skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Father defends accused murderer Clark
By Alison Griswold
Staff Reporter
The Yale Daily News
Published Thursday, June 17, 2010
The father of Raymond Clark III spoke out Wednesday in support of his son for the first time since he was charged with the murder of Annie Le GRD '13 in September.
Clark appeared in Connecticut Superior Court for a brief hearing, in which Judge Roland Fasano continued the case until July 26. In a statement given outside the court after the hearing, Clark's father, Raymond Clark Jr., called his son “a loving, caring, kind-hearted son, brother, fiance and friend, unlike the picture that has been painted of him."
Clark’s father was accompanied by his wife, Diane,...
#1 By ha 1:15p.m. on June 17, 2010
Too soon for a book! It can't be the "true story" if a verdict hasn't been reached yet. I really hate that the tragedy that shook my community and caused so much pain for Le's friends and family is being used for this kind of sensationalist BS.
#2 By Chris 5:53p.m. on June 17, 2010
This is beyound self centered and arrogant. I can understand unconditionally loving a child. I can understand wanting to believe the best about a family member, but to not even offer a sentence of sympathy for the true victim here, which of course is Annie is extremely selfish and shows again the true character of the Clark family. Do they really believe Ray didn't do the crime or simply that he was justified? Why do these cowards still have their Yake jobs? Sickening.
#3 By escalation 1:31a.m. on June 18, 2010
In post #2, how do we get from a father's quote to "they" and "the true character of the Clark family" to "these cowards"?
This escalation is frightening.
PK
#4 By y09 2:55a.m. on June 18, 2010
shame on you, Stella Sands and St. Martin's. trying to sensationalize then profit off the murder of a young girl is disgusting.
#5 By Sandy 7:13a.m. on June 18, 2010
Raymond Clark III is absolutely killer. He should be sent to jail forever.
#6 By BKW 10:42a.m. on June 18, 2010
The family still has their jobs because they did nothing wrong. The Clark family is just doing what any other family would in that situation. What happened to Annie was tragic, but that does not mean that we should immediately judge Clark without a fair trial or hold his family responsible.
#7 By b 3:40p.m. on June 18, 2010
Yeah, let's all skip our judicial system and just convict him already. Sheesh, everyone knows he did it, right? Who needs courts or a chance to defend themselves? Good point, Chris.
#8 By chris 3:18a.m. on June 19, 2010
This is not about Ray Clarks chance for a fair trial, its about the Clark family making public press releases, which I have every right to judge. The family did not bother to even mention Annie Le in their statements, and to me that is classless and shameful given the circumstances. The "they" in my previous statement of course refers to the Clark family, and the escalation is justified given the audacity of the Clark families behavior.
#9 By Merlin 7:01a.m. on June 19, 2010
DNA and forensics is the bread and butter of investigations , especially murder cases and the ensuing trial.
Unfortunately the New Haven PD relies on eyewitness and informants testimony alone to arrest , convict suspects, and most of the time it does not hold water , end up releasing wrongly imprisoned prisoners due to witness recanting a testimony.
The Police had/have access to informant funds,which sadly can be part of the problem as we had a Det. arrested for misappropriation of said monies.
#10 By Max 11:32p.m. on June 19, 2010
Strong, loving and supportive families give rise to strong, loving and supportive killers, it appears.
#11 By Ecalation 11:09a.m. on June 20, 2010
@ #8:
Rush to judgment is what our entire judicial system is designed to thwart.
[PK]
#12 By shameful 1:56p.m. on June 20, 2010
Stella Sands is despicable.
#13 By mark 2:07a.m. on June 22, 2010
whos Stella Sands?
#14 By Newsreview 8:34a.m. on June 22, 2010
If there is DNA evidence, then Raymond's father should let the evidence acquit his son if he believes he is “a loving, caring, kind-hearted son, brother, fiance and friend, unlike the picture that has been painted of him."
#15 By scientist 11:40p.m. on June 22, 2010
To Newsreview, check how DNA evidence really works, and you would not put so much faith in it. Unfortunately judges and jurors are seldom properly equipped to cope with this kind of evidence using anything more than stereotypes and emotions.
#16 By mook 3:24a.m. on June 24, 2010
to scientist,
So clearly from the tone of your statement you believe Ray Clark is innocent?
#17 By Annie's friend 11:28a.m. on June 28, 2010
What about Annie? :-(
She was a loving, caring, kind hearted sister, daughter, fiance and friend as well. Clearly a much better one than Mr. Clark. How dare this family shame the memory of Annie like this. And how dare they continue to work here and give us a constant reminder of our pain????
#18 By Guilt-by- association? 10:53a.m. on July 1, 2010
Presuming Mr. Clark to be guilty (which our system of justice does NOT do), the comments of #17 smack of guilt-by-association, a kind of McCarthyism.
And are we so self-centered that our inability not to be reminded of this horrible murder when we encounter the relatives and fiancee of the ACCUSED murderer in our daily work routine, requires that these people be purged from our presence?
Far better for us to work on our OWN emotions, than to go around the world exiling from our presence people who trigger those emotions.
PK
M. Div. '80
#19 By @18 3:46p.m. on July 1, 2010
yes, precisely. our JUSTICE SYSTEM does not do that. In accordance, there are 13 people in this entire world that cannot presume "Ray-Ray" to be guilty before conviction, The judge and the jury. We will, most likely, not be included in that figure, and so therefore I (author of comment #17, and not a member of the justice system)freely presume him to be guilty because I (1) have a brain and (2) have a heart. I have a right to do so as a free citizen and as a human.
So, yes, anyone with any decency whatsoever (clearly, the Clarks, Kents, and Jennifer Hromadka are not included in this pool)would want to leave this place in which they are associated with such pain, out of respect for the victim, and perhaps (I know this is a long shot) to reevaluate their own lives in which they have chosen to stand by and support a cold-blooded killer. I think those who are thinking first of the comfort of said cold-blooded killer and his family before Annie should be ashamed. But hey, I could be wrong...
#20 By don 4:35p.m. on July 2, 2010
well said 19!
#21 By randy troup 5:19p.m. on July 2, 2010
@ 17/19
But hey, yeah, you could be wrong...
#22 By Civilized 8:55p.m. on July 2, 2010
@ 17/19
You are entitled to every feeling and freedom you lay claim to. You are also free to elevate yourself above your emotions and reserve judgment/vitriol.
That is what being civilized means.
PK
M.Div '80
#23 By what 9:38p.m. on July 2, 2010
Hey 21,
Wrong about what exactly? That Annie was a kind and loving friend, sister, girlfriend. daughter, etc...? She certainly was those things.
#24 By Observer 11:13p.m. on July 3, 2010
I want this trial to to happen soon. All this waiting is bad, not only for the accused, but for the victim's family.
I personally am siding on the side of innocent until proven guilty. The evidence in the warrants didn't give me enough information to say that Clark did it or that it was the work of one person. It sounded like more of a crime of opportunity than in the heat of passion (i.e. an argument that just erupted).
Clark's father and family is allowed to put out some positive information on their son. The media has focused mostly on the police and DA's case against Clark, emphasizing evidence that may not even point to his guilt, but to the casual reader, it may look like he really committed murder.
When the trial happens, I hope that many of the unanswered questions are addressed.
#25 By Observer 11:27p.m. on July 3, 2010
@#23
I think it was a reference to Clark, not to how Annie was characterized.
If Clark is guilty, then I will be the first to say that I hope that he gets serious jail time.
But like I've said, I'm not convinced on the evidence as presented in the warrants. On the one hand, they were able to identify Clark's DNA on some material fairly quickly, and yet on other evidence, they could not find his DNA. In fact, the lab coat they found they said contained DNA of an unknown male. And they seem to be relying too heavily on the card scans into the rooms, and as many will know, does not prove the person using the card is the same person assigned the card. And lastly, they did not secure the basement area, so items they found related to the crime may have been placed in their locations some time after the crime.
#26 By Spare me the adolescent lectures on civilization. 1:03a.m. on July 4, 2010
Civilized also means not beating and murdering a young woman who never had a harsh word for anyone. It also means mourning the loss of an incredible human being and feeling anger at the injustice at the selfish and arrogant acts of a family that could not spare one word word of sympathy for the loved ones that were actually victimized in all this.
