If it doesn't suit you, just sue

America has proficiently assigned names to generations of its citizens: the World War II generation, followed by the Baby Boomers and Generation X. One proposal for our generation has been the "Me" generation. To see why, one must look no further than Yale's current hot issue: the lawsuit brought by the Yale Four.

These days the American maxim appears to be, "If you can't beat 'em, sue 'em." Yet people complain that there are too many lawyers in this country. I've got news: where there is demand, supply will soon follow. McDonald's lost a suit over a woman who spilled coffee on herself while driving. MTV was sued, and also lost, after a kid left at home alone burned down his family's mobile home after hearing a character on a MTV show say, "Fire is cool." The number of successful lawsuits that by any rational standard should be considered ridiculous is alarmingly high. (Insert your own joke about jury members being people too dumb to get out of jury duty here.)

So it must be with the formerly five, now four, Orthodox Jewish freshmen and their attorney. (One apparently found her own loophole: marriage.) It comes down to a belief that Yale is constitutionally bound to change their policy, or at least make an exception in this case, because of religious objections to an institutional rule.

Sounds like good logic. Except for one small fact. These rules and this system have largely been in place before these students were born. Not only are these policies made known to prospective students, they are a major selling point. The residential college system was influential in my decision to attend Yale. Surely, these students had prior knowledge of the system and the problems it might cause for them.

What's that, you say? The residential college system and the underclass on-campus housing requirement are unlawfully discriminatory because they exclude such religious groups? No, they're not. Such rules merely force students to choose which is more important: attending a particular private university or keeping faith with the student's religious convictions as he or she understands them. This last point is especially relevant when considering why there hasn't been a major controversy over the religious issue until now.

All of which brings me to my initial point: Americans fail to recognize that one cannot have his or her cake and eat it too. If things aren't totally to our personal satisfaction, we tend to whine, complain, threaten, and sue until everything in our world is exactly as we want it. "Compromise" is as foreign a word as "souvlaki." We tolerate only those conditions that are premium for ourselves or our particular interest group.

As a result, we have become a nation (and a campus) divided. Members of each group communicate among themselves and fight with others for conditions ideally suited to their group. The Yale Four are currently the most visible illustration of this phenomenon. Yes, I respect religious convictions. Yes, I wish Yale could find a compromise solution to accomodate these particular students; the function of a university is to try to provide students with the best possible environment in which to work, learn, and grow. That university, however, must provide the best environment for all students, which often means not making exceptions for the few. To do so sets a precedent which both invites future demands for exceptions and signifies yet another surrender of an institution to interest groups. By standing firm, Yale is sending the message that it will not make changes to benefit the few at the expense of the many--even if Alan Dershowitz comes knocking at the door.

David Oppenheim is a junior in Davenport College.

Back to Opinion...