//features//
Fall 2019
Fall 2019
One Smith, Two Smith, Goldsmith, Newsmith:
A JTS Housing Crisis
Jonah Fruchtman
While Columbia and Barnard students spent their fall break sightseeing, visiting other campuses, or returning home to see their families, most students in the Joint Program between Columbia and the Jewish Theological Seminary stayed on campus to attend their JTS classes and move all their belongings into in an active construction zone.
The story behind this mid-semester move began a decade ago. In an interview, JTS Chancellor Eisen explained the history behind The 21st Project—the large project of which the move is a part. In 2009, when JTS determined that their famed library needed refurbishing, they decided that rather than spend countless years fundraising to fund the project, JTS would sell both of their residence halls and the air rights of the main building. The air rights sold for $90 million, allowing the institution to fund not only the reconstruction of a new library, but also a new dorm and a redeveloped campus.
This campaign also helped fulfill Eisen’s vision for the future of JTS. The Chancellor wanted to create a physical center worthy of what he hopes JTS will soon become: a spiritual and communal hub. The new building would function as the renewed epicenter of Conservative Judaism.
Selling Goldsmith Hall and building a new state of the art residence hall on the JTS campus were part of this grand vision as well. Eisen saw the new facility as a place where students, faculty, and administrators would be living together in ninety years from now.
Therefore, as construction neared completion, JTS excitedly publicized to their students the imminent move for the Fall of 2019. Over the past year, however, communication and understanding on the details of this change have been repeatedly called into question, causing the Seminary to lose touch with its undergraduates and endanger Eisen’s entire vision.
Student aggravation with the administration’s handling of the project began in the late summer of 2019. Throughout the long break, students who thought they had seen the last of Goldsmith heard little about the completion of the new residence hall. Even in mid-July, when Barnard College advertised their recent acquisition of Goldsmith Hall, there was no communication from the administration as to the status of the new building.
Only eleven days before orientation leaders were scheduled to move in, Vice Chancellor Gary finally revealed the state of the new dormitory to students. In an email update he apologetically described how the new residence hall would not be ready for August move in. He explained, “we have not yet received all the government approvals necessary for occupancy. We are waiting for the certificate of occupancy, and that process may take a few weeks.” He projected the move to be “sometime in September, during which time JTS would take care of the arrangements and expense of moving students into the new dorm.” In addition, to compensate for students having to live in Goldsmith for a few weeks, he promised to provide $500 housing credit. This gesture, while seen as generous by some, was met with frustration by the students. It was seen as a small and arbitrary ‘bonus’ for staying in Goldsmith while paying more for rent than the Barnard residents.
Following student outcry, the administration attempted to reconnect with the student body by holding a video town hall. It would once again showcase the deep disconnect the administration held when attempting to appease its residents. Gary began by firmly projecting a move-in date before the Jewish High Holidays. However, discussion on the move itself became more troubled. Brad Moot, the director of Residence Life suggested “a week or two process moving everybody over.” However, he did not know whether there would be a point by which, if the move did not occur, students would remain in Goldsmith until the end of the semester. Attempting to salvage the conversation surrounding bedrooms, Moot assured that both the size and the furniture would be “the same” as a Goldsmith single but soon admitted he did not know the square footage of the new rooms. The administration’s answers during the town hall therefore appeared to speak past students’ major concerns, rather than directly allaying them.
When moving into Goldsmith Hall during NSOP and over Labor Day, more frustrations arose. Since the vast majority of students did not bring their own kitchenware—as it would be provided in the new dorm—Residence Life agreed to supply these missing essentials to students staying in Goldsmith. However, these promises proved to be idealistic. It was well over two weeks before the cutlery finally arrived. Distribution and purchasing were also not executed properly. While the Kashrut (Jewish dietary) standards held by JTS and many of its students require separate dishes for meat and dairy, many apartments only received one set of dishes and cutlery. As a result, many kosher-observing residents were unable to properly uphold their religious beliefs during their entire stay in Goldsmith. While Residence Life thought it was going out of its way to help students during their temporary stay, they did so in a manner that was so out of touch with students’ religious lives that it proved futile.
The expectations of a pre-midterm move, and escaping the Kosher-chaos of Goldsmith, fell short on September 10th when Gary announced that the move would not come before the holiday season. Rather, the timeframe was adjusted to October. As a result of student pressure, he also consented to a compromise, saying “if we [do] not receive the certificate of occupancy by the end of October, then we will postpone the move until December after exams.” This change in policy gave students hope of not having to move out in the midst of midterm exams.