#27 By observr 1:36p.m. on July 4, 2010
I can understand your point of view better knowing you believe there is a chance that Clark is innocent. I agree the waiting is bad for everyone involved.
I suppose there is a small chance he did not do it, even if its very remote, but realistically, seeing all the information that has been released and judging him by his actions after the crime, he is very guilty. It is not only DNA evidence that implicates Clark, although the DNA evidence is damning. There are the defensive wounds, the card swipe behavior, the stashed clothes (his) and his lost pen under her body, his missing shoelace on his boot (possible what he used to strangle her), and his body language leaving the building before anyone knew Annie Le had been killed. All the blood in his Mothers car and in their apartment. His families behavior after Sept 8, staying home from work, etc...
Even looking at his fathers statement, if Clark were innocent it would read differently. It would not go out of its way to avoid mentioning Annie Le. It would have read something like,
" We are all terrible saddened by this horrific crime and we hope justice will be served in this case. Please know our son did not commit this crime and we have always known him to be a loving, caring and thoughtful son, brother, fiance, and friend. Thank you for respecting our privacy during these difficult times"
Something like that.
In fact, the Clark family would have been screaming Clark's innocence sense day one. They have not. Why is that? probably because they know he did it and they simply believe it was justified in some way, and have accepted it and feel no remorse over the crime. Which is sickening. Hence the vitriol over a self centered family.
#28 By Caution 8:05p.m. on July 4, 2010
The trouble with making an arrest and charging a crime is that if the person turns out to be innocent, a lot of valuable time is wasted which could have been used to follow other leads.
This scenario has played itself out time and again in our history of jurisprudence, not merely with the post DNA testing era.
Do we do the best we can with the legal tools we've got or do we leap too soon?
PK
#29 By author of 17, 19 10:29a.m. on July 6, 2010
"In fact, the Clark family would have been screaming Clark's innocence sense day one. They have not. Why is that? probably because they know he did it and they simply believe it was justified in some way, and have accepted it and feel no remorse over the crime. Which is sickening. Hence the vitriol over a self centered family." -author #27
perfect explanation. thank you.
"You are entitled to every feeling and freedom you lay claim to. You are also free to elevate yourself above your emotions and reserve judgment/vitriol.
That is what being civilized means." -author of #22
no, part of being civilized means that we are more than animals, and more than robots. We have hearts, souls, and minds that I do not intend to waste. Emotions are part of what make us human, and I am not only thankful for them, but I think it shameful if someone thinks it to be wrong to embrace them. Sure, there is such a thing as excess emotion, like anger, that may result in... oh, murder. clearly, i believe this is uncivilized, as do you. However, compassion and sympathy can NEVER be called uncivilized, no matter what society you are in, PK. Please do not tell me I am uncivilized because i possess such emotions.
oh, and one more note, about the lab coat with "unidentified male DNA": this document that mentioned this evidence was one of the search warrants, part of the reason why they wanted clark's DNA, to match his DNA to the "unidentified". I'm guessing it matched, since they did not seek other DNA.
#30 By Observer 9:27p.m. on July 6, 2010
Sure, we can talk about civilized behavior, which truly does go out the window when strong emotions are involved, such as the untimely death of a loved one. Unfortunately, the desire to find blame and exact revenge results in justice not being served. There have been many wrongly convicted because of this narrow minded belief in justice.
Raymond Clark's situation is different than say someone being seen murdering another person, or someone being video recorded committing a murder.
Nobody saw the murder. Nobody saw the body being moved. Nobody saw any of the blood, even though we are to believe there was quite a bit. Nobody saw a person walking around in bloodied clothing. And most importantly, people were able to come and go from that lab area the days leading up to the body's discovery, compromising a lot of the integrity of the evidence.
We may find out some interesting things during the trial. I just hope that the lynch mob will accept Ray Clark's innocence, if he is not found guilty.
#31 By PK 8:05p.m. on July 7, 2010
#29
Nobody's calling you "uncivilized". And I would be the LAST person to advocate stuffing emotions. I'm the king of Blowing Your Top. HOWEVER, I agree with #30-----there is a line past which venting one's emotions approaches a
"lynch" mentality.
Imperfect as it is, let American justice do its work.
PK
PS Where are all the Law student opinions on this matter?
#32 By Newsreview 8:38p.m. on July 7, 2010
He should be sent to jail forever.
#33 By Voice of Reason 1:54a.m. on July 8, 2010
First of all, please stop using blanket statements to describe Annie such as, "she never had a mean thing to say about anyone" as that just tarnishes her memory. She was human. She made mistakes. Yes, she was a good person, but saying that she was 'perfect'? No. And you discredit yourself with that statement.
She was an exceptional human and it is the worlds loss that she is not with us anymore.
Also, no one posting or reading here has seen all of the evidence. All we have seen is what the detectives have wanted us to see, or what was released. That was just enough evidence to arrest Clark and keep him locked up.
Wait for the trial to make your judgements towards a person. And just because you cannot express your anger towards him, try not to let it out against his family. When a press agent asks them what they think about their son, what else are they suppose to say?
#34 By CHAOS 9:31a.m. on July 8, 2010
# 27 suggests the family should have said something like this:"We are all terrible saddened by this horrific crime and we hope justice will be served in this case. Please know our son did not commit this crime and we have always known him to be a loving, caring and thoughtful son, brother, fiance, and friend. Thank you for respecting our privacy during these difficult times."
This suggestion seems like the coldhearted sound-bite mentality of a lawyer or even a media-savvy minister.
The family was in CHAOS and SHOCK: One day they had a son, the next day they had an accused murderer and target of police surveillance.
How does one expect them to react with such poise, formulaic-media-manipulative-sound bite-prose when they are FRANTIC?
Has CHAOS never come into your life?
For heaven's sake.
PK
#35 By Bob 1:52p.m. on July 8, 2010
Also, no one posting or reading here has seen all of the evidence. All we have seen is what the detectives have wanted us to see, or what was released. That was just enough evidence to arrest Clark and keep him locked up.
Wait for the trial to make your judgements towards a person. And just because you cannot express your anger towards him, try not to let it out against his family. When a press agent asks them what they think about their son, what else are they suppose to say?
----
The press did no ask the Clarks what they thought about their son. The Clarks made a calculated move to all show up in court and issue a statement to the press. Very different. That was a decision they or their lawyers made to get to an end. And in doing so they chose not to even take the time to mention Annie Le. A Classless and self centered move that had no justification.
There was not "Just enough evidence to arrest and lock Clark up" there was incredible amounts of evidence from DNA to very suspicious behavior, to damning tracked movements, to a failed lie detector test, and wounds on his body. Plus the pen and the missing shoelace on his boot and his multiple changes of clothes.
The bottom line is he was the last person to contact her to arrange a meeting the last to see her alive, as well as the last person in the room where she was ultimately found.
Is that the bare minimum?
And whether Annie Le was perfect or not has nothing to do with the crime. There is no possible scenario that could justify Clarks alleged actions. There is literally nothing Annie could have done to cause this outcome, even if she was a terrible person. This is all Ray Clark. This is not an, "it took two to tango" situation. And Annie was not terrible, she was extremely remarkable in almost every way, "perfect" or not.
#36 By chris 8:01p.m. on July 8, 2010
The Clark family was not asked by reporters what they thought of their son, they read a pre-written statement after a very choreographed showing of the whole family showed up in court. That is very different then what you described and as such it is less forgivable that they could not spare a mention of Annie Le, the real victim here.
#37 By #27 3:07a.m. on July 10, 2010
How does one expect them to react with such poise, formulaic-media-manipulative-sound bite-prose when they are FRANTIC?
Has CHAOS never come into your life?
For heaven's sake.
-----
Frantic? They issued a choreographed and written statement ten months after the murder. How were they frantic? where is the Chaos? It was a scheduled court date and a preplanned media statement by the Clarks and approved by their lawyer. There was nothing chaotic or frantic about this situation.
