think the UJ and Fordham cases are not in the same league.
(My personal opinion) #4. There is no excuse for what happened. That said, there is an important moral and legal difference between a consensual affair between a student and a university administrator (an admissions officer, no less, who does not interact with enrolled students) and a much-less-than-consensual encounter between a student and her own professor (who exercised direct authority over the student in question). Both are wrong, of course, but I think the UJ and Fordham cases are not in the same league.
And for what it's worth, the administrator in question did not become a public figure and leading spokesman for Jewish religious support for a political candidate (at least not yet). If he ever does, I'm sure that this episode will come back to haunt him (as it should).
And for what it's worth, the administrator in question did not become a public figure and leading spokesman for Jewish religious support for a political candidate (at least not yet). If he ever does, I'm sure that this episode will come back to haunt him (as it should).
What, Shawn ... Luke Ford write a "salacious" post?! I'm sure Luke has never been accused of that before.
And yes, since I do know a couple of UJ folks, I did think that at least the one who reads this blog would comment (which no one has done at Protocols). And you did. 
I think it does reveal (as does the Deal Hudson affair) that different kinds of journalists deal differently with matters such as this.
What, Shawn ... Luke Ford write a "salacious" post?! I'm sure Luke has never been accused of that before.
And yes, since I do know a couple of UJ folks, I did think that at least the one who reads this blog would comment (which no one has done at Protocols). And you did.
I think it does reveal (as does the Deal Hudson affair) that different kinds of journalists deal differently with matters such as this.
BTW -- "My" Passion book? My wee contribution to your monumental undertaking, you mean.
BTW -- "My" Passion book? My wee contribution to your monumental undertaking, you mean.
"Your," "my," "our," -- you know, this "ownership society" thing is over-rated 
Hardly a "wee" contribution -- in terms of its approach, yours is one of the most original pieces in the darned thing!
But more seriously, the question of reporting on alleged sexual improprieties is an interesting one. In the past, the Jewish Journal has been accused of sensationalism, and not undeservedly. Still, you have to give them credit for the indirect way it reported both the UJ story and another juicy story the same summer: rather than doing separate news stories, it ran a cover piece on how institutions handle scandals -- a convenient excuse to slip in the facts & allegations of the summer's events. You can see it here: http://www.jewishjournal.com/hom...ew.php?
id=10791 .
"Your," "my," "our," -- you know, this "ownership society" thing is over-rated
Hardly a "wee" contribution -- in terms of its approach, yours is one of the most original pieces in the darned thing!
But more seriously, the question of reporting on alleged sexual improprieties is an interesting one. In the past, the Jewish Journal has been accused of sensationalism, and not undeservedly. Still, you have to give them credit for the indirect way it reported both the UJ story and another juicy story the same summer: rather than doing separate news stories, it ran a cover piece on how institutions handle scandals -- a convenient excuse to slip in the facts & allegations of the summer's events. You can see it here: http://www.jewishjournal.com/hom...ew.php?
id=10791 .
A reply to Shawn:
* My decisions on what I publish have nothing to do whether other persons consider it news. Something that happened 3200 years ago can be news to me and worthy of coverage.
* Whether folks ended up in the hospital and in comas is irrelevant to a decision to name them or not.
* This story continues to be a talking point with both parties as they socialize and with outsiders who remain interested in what happened (as the JJ never spelled it out and named names).
* The administrator Amnon Finkelstein is all over the UJ website as the current director of admissions at UJ.
* There have been a string of inappropriate relations between students, staff and faculty at UJ. We're dealing here with a systemic problem.
* The story illustrates how wimpy I think Jewish journalism is. They let these institutions off the hook.
A reply to Shawn:
* My decisions on what I publish have nothing to do whether other persons consider it news. Something that happened 3200 years ago can be news to me and worthy of coverage.
* Whether folks ended up in the hospital and in comas is irrelevant to a decision to name them or not.
* This story continues to be a talking point with both parties as they socialize and with outsiders who remain interested in what happened (as the JJ never spelled it out and named names).
* The administrator Amnon Finkelstein is all over the UJ website as the current director of admissions at UJ.
* There have been a string of inappropriate relations between students, staff and faculty at UJ. We're dealing here with a systemic problem.
* The story illustrates how wimpy I think Jewish journalism is. They let these institutions off the hook.
A reply to Luke:
1. Fair enough.
2. There are privacy laws binding upon both hospitals regarding their patients and academic institutions regarding their students & employees.
3. Fair enough.
4. The current director of admissions at the UJ is Bryan Pisetsky. The acting director and then formal director of admissions at the UJ from June 2003 until August 2004 was Shoshana Kapnek. This information is and was readily available from the UJ. (I can't speculate on why the internet folks haven't updated the website.)
5. Really? That's a serious allegation: care to be more specific?
6. You're absolutely right.
A reply to Luke:
1. Fair enough.
2. There are privacy laws binding upon both hospitals regarding their patients and academic institutions regarding their students & employees.
3. Fair enough.
4. The current director of admissions at the UJ is Bryan Pisetsky. The acting director and then formal director of admissions at the UJ from June 2003 until August 2004 was Shoshana Kapnek. This information is and was readily available from the UJ. (I can't speculate on why the internet folks haven't updated the website.)
5. Really? That's a serious allegation: care to be more specific?
6. You're absolutely right.
Commenting by HaloScan.com
All comments are subject to moderation before post appears.