On September 26th, the last workday before the Jewish holiday and original deadline, however, Vice Chancellor Gary emailed the community with a new report. “We now believe that we will receive a necessary sign off from a key government in early October,” Gary explained. “Assuming this timeline holds, we will be able to move you into the new residence hall soon after Simchat Torah and Shemini Atzeret (the week of October 21st).” This proposed date would place the move not only in the middle of midterms, but also immediately following the Jewish holidays, in which many students refrain from work. The administration’s hardening position to conduct the move over midterms made students feel as if the administration was even more disconnected than they had initially supposed.
As the weeks progressed through October, communication from the administration was once again evidently absent. Therefore, as the new deadline approached, people grew incredibly uneasy for their future. Would they have to pack up all their belongings in two weeks, in the middle of midterms, or stay in their current housing until after finals, and adjust their plans to return home?
This answer finally came on October 16th, the second to last day before the holiday deadline; if Gary did not send out his email then, it would only be able to come after the holidays and after October. His plan was to “begin moving students into the building starting next week after the holidays and to complete the move by October 29th.” Gary therefore only gave students a week notice to move all their belongings. He also warned that although the building was ready for move-in, there would still be an active construction zone inside and therefore certain areas would be off limits due to safety concerns. Additionally, since the fire system was not yet fully completed, authorized personnel from the Department of Buildings would be stationed on every floor for the “next few weeks” to monitor that the safety equipment continued to operate effectively. In reaction to this correspondence, students not only felt unheard in their protests, but also infuriated at having to move into an active construction zone.
In the accompanying email from Residence Life, Moot gave students a 5 day window (including Shabbat, when moving was prohibited) to move out of Goldsmith. A moving company would be available on three of these days. In the eyes of the students, Gary and Brad Moot minimized the moving period from the originally promised “week or two process” to a four-day period. In our interview, Vice Chancellor Gary explained how it was a misconception that the period Brad Moot was referring to meant two weeks to move belongings. Rather, the process begins from when the move is announced until the moving itself. In addition, he explained that he wanted to get all students out by the end of October because a “student-leader” advocated for residents to be moved out by the end of the month.
This discrepancy in interpretation caused students to respond in varying degrees of urgency. While some students reacted by emailing administrators, a couple, overwhelmed by having to move, obtained flights for their parents to come assist them. The most extreme case, however, was seen with one student who started a petition asking for JTS to fulfill their original intention of giving a two-week moving period. Its controversy was rooted in the petition’s contentious option to foreswear donating to JTS in the future if the needs were not met. The petition eventually received a large number of signatures, with 100 pledging to not donate to JTS in the future.
Two days later, Gary attempted to address these concerns. In order to correct the week-notice issue, Gary pushed the date of the move off by a week—from October 30 to November 5. Students would now have six moving days and the ability to move over Fall Break. However, parents who had already booked flights to help their child were now left with pointless and costly tickets.
On October 30th, two months after originally intended, students finally began moving into the new residence hall. Excitement mainly centered around the brand new, fully equipped, and technologically advanced kitchens. With induction stoves and large commercial ovens, JTS obviously spared no expense for their students’ kitchens. Gary took particular pleasure in the copious common space for community engagement. However, students soon became frustrated with not only with the process of the move, but also with the accommodations of the new dorm.
The new residents, upon their arrival, found many of the promises of the administration to be empty. Not only was the laundry not free (as opposed to Barnard and Columbia), but also security was heightened more than in Goldsmith. In the old dorm, a student needed only a key or to present his or her ID to enter. However, since the dorm would now connect directly to the main campus, an external security consultant decided that dorm security should reflect the campus at large. Therefore, a metal detector and bag searches would be the norm each time a resident entered the building. Students therefore felt that not only did the new dorm not feel as a home, but also that the administration did not trust them.
The rooms were also not as promised. While one of the smallest Goldsmith singles was 92 square feet, the average new dorm single is 80 sq/ft. The Vice Chancellor explained how the room sizes, which were based off of a dorm at Haverford College, were made smaller on purpose in order to incentivize people to congregate in a common area rather than in their personal rooms. While the administration saw this as an enhancement to community, the actual residents who inhabit the dorm felt claustrophobic and cheated.