#38 By Helen Li 5:17a.m. on July 10, 2010
Well done, #35 Bob. A well-written, fair, and calm appraisal. There are those who keep shouting that there is "not enough evidence." We will let the jury to decide on that. The Police, as they say, are NOT looking at any other suspect. We have to let justice take its course. Rest in peace, Annie. You are a caring, loving, brilliant, and beautiful human being always in our hearts; and you are every bit as nice and good as the media and the public think of you. As we Chinese say, "justice and right is in the heart of the public."
#39 By Day One 8:45a.m. on July 10, 2010
About "day one" # 27 says:"In fact, the Clark family would have been screaming Clark's innocence sense day one. They have not. Why is that? probably because they know he did it and they simply believe it was justified in some way, and have accepted it and feel no remorse over the crime. Which is sickening. Hence the vitriol over a self centered family."
I have a different interpretation. Perhaps they FEAR in their heart of hearts that he is guilty. Perhaps what you call "self centered" is the highest expression of family loyalty they can summon to the occassion.
Perhaps they have too much integrity to use a sound-byte about their being "terribly saddened" by Ms. Li's death, to manipulate the media and the public.
CHAOS in the heart does not go away simply because your lawyer writes a statement for you to read.
The passion and vitriol in these posts toward the family, not the accused, is precisely the reason our system of justice slows things down and clogs them up with procedure and protocol.
Am still waiting for a Law School poster.
PK
#40 By Voice of Reason 12:45p.m. on July 10, 2010
I also agree with #38 that #35's post was 'well-written, fair and calm appraisal'. No reason to not have a civilized discussion about this.
My point about the evidence is that it is tainted because it is coming from one angle. That is why I always wait till the trial to decide. I like to see things from both sides and then come to a conclusion.
Yes, there is damning evidence against Clark. He would not have been arrested if there hadn't been. And yes, I agree, that there is an extremely high likelihood that he committed this crime based on the evidence we have seen. I, however, will not make a final assessment until I have seen everything.
In regards to the family, I am basing my observations on what other possibilities they had at the time. They did not commit the crime, or at least the evidence at hand does not suggest they did. They also have not spoken to any press since their son was arrested. Regardless of anything else, their son is on trial for murder. He has not confessed and has plead not guilty. To keep quiet, as they have in the past, would suggest that they already know of his guilt. A lot of people have mentioned that in the past actually.
I am not trying to defend Clark or his family. Their actions speak for themselves and most people will base their opinions of the them off of their own criteria. I am just trying to be my name and trying to look at this from all angles and all sides. Until a verdict has been decided or a confession been issued, that is how I will always try to look at things.
Also, #35, I was not trying to justify Clark's actions by saying that Annie was not perfect. I was pointing that out to several posters who gave blanket statements suggesting that she was. You are right. There is not reason that any of this should have happened to such a brilliant, hard working young lady with a bright future ahead of her.
# 41 By C. Green 6:39p.m. on July 10, 2010
Probably did it. If they show the evidence and is tried by a jury i hope he gets life w/o possibility of ever seeing freedom again . But a scene like this left unsecured for days !? Was this a set up ? Like a lab set up or even a crime scene set up ? Having anybody and their Mother walking in and out of this joint , And then calling in the outside police agencies. Warm the place up for them huh ? All set up nicey nice, one suspect.
Even with that blazing hot trail of the Jovin case they bungled it , this is an ice cold case in comparison.
Press : " Do we have any evidence officer"?
police : "We have bags of stuff from Clark's abode and car"
Press : " Could it be bloody clothes"?
Police : " Of course "
Was there any suspicious person inside of this building after the first missing persons report when out ?
It's a sad feeling of Deja Vu , capture and release again,
#42 By Observer 2:08p.m. on July 17, 2010
There was a lot of problems with the evidence they mentioned in the warrants. Some of the blood samples they claimed they found in his car and his kitchen were not explained. They could have said if they were human at least, but they never went to that detail. The warrant is meant to get someone arrested, I agree, but shouldn't it really be based on real evidence that points to someone rather than vaguely insinuates someone is guilty? The $3million bail was extremely excessive, especially for someone who was never in trouble with the law before. Considering that he was never seen or video recorded committing the crime, does it make sense to set bail so high that his family couldn't pay it?
Why the family never said anything from the beginning has to do with their legal advise. They've probably been instructed not to say anything. Besides, no matter how much they claimed their son was innocent, people with their minds made up of Clark's guilt would just dismiss the family's comments. Just like they are doing now. So how does saying anything to the media help their cause?
#43 By Nick 5:07a.m. on July 18, 2010
The 3 million bail was based on the severity of the crime, not on Clark's history. This was not a DUI, it was a cruel barbaric cold blooded murder and its attempted cover up.
#44 By to obersever 3:14p.m. on July 18, 2010
Your "observations" are ill-advised at best. What problems? What were not explained? What were vague?
Instead, I think your comments are extremely vague and intending only to acquit of a murderer.
We have seen your biased "observations" in every YDN article on the case. I don't know what your intention is.
#45 By Observer 7:20p.m. on July 30, 2010
@Nick
The crime is alleged to have been committed by Raymond Clark. Since he had no motive, and no one witnessed the crime and they haven't placed his DNA on the victim as far as we know, then $3 million bond sounds more like they've already convicted him. What does he get if he's found innocent? I don't think an apology will be enough.
#46 By joed 10:49a.m. on August 3, 2010
You people are messed up. I hope you get arrested and they skip due process so you can be quickly prosecuted. What the hell is wrong with you? I, for one, surely do not want to convict ANYONE without first PROVING that they, in fact, BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, did actually commit the crime for which they are accused. YOU should be so lucky to be afforded the same protections. If you don't like it, go live somewhere where they cut off hands or heads without a trial!
#47 By anon 1:03a.m. on August 8, 2010
so joe, I take it Clark is innocent in your mind?
#48 By Observer 11:16a.m. on August 8, 2010
Joe isn't saying that and neither am I. On the other hand, the people who condemn Clark for his actions are determined to believe he is guilty.
I'm taking a wait an see approach. As I've mentioned before, the evidence given in the warrants doesn't give me enough reason to suspect Clark. I don't see how he could have killed someone, left a trail of bloody clothes and a bloody crime scene, then hid a body in a place he may not even have been familiar with, and NOBODY saw anything.
And he still showed up for work and was fully co-operative with police, as if he had no idea what had happened, or that Annie Le was missing. Unless he has some kind of split personality, I can't see him acting so cool with police around and a body just around the corner.
Pimpin' for Mammon
Bank pays Univ. millions to market credit cards
By Carmen Lu
Staff Reporter
The Yale Daily News
Published Friday, June 11, 2010
Yale has been providing Chase Bank with the names and contact details of alumni, staff and sports fans for the past three years under a deal worth $7.98 million, according to an article published Monday in the Connecticut Post.
The seven-year deal, which remained secret until the enactment of the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act this year, stipulates that Yale must pass on contact information for about 136,000 staff and affiliates each...
#1 By not surprised 8:57a.m. on June 11, 2010
Great! Now Swensen and the rest of the administration can get more bonuses!!
#2 By too poor for credit card 11:00a.m. on June 11, 2010
Wake up, you idiot. We'll have been without a raise for 2.5 years when we'll get our paltry 1.67% in Sept--if we're lucky. I wish we had bonuses.
On the other hand, no one should begrudge Swensen a penny. He's done more for this university financially, than anyone on the planet.
#3 By WTF 11:18a.m. on June 11, 2010
...yet student tuition goes up, and staff doesn't get raises. Makes total sense for the "Corporation".
Yale is such a great place.
/sarcasm
#4 By WHAT 11:23a.m. on June 11, 2010
How do we get off this list??
#5 By Angry Alum 12:41p.m. on June 11, 2010
This is disgusting. I graduated in 09, and probably since about then I get credit card offers from Chase in the mail at least once a month. It's kind of irritating. I wonder who else bought my info from Yale?
#6 By nice 3:20p.m. on June 11, 2010
Nice touch with the Chase credit card ad on the right of this YDN post.
#7 By Yale has more money than God 10:18p.m. on June 11, 2010
Yale gets so much money yet they still needed to lay off all those workers. What a crying shame I tell ya! They used the economy as an excuse to do their dirty work.
