On the first day of Pesach, the New York Times published three articles about Jews, not counting Michael Kimmelman’s long piece on Poland searching “its own soul and its anti-Semitism.” Peter Applebome wrote about the burning of chametz in Monsey, by and large keeping under wraps his disdain for religious Jews. There was an article about major companies adapting their appliances to make life easier for the Orthodox on Shabbos, with potential halachic issues omitted from the story. A long article served as a paean for kosher for Passover dog food and what was stupidly and offensively described as a seder for dogs, accompanied by a photo of a canine with a yarmulke on its head.
There is a growing tendency in what still passes as journalism to focus on the bizarre, for contemporary reportage to borrow heavily from the approach of the old National Enquirer. The Forward featured an article on a seder for sexual bondage perverts – the greater perversion was the debasement of journalism – and perhaps worse of all, this newspaper several weeks ago had an article on a website for Orthodox Jewish adultery, with the sick claims of the site’s promoter reported as the whole truth.
In the days before Pesach, the Times carried two long articles on the Blessing for the Sun, the once in twenty-eight years ceremony that caused much excitement among the Orthodox, a long and empathetic Op-Ed piece by Nathan Englander, a noted novelist, on the Haggadah, Alex Wichtel’s approving article on the dairy seder of Nicholas Lemann and Judith Shulevitz and several Holocaust-related stories.
For all of the deserved criticism that comes its way, the Times is a serious newspaper that recognizes that what it publishes serves at least as footnotes to history and sociology. The newspaper has an enormous amount of ground to cover including religious and ethnic life. It’s my impression that far more attention is given to Jews than to other groups, with the exception of gays, although there are far fewer American Jews than there are, for example, Catholics or Hispanics. I may be wrong about this, yet the question merits study in journalism schools.
Why all of the Jewish coverage? Can it be that despite our relatively small and continuously shrinking numbers, we continue to constitute a large share of the newspaper’s readership and consequently the Times is making both an editorial and business decision to report developments that are of interest to those who buy the newspaper? Or is it that editors and reporters, themselves disproportionately Jewish, are likely to favor stories that have a distinct Jewish angle? The nature of Jewish life, notably our abundance of organizations and activities and the collateral desire of persons associated with them to get publicity may result in a heightened media focus, including at the Times, on Jewish stories.
There is, of course, the possibility that my impression is errant, that the attention I believe the Times gives to Jews is no more than a reflection of my intense interest in Jewish affairs, so that I pay close attention to Jewish stories and conclude that these stories get inordinate space.
If I have to come up with an explanation it is that journalism has changed, that increasingly it is personal in nature, with some reporters and certainly columnists having much leeway in what they file. At the Times, the Op-Ed pages used to be the special sanctuary of columnists, with the rest of the paper devoted to hard news. Nowadays, columnists are scattered throughout the newspaper, especially in the sections that cover American or local life. Many years ago and for a long time, just about every Jewish story reported in the Times was channeled through Irving (Pat) Spiegel, which itself is an interesting story. No longer as personal journalism has expanded and with it the prospect for Jewish coverage.
Several weeks ago, I ruefully remarked that we do not need either the Times’ caresses via schmaltzy human interest stories about American Jews or the nasty bite of its Middle East coverage. Unfortunately, many Jews regard the space we get in the Times as a plus, as a demonstration of our importance and a form of flattery. Our enemies also regard this as a sign of our importance. Journalism is two-edged and the hand that feeds us is also the hand that bites. Without meaning to do so, the Times promotes the harmful notion that Jews are powerful. If we are the Chosen People, let us be chosen in more exalted ways.
Whatever we think of the newspaper’s attention, what the Times publishes matters and this entails the responsibility to be careful. Just about every book about American Jewry is apt to contain citations from the newspaper. Erroneous or prejudicial statements have a long afterlife. As I have noted, the newspaper is a sourcebook for history and sociology. When it publishes something that is erroneous or thoughtfully challenged, it needs to provide a correction, especially as the Internet expands, else the original wrong is apt to be multiplied over the years.
