While working on my doctoral dissertation a tad shy of fifty years ago, I taught political science at Yeshiva University for a year and a half, shifting then to Hunter College. Charles Liebman and I shared an office, but as we were young and low on the academic totem pole, the space was small and cramped – I believe other faculty used the room – and we met infrequently.
Over the years, I haven’t been much at Yeshiva, not for any ideological or similar reasons but for the more prosaic circumstance that Washington Heights is a distance away from Borough Park and since I do not drive, the trip is time-consuming and time is always a scarce commodity, as my plate is constantly full. Rabbi Norman Lamm, whom I admire, asked me to speak several years ago to a senior kollel group and that was an enjoyable experience. Before Pesach, there was a tribute to Rabbi Lamm, with Great Britain’s Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, as the principal speaker. After the event, Richard Joel, Y.U.’s president, invited me to visit and that resulted in a delightful afternoon several weeks ago.
Yeshiva University in 2010 is a lot like Yeshiva University of 1960 and also a lot different. It still represents a synthesis between Orthodox Judaism and the secular world, which is inevitably a challenge, and the main campus still seems a bit out of place amidst a vibrant Hispanic community. There are differences, starting with the diminution but not entire eradication of the paternalism that long characterized the relationship between administration and faculty, a relationship that arose less out of an intent to take advantage of the faculty as out of the dialectical nature of the institution being a heimische place. The school would take care of its own. In return, its own would be quiescent.
When in the 1970s many in the faculty came to believe that this was a bad deal and sought to organize a union, Yeshiva resisted and that ultimately resulted in one of the most atrocious decisions in all of Supreme Court jurisprudence, when in 1980 and by a 5-4 vote, the Justices ruled that university faculty are managerial employees and therefore excluded from coverage under the National Labor Relations Act.
Rabbi Lamm became president in the 1970s, succeeding Dr. Samuel Belkin who during his long tenure had expanded Yeshiva into a full-fledged university with a medical school, law school, graduate schools and programs and much else, accumulating along the way a mountain of debt. Y.U. came within a hairbreadth of declaring bankruptcy, saved by the creative actions of Rabbi Lamm and key supporters. However, scars remained, as the fear that another bankruptcy was always nearby begot a spirit of parsimony.
Yet, during Rabbi Lamm’s long and distinguished service there were improvements in the lot of the faculty and the main campus expanded somewhat and was made considerably more attractive. His great achievement, which remains underappreciated, is that he directed the remarkable transformation of Yeshiva from a center of Orthodoxy distinguished by the intellectual grandeur of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik and other European born and educated Torah scholars to an equally elevated institution whose religious faculty are, in the main, Yeshiva-educated. The level of religious study is perhaps higher than ever and the Seminary remains the essence – the heart and soul and much more – of the institution. It is thrilling to be in the new Beth Medrash or study hall, a beautiful place constantly occupied by young scholars.
Universities are characterized by intellectual ferment, as well as more petty rivalries, and this can generate all kinds of conflict, whether ideological or personal. Yeshiva is no exception. Given that it is Jewish and Orthodox to boot, as well as located in New York, it isn’t entirely surprising that it lives a fishbowl existence, so that minor incidents are treated as major happenings.
Rabbi Lamm had wanted to step down as president for some time. The search for a successor turned out to be difficult because there were quite a few hats to wear. Several years ago and seemingly out of frustration, Yeshiva settled on Richard Joel who had been a top administrator at Y.U.’s Cardoza Law School and was doing a strong job as the national director of Hillel. He has more than justified the faith in him. He is a modest and friendly man, yet a person who knows his authority and responsibilities. Under his leadership, the main campus has grown and become even more attractive, extending the achievements of Rabbi Lamm. One senses an enormous amount of vitality.
A characteristic of contemporary higher education, notably in urban areas, is for universities (like medical centers) to sprinkle campuses and programs across the geographic landscape. Yeshiva has maintained its model, with the main campus being the primary beneficiary of additional attention, financial resources and programming. Of course, key units such as Stern College, are elsewhere and they, too, have been upgraded.
There are, inevitably, problem areas and question marks, some heightened by the severe economic downturn. I sense that there are initiatives on hold, while there have been cutbacks that hurt. Central High School for Girls continues to seem out of sync, the result of the unfortunate decision years ago to relocate from Manhattan to Queens where its status resembles that of an orphan.
Surprisingly in view of how Israel figures in the modern and centrist Orthodox mindset, Yeshiva’s presence in Israel is limited to essentially one small program. It’s a major challenge to develop a meaningful higher education niche in Israel and today’s financial realities make the prospect remote. Hopefully, the day will come when Richard Joel and his board will tackle that issue.
Right now, there is an abundance of strong programs and much to be proud of.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
RJJ Newsletter - May 2010
Schools are small communities with, to borrow the term much in favor these days, lots of stakeholders. There are children and their parents, faculty and other staff, officers and directors, contributors and persons who live in the community that is being served. In public schools and more affluent nonpublic schools, the staff includes trained personnel who provide important non-educational services, such as guidance and counseling. In smaller and less affluent schools, a category that encompasses a large majority of yeshivas and day schools, these services are either not available or are provided on a part-time basis by an outside program that receives governmental funding.
There is heightened awareness in all educational settings of the obligation to deal with the special needs of children. The notion is that a school is not a sealed off facility into which the problems and pressures arising in the home or the street do not penetrate. Issues that arise elsewhere have a direct and critical bearing on whether children can be properly educated and prepared for future life.
For this reason, there are programs and professionals whose focus is on dealing with outside forces that in reality are powerful presences in the classroom. Some programs focus on early intervention, so that problems that are acknowledged may be addressed and therefore not blossom into more serious deficits or even pathologies. Other programs and professionals deal with behavioral or emotional issues that obviously can hamper educational progress.
It is evident that there now are far more children who are candidates for intervention and attention by school personnel. This may be the consequence of greater awareness of the obligation to address emotional and other needs and not of there being a significantly higher incidence of serious problems among school aged children. Likely, because of social change, there is now a higher proportion of children who require special attention. One contributory factor is the huge jump in the divorce rate. Popular media, with their powerful sexual messages and other unwelcome features, inevitably add to the toll.
Perhaps another factor contributing to the apparent growing incidence of serious emotional and behavioral problems among school children is the plethora of government-funded initiatives that have been established to deal with such situations. In an important sense, the availability of funding generates a search for children who are eligible to receive the services for which funding is being sought. Children are discovered to have deficiencies that no one previously was necessarily aware of, whether the deficiency is how they hold a pencil when they write or how they interact with other children or how they sit in the classroom, etc. These discoveries become the basis for funding requests. Forty years ago, I became aware of a Beth Jacob school that included in its application for funding the claim that a large number of its students engage in promiscuous behavior.
What is happening in certain schools echoes what is too familiar elsewhere in American life when the aim is to receive public funds, as groups make the claim that the constituencies they serve are beset with an avalanche of problems of the kind that make them eligible for public funding.
As noted, schools do face a daunting task in dealing with the emotional and behavioral problems that afflict many children. Exaggeration is not needed, yet the possibility of exaggeration should introduce a note of caution as certain claims are assessed.
There are additional reasons for caution. For all of the credentials of mental health professionals, as well as their dedication, the field that is their expertise is quite imprecise. I once asked Rav Moshe Feinstein, ztl, whether in a particular situation it was sufficient to rely on the assessment of a psychologist. He answered, of course in Yiddish, that it was not, adding as an explanation, “Because there is no boundary,” which I took to mean that the field is imprecise and not entirely reliable.