#8 By alum 8:49a.m. on June 12, 2010
They didn't sell just privacy. They also sold loyalty. No more donations from me.
#9 By Yale College '01 9:32a.m. on June 12, 2010
Mr. Conroy, I received Chase's Yale-affinity marketing and opened a Chase Visa with Harkness Tower and the Yale name on it somewhere between my prefrosh and sophomore years, that would be '97-'99 sometime. I used it irresponsibly, which is my fault, but please don't claim that Yale didn't take their $3 and run with it. These carfs were marketed to 18-year-olds on financial aid, without any notice to parents. I think my interest rate climbed as high as 24.99%.
#10 By sickened 12:49p.m. on June 12, 2010
I am sickened by Yale.
#11 By Sergio 1:23p.m. on June 12, 2010
I wonder if the Medical School has signed any contracts?
#12 By Mercantilia 7:17p.m. on June 12, 2010
For God, For Country, and For Sale.
Paul Keane
M.Div. '80
#13 By Not surprised 7:31p.m. on June 12, 2010
This is an institution devoid of basic values when it comes to dealing with people, be they faculty, students, alumni or staff. Selling names and addresses without the permission of those entrusting such information to the institution is arrogant carelessness. Since the faculty are the only ones who really matter anymore, perhaps their outrage will change the Administration's way of cavalierly dealing with privacy issues.
#14 By yale '12 9:50p.m. on June 12, 2010
Yale, I pay $50,000 dollars a year in tuition, why do you need to make $3 by selling my personal information to a credit card company?
I feel betrayed. I had wrongly assumed that Yale uses my private information in a responsible way. What other pieces of my personal data are you selling?
#15 By Yale '10 11:43p.m. on June 12, 2010
This is absolutely appalling and outrageous. I received these offers at least 1x per month this past year. I find it absolutely disgusting that Yale is selling student information.
#16 By to #13 5:30a.m. on June 13, 2010
This isn't arrogant carelessness. From an institution that is always warning its staff about privacy, this is nothing short of deliberate participation in identity theft.
#17 By angry alumni 9:31a.m. on June 13, 2010
people should be fired and go to jail
#18 By Young Alum 11:34a.m. on June 13, 2010
Who is God's name thought this was an acceptable idea?
I just donated to the Alumni Fund, but I wish I could take it back.
#19 By This is the plot to the 2010 Yale Show 3:33p.m. on June 13, 2010
Yale should steal its plot points from more established authors.
#20 By BA08MA09 8:36p.m. on June 13, 2010
This just sucks.
#21 By '11 8:47p.m. on June 13, 2010
I get at least one Chase bank envelope a WEEK as a graduate student, and I live in an off-campus apartment. This is completely ridiculous. I can't even believe that this is not illegal to do without permission from the students and alumni, or at least a disclaimer. It's not like I can avoid giving Yale my address or have a choice in the matter, because it's required information for registration! It is a flat out lie that they don't market to current students, or at least current students who live off campus.
#22 By Young Alum #2 12:00a.m. on June 14, 2010
@ #18
Yep, there goes my future donations to the university.
#23 By Yale '11 12:41a.m. on June 15, 2010
Fellow Yalies--how can we (as students and alumni) organize to change this policy?
#24 By Yale Parent 10:43a.m. on June 15, 2010
Not Yale's finest hour, for sure.
#25 By Yale student 11:24p.m. on June 15, 2010
Even if Yale would make that $7.98m value is their base profit on our information, it's still under $2.10 per person. I'm pretty disgusted.
#26 By Mercantilia Amended 7:42p.m. on June 16, 2010
Kindly permit me to add a variation to my post #12:
For God, For Country, and For Jail.
Paul Keane
M.Div. '80
#27 By upset 9:18p.m. on June 16, 2010
I wish someone from the university would explain further. YDN, can you do some follow up?
#28 By Y'08 1:02p.m. on June 17, 2010
Any other young alumni want to organize a petition?
#29 By alumnus 6:43p.m. on June 17, 2010
I also would like to see some follow-up on why this was (erroneously) thought to be an acceptable course of action, and what repercussions Yale might be willing to weather as the investment in turning an easy profit. Does this mean, for example, that we should cease to maintain current mailing addresses with the AYA?
#30 By Denis Tippo '66 4:29p.m. on June 18, 2010
How about naming a new Dept. of Ethics building, Chase Hall!
Outrageous!
#31 By who cares? 4:42p.m. on June 18, 2010
Just throw it out. done.
#32 By don't throw it out 10:24p.m. on June 20, 2010
redirect it to Woodbridge Hall!
#33 By PK 1:11a.m. on June 21, 2010
@28 and 32:
How about a Facebook page entitled:
For God, For Country and For Sale/Jail
#34 By ysm 12:04p.m. on June 21, 2010
what a bunch of stupid posts. so you get an envelope in the mail every so often that you throw out - big deal. not such a huge inconvenience. if yale and others have found a way to transfer money from the horribly corrupt banking institutions to the more benevolent education institutions, all the better. screw the banks. if you are stupid enough to be suckered in to debt by a credit card offer you shouldn't have been accepted to yale in the first place.
#35 By Proud 8:17p.m. on June 21, 2010
Surprised to see who actually signed that contract.
#36 By PRIVACY est mort 9:12p.m. on June 21, 2010
@#34
Yale's selling my address to hawkers is not an "inconvenience"; it is a violation of my right to PRIVACY, a vestigial concept to the Web Generation (post-Internet). Hear Justice Brandeis:
"The concept of the right to be left alone dates back to a 1928 Supreme Court wiretapping decision called Olmstead vs. the United States in which the Supreme Court Justice Brandeis said 'the protection guaranteed by the amendments (of the Constitution) is much broader in scope. The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect . . . They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions, and their sensations. They conferred as against the government the right to be left alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.' "
The Right to be Left Alone
By John M. Eger, San Diego Union-Tribune, Insight, August 6, 2000.
#37 By Forgot to identify myself 9:15p.m. on June 21, 2010
Speaking of PRIVACY, I forgot to sign my last post "PRIVACY est mort". I hate to hide behind the mask of anonymity. Seems cowardly.
Paul Keane
M.Div. '80
#38 By alum 9:19p.m. on June 21, 2010
No more donations for Yale unless perhaps they commit the $8M to rebuild the City of New Haven's infrastructure, on top of what they've already been giving.
It's astonishing that an institution as wealthy as Yale, with its own private transportation force probably costing them $40 per student ride, would be surrounded by crumbling sidewalks, potholed roads, faded crosswalks, no bike lanes, no bus shelters. Everyone knows that job creation follows transportation opportunities.
#39 By disappointed alumnus 9:18a.m. on June 22, 2010
What if I were to give away, free of charge, the private addresses of the university's president and secretary to internet marketers? And their office phone numbers with a hint, "Call this number, they might be interested in an SUV and a fishing vacation." Same thing, right? Except that I wouldn't get a commission.
#40 By lao 2:11p.m. on June 22, 2010
You can opt out of all credit card offers by registering at www.optoutprescreen.com
Save paper by recycling
#41 By LOL 2:20p.m. on June 22, 2010
#38 is clearly a townie.
#42 By LOL #2 11:35p.m. on June 22, 2010
#38 is not just a townie, but a townie who doesn't mind paying incredibly high taxes to a city that spends them all with nothing to show for it. I don't get why people blame Yale for the city's poor management. I sometimes wish Yale would take Destefano's hints and move to a less hostile environment. Then the City can have its fine downtown land back in taxable status for all the businesses that will spring up in Yale's place overnight.
#43 By Splish Splash 10:24a.m. on June 23, 2010
@ # 42
Global Warming will take care of the "tax base" in due time. When they built a new building between Hotel Taft and shubert Theatre in the 1960's they found sand and seashells when digging the foundation. The harbor came near to Chapel Street at one time. DeStefano may not see it, but his grandchildren may find Yale and the Green hip deep in salt water.
PK
#44 By Indium111 1:17p.m. on June 23, 2010
As much as we want to think of Yale as a caring benefactor, it is simply a business. It is not a bad business and it produces a good and valuable product, but it is first and foremost, a money making vehicle for a select elite.
