Yeshiva University Reverses Itself and Bans L.G.B.T.Q. Club
The school said the club, once known as the Pride Alliance but renamed Hareni earlier this year, had violated both Jewish principles and the legal settlement. But lawyers for the students said it was leaders at the school, a Modern Orthodox Jewish institution with campuses in Manhattan and the Bronx, who had violated the agreement with hostile religious rhetoric.
In a letter to the community on Friday, the university repeated an argument it made unsuccessfully in state court in 2022, saying its undergraduate programs are 'fundamentally religious.'
The school said that 'recent actions and statements' from the student club had led administrators to believe that it was 'operating as a pride club under a different name and as such is antithetical to the Torah values of our yeshiva, as well as in violation of the approved guidelines and of the terms of the settlement agreement.'
'There is no place for such a club in yeshiva,' the letter continued, using the general term for a Jewish educational institution.
Yeshiva's decision in March to recognize the club had seemed to end the legal battle, which had plunged a university in one of the country's most liberal cities into a nationwide debate over religious freedom, civil rights and whether houses of worship, religiously affiliated organizations or even pious individuals could be compelled to provide public accommodations to people with differing views.
The dispute had been closely watched by religious organizations and religious freedom groups. While many Jewish congregations support L.G.B.T.Q. rights, many Orthodox leaders interpret the Torah as promoting traditional ideas of gender and sexuality.
Throughout years of legal wrangling, Yeshiva went to great lengths to deny the club official recognition, including briefly banning all on-campus clubs. As the case worked its way through the courts, it also drew the attention of state lawmakers, who criticized the university's position and suggested it might have imperiled its ability to access public funds.
The official dissolution of Hareni comes at a time when the rights of L.G.B.T.Q. Americans appear under threat from the Trump administration, which has attacked elite universities and mounted a campaign against the participation of transgender people, in particular, in public life.
In a statement, the club said its members were 'deeply disappointed by the announcement of Hareni's cancellation,' which it said came one day after their lawyers sent a letter to the university objecting to 'ongoing displays of animus and hostility' from university leadership.
The lawyers, Katherine Rosenfeld and Max Selver, said in their letter that those statements included university guidelines released last month that said the club would not be permitted to host social events, must not use 'Pride flags, symbols and emojis as well as the term 'Pride Club,'' and must include a 'sexual morality' disclaimer on all its printed materials.
The students' lawyers also said they were alarmed by hostile public statements from senior rabbis at the school, including a letter printed in a campus newspaper from Rabbi Hershel Schachter, who said he 'emphatically rejects the ideology, lifestyle and behaviors which the L.G.B.T.Q. term represents.'
In another statement, a second senior rabbi, Mayer Twersky, said 'the L.G.B.T.Q. acronym' represented 'a heretical, nihilistic philosophy which champions and celebrates all forms of sexual deviance.'
'We must unconditionally reject their demands and can never settle,' Rabbi Twersky wrote.
In response to the letter from Hareni's lawyers, Yeshiva lodged its own complaints against the student club, which it said had 'repeatedly second-guessed and opposed Yeshiva's spiritual leadership' since its approval in March.
The university's lawyer said Yeshiva had not intended the legal settlement to amount to official recognition of the Pride Alliance, and that administrators were alarmed when the new club, Hareni, simply rebranded the Pride Alliance's social media accounts.
After the March settlement, posts were made on those accounts that said the Pride Alliance 'will go forward using the club name Hareni' as 'an official club at Y.U.,' the Yeshiva lawyer said. The university also objected to the use of Pride flag emojis and the word 'pride' in posts on those accounts, and the fact that Pride Alliance posts were still visible on them.
Officials appeared to be particularly incensed by an event they said the club held on May 7 and an opinion piece published in a campus newspaper the day before by the club's co-presidents, Hayley Goldberg and Schneur Friedman.
In that essay, the students said they planned to hold social events despite the university's prohibition, and that they would not affix a morality disclaimer to the club's printed materials. They said such a statement would be 'egregious.'
The student leaders also said that questions about the interplay between L.G.B.T.Q. rights and Jewish religious law, or halacha, 'are valid, but they are not the issue at hand.'
In reality, they wrote, universities, clubs, presidents and Yeshiva leaders 'do not determine how individuals, straight or gay, trans or cis, approach halacha.'
