The downside of an article like this is that it does not give enough of the first-person comments of President Joel so we can know what he is thinking and what he is planning to do. The upside of such an article is that it gives President Joel a wakeup call. People who care about YU want to know what he is thinking and planning to do. It will be his choice now as to whether he will follow through with such disclosures.

It would seem that the likelihood of dismissal of claims based on the Statute of Limitations concern is at least 50-50. Let's presume that the case is dismissed. Many of the plaintiffs will likely feel they have been wronged yet again. On a technicality, they would lose their right to be heard in Court. The plaintiffs, not the attorneys, would be the biggest losers in this matter. (Attorneys will have reaped the publicity of this case for their future litigation prospects.) Would it not make sense to try to have a credible Beth Din hear these charges or even try to obtain a reasonable settlement rather than pursue a course of action that could intensify the feelings of the Plaintiffs that they have been victimized? It only takes one Plaintiff to reach such a conclusion to get some momentum for alternative strategies. Litigation does not always produce satisfying results. While it might be true that YU would profit from such a strategy, it is quite true that such an option would also also serve the Plaintiffs well. They would have fought for principle and not for money, and yet would have achieved, potentially, both. Food for thought.

We all get it by now. Dr. Alan Nadler has written about the manifold contributions of Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm. All true. The Forward had written ad nauseam about the terrible mistakes that were made. Dr. Lamm agrees so little more is needed on that point either. Aggrieved students have their attorney seeking monetary recovery from YU. Ditto. Nothing new there. Can we now go on and let the process move along in other non-journalistic forums. (i.e. the Courts). Dr. Nadler was right. Dr. Lamm saved, single-handedly, the premier institution for the Modern Orthodox Jew. History will always remember that. He also made a mistake for which he has taken responsibility. Can we now allow this giant figure of our times the opportunity to live out his years with dignity and privacy? Enough. Enough.

Perhaps we are reading different comments, but I don't believe anyone suggested sweeping abuses under the rug. In fact I find the opposite, expressed, sentiment.

It would be interesting to see what personal bias each commenter brings to this discussion. I have read, for example, countless posts on-line about YU's vice-provost. To the question of what is the relationship between this matter and the reported abuses, the answer is that there is no relationship. For those who must take a gratuitous slap at YU whenever they get the opportunity, I will quote Justice Douglas: "The Constitution protects certain rights. Among them is the right to be wrong". Enough said.

Since there are laws about reporting abuse in New York, you need not be concerned whether YU has policies and procedures in place. Indeed the law requires adherence. In Pennsylvania, the authorities needed to determine whether or not criminal laws were violated. The same would obviously be true in New York.

Mr. Todd Berman has performed a valuable service. He reminds us that you can serve the community well by reporting abuses and bringing them to light. The Forward deserves to take a bow. But one can call their own behavior into question by practicing yellow-journalism. No... YU's errors do not equate to those of Penn State. It is unfair to state this, but it does make for good headlines. Playing "Gotcha journalism" with scholars such as Rabbi Lamm (according to reports I have heard, the quotes from Rabbi Lamm were not the result of a proper sit-down interview but rather the result of a surprise encounter) is not the highest form of journalistic behavior. YU has retained a legal team. The alleged victims have access to their own team. Justice will now take center stage. Perhaps after its bow, The Forward will need to move on.

Litigation rarely punishes only the guilty. It punishes the innocent as well. It rarely gives those aggrieved the resolution they seek. It benefits few and harms many. This is why some attorneys, such as I, have chosen to become mediators. Litigation can get you money; rarely will it give you closure. Only civil discussion can do that. A proper dialogue between the parties will likely never take place. It should have taken place. Both parties need to bear some responsibility for that omission. In the meanwhile, please note that equating YU and Penn State is a violation of common sense and fairness. The Forward editors can do better. Thank you Mr. Berman for eloquently pointing this out.

For a more balanced account on this controversy, see my blog at http://shalombayitblog.wordpress.com. This issue deserves more than a one-dimensional once-over. I do believe the students have valid grievances but they have a responsibility as well. My blog touches on some points.

Thank you for your comments. For anyone who is concerned about children, an easy place to begin is lessening strife in the divorce process. Best wishes.