#45 By Earl 9:09p.m. on June 23, 2010
I wonder if the data from those 20,000+ applicants a year are part of the deal.
#46 By For God, For Country and For Sale 9:59p.m. on June 23, 2010
@ # 44
SCROOGE: You were always a good man of business, Jacob.
MARLEY: Business, Ebenezer? MANKIND was my BUSINESS.
"A Christmas Carol"
Charles Dickens
PK
M.Div'80
#47 By Good For Us 12:14p.m. on June 24, 2010
I don't see anything wrong with the Chase deal: as long as it's good for the school, why not? We all receive junk mail or e-mail daily, just get rid of it. If a small inconvenience (one solicitation a month, as some have stated) can benefit Yale to the tune of $8 million, I'd say it's well worth it.
#48 By Pimpin' for Old Blue 11:16p.m. on June 24, 2010
@# 47
Well, maybe. But how about asking our PERMISSION first.
At the LEAST it is poor manners. More likely it is invasion of privacy or identity pimping.
PK
M.Div'80.
#49 By to #47 5:28p.m. on June 30, 2010
One small inconvenience would be fine, if that one small inconvenience were Yale's to lease or sell. It so happens that Yale has misappropriated our privacy. This isn't about the credit cards, it's about our alma mater stealing from us.
#50 By Alumnus 5:56p.m. on July 1, 2010
How is this good for us, #47? Alumni activities are alumni-funded. We stay in touch as participants in a university community, not as resources for the administration that's meant to be serving alumni, faculty and students. Decisions like this risk alienating people who value their privacy and the civilized courtesies that Yale used to stand for. But I would think that someone has done those calculations and figured that Yale could weather that loss for a few dollars.
#51 By Bob 2:15p.m. on July 6, 2010
Wait, this means there are people out there who DIDN'T know that Chase was buying the Yale list? Where do you think they got that information?
Honestly, I'm totally fine with it. I don't have one of the cards b/c it's not a great deal (would rather get more cash back and give to Yale so that I capture the tax deduction), but I'm amazed that people are surprised or offended by this.
#52 By Just an idea 9:09a.m. on July 18, 2010
If you get sick of being sent CC offers by Chase, just use the included return envelope to send them whatever other junk mail you have lying around. At least this will keep some USPS busy, and Chase will have to foot a bigger bill for their marketing efforts.
#53 By Just another idea 12:14p.m. on July 18, 2010
If you are believe that Chase offers are due to Yale selling your privacy, redirect the offers to Yale at 246 Church St, New Haven, CT 06511. Sending things back to Chase leaves Yale without consequences and without information to shape future decisions. Plus it helps keep USPS busy.
After 48 years, Clark's Dairy to close Sunday
By Egidio DiBenedetto
Staff Reporter
The Yale Daily News
Published Wednesday, May 26, 2010
After 48 years of legendary milkshakes, late-night grilled cheeses and root beer floats, Clark’s Dairy, the iconic Whitney Avenue diner, will close shop Sunday for the last time.
The famed New Haven restaurant will shut its doors for "a variety of reasons," said George Mihalakos, an employee and the son of Anthony Mihalakos, the Dairy's owner and patriarch of the Greek family that has run the eatery since 1962.
George Mihalakos said chief among the family’s reasons for closing Clark's were a...
#1 By joey '00' 7:07p.m. on May 27, 2010
Clark's Dairy looked closed about a year ago. I asked what happened to the sidewalk sign, informed them that maybe they should have a neon lighted sign in the window - "open". I sat in there for breakfast and watched as dozens of students stroll past with coffee and danish purchased up at Grove & Whitney. etc. - they didn't know the joint existed.
I didn't like the hot dog at all. I was happy with the breakfast, but Christ, no one can screw up toast and scrambled.
It was probably decided long ago to close. Still sad, i'd like to see the store be given to a young guy to start a breakfast place there. I wonder if they have a renter ?
#2 By Y71 8:28a.m. on May 28, 2010
Clark's Dairy produced the coffee shake which is the standard against which all other coffee shakes are measured...and found wanting.
#3 By DougMB42 12:13p.m. on May 28, 2010
It's sad that another part of the Yale I knew (1980's era) is gone. Clark's had awesome malts, the best German Chocolate Cake ice cream in New England, and a sweet innocence about the place lacking in the touristy vibe of many newer places on Whitney, or on York or Broadway. Even Fitzwilly's (the quintessential fern bar) was better than Cosi. Gourmet Kitchen, Park St. Sub, Naples, the Doodle, now Clarks. Hang in there at Yorkside, George! Don't leave us, Leo! I agree with Joey #1; let's hope someone uses the space for a great diner.
#4 By George 7:17p.m. on May 29, 2010
I thought the Mihalakos's were the owners of the building . They say it's owned by Yale. It might put the kabash on any chance of a similar restaurant in the stead. But they are moving next door, and will be serving breakfast, then pizza. Ice cream and milkshakes will be missed, Is there an ice cream shop on Audubon St ?
#5 By No Dairy without Tony 9:00p.m. on May 29, 2010
A lesson could be learned from this. Everyone who wants to run a business has to be invested fully in it. Tony was and gave his life for it. That is why it fell apart.He could have survived the economy he knew that only those who work smart and hard survive. Too bad his son never realized that until it was too late. He should have taken the time to pay attention to his father and he wouldn't be closing now.
This is a perfect example of hardworking parents giving too much to their kids without making them work for it. It is a shame that now Tony will never have the chance to enjoy retirement as he should after all that hard work!! God Bless him!
#6 By joey '00' 9:00a.m. on May 30, 2010
I thought his son was a Realtor ? Maybe he has two . It reminds me of the Yankee Doodle, a son inherits it and has a panic attack as he stares down the barrel of the next 40 years behind a counter that's as greasy as a Pelican in the gulf. And just what fer, half goes to rent and bills. Serving it up to a crowd that always has a new plan for the property.
Yes , sons and daughters of the legacy are usually rebellious and obstinate as to running the company and listening to just how it was/is supposed to be. Sometimes it's the memories.
What was the name of the breakfast and lunch joint on Crown st. ? Located about where the old Hotel National was . With the delicious beef stew, i don't know what he put in it , Or what crawled in it
But it was friggin good. A Greek guy named John
#7 By '98 3:25p.m. on May 30, 2010
Great comment, #6!
#8 By Great banana splits 12:38a.m. on May 31, 2010
Clark's Dairy has been open longer than 48 years. Perhaps you are talking about the "current owner"
I had ice cream there at least 55 years ago, maybe longer. Great banana splits.
PK
#9 By Sorry but... 10:44a.m. on June 1, 2010
I hate to kick someone when they are down but I've been walking past Clark's for 12 years. I've been in a few times and found the food and service to be fair. The service was adequate and the cleanliness was not good. This is not a recipe for success. I wish them well but it takes more than token effort and a reliance on being a 'New Haven tradition' to be successful. I hope the new tenants take notice that if you serve good food, with pleasant service, in a clean environment, the clients will come.
#10 By GRD / SOM '08 5:19p.m. on June 3, 2010
This is terrible news to me. Clark's was a haven for me when I was a broke Grad Student living in Helen Hadley Hall. I'd go in there and order the blueberry pancakes from Mary, who'd been working at Clark's for 30 years. She was the best - the moment I came in she'd give me the comics section, bring out my coffee, call me "love". And then there was Ricky, who made terrible hash browns. And finally, the milkshakes which were always too thick to suck through the straw.
Damn I'm going to miss that place. When the Doodle closed, it hurt but only a little. Clark's...now that's a place which I'll forever associate with comfort in cold, lonely New Haven.
#11 By A clean, well-lighted place 11:21p.m. on June 4, 2010
@#9
This is not a dining establishment. It's a hang-out. It's what Hemingway wrote about in his short story "A Clean, Well-lighted Place."
Epicures elsewhere.
PK
#12 By Ticky-tacky overtakes the Greasy Spoon 3:06a.m. on June 7, 2010
@ GRD/SOM '08:
Your pen paints like Picasso: Clark's,the archetypal waitress with a heart of gold (Mary), home fries, grad student life and "cold, lonely New Haven" come alive in your brief strokes on the keyboard.
