College Life vs My Moral Code

At the time of this read, 1997, Elisha Dov Hack was a Yale university freshman who based his upcoming dormitory lifestyle off of what he had heard from his older brother. Hack’s objection was that in previous years, there was a policy in motion that granted students the ability to live at home rather than the dorms. Yet when Hack come of age to attend the University there had been a revision to the policy. The change required first and second year students to reside on campus, regardless of their family’s geographical location. This generated a systematic problem with coeducation residency and Hack’s Jewish faith.
Every day, for the remainder of their life, students will be faced with decisions that can challenge their upbringing. Regardless of a student’s faith, they are adults capable of making their own decisions, but colleges should be able to offer some flexibility to students who honestly seek separation due to moral concerns. Hack expresses a concern with current tolerances based on aged patriarch. Back then they “were subject to expulsion” if the student permitted the opposite sex as a guest. This moral conflict has since subsided of those in yesteryears.
Although Hack and four of his Jewish colleagues were not attempting to impose their beliefs on others, they felt it was necessary to be the exception to the newly established rule, due to their “moral standards. ” Unless Yale waived residency requirements, the students are unable to exercise their constitutional rights, this is a violation a of law. To persuade Yale’s secular acceptance, Hack felt it was necessary to point out posters advertising safe sex, articles influencing premarital intercourse, and alternative persuasions that detour from abstinence.

He demands an answer as to why such an elite group, such as Yale, fails to stand behind their open-minded proclamation. Yet hypocritical standards make it difficult for students who demand devout structure. Yale still prides themselves on “no parental rules,” the contradictory concept of sexual mortality being in the hands of the student encourages detrimental peer pressure. Even separating genders by floor has unfavorable outcomes, since temptations and ease of access permits visiting opposing sexes to wander through during inappropriate times.
Even though the students are adults, they feel violated, since they are forced to surround with other students participating in sinful acts. It is evident that Yale attempts to speak their own language by selling themselves to new students with glamorous advertisement, proclaiming respect and historical retention. This academic institution lacks hindsight that it is an educational environment, while education is not just taught, it is learned by example, just as students learn from their parents by watching.
Do students come to class and begin intercourse during instruction? Based on years of intense religious teachings, each individual is subject to a moral message portrayed by each Yale resident, which is not accepted by the Jewish faith. Students with stringent oppositions towards combined gender housing should be given the opportunity to exercise their faith or seek other alternatives. Rather than seeking out “Yale attention,” Yale needs to focus on what they are teaching the students via peer pressure.