As an alumnus (Class of 1970) and former editor of Student Life (1969), I’d like to join the others in welcoming the class of 2014. Statistics show that you are more talented than me and most of my classmates.

I am writing on this Saturday before Rosh Hashanah to remind my fellow tribesmen of the Jewish faith who are entering WU that there is no such thing as a free Shabbas dinner. In addition to being proselytized by the local “Jews for Jesus” (an oxymoron), you will be offered a free lunch or dinner from the local Chabad house, which I call “Jews for Moses.” Like most Chabad houses, it is run by a member of this ultra-orthodox branch of Hasidic Judaism.

Although I don’t like what Chabad Rabbi Hershey Novick is teaching, I concede that he isn’t stupid. He is persuasive. He could sell Mezzuzahs to Palestinians, which is all the more reason to know what he is selling before you try it.

If you take the bait of a Shabbas dinner, google “Chabad” first. If you do, you’ll note that this sect of Judaism currently has a large segment which believes its former Rebbe Menahem Schneerson, who inherited the position, is the Messiah. Some Chabadnicks believe he is still alive even though he was buried more than 10 years ago.

One of Chabad’s current activities has been an effort to free Rabbi Sholom Rubashkin, head of the Rubashkin crime family, who was recently sentenced to 28 years in prison for defrauding one of our local St. Louis banks—a true chillul hashem [desecration of God’s name].

To Chabad, no Jew—no matter how guilty—belongs in jail. They defend Rubashkin, who was its major funder, because he was charitable. Truthfully, he was a “Robbing Hoodstein,” stealing from the rich and giving to whomever he wanted, less 10 percent for expenses.

What’s more, think twice before you go to Hillel. When I was a student, it was headed by a fine reform rabbi, Rabbi Robert Jacobs, known for his ecumenical actions. For example, he met with Pope John Paul II on his visit to St. Louis. Now, however, the board of our local Hillel thought that you would appreciate being rabbied to by an orthodox rabbi who believes that men and women shouldn’t pray together.

The board’s choice, Rabbi Andy Kastner, has said publically that his main mission here is to “teach Torah.” Unless you think that the creator of the universe cares whether you have a beard, go to a mikvah after your period or plow your field with oxen and donkeys mixed, you might consider enrolling in another class. (If you do want to attend his Torah classes, I suggest “Introduction to Stonings 101.”)

So, before you get hooked into the false belief that orthodox Judaism is the only authentic brand of Judaism and come home for Thanksgiving with a black hat or wig, read up on Spinoza and the other members of our tribe who helped bring humanity out of the dark ages.

And L’ Shana Tova!

-Norman Pressman

Class of 1969

Let’s say a freshman requests a triple room in a traditional-style dorm. He or she will pay $5,558 for the year. Sophomore year comes around, and this somewhat more affordable housing option is no longer available. The next cheapest on-campus option is a traditional-style double at $7,360 a year. If by junior year, that student wants to live in Millbrook, he or she will have to pay an extra $1,000 for a double or an additional $2,000 for a single. These numbers do not even include the newest housing options offered by the University. The brand new Village East is the most expensive housing option yet, offering only singles at a whopping $10,906. Over the course of those three or four years, the student’s housing costs have essentially doubled. Why is the University only building more expensive housing instead of making the effort to cut costs and provide more affordable on-campus options? How do these new housing options pave the way for a debt-free student body (a goal of the University’s new Plan For Excellence)?

The Office of Residential Life consistently urges for diversity and community in on-campus housing, but how much diversity is there if students in financial need are being driven off campus by exorbitant housing costs? Nine months of rent (plus utilities) for an apartment two blocks away is about $5,000. That’s less than half the cost of a room in Village East! Tuition and food costs are only going up; shouldn’t the University be striving to keep prices down wherever possible? And even if financial aid often goes toward minimizing rising housing costs, it would be money better spent on a more practical housing option. The new Village East housing offers dishwashers, bath tubs, big beds and leather couches—sounds great—but which students are really going to be able to afford this new deluxe style of living? Where’s the diversity now?

Instead of attempting to boost its image through fancy housing, perhaps the University should be seeking to accommodate all students from every financial background. Instead of on-campus housing being split between new and old or expensive and less expensive, housing should be uniform and cost-effective in order to be affordable to as many students as possible. Only after taking these steps can the University claim to be building a truly diverse on-campus living community.