As I have learned, the Times has a sense of responsibility when it comes to correcting errors. More than a year ago, in its Sunday City Section, there was a story about Borough Park that put the number of Orthodox Jews at 300,000, an astounding figure since the population of the entire neighborhood is barely above 100,000. I pointed out the mistake; at first, the newspaper defended its estimate, relying on evidence that made little sense. After I persisted, there was a tiny correction buried somewhere in the same section.
As I prepared this column, I checked the Times website and happily the correction is front and center in the article as now posted. Congratulations to the newspaper that we love to read and that we love to hate.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Fifty Years and What Do You Get?
My first article advocating government aid to parochial schools was published in 1959 in the Orthodox Tribune, the newsletter of Agudath Israel. Fifty years is a long time to be on the same firing line, especially since my side has come up nearly empty. I am not a glutton for punishment, yet I continue to believe that public funding for the secular curriculum at religious day schools is permissible under the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and perhaps required under the Equal Protection Clause.
Although from the perspective of two generations there is little for me to cheer, the story was different in the early years. There were legislative and legal victories in the 1960s, notably the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act which explicitly included nonpublic school students, including those in parochial schools, in grant programs and the Supreme Court decision upholding this legislation. In the early 1970s, New York’s Textbook Law which encompassed religious school students was also upheld by the Supreme Court.
The feeling at the time was that more good news lay ahead. In 1968, as founder and president of the National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs or COLPA, a small Orthodox group comprised mainly of young lawyers, I organized a conference on “Government Aid to Parochial Schools – How Far?” The “How Far?” testifies to our expectations. They turned out to be unfulfilled. Our initial achievements, enduring as they have been, have had no more than meager second acts.
Why? It was not because of liberal opposition. Our victories in the 1960s and 1970s occurred when both houses of Congress were firmly liberal and the Supreme Court was known as the Warren Court. Perhaps we had bad karma or poor strategy or perhaps the opposition was better organized and/or too strong. A contributing factor was our lack of focus, the curious circumstance that among those who constituted the core constituency for government aid, that issue was relegated to a backseat as other, more ideological, issues came to the fore. Since the early 1990s, the greatest emphasis of pro-religion groups has been by far on the place of religion in the public square – school prayer is an example – and not on whether in a neutral way public funds can go toward state-mandated academic programs in schools sponsored by religious groups.
If we look at the religion-oriented litigation docket of the past two decades, it is evident that it is more urgent for those who advocate for religion to focus on religious expression and activity in public institutions than to advocate government aid. The most significant federal education legislation since the 1960s, the “No Child Left Behind Act,” left behind just about all nonpublic school students. This was the signature education legislation of President George W. Bush, a strong believer in religion in the public square and faith-based programs.
Several days ago, I participated by telephone in a conference in Boston aimed at challenging the Blaine Amendment, the notoriously anti-Catholic provision in about three-fourths of the state constitutions that goes beyond the First Amendment limitations. A proper regard for tolerance and values shared overwhelmingly by Americans mandates opposition to a provision rooted in nineteenth century bigotry. This circumstance notwithstanding, it is certain that organized American Jewry fiercely supports Blaine.
Judicial invalidation of Blaine, itself not an easy task, would secure no funding for parochial schools, especially because state policymakers do not want the additional burden of funding nonpublic schools. What is needed is a more creative approach that targets Blaine and concurrently argues for public funding for the academic curriculum offered at religious schools.
Here, briefly, is the argument that should be made: Each state has a mandatory education law requiring children to attend school up to a designated age. Each state has in its constitution or laws a commitment to provide basic education to all children of school age. Each state requires that certain curriculum standards be met by all schools, public and nonpublic. Finally, each state permits these obligations to be performed by nonpublic schools, including religious schools, that are under state supervision.
In the aggregate, these conditions amount to nonpublic schools serving as instrumentalities for the fulfillment of each state’s obligations. Through their academic programs, they are doing what each state has committed itself to do. Under the Equal Protection Clause, this should result in the states being obligated and certainly permitted to fund the academic curriculum that public schools are required to offer. It is universally accepted that in social service and health activities that are governmental responsibilities, religious agencies and institutions perform vital public functions and are eligible for funding on a par with public institutions, irrespective of their religious nature. Schools should be treated no differently.