@ Doug MB42 :
Are George and Leo still flourishing at Yorkside? Leo used to cut his hair short all around the bottom, long before the Marine cut was in fashion. (Or was that a wig?) And Harold Bloom used to eat in there with a conversation mate. The greasiest spoon in New Haven--but great personality, burgers and onion rings.
PK
#13 By Cristina Gomez 5:08a.m. on June 9, 2010
Es una verdadera lástima que vaya a cerrar, yo no estudio en Yale pero estuve en esa cafetería el año pasado.
Una verdadera lástima....
Besos a todos los estudiantes latinos de Yale, ojalá hubiera podido estudiar yo allí.
Saludos desde Córdoba, España.
#14 By Gomez Adams 8:00p.m. on June 12, 2010
Will Mary push the tables together the way she did next door for the morning meetings ? Will they let her ? Does she want to ?
#15 By NOOOOOO! '11 1:57p.m. on June 16, 2010
CLARKS HAS THE BEST MILKSHAKES I EVER TASTED AND EVER WILL TASTE.
EUGH!
NEW HAVEN JUST GOT A LITTLE MORE RUBBISH.
#16 By ROFLCOPTER 5:24a.m. on June 21, 2010
Clark's milkshake brings all the boys to the yard...
#17 By David Yopp 8:07p.m. on July 3, 2010
I can remember my dad taking us there in the mid 60's after bowling with the small balls next door. Later I would stop there after Cross football practice and have a shake.Too bad! I won't be able to make it to the Elm City before it closes.
#18 By Name of commenter 10:35a.m. on July 5, 2010
@#11 -- "A CLEAN well-lighted place" is exactly what #9 was emphasizing.
According to #9, "the cleanliness was not good."
#19 By Vague 12:57a.m. on July 7, 2010
What does "the cleanliness was not good" mean? Rather vague. If the place was dirty, it wouldn't have lasted 48 (actually longer) years. I vote with the other 17 posts.
PK
#20 By ItsAMysteryNY 8:24a.m. on July 12, 2010
Clark's had the best sandwiches/french fries- I went there a LOT since I lived near there (first in Helen Hadley Hall, then Trumbull St.) and loved their stuff. I'm so sick of hoity-toity overpriced places crowding out homey, comfortable, reasonable places. This is depressing. Ugh.
At Divinity School, a non-Christian sect
By Sam Greenberg
Staff Reporter
Published Wednesday, April 7, 2010
The Yale Daily News
Like many first-year Yale Divinity School students, Elizabeth Bonney DIV ’12 has been studying Christianity this semester, taking courses such as “Introduction to Pastoral Care” and “Christian Old Testament Interpretation.” But unlike 97 percent of her peers, Bonney does not consider herself Christian.
According to Divinity School records, Bonney is one of nine non-Christian students who are currently studying at the Divinity School, which, while not an ordaining seminary, is still a Christian institution. The small minority of non-Christian students at the school said they are...
#1 By *sigh* 8:51a.m. on April 7, 2010
Bonney wasn't Christian and didn't know if she was going to convert to Judaism upon entry, but she just knew she wanted to be "some kind of religious leader?" Ideally (money grubbing televangelists aside) religious leaders feel called by God...not a vague, "what color is your parachute" plus "I deserve to be a leader" = "I want to be some kind of religious leader!"
If you can't even narrow it down to rabbi, minister, or nun, maybe the "call" is an immature one based on selfish desires. Too many of the lousy "religious leaders" (established or div students) I've met are in it for the wrong reason: the desire to be the obligatory center of attention in an atmosphere much less competitive than that for business leaders, lawyers, doctors, professors, etc.
#2 By Yale 08 12:41p.m. on April 7, 2010
This is BRILLIANT satire!
You guys nailed the Div School!
I bet they are so embarassed over this!
#3 By @*sigh* 2:13p.m. on April 7, 2010
One word: "Yale"
Yale whores out its brand to any M.Div with the shekels.
#4 By Yale 08 4:08p.m. on April 7, 2010
I first read this title as:
"Yale Divinity School = a non-Christian sect"
It certainly is!
Shut that monstrosity down.
#5 By @Sigh 6:11p.m. on April 7, 2010
The sophomoric comments made by the readers of the YDN never cease to amaze me. If Miss Bonney were interested solely in the religious spotlight, she could have joined one of several Christian denominations that do not require ordination to lead a church. Instead, she has committed herself to a rigorous course of study, and in the process, refined her understanding of her own faith. I would think her dedication and passion would make her uniquely qualified to lead any congregation that was lucky enough to have her (whether it be Christian or Jewish). A strong belief in God does not always accompany a strictly defined religious affiliation, much as an affiliation with Yale does not always signal a discerning mind (a point your comment has illustrated beautifully).
Much in the same way that intelligence is
#6 By Recent Alum 8:54p.m. on April 7, 2010
Wait, non-Christians are a *minority* at the Div School?
#7 By Yale 08 10:18p.m. on April 7, 2010
"a rigorous course of study"
LOL
Yale Divinity is a joke.
#8 By @7 and 4 8:37a.m. on April 8, 2010
@7 All the Div students I've met knew how to read ancient Greek and Hebrew, which isn't terribly practical in many other fields but still evidence of studying. They also are well versed in the historical context of the bible, something that is lacking in a lot of other religious leaders.
@4 The ministers coming out of Yale Divinity are more liberal than ones from anywhere else. Do you really want to shut it down and let the non-ordained mega church preachers take over?
#9 By @#8 on April 8, 2010:34a.m.
"The ministers coming out of Yale Divinity are more liberal than ones from anywhere else. Do you really want to shut it down and let the non-ordained mega church preachers take over?"
And there, friends, is an example of the rhetorical technique we call "a false dichotomy."
#10 By YDS-Student 12:27a.m. on April 9, 2010
Most non-Christian students at the Div School are M.A.R students preparing for Ph.D work. This is the primary purpose of the M.A.R program regardless of one's religious affiliation. If anything it goes to show the strength of our program that non-Christians would select a Christian school over say a secular M.A in religious studies elsewhere. Bonney is the only exception I've personally heard of (though there is no strict rule saying M.Div students must be Christian, it is a ministry degree and without Christian ordination one is essentially forging their own career path from it).
While I personally think #1's words are true insofar as one should have a clear idea of where they are headed before studying for any professional degree, whether it be Div, Law, Med, etc. It also seems harsh to judge her (or the entire school for that matter) based on a change in religious identity. I changed denominations recently, and while the divide between Pastor and Priest is not nearly as large as that between either of those two and being a Rabbi, the point is that Bonney, and all of us, must serve in the place we think God is leading us to.
I've come across Yale 08 before and as usual he basically offers nothing constructive here. I've asked him what his basis for evaluating theological education is, seeing as he is apparently an 08' alum of the very secular UG college and presumably has no formal theological training. Likewise I've asked what his personal experience with YDS has been, whether he has taken classes there or attended Marquand Chapel. As of yet he has continued to respond with empty ranting. As such, I think from here on in unless he decides to provide a real argument for his feelings about the school based either in logic or experience, it would be best if we did not feed the troll.
#11 By Yale 08 10:34a.m. on April 9, 2010
If you think YDS provides theological training, I have some Lehman Brothers stock to sell you...
The religion of YDS is no different than the platform of the Democratic Party.
#12 By Not Blind Anymore 11:16a.m. on April 9, 2010
Divinity school trains persons Jesus described as being blind. They leave the school and tries to lead other blind people. It is the classic case of the blind leading the blind. The Divinity school must get back to the truth of the teachings of Jesus so that the blind could see again.
#13 By The can read Greek and Hebrew? 12:26p.m. on April 9, 2010
@#8, you are very generous in characterizing their reading and studying.
If you join a language class with these people, you'll see that they tend to aim low. So often I heard them moan "Why do we need to learn vocabulary and grammar?" and "Can't we work on something more relevant like the Dead Sea Scrolls?"
The exceptions were great but disappointingly rare.
#14 By YDS-Student 3:32p.m. on April 9, 2010
@12 "Divinity school trains persons Jesus described as being blind."
Every Theological school has some of these. Just as every professional school puts out a few bad lawyers, doctors, etc.