To put the issue in other terms: When a medical health situation is being evaluated, despite the availability of ever more sophisticated diagnostic tools, often there is no quick explanation for a condition or there is disagreement among those who examine the test results. We are familiar with the practice of asking for a second (at times third) opinion, as well as additional tests, before a determination is made about how to proceed. Why is it acceptable when mental health conditions are being evaluated to rely on the often quick assessment of a psychologist or social worker? Can they or we be certain about what transpires in that fragile and unseeable place called the psyche?
Without a doubt, mental health personnel belong in schools and most schools need more of them than are presently available. As noted further on in this Newsletter, our Girls School has benefitted from the caring services provided by a social worker named Paul Parsowith. However, the reality that mental health professionals are critically needed in schools is not a license to accept uncritically their evaluations and suggested treatments, especially when more than a few are not fully qualified and when what is at stake is the question of whether a child can remain in a school.
As it is, there is too much of a tendency for yeshivas and day schools to expel or not readmit students who are perceived as difficult or having a problem. There is a growing tendency in yeshivas and day schools to get rid of such children, as if they are like some food whose kashrut is in doubt and the formula is “if in doubt, throw it out.” I have protested over many years this tendency and the wrongful policy of allowing principals to have the sole authority to decide whether to expel a student. This tendency is an halachic and moral sin.
I have also written about self-esteem and how this little phrase is in large measure the key to the development of children into healthy adulthood and fruitful lives. Inherently and probably inevitably, schools have the capacity to undermine a child’s self-esteem. This is because central to the education program are tests, grades, report cards, and whatever else has the capacity to transmit the message to a child that he or she is not good at this or that. I am not advocating the abandonment of these measures of a child’s academic performance, although they should be employed in caring ways that least undermine self-esteem.
My concern here is with the expanding reliance by school officials on social workers, psychologists and experts on this or that subject to locate deficiencies among the children in their care. I am especially skeptical when additional funding is predicated on the claim that there are more and more students who need help. If these experts are stakeholders in a school, they are no more than minority stakeholders. Children and their families have a far greater stake and that is something that all of us who have responsibility for schools should never forget.
How Are We Doing?
This question refers to our financial situation. The response requires a bit of context, meaning the financial condition of the day school world generally. This is, by all accounts, the most difficult year in at least two decades. Contributions are sharply down in the aftermath of the severe economic crisis.
That’s only part of the problem. The other part is the tuition crisis. A recent long-delayed visit to my primary doctor for a routine checkup turned into a less than routine discussion of the tuition crisis. He is a talented and caring man whose children attend a Modern Orthodox day school. His income is certainly above that of a typical Orthodox Jewish breadwinner, yet his tuition bill is extremely high and it rises each year. In our conversation he wondered whether he should explore religious educational options outside of the conventional day school framework, saying that he knows parents who have transferred their children out of day school because of the high tuition.
Simply put, there is a dual financial crisis in day school education. One involves parents; the other involves the school. They are closely linked because when high tuition induces parents, rightly or wrongly, to remove their children, school finances take an additional hit. After years of constant growth, in certain day school sectors enrollment has declined. Some schools have closed and others are on the ropes. As I did this past September, I expect to conduct another brief enrollment survey early in the next school year and the likelihood is that there will be a further decline in Modern Orthodox schools and certainly in non-Orthodox schools. As for the crucial outreach and immigrant schools, their enrollment has nosedived.
RJJ as a whole continues to experience a significant downturn in contributions, as many who were faithful contributors for years have cut back entirely or partly. Were it not for the extraordinary generosity of several key donors, our situation would be far worse. Each of our four schools bears the burden of fundraising. How are they doing?
The answer is mixed. The Edison Mesivta has had a good year, certainly in its educational program and because of strong dinner results and hard work, its finances are in reasonably good shape, although it faces four tough months until contributions come in again early in the next school year. The Jewish Foundation School has had to make an extra effort to get by. It has been able to do so, thanks in large measure to the extraordinary efforts of Rabbi Richard Ehrlich, its dean.
Our crisis points are the two RJJ/Merkaz schools. They are behind in payroll and this is terribly unfair to their faculty and staff. We are making an effort in the last part of the school year to improve the situation and for this we urgently need the participation and help of parents, alumni and the larger Staten Island community.
There is heightened awareness in all educational settings of the obligation to deal with the special needs of children. The notion is that a school is not a sealed off facility into which the problems and pressures arising in the home or the street do not penetrate. Issues that arise elsewhere have a direct and critical bearing on whether children can be properly educated and prepared for future life.
For this reason, there are programs and professionals whose focus is on dealing with outside forces that in reality are powerful presences in the classroom. Some programs focus on early intervention, so that problems that are acknowledged may be addressed and therefore not blossom into more serious deficits or even pathologies. Other programs and professionals deal with behavioral or emotional issues that obviously can hamper educational progress.
It is evident that there now are far more children who are candidates for intervention and attention by school personnel. This may be the consequence of greater awareness of the obligation to address emotional and other needs and not of there being a significantly higher incidence of serious problems among school aged children. Likely, because of social change, there is now a higher proportion of children who require special attention. One contributory factor is the huge jump in the divorce rate. Popular media, with their powerful sexual messages and other unwelcome features, inevitably add to the toll.
Perhaps another factor contributing to the apparent growing incidence of serious emotional and behavioral problems among school children is the plethora of government-funded initiatives that have been established to deal with such situations. In an important sense, the availability of funding generates a search for children who are eligible to receive the services for which funding is being sought. Children are discovered to have deficiencies that no one previously was necessarily aware of, whether the deficiency is how they hold a pencil when they write or how they interact with other children or how they sit in the classroom, etc. These discoveries become the basis for funding requests. Forty years ago, I became aware of a Beth Jacob school that included in its application for funding the claim that a large number of its students engage in promiscuous behavior.
What is happening in certain schools echoes what is too familiar elsewhere in American life when the aim is to receive public funds, as groups make the claim that the constituencies they serve are beset with an avalanche of problems of the kind that make them eligible for public funding.
As noted, schools do face a daunting task in dealing with the emotional and behavioral problems that afflict many children. Exaggeration is not needed, yet the possibility of exaggeration should introduce a note of caution as certain claims are assessed.
There are additional reasons for caution. For all of the credentials of mental health professionals, as well as their dedication, the field that is their expertise is quite imprecise. I once asked Rav Moshe Feinstein, ztl, whether in a particular situation it was sufficient to rely on the assessment of a psychologist. He answered, of course in Yiddish, that it was not, adding as an explanation, “Because there is no boundary,” which I took to mean that the field is imprecise and not entirely reliable.
To put the issue in other terms: When a medical health situation is being evaluated, despite the availability of ever more sophisticated diagnostic tools, often there is no quick explanation for a condition or there is disagreement among those who examine the test results. We are familiar with the practice of asking for a second (at times third) opinion, as well as additional tests, before a determination is made about how to proceed. Why is it acceptable when mental health conditions are being evaluated to rely on the often quick assessment of a psychologist or social worker? Can they or we be certain about what transpires in that fragile and unseeable place called the psyche?
