Who is a Rabbi? Who is a Jew? Round II

In yesterday's blog, I posted a Reform Teshuva that sought to determine the Jewish status of an individual who underwent a 'Secular Humanist Jewish' conversion before endeavoring to join a Reform congregation. Along these lines, I thought it would be interesting to present a comparable excerpt from a Conservative Teshuva that is too occupied with issues of Jewish identity.
The fascinating responsum, "The Status of Non-Halachic Conversions" was authored by Rabbi David Novak and adopted by majority vote of the Law Committee in 1982. I should mention that there were several "postscripts" to this Responsum, containing concurrence and dissent.  Thus it would be unwise to base a general statement solely on this Teshuva such as: "Conservative policy on Reform conversion is X..."

Here is the Query:  "She’elah: The Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the Rabbinical Assembly has been asked on several occasions about the status of persons converted to Judaism in a non-halakhic manner, that is, men who did not undergo milah and/or tevilah and women who did not undergo tevilah. This question has assumed rather dramatic proportions in recent times due to the attempt in the State of Israel to amend the “Law of Return” (Hok Heshevut) so that only those who have undergone halakhic conversions (giyyur kehalachah) are entitled to automatic Israeli citizenship. Also, in America the whole issue of pluralistic Jewish community, which most Conservative Jews recognize as both a fact and a desideratum, raises the question of the status of numerous persons who consider themselves bona fide members of the Jewish community and are considered as such by others, yet who did not undergo the prescribed procedure for conversion. The question therefore calls for renewed attention."

Fascinating as it is, we shall skip to the resounding end:

"Conclusion: I find no cogent basis in halakhah for accepting even ex post facto, converts who did not undergo specific tevilah for the sake of conversion, unless it can be shown that they are strictly observant Jews, particularly scrupulous in the use of a mikvah. The fact that they may have been taken to be Jews by themselves or by others does not change the need for tevilah for the sake of conversion. The fact that most of these conversions have been conducted under Reform auspices makes the matter especially difficult because of the cordial relationships which exist between Conservative and Reform rabbis and lay people. Nevertheless, this halakhic requirement is not meant as a public rebuff to the Reform movement. If a Reform rabbi conducts giyyur kehalakhah, I accept his converts as bona fide Jews. I might also add that I do not accept converts of non-Reform rabbis if the conversion was not conducted according to objective halakhic criteria. These objective halakhic criteria, which alone protect the purity of Jewish identity, should not be compromised in the interests of an ultimately meaningless Jewish unity. However, rabbinical experience has taught me that a Conservative rabbi can exercise compassionate tact in urging proper tevilah in these cases.  I do not tell such converts that their conversions invalid, but rather, that they were incomplete, for even the most liberal conversion involves study, thus minimally fulfilling hoda’at mitvot. I tell them that they inadvertently overlooked an important specific. At the tevilah I ask them to reconfirm their kabbalat ol malchut shamayim and converts have thanked me for helping them to legally assure their unambiguous Jewish identity. […]"

We shall see tomorrow if an Orthodox Teshuva is as tactful. I'll save you a seat for Round III...