Harvard is a community in which acceptance of others is heavily stressed; yet, fringe groups such as Peninsula do exist, and intolerance rears its ugly head here as it does anywhere else. Unfortunately, religion is often the peg upon which disagreements hang. And therefore a great challenge facing secular universities is to find the balance between respecting the demands of various religious groups and respecting those who may be offended as a result. Today, Yale University sits at the helm of this crucial issue. In fact, Yale may well set a precedent for the role secular academic institutions play in a pluralistic society.

Yale decided several years ago that all first-and second-year students must live in campus housing, exempting only married students and those over 21. The new rule was based on the notion that a Yale education is incomplete without constant exposure to other Yale students. This year, five Orthodox Jews who have been granted housing on single-sex floors have refused to pay their $6,850 rooming fee because they "cannot in good conscience, live in a place where women are permitted to stay overnight in men's rooms, and where visiting men can traipse through the common halls on the women's floors--in various stages of undress--in the middle of the night." A daunting question faces Yale: Should the university reevaluate its recently instituted policy and allow these students to live at home in their New Haven residences?

The Yale Five, as they call themselves, do not claim to be passing a moral judgment on others; they simply want to exercise their religious freedom and abide by the rules that their interpretation of Judaism requires. How much respect should a private and secular institution have for devout, even fundamentalist students?

Yale's rule is not an arbitrary one. Living arrangements are clearly more fundamental to the Yale experience than, for example, eating arrangements. Consequently, kosher students can eat at Hillel and still attend Yale. Yale asserts, then, that without having lived in first-year and sophomore dorms with other first-years and sophomores, a student will not have fulfilled the necessary requirements to get a Yale degree.

These five Yale students chose to apply to Yale, hopefully cognizant of Yale's policy. They were admitted and they agreed to live under Yale-imposed rules. Now they do not want to abide by Yale's rules and are threatening to sue. Should Yale help usher these students into the twentieth century or should it help them preserve their religious tradition?

More questions than answers have always plagued Constitutional doctrine in this area, and it is no different with private institutions, because the line between keeping an institution secular and respecting diverse religious beliefs is fuzzy by definition. But as a private institution, Yale has the capability of setting standards, not only in its own community, but for all of those who look to Yale as a leader.

The reason this issue is of great importance to Yale, and consequently to all private universities, is that if Yale backs down and allows the Yale Five to live at home, Yale could open itself up to many objections to their new rule that would create philosophical and moral quandaries for all involved. Who may judge whether one student's unease is more or less valid than another's? If next year, five ultra-Catholic students wish to live at home because the gay students in their dorm make them feel uncomfortable, would that be O.K.? And what if the religion is newer and more obscure than Judaism or Christianity? It would fall upon administrators to judge the validity of moral beliefs and compare the relative validities of different religions--an impossible task for students, administrators, legislators or philosophers. Yale therefore has only two choices: rescind the rule and allow anyone who wants to to live off-campus to do so or enforce the rule across the board, with no exceptions.

The Yale Five say, "We are not trying to impose our moral standards on our classmates or on Yale." But they are tacitly judging all of their classmates who can, in good conscience, live with members of the opposite sex in adjacent rooms, because they refuse to live anywhere near them. They have not singled out a particular group; instead, their aversion is to modern people of any religion, color or creed, including other Jews. The Yale Five's unease results from their peers. And Yale has said for the time being that such an aversion is unacceptable.

At the same time, it seems unfair that in order for these five students to accommodate their beliefs, they should go to a yeshiva or an institution that is more understanding; after all, they claim to be simply following what they believe. And living at home seems harmless enough. But the principle Yale is defending is that in a changing society, where religious beliefs may no longer coincide with community and acceptance, religion must take a back seat. Affirming such a principle is Yale's prerogative. It is also the prerogative of the Yale Five not to apply to Yale, but to somewhere else that is more (or less) tolerant, depending on how you look at it.

Yale has changed, and the world has changed. Consequently, and unfortunately for some, the onus of preserving religion has fallen heavily on the believers. Yale has decided that living in a dormitory is fundamental to the Yale education, because of the debate cohabitation sparks and even the difficulties such as these that accompany accepting the lifestyles of those around you. If the Yale Five must live in the comfort of their own homes, then, for better or for worse, they aren't (at least currently) Yale material.

But in another era, they may have been. After all, students have earned Yale degrees for many years who have lived off campus their first two years, including the brother of one of the Yale Five. Maybe Yale made a mistake in changing their policy, and otherwise qualified students should be allowed to live reclusively. No one is entitled to a Yale education, that is certain. So if after openminded reflection, Yale revokes its new rule and follows a live-and-let-live policy, or if it continues to enforce its vision of what should be acceptable to all people of the 21st century, it will have done its job.

Daniel M. Suleiman '99 is Associate Editorial Chair of the Crimson.