Without a doubt, mental health personnel belong in schools and most schools need more of them than are presently available. As noted further on in this Newsletter, our Girls School has benefitted from the caring services provided by a social worker named Paul Parsowith. However, the reality that mental health professionals are critically needed in schools is not a license to accept uncritically their evaluations and suggested treatments, especially when more than a few are not fully qualified and when what is at stake is the question of whether a child can remain in a school.
As it is, there is too much of a tendency for yeshivas and day schools to expel or not readmit students who are perceived as difficult or having a problem. There is a growing tendency in yeshivas and day schools to get rid of such children, as if they are like some food whose kashrut is in doubt and the formula is “if in doubt, throw it out.” I have protested over many years this tendency and the wrongful policy of allowing principals to have the sole authority to decide whether to expel a student. This tendency is an halachic and moral sin.
I have also written about self-esteem and how this little phrase is in large measure the key to the development of children into healthy adulthood and fruitful lives. Inherently and probably inevitably, schools have the capacity to undermine a child’s self-esteem. This is because central to the education program are tests, grades, report cards, and whatever else has the capacity to transmit the message to a child that he or she is not good at this or that. I am not advocating the abandonment of these measures of a child’s academic performance, although they should be employed in caring ways that least undermine self-esteem.
My concern here is with the expanding reliance by school officials on social workers, psychologists and experts on this or that subject to locate deficiencies among the children in their care. I am especially skeptical when additional funding is predicated on the claim that there are more and more students who need help. If these experts are stakeholders in a school, they are no more than minority stakeholders. Children and their families have a far greater stake and that is something that all of us who have responsibility for schools should never forget.
How Are We Doing?
This question refers to our financial situation. The response requires a bit of context, meaning the financial condition of the day school world generally. This is, by all accounts, the most difficult year in at least two decades. Contributions are sharply down in the aftermath of the severe economic crisis.
That’s only part of the problem. The other part is the tuition crisis. A recent long-delayed visit to my primary doctor for a routine checkup turned into a less than routine discussion of the tuition crisis. He is a talented and caring man whose children attend a Modern Orthodox day school. His income is certainly above that of a typical Orthodox Jewish breadwinner, yet his tuition bill is extremely high and it rises each year. In our conversation he wondered whether he should explore religious educational options outside of the conventional day school framework, saying that he knows parents who have transferred their children out of day school because of the high tuition.
Simply put, there is a dual financial crisis in day school education. One involves parents; the other involves the school. They are closely linked because when high tuition induces parents, rightly or wrongly, to remove their children, school finances take an additional hit. After years of constant growth, in certain day school sectors enrollment has declined. Some schools have closed and others are on the ropes. As I did this past September, I expect to conduct another brief enrollment survey early in the next school year and the likelihood is that there will be a further decline in Modern Orthodox schools and certainly in non-Orthodox schools. As for the crucial outreach and immigrant schools, their enrollment has nosedived.
RJJ as a whole continues to experience a significant downturn in contributions, as many who were faithful contributors for years have cut back entirely or partly. Were it not for the extraordinary generosity of several key donors, our situation would be far worse. Each of our four schools bears the burden of fundraising. How are they doing?
The answer is mixed. The Edison Mesivta has had a good year, certainly in its educational program and because of strong dinner results and hard work, its finances are in reasonably good shape, although it faces four tough months until contributions come in again early in the next school year. The Jewish Foundation School has had to make an extra effort to get by. It has been able to do so, thanks in large measure to the extraordinary efforts of Rabbi Richard Ehrlich, its dean.
Our crisis points are the two RJJ/Merkaz schools. They are behind in payroll and this is terribly unfair to their faculty and staff. We are making an effort in the last part of the school year to improve the situation and for this we urgently need the participation and help of parents, alumni and the larger Staten Island community.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
No Community Is An Island
It’s difficult to write about the Sholom Rubashkin case because it is difficult to write about a person who is guilty yet who is the victim of even more wrongful behavior by the government. He is scheduled to be sentenced the day before this column appears. The sentencing memorandum submitted by prosecutors to the federal district judge in Iowa is a cruel and shameful document.
Before his trial, Rubashkin’s lawyers attempted to negotiate a deal that would have resulted in his serving a prison term. Plea bargaining is not definite proof of guilt as there are defendants who throw in the towel because they do not have the funds to go to trial or because going to trial usually results in a lengthy sentence if the accused is found guilty. Federal sentencing guidelines punish severely accused persons who exercise their constitutional right to be tried.
Sholom Rubashkin did wrongful things, primarily after a frightening raid to round up illegal immigrants working at Agriprocessors, the company he ran. That resulted in brutal treatment of the workers by the government and panic and folly on Rubashkin’s part, with the company ultimately being forced into bankruptcy.
A balanced article by Jeff Stier last week in this newspaper had the headline “Life Sentence For Rubashkin Would Be Unfair.” That’s putting it mildly. Life sentences are for murderers and terrorists and for the once in a lifetime phenomenon named Bernard Madoff. How do Rubashkin’s wrongful deeds, which the government calculates at $26 million, result in a life sentence? This is where the sentencing memorandum comes into play. Prosecutors haven’t asked that Rubashkin be sentenced to a life term, only that the sentencing upgrades that they insist are appropriate would result in a life sentence.
As if with a drumbeat preceding execution, the memorandum begins: “This case is ordinary in that it involves a common criminal.” The prosecutors go on to say that for sentencing purposes, the court can rely on hearsay and evidence not presented at trial and that certain evidence must remain under seal. Worse yet, they rely on demonstrably false arithmetic to arrive at a draconian recommendation, recycling and repackaging the same acts to justify enormous upgrades under the sentencing guidelines. Monetary loss is crucial in federal sentencing and the prosecutors contrive to show that even when there was no loss, Rubashkin is guilty of the offense of failing “to timely pay providers of livestock” who lost “the time value of their money.”
This claim, central to the government’s case, amounts to the argument that a businessman who is late in paying his bills because he is under financial pressure may be charged with fraud, not because he presented false documents but because he did not pay in a timely manner. The Supreme Court is to rule soon on a parallel theory of criminal activity, it being theft of service which has become standard fare in the arsenal of prosecutors. Hopefully, if the theft of service concept is ruled unconstitutional, theft of time will follow suit.
It’s issues like these that make the U.S. the prison capital of the world. We have perhaps five percent of the world’s population and about twenty-five percent of the prison population.
Among the Orthodox, especially charedim, this case has evoked an emotional reaction, with claims that the prosecution amounts to the persecution of Jews. There are posters everywhere and while the Orthodox have a long history of fervid language in these exercises, the Rubashkin case represents a new high in emotionalism. The opening line of one poster reads (in Hebrew): “How can we be silent and not protest when the blood of a Jew is being forfeited here in the United States.”
I doubt that the Rubashkin prosecution is a product of anti-Semitism, but the possibility cannot be dismissed in view of the disgraceful prosecutorial behavior. In their hyper-ethnocentricity, many Orthodox fail to see that the prosecutorial abuses in this case are symptomatic of what is problematic about American criminal justice. The adversary nature of prosecutions, which admittedly may be unavoidable, induces prosecutorial overkill in the form of excessive and duplicate charges, misinformation and even distortion of evidence, as well as the coaching of witnesses to see that the song they sing suits the case that is being made. The catalogue of prosecutorial abuses includes additional items. There are prosecutors who do not overstep. They are the exception, not the rule. What Rubashkin has experienced is not unique.