They added, 'The individuals themselves do.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
35% tariff on Canada still in the cards, Lutnick says
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said on Thursday that a 35% tariff on all Canadian goods not covered by the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement is still "surely in the cards," ahead of an Aug. 1 deadline imposed by President Donald Trump. Lutnick said in an interview on Fox Business Network's "Kudlow" that Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney could still convince Trump to back down. "If he makes that call, and if he starts turning on the charm, and if he takes off his retaliation ... and stops the silliness, maybe the president will let it down a bit," Lutnick said. "But right now, 35%, that letter he sent, is surely in the cards." Trump sent a letter to Carney in July saying the U.S. would impose a 35% tariff on Canadian goods as of Aug. 1. The two sides have been working on negotiating a trade deal by that deadline, but Trump said last week they may not be able to reach a negotiated deal, suggesting the unilateral tariff rate could be imposed. Earlier this week, Carney said talks were at an intense phase, while reiterating that a deal that would remove all U.S. tariffs was unlikely. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tax credit could boost competition among Gulf coast ports
WASHINGTON — New tax incentives proposed by Republican lawmakers aimed at protecting US supply chains from Chinese market power could also boost competition among Gulf Coast ports. The Port Crane Tax Credit of 2025, introduced recently by U.S. Reps. Mike Ezell, R-Miss., Jen Kiggans, R-Va., and Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., would establish tax credits to incentivize the domestic production of port cranes, 'a critical step toward strengthening U.S. supply chain security and revitalizing American manufacturing,' according to the bill's sponsors. 'I'm deeply concerned that so many of our ports are forced to use cranes manufactured by Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy Industries [ZPMC], a Chinese state-owned company,' Kiggans said in a press statement. 'It makes no sense to let our top adversary build and maintain the very equipment that powers our supply chains. The work our ports do is imperative – we cannot afford to leave that in the hands of the Chinese Communist Party.' The American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) sees the incentive as a counter to levying tariffs on Chinese-built cranes to achieve economic and national security policy goals. Last year the Biden administration imposed a 25% tariff on Chinese cranes, and the Trump administration has proposed raising it to 100%. 'Instead of levying unfair taxes on port development, the Port Cranes Tax Credit Act is a tangible first step on the supply side towards incentivizing the reshoring of key [container handling equipment] in the coming years since there are currently no domestic STS [ship-to-shore] crane manufacturers,' said AAPA President and CEO Cary Davis. Gulf Coast ports have been particularly vocal about the cost increases they face due to existing and potential new tariffs on Chinese-made container cranes. The Port of Houston, Port Freeport in Texas, and the Port of New Orleans all have invested in the past several years in container cranes built in China, which dominates the U.S. and international container gantry crane markets. Their rivals in the Eastern part of the Gulf – the ports of Gulfport and Pascagoula in Mississippi, and Port Tampa – see the tax credit as a way to help compete for business as well as incentivizing domestic manufacturing. The proposed tax credit 'is exactly the kind of forward-thinking support Gulf Coast ports like ours need to stay competitive and meet the demands of a modern, American-made supply chain,' said Port Pascagoula Port Director Bo Ethridge. 'As manufacturing continues to return to U.S. shores, our port is experiencing increased demand and new growth opportunities. Yet we remain the only major Gulf Coast port without cargo cranes, which is an infrastructure gap that limits our ability to diversify commodities. This legislation is a vital step toward closing that gap.' Jon Nass, executive director at the Port of Gulfport, said the legislation 'creates a path to bring new skilled jobs to Mississippi and reinforces our ability to compete globally while supporting our maritime and port industries.' Port Tampa Bay, which installed Chinese-made cranes at its container terminal in 2016 to help compete for larger container ships, supports the tax credit because it 'addresses urgent national security concerns,' said Paul Anderson, the port's president, by incentivizing U.S-made port equipment. Supply chain pain may lurk in container crane bill US targets Chinese-made container cranes in spy crackdown Ports call out 'sensationalized' targeting of foreign container cranes Click for more FreightWaves articles by John Gallagher. The post Tax credit could boost competition among Gulf coast ports appeared first on FreightWaves. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's lawyers encounter some courtroom skepticism as they defend tariffs that start Friday