"The Divinity school must get back to the truth of the teachings of Jesus so that the blind could see again."
Yes, Because there isn't any disagreement between the 20,000+ denominations about what constitutes "The truth of the teachings of Jesus". It is as simple as you say.
@13 Flat out falsehood. Comparing my UG languages courses to Div, Div is much more demanding. Have not heard any complaining either.
#15 By @#5 11:33p.m. on April 9, 2010
"The sophomoric comments made by the readers of the YDN never cease to amaze me. If Miss Bonney were interested solely in the religious spotlight, she could have joined one of several Christian denominations that do not require ordination to lead a church."
I doubt Miss Bonney is interested in leading a charismatic/Pentacostal, storefront, and/or traditionally African American congregation, but thanks for playing.
#16 By @#15 8:27p.m. on April 10, 2010
Clearly you haven't heard of the Baptists? Unless you meant to imply that all of the estimated 33,830,000 followers were part of "traditionally African American congregations."
#17 By #16 10:54p.m. on April 10, 2010
Yeah, but it's rare these days, and anyway, the Baptists set the bar really high in terms of, you know, believing in Jesus and having been saved by a personal relationship with Jesus Christ....they're no Unitarians. And the woman in question doesn't sound like she believed Christ is any more divine than the flying spaghetti monster on entry, which means she probably knows the Baptists wouldn't be putting her up in a pulpit anytime soon to share her vague "religious leadership."
#18 By @ #16 11:00p.m. on April 10, 2010
...also, I've met close to 20 Baptist ministers in the last 5 years (white, African American, Hispanic)...and not a one of them from a large mainstream congregation didn't go to seminary. (They're all under 50 years of age, with congregation sizes in the hundred plus range.) Good work on the ad hominem argument though.
#19 By @18 4:57p.m. on April 11, 2010
I wouldn't try to use words you don't understand, especially when they apply so well to your own posts. It undermines your credibility. Of course, in the eyes of this Baptist pastor, your argument didn't have much to begin with.
#20 By @15 8:29p.m. on April 11, 2010
...what you saying, bro?
#21 By anon 10:17a.m. on April 12, 2010
"Alex Souto DIV ’12, who identifies with Christianity and Buddhism, said he thinks the school could still improve in terms of catering to students from non-Christian backgrounds."
Catering to students.
Exactly.
#22 By Yale 08 10:35a.m. on April 12, 2010
@#10,
During serious religious discussion, "don't feed the troll" often refers to the YDS student hiding in the corner yelling about eco-theology or neo-paganism.
#23 By Alum 5:16p.m. on April 12, 2010
I haven't bothered with all the nonsense of many of these comments, but see that the usual self-satisfied posters "Yale 08" and Hieronymus (what Jerome usually calls himself rather than his condescending "Sigh") are at it again. If the OCD covers the Divinity School and other subjects that touch their hot buttons, you can be certain their invective will follow. I've never seen anything from them that indicates they have any knowledge to go along with their opinions. Give it a rest.
#24: By recent Alum 12:08 p.m. on April 13, 2010
#23: Are you now trying to "out" YDN commenters as a way to pressure them not to express their views online? Why was this comment accepted? Leftists will never cease to amaze me in how low they will go to silence those they disagree with.
#25 By heh 6:20p.m. on April 13, 2010
And the third member of the Cranky Conservative Troika shows up at last.
#26 By Recent Alum 9:19p.m. on April 13, 2010
heh, if you are referring to me, I am really more of a centrist with some rightward leanings than a conservative.
#27 By Pasta Keane 1:53a.m. on April 14, 2010
THis saddens me
#28 By Scientist, not Theologist 11:20a.m. on April 16, 2010
I'm a scientist and an atheist, but I don't understand why this is poses problems for others. What I do know is that any God is an intangible and no single religion seems to have pinned down the concept in a way that is confirmed even to them. Scientists used to be paid to try to understand the mind and will of God. Why wouldn't you want someone who is supposed to guide others to explore the complete breadth of possible information?
I was raised in a conservative congregation and even I know that claiming to know and enforce the mind and will of God is the ultimate heresy. Who are you to tell people what to study on their quest to understand (and help others to understand) God?
#29 By LawSchoolWidow 11:17p.m. on April 17, 2010
I happen to know Elizabeth Bonney, and I know she feels whatever one might describe as a "calling" to be a spiritual leader. As someone already pointed out, a spiritual calling is not one and the same as a religious orientation. Indeed, spirituality is the sensual experience of belief, whereas religion is the practice and laws of a given set of people. Bonney is spiritual and on a path to figure out how to be religious. She chose the chosen (a smart move, in my book, but I'm perhaps biased), and I don't think you can disparage her for this at all.
Think of it this way: YDS is to Yale College as Union Theo is to Columbia A+S: technically part of the same university, might as well be in different universes.
#30 By ROFLCOPTER 1:22a.m. on April 20, 2010
Hey! Hey! I want to be included in the cranky conservative troika too!
#31 By alas 10:28p.m. on April 20, 2010
But then it wouldn't be a troika.
Also, you (and FailBoat too, I think) don't really post enough to make it in. Sorry. Hiero, Yale 08, and Recent Alum are very reliable reactionaries.
Then again, Hiero is slacking as of late, so you might have a chance...
#32 By Yale 08 1:08p.m. on April 23, 2010
Only something living can fight against the current.
Dead wood floats down stream.
#33 By Pierson 01 1:25p.m. on April 23, 2010
Yale '08, I don't see why you're so negative. Do you believe it's the mission or should be the mission of the Yale Divinity School to promote your own religious views? Are you a student at YDS or a faculty member or administrator?
No? Then why do you care?
I agree that going to Div School to be a religious leader without a strong religious conviction or sense of vocation is puzzling, but why does her decision affect you? Do you feel that YDS should be simply a Trinitarian, conservative seminary without any sort of nonsectarian religious studies program? Why do you feel you get to make the call?
#34 By Yale 08 11:32p.m. on April 23, 2010
Unless Yale commits to "making the call" then there is no reason for YDS to exist!
#35 By YDS-Student 1:09p.m. on April 25, 2010
@ Yale 08
If Yale made the call, it would do so in YDS' favor. Seriously, have you looked at the undergraduate culture? Do you think Yale U would tolerate YDS if it was Christian in the traditional sense, If it had conservative seminarians who were all 100% dedicated to pastoral work coming down the hill to attempt the change the social and cultural trajectory of Yale College or the other schools? The school's orientation as a liberal and pro-skeptic place is necessary for it to remain in harmony with the rest of yale. Because every other school is liberal and religiously pro-skptic as well. I say this as a conservative and pro-tradition Christian.
#36 By Yale 08 8:33p.m. on April 25, 2010
A Div School divorced from traditional Christianity has no reason to exist.
It can just as easily join the Religious Studies department.
#37 By Pierson 01 10:46a.m. on April 26, 2010
@Yale 08
You know, you post on here about how YDS displeases you because it doesn't focus on hardcore conservative evangelical theology to the exclusion of viewpoints you consider deficient. You then post on an article about Slifka hiring a female rabbi, ridiculing the very notion of a rabbi who lacks certain bits of anatomy. Are you Christian? Are you Jewish? You're certainly not both. So in at least one case, you post merely to express your disdain that people exist who are not like you: conservative, reactionary, sexist, and hidebound in your refusal to consider views that don't accord with your ideology. Seriously, you should consider a hobby that doesn't involve being obnoxious and intellectually dishonest.
#38 By Yale 08 5:48p.m. on April 26, 2010
Questioning the mission of the YDS and the legitimacy of a female rabbi makes me "conservative, reactionary, sexist, and hidebound in my refusal to consider views that don't accord with my ideology"?
I love Yale. Questioning liberal beliefs is the only sin on this campus.
#39 By y09 8:22p.m. on April 26, 2010
Actually, that is an interesting question. You said elsewhere that you don't consider non-Orthodox Judaism to be valid , and you don't seem to think non-conservative Christianity is either. Are you some sort of pan-religious conservative?
And yeah, you do come off as highly reactionary and sexist; this has been pointed out before.
