The current calendar committee recommends that this decision be phased out, so that a few years from now classes will be held on religious holidays, whatever that religion, and whatever that holiday (holy day) may be.

The calendar will recognize only national holidays. In chronological order, these are Martin Luther King Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas.

Although a number of persons of Jewish faith are not particularly exorcised about this-and some go so far as to profess it is a change for the better-many more are deeply distressed, indeed, anguished.

The most fundamental reason for the change is that the classless days in early fall are educationally harmful. It invariably leads to a very sputtering start of the semester. Beyond that, a number of laboratory courses are designed such that you miss the whole week if you miss a day. It also leads to constructions "On Tuesday the Thursday schedule will be followed."

Most troublesome of all is that the education law, which dictates minimum numbers of contact hours, forces us to begin classes before Labor Day. This not only adds an extra sputter to the start, it also means that many students arrive a week late for classes; they are serving dinners on Cape Cod before Labor Day, to pay for their education after Labor Day.

All these problems are solved by turning the clock back 20 years We are able, now as then, to design a calendar meeting all requirements starting after Labor Day, without regular recourse to changing days of the week, with more full weeks for bio-and chemistry labs, and without any hiccups once we start.

A secondary reason is our growing diversity. Many adherents of other faiths are puzzled about the asymmetric treatment their holiest days of religious observance receive-with the exception of Christmas when, according to its status as a national holiday, the whole university closes.

For many Jews, the new calendar poses a difficult choice between the dictates of religion and education. It is a no-win situation. The damage is mitigated by policies prohibiting required attendance, or penalties for late homework, or tests, on religious days of observance. It can be further softened by tape or video recorders. But such remedies are costly and not equal to the task.

The dilemma can be avoided altogether by students attending another center in the SUNY system. The Binghamton calendar even includes travel time (to the New York City area). [Binghamton has a 13 MTWThF rather than a 14 MTWThF calendar, but longer class periods-a construction not feasible here.]

UB had a substantially larger Jewish student population before the mid-seventies than it has today. This change might further reduce their number. It is a high price to pay for an institution which labors hard to welcome all, and make all feel welcome. Yet, just as one's religion sometimes requires sacrifices, so do principles-in this case to treat all religious holidays the same.

Although the calendar committees of recent vintage all included Jewish participants, they did not include a vocal defender of the status quo. It was only after the calendar committee recommendations were widely distributed that the intense objections from some ranking Jewish faculty colleagues were heard.

It is unfortunate that none of these colleagues were in the loop at an earlier stage. The calendar committee members thus heard no powerfully presented dissents, and conversely, the Jewish colleagues did not hear the depth of feeling of non-Jewish constituencies (including the clerical staff, a far-too-often neglected segment of our enterprise).

The arguments in support of the Jewish position included, in my rendering (but much better they speak for themselves), the observation that not all religious holidays are created equal. Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are vastly more meaningful, and demand far stricter observance, including fasting, than the dictates of [most] other religions do for their [most] special days.

Also, a 1990 student survey indicated that roughly 50 percent of the student body, randomly sampled, favored classless Jewish holidays. I wonder what the response to this question would have been, or would be: "Do you prefer a start after Labor Day without further breaks, or a start before Labor Day but breaks for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur?"

It is also argued that the absence of many students from class will hamper progress in coverage of material. This is correct. The problem is that the absence of many students during the whole first week is even more debilitating than students missing a number of individual classes later on when the course has been launched. An additional problem is that even with classes off, many students miss classes anyway during the days they travel. If classes are held, some of the pressure to go home may abate.

My impression is that the overarching reason has little to do with a popularity poll or a numbers game. It is that the effect of the change will be borne on Jewish shoulders; that they are the ones facing a lose-lose choice; that they will have to make the sacrifice.

Phrased in this fashion, it is a correct sentiment. It was, however, stated more pointedly, with reference to events in Europe in the thirties and forties, and words like suffering and victims. It diminishes the memory of those who perished to suggest that there might be an analogy here.

My own conviction is that we are a multicultural, educational, public institution, and that it serves our varied constituencies, our teaching mission, and the religion-neutral stance appropriate for a state institution, to make the change.

John C.G. Boot is professor and chair, Department of Management Science and Systems and a Universitywide Senator.