Storage was also viewed as an issue. While the administration originally claimed that there would be the “same furniture that [students] had in the Goldsmith rooms,” multiple pieces, such as bookshelves, were now missing. When asked about this issue, Gary explained that since the administration gave a refrigerator and microwave, they would take up space that was allocated to something else. However, since this statement was in direct contradiction of Brad Moot’s original claim, residents felt that not only did they not have enough room to store their belongings, but also that the administration was considerably out of touch with students’ needs.
The building’s readiness also played a significant role in student dissatisfaction. The fire marshals, who were there because of the incomplete alarm system, proved to be a nuisance to students. Patrolling the halls as students emerged from the public showers or vaping in the bathrooms, residents quickly became uncomfortable with their presence. While the administration mostly corrected this by ordering them to remain in the stairwells, they still made some feel ill at ease in the new dormitory.
Most significant, however, was the frustration felt by students from the ongoing construction. Beginning around 8:00AM each morning, banging and drilling in the unfinished stairwell woke students on the entire north side of the building. Although Gary eventually promised to force the workers to begin only at 10:00AM, construction nevertheless began between 8:00AM and 8:30AM for six of the days following his order.
Now, as the residents’ first month and semester in the new housing comes to a close, students and the administration need to assess what opportunities it might hold. While Chancellor Eisen’s original vision was for it to be a center for Conservative Judaism and Vice Chancellor Gary’s was for it to cultivate community, those who actually inhabit it have had a vastly different experience. This presents the key disparity and miscommunication between the two groups. The administration is completely alienated from the consequences of their actions. Rather, they are able to look upon their development project from a window across the courtyard.
Students, on the other hand, must live through it. This active unfairness incentivizes not only increased student anger, but also creates greater polarization. Until those who designed and executed the project, with all its faults, can truly empathize with the day-to-day trials the students have gone through, any attempted solution by the administration will fall short. And with no resolution or reconciliation, the 21st Century Project will be far from fulfilling Chancellor Eisen’s ambitious vision. The administration, therefore, if it wishes to save not only its bond to its students, but also the project as a whole, must not only recognize the experience the students have gone through, but also actively empathize with them. Only this will open up the new dorm to concrete change.
The story behind this mid-semester move began a decade ago. In an interview, JTS Chancellor Eisen explained the history behind The 21st Project—the large project of which the move is a part. In 2009, when JTS determined that their famed library needed refurbishing, they decided that rather than spend countless years fundraising to fund the project, JTS would sell both of their residence halls and the air rights of the main building. The air rights sold for $90 million, allowing the institution to fund not only the reconstruction of a new library, but also a new dorm and a redeveloped campus.
This campaign also helped fulfill Eisen’s vision for the future of JTS. The Chancellor wanted to create a physical center worthy of what he hopes JTS will soon become: a spiritual and communal hub. The new building would function as the renewed epicenter of Conservative Judaism.
Selling Goldsmith Hall and building a new state of the art residence hall on the JTS campus were part of this grand vision as well. Eisen saw the new facility as a place where students, faculty, and administrators would be living together in ninety years from now.
Therefore, as construction neared completion, JTS excitedly publicized to their students the imminent move for the Fall of 2019. Over the past year, however, communication and understanding on the details of this change have been repeatedly called into question, causing the Seminary to lose touch with its undergraduates and endanger Eisen’s entire vision.
Student aggravation with the administration’s handling of the project began in the late summer of 2019. Throughout the long break, students who thought they had seen the last of Goldsmith heard little about the completion of the new residence hall. Even in mid-July, when Barnard College advertised their recent acquisition of Goldsmith Hall, there was no communication from the administration as to the status of the new building.
Only eleven days before orientation leaders were scheduled to move in, Vice Chancellor Gary finally revealed the state of the new dormitory to students. In an email update he apologetically described how the new residence hall would not be ready for August move in. He explained, “we have not yet received all the government approvals necessary for occupancy. We are waiting for the certificate of occupancy, and that process may take a few weeks.” He projected the move to be “sometime in September, during which time JTS would take care of the arrangements and expense of moving students into the new dorm.” In addition, to compensate for students having to live in Goldsmith for a few weeks, he promised to provide $500 housing credit. This gesture, while seen as generous by some, was met with frustration by the students. It was seen as a small and arbitrary ‘bonus’ for staying in Goldsmith while paying more for rent than the Barnard residents.