#40 By Yale 08 8:35a.m. on April 27, 2010
There is nothing reactionary about suggesting that humanity is not on a constant march toward progress.
Nor is there anything sexist about suggesting that a woman cannot be a priest or rabbi any more than a man cannot be a mother.
Reality is not optional. Truth is not relative.
#41 By y09 11:25a.m. on April 27, 2010
A man cannot be a mother because men do not have the biological capacity to gestate offspring. Biological capacity is not at issue for a woman being a priest or a rabbi. Please, try again.
#42 By Yale 08 2:39p.m. on April 27, 2010
"Biological capacity is not at issue for a woman being a priest or a rabbi."
What is your definition of a priest or rabbi?
Catholics cannot ordain women to the priesthood. The form of Holy Orders requires a male.
Orthodox Jews, bound by the Masorah, cannot ordain a woman.
This isn't preference or choice, but ontology. These are transient options but the foundational truths upon which religions are built.
I never would expect YDS kids to understand that.
Some things are not subject to majority vote.
#43 By y09 4:59p.m. on April 27, 2010
Priest: "a clergyman in Christian churches who has the authority to perform or administer various religious rites"
Rabbi: "spiritual leader of a Jewish congregation; qualified to expound and apply Jewish law"
So, what is your definition of biological capacity? Are you seriously arguing that the chromosomal makeup of a person makes them fit or unfit for being a priest? If someone has male features but two X chromosomes, can they be a priest/rabbi under your rules? How about XXY? What if they're XY but have feminine features?
And pre-emptively: do you have any scriptural basis for arguing whatever position you're advocating?
Also, not all Christians are Catholics, so...or are going to make the same argument there that you did for Jews?
#44 By Yale 08 8:56a.m. on April 28, 2010
For Orthodox Jews and the majority of Christians, maleness is a priori for being ordained.
The ability to perform certain religious tasks does not equate to fitness for ordination.
Rabbi and priest are not simply jobs for which to be interviewed.
We don't make the rules. We receive them.
#45 By y09 10:54a.m. on April 28, 2010
Nice job not answering any of the questions I posed.
Yes, yes, they're vocations. I know. But you're saying that not everyone who feels a call to serve God through the priesthood should be allowed to, simply because of their sex. This is sexist because it discriminates on the basis of sex. And by denying women an authoritative position within the religion solely due to their sex and not their character/intelligence/any other attribute, it's also misogynistic.
And actually, we *do* make the rules. We may justify them through appeal to divinity or divine texts or whatnot, but ultimately the configurations of religious institutions is a human creation. And that includes the priestly class.
I don't know why I'm arguing with you; I have no expectation that you're going to change your mind and suddenly see the light or something. Oh well.
#46 By Yale 08 1:48p.m. on April 28, 2010
I hate the smell of relativism in the afternoon.
Our feelings are irrelevant.
If you are Christian or Jewish, you believe in certain Truth. That Truth has consequences.
We might not like it, but we cannot change it. As contingent beings, we aren't in a position to change reality.
#47 By Yale 2010 1:55p.m. on April 28, 2010
@ y09,
I'm Catholic. We believe that God is real. He sent his Son to earth to suffer and die and rise for our sins. He established a Church, which has received a great tradition of Truths. The Church is also granted specific and limited authority from God.
Among these is the ordination of priests and bishops in the sacrament of Holy Orders. Since the priest stands as another Christ and Christ was a man, and Christ never ordained women; we cannot ordain women.
As men are priests, women are mothers.
It's pretty simple.
Obviously, if you reject the authority of the Catholic Church, you will not understand. But it's not sexist.
#48 By Pierson 01 2:02p.m. on April 30, 2010
@Yale 08
See, here's what I'm not getting. Yes, I understand that Catholicism does not ordain female priests, and that female priests and pastors are controversial in some Protestant groups. Yes, I understand that the "Orthodox" authorities do not consider women to be candidates for the rabbinate. I get that.
Most Jews in the United States are not Orthodox. Many Christian in the United States are not Catholic or conservative Protestant. Your opinion seems to be that non-Orthodox Jews and non-conservative Christians are not entitled to worship as they see fit, and believe as they will. It's especially bewildering because you seem to claim that Orthodox schools of Judaism and certain traditional Christian denominations hold superior claims to Truth, at the same time, whereas Jews clearly don't consider Christian theology to be correct, and Christians clearly don't consider Jewish theology to be correct. What is it about Orthodox (which is a title) Judaism and certain strains of Christianity that make them co-equal and superior to other brands? The only thing I can deduce is that the brands you don't like treat women as equal to men, allow for diversity in thought, and probably do other things that gall you, like avoiding a fixation on sexual issues. Seems to me that it's just tied in with reactionary, cultural conservative views, and that you don't have a stake in the fight.
Note also that the prohibitions against female rabbis and priests and pastors are not spelled out in the Torah or in the Gospels. They are the determinations of scholarly men who died a long time ago in communities far different from our own. Those men should be respected, but their word is not God's word.
#49 By Recent Alum 10:46a.m. on May 9, 2010
Pierson '01: The leadership of the Catholic Church in the 21st centuryt is liberal across the board on fiscal issues and foreign policy issues, as well as on immigration policy, the death penalty, affirmative action, etc. Now, of course that isn't good enough for the NYT to stop bashing them -- the media will not be fair to the Church as long as it doesn't endorse every single political position of the Left, including abortion and homosexuality -- but it seems to be a bit much on your part to accuse Yale '08 of being a right-wing political hack for taking Catholic theology more seriously than whatever is being taught at the Div School these days.
#50 By Get A clue 4:08p.m. on May 28, 2010
Actually Christ did ordain a woman, the woman at the well. When he told her to go and spread the news of what she had learned, she became the first evangelist. That would be enough in any baptist church. Religion is a human institution that points towards a infinite truth. Human beings wrote the Bible, the Koran, the Torah etc... And with it they brought their own bias and issues. These people were men, so of course they wanted to keep women out. Thinking that the Bible was written by possessed zombies is foolishness to say the least and Bibliology- or biblical idology at the worst.
#51 By Yale student 11:37a.m. on June 2, 2010
"entitled to worship as they see fit, and believe as they will..."
We don't get to decide. God decides. We receive His Truth.
#52 By Answering a "calling" 11:32p.m. on June 3,
2010
I hate to say this, but it seems to me (and I have been the target of their sarcasm) that Hieronymus, Yale '08, and Roflcopter are answering a "calling" just as a
"minister" has a calling: theirs is, as Father Mapple says of Jonah in Moby Dick, "to speak truth to the face of falsehood ,though it be plucked out from under the robes of senators or judges" [or, I might add, "divines".]
Look at the enormous amount of psychic energy Yale '08, for instance, has put into these 51 postings.
You may disagree with him/her,and dislike his/her taunts, but the impulse behind that consistent critique is a "calling" and should be respected as such, just as the young evangelist from Cheshire wearing an end-of-the-world sandwich-board who taunted and was taunted by Yale students in Beinecke Plaza first semester, was answering "a calling."
Note: fifty-one (now 52) posts is a large number for an article about an institution some call "irrelevant".
You have to honor the commitment of a great university to protect "ministry" (even non-traditonal Father Mapple kind of Jonah-ministry) in a secular society run amock on hedonism, materialism, and nihilism and to hone "ministry" with academic and theological "training".
As I write, those three forces (hedonism, materialism, and nihilism) are symbolically washing ashore in the Gulf Coast,in a tangled web of godless goo like an apocalyptic preview from Revelations.
PK
M.Div. '80
#53 By Polytheism masquerading as monotheism 6:19a.m. on June 4, 2010
@#51
God decides? Which God?
This is the Protestant/Catholic conundrum. Does truth come from the priesthood of all believers or the Chief of all Priests?
Add democracy to the mix of the Protestant Reformation and you get America's fleet of Jesuses, from Jesus the gay-hater to Jesus the Prosperity Pusher: Polytheism masquerading as monotheism.
It all depends on whether you want to be enslaved to a dogma/bureaucracy or emancipated to the boundaries of your own (Emersonian) mind.
One of the values of a YDS education is that you can identify these distinctions and ignore the glib platitudes and pontifications of the "god decides" group.
PK