At the federal level, the atrocious and I believe unconstitutional sentencing guidelines, of which Rubashkin is but one of thousands of victims, are an incentive to prosecutorial abuse. These guidelines are the legacy of the late Senator Ted Kennedy and Stephen Breyer when he was a key congressional staffer, as their intent was to increase the length of prison terms so as to establish a pattern of equality in sentencing. The Supreme Court came close to invalidating the guidelines but yielded unfortunately to Breyer and so the ruling was limited to making them advisory and not mandatory. They continue to do harm and not only to Jews.
There is much else that is untoward in the Rubashkin prosecution. It is understandable, even necessary, for the Orthodox to be ethnocentric. As is true of other groups, we are obligated to care especially about our own. We are distinct and in many ways separate, yet we are not an island unto ourself. We are part of a larger society and what happens outside of our four cubits affects us, including in criminal prosecutions.
Before his trial, Rubashkin’s lawyers attempted to negotiate a deal that would have resulted in his serving a prison term. Plea bargaining is not definite proof of guilt as there are defendants who throw in the towel because they do not have the funds to go to trial or because going to trial usually results in a lengthy sentence if the accused is found guilty. Federal sentencing guidelines punish severely accused persons who exercise their constitutional right to be tried.
Sholom Rubashkin did wrongful things, primarily after a frightening raid to round up illegal immigrants working at Agriprocessors, the company he ran. That resulted in brutal treatment of the workers by the government and panic and folly on Rubashkin’s part, with the company ultimately being forced into bankruptcy.
A balanced article by Jeff Stier last week in this newspaper had the headline “Life Sentence For Rubashkin Would Be Unfair.” That’s putting it mildly. Life sentences are for murderers and terrorists and for the once in a lifetime phenomenon named Bernard Madoff. How do Rubashkin’s wrongful deeds, which the government calculates at $26 million, result in a life sentence? This is where the sentencing memorandum comes into play. Prosecutors haven’t asked that Rubashkin be sentenced to a life term, only that the sentencing upgrades that they insist are appropriate would result in a life sentence.
As if with a drumbeat preceding execution, the memorandum begins: “This case is ordinary in that it involves a common criminal.” The prosecutors go on to say that for sentencing purposes, the court can rely on hearsay and evidence not presented at trial and that certain evidence must remain under seal. Worse yet, they rely on demonstrably false arithmetic to arrive at a draconian recommendation, recycling and repackaging the same acts to justify enormous upgrades under the sentencing guidelines. Monetary loss is crucial in federal sentencing and the prosecutors contrive to show that even when there was no loss, Rubashkin is guilty of the offense of failing “to timely pay providers of livestock” who lost “the time value of their money.”
This claim, central to the government’s case, amounts to the argument that a businessman who is late in paying his bills because he is under financial pressure may be charged with fraud, not because he presented false documents but because he did not pay in a timely manner. The Supreme Court is to rule soon on a parallel theory of criminal activity, it being theft of service which has become standard fare in the arsenal of prosecutors. Hopefully, if the theft of service concept is ruled unconstitutional, theft of time will follow suit.
It’s issues like these that make the U.S. the prison capital of the world. We have perhaps five percent of the world’s population and about twenty-five percent of the prison population.
Among the Orthodox, especially charedim, this case has evoked an emotional reaction, with claims that the prosecution amounts to the persecution of Jews. There are posters everywhere and while the Orthodox have a long history of fervid language in these exercises, the Rubashkin case represents a new high in emotionalism. The opening line of one poster reads (in Hebrew): “How can we be silent and not protest when the blood of a Jew is being forfeited here in the United States.”
I doubt that the Rubashkin prosecution is a product of anti-Semitism, but the possibility cannot be dismissed in view of the disgraceful prosecutorial behavior. In their hyper-ethnocentricity, many Orthodox fail to see that the prosecutorial abuses in this case are symptomatic of what is problematic about American criminal justice. The adversary nature of prosecutions, which admittedly may be unavoidable, induces prosecutorial overkill in the form of excessive and duplicate charges, misinformation and even distortion of evidence, as well as the coaching of witnesses to see that the song they sing suits the case that is being made. The catalogue of prosecutorial abuses includes additional items. There are prosecutors who do not overstep. They are the exception, not the rule. What Rubashkin has experienced is not unique.
At the federal level, the atrocious and I believe unconstitutional sentencing guidelines, of which Rubashkin is but one of thousands of victims, are an incentive to prosecutorial abuse. These guidelines are the legacy of the late Senator Ted Kennedy and Stephen Breyer when he was a key congressional staffer, as their intent was to increase the length of prison terms so as to establish a pattern of equality in sentencing. The Supreme Court came close to invalidating the guidelines but yielded unfortunately to Breyer and so the ruling was limited to making them advisory and not mandatory. They continue to do harm and not only to Jews.
There is much else that is untoward in the Rubashkin prosecution. It is understandable, even necessary, for the Orthodox to be ethnocentric. As is true of other groups, we are obligated to care especially about our own. We are distinct and in many ways separate, yet we are not an island unto ourself. We are part of a larger society and what happens outside of our four cubits affects us, including in criminal prosecutions.
Friday, April 23, 2010
The Freedom to be Anti-Religious
Earlier this week the Supreme Court heard argument in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, the issue being whether Hastings College of Law, part of the University of California system, can deny official status and benefits to a group that requires its leaders and voting members to accept its core religious beliefs, including that marriage is between a man and a woman. A decision should come down before the end of the Court’s term in June. The expectation is that the Justices will rule in favor of CLS and not simply because the Court has become more conservative.
This case should not have reached the Supreme Court. It has because a federal district judge ruled against CLS, a decision that was affirmed in an astonishingly brief opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which demonstrates anew that hostility toward religion remains alive, if not entirely well, within the judiciary. It’s also another illustration of the remarkable irony (because of their polar ideologies) that Gay Rights and the Gun Lobby are the most powerful interest groups today in the country.
There are sixty student groups registered at Hastings. CLS alone is penalized for alleged discrimination, although for sure there are more than a handful of groups that have requirements or understandings that limit who can be leaders and active members to students who meet specified parochial criteria. This is certainly true of Jewish groups on campus and, likely, of all or nearly all religious groups. In his brief for CLS, Michael W. McConnell, the noted constitutional scholar and former federal judge, points out that the bylaws of La Raza restrict what is referred to as “policy” membership to students “of Raza background,” meaning “persons of Latino or Mexican descent.” There are other examples of similar selectivity. The singling out of CLS is nasty business.
The animus toward CLS – at Hastings and other campuses – contributes to the polarization and ideological warfare that increasingly mark American public life. What is lost is a sense of moderation and also the acceptance of the reality that this is a large country with a huge and diverse population and that we should expect and accept diversity and disagreement on key issues and practices. Those who oppose Gay marriage should not be penalized, especially when their opposition is based on sincere and long held religious beliefs and especially when we recognize that as recently as about a decade ago, Gay marriage was scarcely on the public agenda.
We hear much about pluralism and tolerance, terms that are standard fare for liberals, many Jews included. There is no need to preach or practice tolerance toward beliefs and practices that we endorse. Unless there is a willingness to respect the right of others to hold beliefs that are contrary to our own, pluralism and tolerance are empty, even hypocritical, terms. Of course, these twin ideals are not an invitation to harm others. As with basic values generally, there are limits. The test must assess intent and impact, whether what is believed aims to harm those of different belief and whether, irrespective of intent, persons whose beliefs are different are being hurt. CLS requires nothing more than that those who lead and make decisions for the group adhere to its core beliefs. Gays suffer not at all as a consequence, while the actions of a public institution to punish CLS strike me as afoul of the Free Exercise clause.