Following student outcry, the administration attempted to reconnect with the student body by holding a video town hall. It would once again showcase the deep disconnect the administration held when attempting to appease its residents. Gary began by firmly projecting a move-in date before the Jewish High Holidays. However, discussion on the move itself became more troubled. Brad Moot, the director of Residence Life suggested “a week or two process moving everybody over.” However, he did not know whether there would be a point by which, if the move did not occur, students would remain in Goldsmith until the end of the semester. Attempting to salvage the conversation surrounding bedrooms, Moot assured that both the size and the furniture would be “the same” as a Goldsmith single but soon admitted he did not know the square footage of the new rooms. The administration’s answers during the town hall therefore appeared to speak past students’ major concerns, rather than directly allaying them.
When moving into Goldsmith Hall during NSOP and over Labor Day, more frustrations arose. Since the vast majority of students did not bring their own kitchenware—as it would be provided in the new dorm—Residence Life agreed to supply these missing essentials to students staying in Goldsmith. However, these promises proved to be idealistic. It was well over two weeks before the cutlery finally arrived. Distribution and purchasing were also not executed properly. While the Kashrut (Jewish dietary) standards held by JTS and many of its students require separate dishes for meat and dairy, many apartments only received one set of dishes and cutlery. As a result, many kosher-observing residents were unable to properly uphold their religious beliefs during their entire stay in Goldsmith. While Residence Life thought it was going out of its way to help students during their temporary stay, they did so in a manner that was so out of touch with students’ religious lives that it proved futile.
The expectations of a pre-midterm move, and escaping the Kosher-chaos of Goldsmith, fell short on September 10th when Gary announced that the move would not come before the holiday season. Rather, the timeframe was adjusted to October. As a result of student pressure, he also consented to a compromise, saying “if we [do] not receive the certificate of occupancy by the end of October, then we will postpone the move until December after exams.” This change in policy gave students hope of not having to move out in the midst of midterm exams.
On September 26th, the last workday before the Jewish holiday and original deadline, however, Vice Chancellor Gary emailed the community with a new report. “We now believe that we will receive a necessary sign off from a key government in early October,” Gary explained. “Assuming this timeline holds, we will be able to move you into the new residence hall soon after Simchat Torah and Shemini Atzeret (the week of October 21st).” This proposed date would place the move not only in the middle of midterms, but also immediately following the Jewish holidays, in which many students refrain from work. The administration’s hardening position to conduct the move over midterms made students feel as if the administration was even more disconnected than they had initially supposed.
As the weeks progressed through October, communication from the administration was once again evidently absent. Therefore, as the new deadline approached, people grew incredibly uneasy for their future. Would they have to pack up all their belongings in two weeks, in the middle of midterms, or stay in their current housing until after finals, and adjust their plans to return home?
This answer finally came on October 16th, the second to last day before the holiday deadline; if Gary did not send out his email then, it would only be able to come after the holidays and after October. His plan was to “begin moving students into the building starting next week after the holidays and to complete the move by October 29th.” Gary therefore only gave students a week notice to move all their belongings. He also warned that although the building was ready for move-in, there would still be an active construction zone inside and therefore certain areas would be off limits due to safety concerns. Additionally, since the fire system was not yet fully completed, authorized personnel from the Department of Buildings would be stationed on every floor for the “next few weeks” to monitor that the safety equipment continued to operate effectively. In reaction to this correspondence, students not only felt unheard in their protests, but also infuriated at having to move into an active construction zone.
In the accompanying email from Residence Life, Moot gave students a 5 day window (including Shabbat, when moving was prohibited) to move out of Goldsmith. A moving company would be available on three of these days. In the eyes of the students, Gary and Brad Moot minimized the moving period from the originally promised “week or two process” to a four-day period. In our interview, Vice Chancellor Gary explained how it was a misconception that the period Brad Moot was referring to meant two weeks to move belongings. Rather, the process begins from when the move is announced until the moving itself. In addition, he explained that he wanted to get all students out by the end of October because a “student-leader” advocated for residents to be moved out by the end of the month.