Small business importers and the US Justice Department clashed Thursday over whether President Trump has the authority to impose his "Liberation Day" tariffs just hours before those duties were scheduled to take effect for countries around the world. The confrontation took place in Washington, D.C. before a panel of 12 judges at the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and it did not produce an immediate ruling. But it did reveal that some judges have some skepticism of the Justice Department's arguments that the president can unilaterally impose wide-ranging, global tariffs by invoking a law enacted in 1977 to protect the US from international threats, while others found support for the claim. Read more: 5 ways to tariff-proof your finances That law, known as 'IEEPA' — the International Economic Emergency Powers Act — authorizes the president to 'regulate' international commerce after declaring a national emergency. The panel — composed of eight judges appointed by former Democratic presidents and four appointed by Republican presidents — spent considerable time asking the lawyers what Congress meant when it wrote in IEEPA that presidents have authority to 'regulate importation.' 'IEEPA doesn't even say 'tariffs.' It doesn't even mention it,' one judge said. 'What does 'regulation of importation' mean?' another judge asked. And 'If 'regulate' doesn't cover tariffs, what does it cover?' A lawyer for one of 12 states joining the small businesses in their challenge of Trump's tariffs, Brian Simmonds Marshall, said he thought the phrase was meant to permit the president to order quotas that limit the number of imported goods, and potentially for the president to order import licensing requirements and fees. But 'the one thing that I think it excludes for sure is tariffs,' Simmonds Marshall added. But Trump's Justice Department Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate said that IEEPA doesn't have such limits and that Congress would have understood that when it wrote the law. And while IEEPA offers the president broad power, Shumate said that power is not unlimited because it is available only during a national emergency, and Congress can step in and overrule the president. 'The primary rule is for Congress to check the president if there is an abuse of the IEEPA tariff authority,' Shumate said. Trump and Nixon The judges also questioned if a Nixon-era case that addressed IEEPA's predecessor law, known as the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA), put limits on what a president can do under IEEPA. Trump's team has been citing that 1970s case as proof that the president's global tariffs should be allowed to stand in court. Roughly five decades ago, 10% duties unilaterally imposed by the former President Nixon as part of a set of economic measures dubbed the "Nixon shock" were challenged in court in much the same way as Trump's 2025 tariffs have been. A Japanese zipper-making business called Yoshida International sued, saying Nixon lacked the power to set the 10% tariff on foreign goods under three different laws that the government gave as justification: the Tariff Act, the Trade Expansion Act, and the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA). The most controversial justification was the TWEA, a predecessor law to the 1977 act that Trump cited this year as a basis for his multiple tariffs. A US Customs Court initially sided with the zipper importer, holding that none of the three laws was adequate authority for the duty. Yet on appeal, Nixon's tariffs were upheld. The court that upheld the tariffs reasoned that "neither need nor national emergency" justified Nixon's tariff because Congress had not delegated such power and because the authority was "not inherent" in his office, but that TWEA carved out enough power to regulate importation during an economic emergency. One of the judges hearing the Trump case on Thursday cited that 1970s case and said, 'It seems pretty clear to me that Yoshida is telling us that 'No, the president doesn't have the authority to rewrite the Tariff Schedule.' In this case, that's what the president is trying to do.' Read more: The latest news and updates on Trump's tariffs A lawyer for the challengers to Trump's duties argued that by adopting IEEPA in 1977, Congress ratified the high court's holding in Yoshida, which he said allowed the president to impose 'modest, bounded, temporary tariffs' but did not sanction unbounded, permanent duties. 'Good luck in America's big case' The lawyers and judges also sparred over whether the president's declared national emergency met IEEPA's requirements of unusual and extraordinary, and Trump found some support during this discussion. One judge agreed the president did meet these requirements by identifying underlying causes contributing to the threat, including trade deficits, tariff barriers, and a lack of reciprocity in US trading relationships. That, this judge said, contributed to a spike in the US's trade deficit and atrophied domestic production capacity, including in defense industrial bases. 'How does that not constitute what the president is expressly saying is an extraordinary threat?' the judge asked the challengers. But another judge countered, 'How can a trade deficit be an extraordinary and unusual threat when we've had trade deficits for decades?' Lawyers for the administration argued that the deficit becomes extraordinary and unusual once it reaches a point where it threatens the resources that are foundational to US national security. Trump was clearly paying attention to the courtroom developments. 'To all of my great lawyers who have fought so hard to save our Country, good luck in America's big case today,' Trump wrote Thursday morning on Truth Social. 'If our Country was not able to protect itself by using TARIFFS AGAINST TARIFFS, WE WOULD BE 'DEAD,' WITH NO CHANCE OF SURVIVAL OR SUCCESS. Thank you for your attention to this matter!" Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on X @alexiskweed. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