As it prepares to rule, the Supreme Court is the recipient of a ton of amicus curiae or friend of the court briefs on either side of the issue. I doubt that the Justices regard these offerings as particularly friendly or necessary or whether the briefs add much to the argument. They are essentially interest group statements, as I learned more than a half century ago when, as a graduate student, I examined amicus briefs in civil liberties cases.
We Jews have contributed handsomely to the flow, with the Orthodox in CLS’s corner and a slew of organizations on the side of Hastings. Agudath Israel and the Orthodox Union have submitted separate briefs, while Young Israel has signed on to the submission by the Becket Fund which has emerged as the primary legal defender of the rights of religious groups and persons. The failure of Orthodox groups to cooperate is regrettable, especially because on public affairs issues they surely do not disagree. Decades ago, when intra-Orthodox division was far greater than it now is, cooperation on litigation and legislation was routine. There were leaders of greater vision and stature then.
To its credit, the American Jewish Congress weighed the equities and decided not to take a position. The American Jewish Committee has weighed in against CLS, although its brief is tepid. It should have stayed out of the case. The Anti-Defamation League comes on in its brief like a bull in a china shop and, like bulls in china shops are wont to be, its behavior is strange. Unlike the amicus it signed on to at the Ninth Circuit level, the focus is an attack against President Bush’s faith-based initiatives. Whatever one may think of our previous president and his policies, they are not the issue before the Supreme Court. I wonder what the legal hotshots, including three at Weil, Gotchal & Manges, were thinking when they drafted such an inappropriate and foolish document.
As expected, the New York Times maintains its record of hostility to religious groups in an editorial on the CLS case published on the day that the Supreme Court heard argument. With the Times and the traditional anti-religion crowd, sadly made up of a significant number of Jews in its corner, the ADL should reap contributions into its coffers. What about the contribution that ADL is making to the defamation of Jews as a group that is hostile to religion?
This case should not have reached the Supreme Court. It has because a federal district judge ruled against CLS, a decision that was affirmed in an astonishingly brief opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which demonstrates anew that hostility toward religion remains alive, if not entirely well, within the judiciary. It’s also another illustration of the remarkable irony (because of their polar ideologies) that Gay Rights and the Gun Lobby are the most powerful interest groups today in the country.
There are sixty student groups registered at Hastings. CLS alone is penalized for alleged discrimination, although for sure there are more than a handful of groups that have requirements or understandings that limit who can be leaders and active members to students who meet specified parochial criteria. This is certainly true of Jewish groups on campus and, likely, of all or nearly all religious groups. In his brief for CLS, Michael W. McConnell, the noted constitutional scholar and former federal judge, points out that the bylaws of La Raza restrict what is referred to as “policy” membership to students “of Raza background,” meaning “persons of Latino or Mexican descent.” There are other examples of similar selectivity. The singling out of CLS is nasty business.
The animus toward CLS – at Hastings and other campuses – contributes to the polarization and ideological warfare that increasingly mark American public life. What is lost is a sense of moderation and also the acceptance of the reality that this is a large country with a huge and diverse population and that we should expect and accept diversity and disagreement on key issues and practices. Those who oppose Gay marriage should not be penalized, especially when their opposition is based on sincere and long held religious beliefs and especially when we recognize that as recently as about a decade ago, Gay marriage was scarcely on the public agenda.
We hear much about pluralism and tolerance, terms that are standard fare for liberals, many Jews included. There is no need to preach or practice tolerance toward beliefs and practices that we endorse. Unless there is a willingness to respect the right of others to hold beliefs that are contrary to our own, pluralism and tolerance are empty, even hypocritical, terms. Of course, these twin ideals are not an invitation to harm others. As with basic values generally, there are limits. The test must assess intent and impact, whether what is believed aims to harm those of different belief and whether, irrespective of intent, persons whose beliefs are different are being hurt. CLS requires nothing more than that those who lead and make decisions for the group adhere to its core beliefs. Gays suffer not at all as a consequence, while the actions of a public institution to punish CLS strike me as afoul of the Free Exercise clause.
As it prepares to rule, the Supreme Court is the recipient of a ton of amicus curiae or friend of the court briefs on either side of the issue. I doubt that the Justices regard these offerings as particularly friendly or necessary or whether the briefs add much to the argument. They are essentially interest group statements, as I learned more than a half century ago when, as a graduate student, I examined amicus briefs in civil liberties cases.
We Jews have contributed handsomely to the flow, with the Orthodox in CLS’s corner and a slew of organizations on the side of Hastings. Agudath Israel and the Orthodox Union have submitted separate briefs, while Young Israel has signed on to the submission by the Becket Fund which has emerged as the primary legal defender of the rights of religious groups and persons. The failure of Orthodox groups to cooperate is regrettable, especially because on public affairs issues they surely do not disagree. Decades ago, when intra-Orthodox division was far greater than it now is, cooperation on litigation and legislation was routine. There were leaders of greater vision and stature then.
To its credit, the American Jewish Congress weighed the equities and decided not to take a position. The American Jewish Committee has weighed in against CLS, although its brief is tepid. It should have stayed out of the case. The Anti-Defamation League comes on in its brief like a bull in a china shop and, like bulls in china shops are wont to be, its behavior is strange. Unlike the amicus it signed on to at the Ninth Circuit level, the focus is an attack against President Bush’s faith-based initiatives. Whatever one may think of our previous president and his policies, they are not the issue before the Supreme Court. I wonder what the legal hotshots, including three at Weil, Gotchal & Manges, were thinking when they drafted such an inappropriate and foolish document.
As expected, the New York Times maintains its record of hostility to religious groups in an editorial on the CLS case published on the day that the Supreme Court heard argument. With the Times and the traditional anti-religion crowd, sadly made up of a significant number of Jews in its corner, the ADL should reap contributions into its coffers. What about the contribution that ADL is making to the defamation of Jews as a group that is hostile to religion?
Friday, March 12, 2010
Should We Ignore Bad News?
If I am able to conduct another day school census in the 2013-2014 school year, the research will show that enrollment in U.S. schools has grown by more than 20,000 since the previous census five years earlier. This would mean at least 250,000 students in full-time Jewish schools, surely an impressive number.
When the statistics are broken down according to day school category, a different picture will emerge. Nearly all of the growth – and perhaps all of it – will come from the yeshiva world and chassidic sectors which continue to experience high fertility, a reality that affects not at all what is produced by the pseudo-scientific demographers who continue to report that the Orthodox are no more than ten percent of all American Jews. In all other day school sectors, the story is either stagnant enrollment or, more likely, decline.
A person greatly committed to the Conservative movement’s Solomon Schechter schools circulated an email several months ago urging recipients to focus on good news. That’s a useful idea, provided that the other news isn’t treated as if it doesn’t exist, particularly when the other news is, unfortunately, the more important story. The Solomon Schechter’s are hemorrhaging students and losing some schools along the way and the process is ongoing.