This discrepancy in interpretation caused students to respond in varying degrees of urgency. While some students reacted by emailing administrators, a couple, overwhelmed by having to move, obtained flights for their parents to come assist them. The most extreme case, however, was seen with one student who started a petition asking for JTS to fulfill their original intention of giving a two-week moving period. Its controversy was rooted in the petition’s contentious option to foreswear donating to JTS in the future if the needs were not met. The petition eventually received a large number of signatures, with 100 pledging to not donate to JTS in the future.
Two days later, Gary attempted to address these concerns. In order to correct the week-notice issue, Gary pushed the date of the move off by a week—from October 30 to November 5. Students would now have six moving days and the ability to move over Fall Break. However, parents who had already booked flights to help their child were now left with pointless and costly tickets.
On October 30th, two months after originally intended, students finally began moving into the new residence hall. Excitement mainly centered around the brand new, fully equipped, and technologically advanced kitchens. With induction stoves and large commercial ovens, JTS obviously spared no expense for their students’ kitchens. Gary took particular pleasure in the copious common space for community engagement. However, students soon became frustrated with not only with the process of the move, but also with the accommodations of the new dorm.
The new residents, upon their arrival, found many of the promises of the administration to be empty. Not only was the laundry not free (as opposed to Barnard and Columbia), but also security was heightened more than in Goldsmith. In the old dorm, a student needed only a key or to present his or her ID to enter. However, since the dorm would now connect directly to the main campus, an external security consultant decided that dorm security should reflect the campus at large. Therefore, a metal detector and bag searches would be the norm each time a resident entered the building. Students therefore felt that not only did the new dorm not feel as a home, but also that the administration did not trust them.
The rooms were also not as promised. While one of the smallest Goldsmith singles was 92 square feet, the average new dorm single is 80 sq/ft. The Vice Chancellor explained how the room sizes, which were based off of a dorm at Haverford College, were made smaller on purpose in order to incentivize people to congregate in a common area rather than in their personal rooms. While the administration saw this as an enhancement to community, the actual residents who inhabit the dorm felt claustrophobic and cheated.
Storage was also viewed as an issue. While the administration originally claimed that there would be the “same furniture that [students] had in the Goldsmith rooms,” multiple pieces, such as bookshelves, were now missing. When asked about this issue, Gary explained that since the administration gave a refrigerator and microwave, they would take up space that was allocated to something else. However, since this statement was in direct contradiction of Brad Moot’s original claim, residents felt that not only did they not have enough room to store their belongings, but also that the administration was considerably out of touch with students’ needs.
The building’s readiness also played a significant role in student dissatisfaction. The fire marshals, who were there because of the incomplete alarm system, proved to be a nuisance to students. Patrolling the halls as students emerged from the public showers or vaping in the bathrooms, residents quickly became uncomfortable with their presence. While the administration mostly corrected this by ordering them to remain in the stairwells, they still made some feel ill at ease in the new dormitory.
Most significant, however, was the frustration felt by students from the ongoing construction. Beginning around 8:00AM each morning, banging and drilling in the unfinished stairwell woke students on the entire north side of the building. Although Gary eventually promised to force the workers to begin only at 10:00AM, construction nevertheless began between 8:00AM and 8:30AM for six of the days following his order.
Now, as the residents’ first month and semester in the new housing comes to a close, students and the administration need to assess what opportunities it might hold. While Chancellor Eisen’s original vision was for it to be a center for Conservative Judaism and Vice Chancellor Gary’s was for it to cultivate community, those who actually inhabit it have had a vastly different experience. This presents the key disparity and miscommunication between the two groups. The administration is completely alienated from the consequences of their actions. Rather, they are able to look upon their development project from a window across the courtyard.
Students, on the other hand, must live through it. This active unfairness incentivizes not only increased student anger, but also creates greater polarization. Until those who designed and executed the project, with all its faults, can truly empathize with the day-to-day trials the students have gone through, any attempted solution by the administration will fall short. And with no resolution or reconciliation, the 21st Century Project will be far from fulfilling Chancellor Eisen’s ambitious vision. The administration, therefore, if it wishes to save not only its bond to its students, but also the project as a whole, must not only recognize the experience the students have gone through, but also actively empathize with them. Only this will open up the new dorm to concrete change.
//JONAH FRUCHTMAN is a junior at Jewish Theological Seminary and the School of General Studies and Deputy Features Editor of The Current. He can be reached at [email protected].
Photo courtesy of Rania Siddique, The Columbia Spectator
Photo courtesy of Rania Siddique, The Columbia Spectator