‘Confusion about such statements is rampant. The public needs to be able to differentiate between pesak, da’at Torah and opinion.’
He makes a suggestion that Daas Torah not only be labeled as such but should be explained. Meaning that any rabbinic decision made should include sources and an explanation. Otherwise it should not be considered anything more than an opinion and not binding in any way. I agree.
Additionally I do not agree with a policy like that of the Agudah Moetzes that does not allow dissent within its ranks to be expressed publicly. They will only express a unified view publicly allowing dissent to be expressed only during an internal debate on the issue. Dissenters must sign off on the majority view. But dissent by a rabbinic great, even if it the minority view is still Daas Torah. And I think the public has a right to know what that view is. R’ Chaim Soloveichik would not join the Agudah Moetzes when it was founded precisely that reason.
Year after year one will hear at least one speaker at an Agudah convention or banquet talks about listening to the Gedolim. Because only they express Daas Torah. But is that the case? Is it theirs the only expression of Daas Torah? Or are there other expressions outside the Agudah Moetzes that are Daas Torah as well?
What about dissent within their ranks? Why not adopt Rabbi Berman’s suggestions as well? Most of all there ought to be clarity about what is Daas Torah… and what is simply an opinion. And certainly there should be clarity that Daas Torah does not belong to only one Hashkafa.