A case in point is the Solomon Schechter of Nassau County. I visited the school twice years ago and was impressed by the commitment of its leaders, professional and lay. Unfortunately, enrollment has declined steadily, both because of the tuition crisis and the woes affecting Conservatism. There has been talk of closing the high school. In a recent report, school leaders describe a strategy for keeping it open that includes diminishing the Judaic component and raising tuition. The approach won’t work.
Other Schechters are in trouble, some facing what appear to be insurmountable problems. I write this in sadness and without the slightest sense of satisfaction. The movement’s leaders seem committed to the strange notion that Conservatism will be saved by conserving less of its Judaic content. The apparent notion is that since watering down has worked for the Reform, let’s try it. In an article in the terrific first issue of the Jewish Review of Books that has just been published, Dr. Lance J. Sussman, Senior Rabbi of Reform Congregation Kehilath Israel in Elkins Park, Pennsylvania, writes that “The Reform movement has probably contracted by a full third in the last ten years!”
There is a better model to emulate. If Conservatives want to salvage their Solomon Schechters, they need to strengthen their Judaics and find ways of reducing tuition. They should advocate for government support of the secular or academic program of day schools under religious sponsorship, as key figures in the movement did in the 1950s through much of the 1970s. In a characteristically insightful but uncharacteristically angry piece in the latest Commentary, Jack Wertheimer who remains a significant presence at the Jewish Theological Seminary writes about “The High Cost of Jewish Living” and makes a pitch for government aid. The article’s subtitle speaks of “the perverse refusal of the American Jewish community to look after its own.” As an illustration of this perversity he quotes an official of the National Council of Jewish Women opposing government aid who said, “We can’t put a chink in the wall [of separation] just because it will help Jewish children.”
There are Jewish leaders who seem to believe that contemporary Jewish life is a spiritual suicide pact.
It isn’t only the Conservative and other non-Orthodox schools that are suffering declines. A number of Modern Orthodox institutions have lost students. As the notion that public schools or charter schools or some other arrangement is an acceptable Jewish alternative becomes more acceptable, it is certain that there will be additional defections from day school education. The Modern Orthodox have high tuition to blame for their losses. That’s not true of Chabad schools or those that serve an immigrant or outreach population. Their growing difficulties stem from an inability to attract sufficient financial support.
The Chabad school in affluent Port Washington which is right next to Great Neck came close to shutting down in mid-school year as its ambitious program did not receive sufficient support. Shalom Torah Centers in New Jersey, perhaps the outstanding kiruv or outreach day school in the country, has just filed for bankruptcy, as a group of devoted lay people with much other crucial communal responsibilities struggle to keep it open. While some of its problems are unique, in general it shares the fate of the cluster of immigrant and outreach schools that have lost much of their enrollment and much of their support.
Even in the fervently Orthodox sectors, payrolls are further behind than they have been at any time in at least a generation. Jack Wertheimer notes that there are “insular” Orthodox schools that charge only a few thousand dollars per year. Actually, the number of such schools is quite large and, as impossible as it may seem, there are more than a few Orthodox schools that receive on an average significantly below several thousand dollars a year in tuition payments per student.
The enrollment of these schools will continue to grow because of high fertility and these schools will remain open because of the devotion and sacrifice of faculty and staff. Elsewhere in the day school world where tuition is far higher and the dedication is not as high, the losses will mount. It may be comforting to deny what is already a reality, but such comfort would be born out of self-delusion. The news is bad and it should be reported.
When the statistics are broken down according to day school category, a different picture will emerge. Nearly all of the growth – and perhaps all of it – will come from the yeshiva world and chassidic sectors which continue to experience high fertility, a reality that affects not at all what is produced by the pseudo-scientific demographers who continue to report that the Orthodox are no more than ten percent of all American Jews. In all other day school sectors, the story is either stagnant enrollment or, more likely, decline.
A person greatly committed to the Conservative movement’s Solomon Schechter schools circulated an email several months ago urging recipients to focus on good news. That’s a useful idea, provided that the other news isn’t treated as if it doesn’t exist, particularly when the other news is, unfortunately, the more important story. The Solomon Schechter’s are hemorrhaging students and losing some schools along the way and the process is ongoing.
A case in point is the Solomon Schechter of Nassau County. I visited the school twice years ago and was impressed by the commitment of its leaders, professional and lay. Unfortunately, enrollment has declined steadily, both because of the tuition crisis and the woes affecting Conservatism. There has been talk of closing the high school. In a recent report, school leaders describe a strategy for keeping it open that includes diminishing the Judaic component and raising tuition. The approach won’t work.
Other Schechters are in trouble, some facing what appear to be insurmountable problems. I write this in sadness and without the slightest sense of satisfaction. The movement’s leaders seem committed to the strange notion that Conservatism will be saved by conserving less of its Judaic content. The apparent notion is that since watering down has worked for the Reform, let’s try it. In an article in the terrific first issue of the Jewish Review of Books that has just been published, Dr. Lance J. Sussman, Senior Rabbi of Reform Congregation Kehilath Israel in Elkins Park, Pennsylvania, writes that “The Reform movement has probably contracted by a full third in the last ten years!”
There is a better model to emulate. If Conservatives want to salvage their Solomon Schechters, they need to strengthen their Judaics and find ways of reducing tuition. They should advocate for government support of the secular or academic program of day schools under religious sponsorship, as key figures in the movement did in the 1950s through much of the 1970s. In a characteristically insightful but uncharacteristically angry piece in the latest Commentary, Jack Wertheimer who remains a significant presence at the Jewish Theological Seminary writes about “The High Cost of Jewish Living” and makes a pitch for government aid. The article’s subtitle speaks of “the perverse refusal of the American Jewish community to look after its own.” As an illustration of this perversity he quotes an official of the National Council of Jewish Women opposing government aid who said, “We can’t put a chink in the wall [of separation] just because it will help Jewish children.”
There are Jewish leaders who seem to believe that contemporary Jewish life is a spiritual suicide pact.
It isn’t only the Conservative and other non-Orthodox schools that are suffering declines. A number of Modern Orthodox institutions have lost students. As the notion that public schools or charter schools or some other arrangement is an acceptable Jewish alternative becomes more acceptable, it is certain that there will be additional defections from day school education. The Modern Orthodox have high tuition to blame for their losses. That’s not true of Chabad schools or those that serve an immigrant or outreach population. Their growing difficulties stem from an inability to attract sufficient financial support.
The Chabad school in affluent Port Washington which is right next to Great Neck came close to shutting down in mid-school year as its ambitious program did not receive sufficient support. Shalom Torah Centers in New Jersey, perhaps the outstanding kiruv or outreach day school in the country, has just filed for bankruptcy, as a group of devoted lay people with much other crucial communal responsibilities struggle to keep it open. While some of its problems are unique, in general it shares the fate of the cluster of immigrant and outreach schools that have lost much of their enrollment and much of their support.
Even in the fervently Orthodox sectors, payrolls are further behind than they have been at any time in at least a generation. Jack Wertheimer notes that there are “insular” Orthodox schools that charge only a few thousand dollars per year. Actually, the number of such schools is quite large and, as impossible as it may seem, there are more than a few Orthodox schools that receive on an average significantly below several thousand dollars a year in tuition payments per student.
The enrollment of these schools will continue to grow because of high fertility and these schools will remain open because of the devotion and sacrifice of faculty and staff. Elsewhere in the day school world where tuition is far higher and the dedication is not as high, the losses will mount. It may be comforting to deny what is already a reality, but such comfort would be born out of self-delusion. The news is bad and it should be reported.
Friday, March 05, 2010
Writing About Orthodox Wrongdoing
With the completion of creation, the earth was sanctified and immediately it became the territory of what is called life, of temptations and forces that impel people to transgress, even to murder. This fall from grace was sudden and it was permanent. It may be, as some have suggested, that human imperfection is an element in the plan for creation, for we are thereby partners in the striving for sanctity and goodness.
Orthodox Jews are not immune from human imperfections. There is the hope, perhaps expectation, that as a consequence of their fidelity to the commandments, their incidence of wrongdoing will be reduced. In writing about the torrents of wrongs arising from sexual and monetary appetites, Maimonides does not qualify that he is writing about Jews who are not religious. Nachmanides goes further, identifying a personality type who though externally is entirely faithful to the mitzvos is yet repulsive in that he is living a lie because his behavior debases Torah values.
There are Orthodox Jews who do bad things. How should our media report their wrongdoing or, for that matter, wrongdoing by other Jews? Journalistic decisions are about substance, about what happened. They are also about space. Much that may merit attention is not reported because of a lack of space. What may ordinarily be referred to as run of the mill wrongdoings, whether illegalities or ethical lapses, generally do not make the cut, either because of space constraints or unawareness.
The “Talk Of The Town” section in this weeks’ New Yorker has a piece about a “crime wave” by a group of podiatrists, all but one of whom appears to be Jewish. The tale hasn’t made it into this newspaper and for good reason. There is no Jewish angle. The standard should not be different when the wrongdoer is Orthodox, yet somehow that detail often results in a different journalist rulebook, in a rush to print. What is the justification? – a question that is not intended to justify wrongdoing.
Googling and the quick availability of information can serve as an invitation to reporters to bundle stories about wrongdoing and that is what occurred last week in the lead article in this newspaper, “Orthodox Scandals Could Harm Power Base, Experts Warn.” I am tempted to write that if scandals are the price to pay to demolish the mythology about Orthodox power, we should perhaps root at least temporarily for more scandal, since wrongful perceptions about Orthodox power are at the root of much Orthodox wrongdoing. Too many buy into the notion that there are fixers who for the right price can get things done. This mentality is a catalyst for more scandal.
For all of the media concentration on their wrongdoing, the Orthodox represent a disproportionately low share of all Jewish wrongdoing as measured by prison population or indictments. If Bernard Madoff is transformed into an Orthodox Jew and his wrongdoings are ascribed to the Orthodox, as has happened in newspaper stories, the tally is different and it is distorted.
What clearly merits journalistic attention is when religious leaders or institutions are implicated in wrongdoing. This is a desecration of G-D’s name and is newsworthy. I wonder whether Orthodox insularity is a contributory factor when wrongdoing takes place, a question that was touched on last week by David Klinghoffer in an exquisite article in the Forward called “In Scandals, a Wake-Up Call for Orthodoxy.” Klinghoffer was unsparing, even harsh, in his criticism.
Not all religious and ethnic groups are insular or are closed off to a significant extent from the outside world. Those that are, including the fervently Orthodox, run the risk that their insularity may result in behavior that departs from the appropriate laws and rules of the larger society. Members of the group may believe that what is regarded as improper by outsiders is acceptable because the group is benefitting or, alternatively, they may come to believe that it is right to take advantage of government or outsiders. Another factor contributing to possible loose legal and moral behavior is the tendency toward informality and laxity in intra-group transactions.
Insularity may feed into distortions about political influence. Ambitious powerbrokers position themselves as fixers, as people with contacts on the inside who can get things done. Photo-ops and the appearance of meaningful access are utilized to help make their pitch. Through the bundling of political contributions they can, in fact, purchase marginal access which amounts to little real influence. Too few Orthodox understand that meaningful political influence is not about leaving fingerprints. It’s about how Wall Street firms, big banks, pharmaceutical companies and other major interest groups conduct their efforts to exert influence. Of course, Orthodox are not alone in misunderstanding political influence.
The game plan for politicians dealing with the fervently Orthodox was set in the 1950s when office holders and seekers would pay pseudo-homage to Chassidic leaders in Williamsburg. After the photo-op, they acquiesced in the building of a highway right through the heart of the neighborhood. The lesson continues in Borough Park, now the largest Orthodox community, whose representative in Congress is Jerry Nadler, the ultra-liberal from Manhattan’s West Side. Put otherwise, is there a social or public issue on which Orthodox Jews have a distinctive position where public policy accords with that position? Yet, journalists constantly market the cliché about Orthodox political power.
The Orthodox may be forgiven for their naïveté about politics, but, of course, not for any wrongdoing. To them, appearances are crucial. What excuse is there for our media?
Orthodox Jews are not immune from human imperfections. There is the hope, perhaps expectation, that as a consequence of their fidelity to the commandments, their incidence of wrongdoing will be reduced. In writing about the torrents of wrongs arising from sexual and monetary appetites, Maimonides does not qualify that he is writing about Jews who are not religious. Nachmanides goes further, identifying a personality type who though externally is entirely faithful to the mitzvos is yet repulsive in that he is living a lie because his behavior debases Torah values.
There are Orthodox Jews who do bad things. How should our media report their wrongdoing or, for that matter, wrongdoing by other Jews? Journalistic decisions are about substance, about what happened. They are also about space. Much that may merit attention is not reported because of a lack of space. What may ordinarily be referred to as run of the mill wrongdoings, whether illegalities or ethical lapses, generally do not make the cut, either because of space constraints or unawareness.
The “Talk Of The Town” section in this weeks’ New Yorker has a piece about a “crime wave” by a group of podiatrists, all but one of whom appears to be Jewish. The tale hasn’t made it into this newspaper and for good reason. There is no Jewish angle. The standard should not be different when the wrongdoer is Orthodox, yet somehow that detail often results in a different journalist rulebook, in a rush to print. What is the justification? – a question that is not intended to justify wrongdoing.
Googling and the quick availability of information can serve as an invitation to reporters to bundle stories about wrongdoing and that is what occurred last week in the lead article in this newspaper, “Orthodox Scandals Could Harm Power Base, Experts Warn.” I am tempted to write that if scandals are the price to pay to demolish the mythology about Orthodox power, we should perhaps root at least temporarily for more scandal, since wrongful perceptions about Orthodox power are at the root of much Orthodox wrongdoing. Too many buy into the notion that there are fixers who for the right price can get things done. This mentality is a catalyst for more scandal.
For all of the media concentration on their wrongdoing, the Orthodox represent a disproportionately low share of all Jewish wrongdoing as measured by prison population or indictments. If Bernard Madoff is transformed into an Orthodox Jew and his wrongdoings are ascribed to the Orthodox, as has happened in newspaper stories, the tally is different and it is distorted.
What clearly merits journalistic attention is when religious leaders or institutions are implicated in wrongdoing. This is a desecration of G-D’s name and is newsworthy. I wonder whether Orthodox insularity is a contributory factor when wrongdoing takes place, a question that was touched on last week by David Klinghoffer in an exquisite article in the Forward called “In Scandals, a Wake-Up Call for Orthodoxy.” Klinghoffer was unsparing, even harsh, in his criticism.
Not all religious and ethnic groups are insular or are closed off to a significant extent from the outside world. Those that are, including the fervently Orthodox, run the risk that their insularity may result in behavior that departs from the appropriate laws and rules of the larger society. Members of the group may believe that what is regarded as improper by outsiders is acceptable because the group is benefitting or, alternatively, they may come to believe that it is right to take advantage of government or outsiders. Another factor contributing to possible loose legal and moral behavior is the tendency toward informality and laxity in intra-group transactions.
Insularity may feed into distortions about political influence. Ambitious powerbrokers position themselves as fixers, as people with contacts on the inside who can get things done. Photo-ops and the appearance of meaningful access are utilized to help make their pitch. Through the bundling of political contributions they can, in fact, purchase marginal access which amounts to little real influence. Too few Orthodox understand that meaningful political influence is not about leaving fingerprints. It’s about how Wall Street firms, big banks, pharmaceutical companies and other major interest groups conduct their efforts to exert influence. Of course, Orthodox are not alone in misunderstanding political influence.
The game plan for politicians dealing with the fervently Orthodox was set in the 1950s when office holders and seekers would pay pseudo-homage to Chassidic leaders in Williamsburg. After the photo-op, they acquiesced in the building of a highway right through the heart of the neighborhood. The lesson continues in Borough Park, now the largest Orthodox community, whose representative in Congress is Jerry Nadler, the ultra-liberal from Manhattan’s West Side. Put otherwise, is there a social or public issue on which Orthodox Jews have a distinctive position where public policy accords with that position? Yet, journalists constantly market the cliché about Orthodox political power.
The Orthodox may be forgiven for their naïveté about politics, but, of course, not for any wrongdoing. To them, appearances are crucial. What excuse is there for our media?
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
RJJ Newsletter - March 2010
The first days of September are a pressure period for many yeshivas and day schools as parents who seek substantial tuition reductions usually wait until then to register their children. There are schools that complete the registration process for nearly all of their students before school ends in June. They are, as a rule, more affluent institutions, charging relatively high tuition and offering, at most, limited scholarship assistance. Other schools, like our three on Staten Island, charge relatively low tuition and registration is for many parents a bargaining process with school officials, with the latter usually yielding because, after all, the mission of the school is to provide a Torah education and that mission may be forfeited if the child is not admitted.
There is a tendency for local rabbis to intervene on behalf of parents seeking scholarship assistance. There is a corollary tendency for schools to heed the words of rabbinic leaders. They are rightfully respected and they may know much about a family’s situation, including finances, that is beyond the information available to the school. This past September, a Rabbi whom I respect, called to ask for my intervention on behalf of a number of parents whose children had not been registered, saying that these were hardship cases. As has happened previously, I yielded to his plea and instructed that the children be admitted, with little or no tuition being required, this despite the escalating financial difficulty our schools have in meeting their obligations.
During the recent winter break, one child who was on a full scholarship – meaning no tuition was being charged – vacationed in Aruba with his mother and perhaps other family members. This was called to my attention and I was shocked and still am by this situation. It is disgraceful and worse that a family would take such advantage. We told the family that we would have to have a minimum payment, else the student could not remain in the school. The payment has been made and the student is continuing in the school.
This episode has caused me much anguish, obviously because a child who did not make the decision to spend substantial funds on an expensive vacation was being severely punished. His Jewish future would have been compromised if he did not remain in a Jewish school. For all of my adult life and for nearly sixty years, I have worked and struggled to provide a Torah education to children, particularly those who are from marginally observant homes. I have often overruled school officials who have claimed that my leniency regarding tuition payments severely harms their institutions.
The Aruba incident was too egregious to ignore. What was involved is a form of theft and not merely in an abstract moral sense. Our schools are forced to stint on nearly everything. Faculty and staff bear the brunt of this, as they are severely underpaid and too often they are not paid in a timely way. When parents take extreme advantage, they are harming persons who have devoted their lives to Torah education, individuals who can scarcely get by even if they are paid on time. This is shameful and cannot be tolerated.
Over the years, when a student receiving substantial scholarship assistance has celebrated a fancy Bar or Bat Mitzvah or whose family has done something lavish, we have been told that the money came from another source, usually a grandparent. It escapes me how this is a justification for paying zero or little tuition.
What adds to our dismay in these situations is that there are too many parents who take similar or even greater advantage. What this amounts to is the reality that there is a sort of market place for the swapping of information regarding how best to cheat the school. Worse yet, what emerges is the existence of a culture of taking extreme advantage.
There are, it needs to be underscored, parents who are legitimate scholarship recipients. The severe economic downturn has taken a heavy toll in lost jobs. It is heartless to exhort parents who have lost their livelihood to pay significant tuition. It is part of the essence of the Rabbi Jacob Joseph School and has been for one-hundred and ten years to be caring and to treat parents on scholarship assistance with the utmost dignity. This will remain our hallmark, even as we are determined to insist that parents who can pay a fair share do so.
There is a tendency for local rabbis to intervene on behalf of parents seeking scholarship assistance. There is a corollary tendency for schools to heed the words of rabbinic leaders. They are rightfully respected and they may know much about a family’s situation, including finances, that is beyond the information available to the school. This past September, a Rabbi whom I respect, called to ask for my intervention on behalf of a number of parents whose children had not been registered, saying that these were hardship cases. As has happened previously, I yielded to his plea and instructed that the children be admitted, with little or no tuition being required, this despite the escalating financial difficulty our schools have in meeting their obligations.
During the recent winter break, one child who was on a full scholarship – meaning no tuition was being charged – vacationed in Aruba with his mother and perhaps other family members. This was called to my attention and I was shocked and still am by this situation. It is disgraceful and worse that a family would take such advantage. We told the family that we would have to have a minimum payment, else the student could not remain in the school. The payment has been made and the student is continuing in the school.
This episode has caused me much anguish, obviously because a child who did not make the decision to spend substantial funds on an expensive vacation was being severely punished. His Jewish future would have been compromised if he did not remain in a Jewish school. For all of my adult life and for nearly sixty years, I have worked and struggled to provide a Torah education to children, particularly those who are from marginally observant homes. I have often overruled school officials who have claimed that my leniency regarding tuition payments severely harms their institutions.
The Aruba incident was too egregious to ignore. What was involved is a form of theft and not merely in an abstract moral sense. Our schools are forced to stint on nearly everything. Faculty and staff bear the brunt of this, as they are severely underpaid and too often they are not paid in a timely way. When parents take extreme advantage, they are harming persons who have devoted their lives to Torah education, individuals who can scarcely get by even if they are paid on time. This is shameful and cannot be tolerated.
Over the years, when a student receiving substantial scholarship assistance has celebrated a fancy Bar or Bat Mitzvah or whose family has done something lavish, we have been told that the money came from another source, usually a grandparent. It escapes me how this is a justification for paying zero or little tuition.
What adds to our dismay in these situations is that there are too many parents who take similar or even greater advantage. What this amounts to is the reality that there is a sort of market place for the swapping of information regarding how best to cheat the school. Worse yet, what emerges is the existence of a culture of taking extreme advantage.
There are, it needs to be underscored, parents who are legitimate scholarship recipients. The severe economic downturn has taken a heavy toll in lost jobs. It is heartless to exhort parents who have lost their livelihood to pay significant tuition. It is part of the essence of the Rabbi Jacob Joseph School and has been for one-hundred and ten years to be caring and to treat parents on scholarship assistance with the utmost dignity. This will remain our hallmark, even as we are determined to insist that parents who can pay a fair share do so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)