Given the intellectual rigor mortis that characterizes mainstream American Jewish attitudes on church-state issues, our community is certain to do battle against any change in current policy. We have convinced ourselves that great evil will result from the expenditure of public funds to ensure that parochial school children are properly educated, this despite abundant evidence from quite a few democratic countries that do provide such aid that the world does not come to an end when public funding is available in a neutral fashion.
In a sense, we are a paranoid community, placing full faith in our dark fantasies and nightmares about the role of religion. We also walk, with the exception of the Orthodox, in lockstep to this false orthodoxy. Not a contrary word is heard from even a single Federation, nor from the Conservative movement that is enduring a slow death, in some measure because of the constant weakening of its Solomon Schechter schools that cannot receive public funding.
If I have any consolation, it is the sure knowledge that I won’t be at this for another fifty years.
Although from the perspective of two generations there is little for me to cheer, the story was different in the early years. There were legislative and legal victories in the 1960s, notably the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act which explicitly included nonpublic school students, including those in parochial schools, in grant programs and the Supreme Court decision upholding this legislation. In the early 1970s, New York’s Textbook Law which encompassed religious school students was also upheld by the Supreme Court.
The feeling at the time was that more good news lay ahead. In 1968, as founder and president of the National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs or COLPA, a small Orthodox group comprised mainly of young lawyers, I organized a conference on “Government Aid to Parochial Schools – How Far?” The “How Far?” testifies to our expectations. They turned out to be unfulfilled. Our initial achievements, enduring as they have been, have had no more than meager second acts.
Why? It was not because of liberal opposition. Our victories in the 1960s and 1970s occurred when both houses of Congress were firmly liberal and the Supreme Court was known as the Warren Court. Perhaps we had bad karma or poor strategy or perhaps the opposition was better organized and/or too strong. A contributing factor was our lack of focus, the curious circumstance that among those who constituted the core constituency for government aid, that issue was relegated to a backseat as other, more ideological, issues came to the fore. Since the early 1990s, the greatest emphasis of pro-religion groups has been by far on the place of religion in the public square – school prayer is an example – and not on whether in a neutral way public funds can go toward state-mandated academic programs in schools sponsored by religious groups.
If we look at the religion-oriented litigation docket of the past two decades, it is evident that it is more urgent for those who advocate for religion to focus on religious expression and activity in public institutions than to advocate government aid. The most significant federal education legislation since the 1960s, the “No Child Left Behind Act,” left behind just about all nonpublic school students. This was the signature education legislation of President George W. Bush, a strong believer in religion in the public square and faith-based programs.
Several days ago, I participated by telephone in a conference in Boston aimed at challenging the Blaine Amendment, the notoriously anti-Catholic provision in about three-fourths of the state constitutions that goes beyond the First Amendment limitations. A proper regard for tolerance and values shared overwhelmingly by Americans mandates opposition to a provision rooted in nineteenth century bigotry. This circumstance notwithstanding, it is certain that organized American Jewry fiercely supports Blaine.
Judicial invalidation of Blaine, itself not an easy task, would secure no funding for parochial schools, especially because state policymakers do not want the additional burden of funding nonpublic schools. What is needed is a more creative approach that targets Blaine and concurrently argues for public funding for the academic curriculum offered at religious schools.
Here, briefly, is the argument that should be made: Each state has a mandatory education law requiring children to attend school up to a designated age. Each state has in its constitution or laws a commitment to provide basic education to all children of school age. Each state requires that certain curriculum standards be met by all schools, public and nonpublic. Finally, each state permits these obligations to be performed by nonpublic schools, including religious schools, that are under state supervision.
In the aggregate, these conditions amount to nonpublic schools serving as instrumentalities for the fulfillment of each state’s obligations. Through their academic programs, they are doing what each state has committed itself to do. Under the Equal Protection Clause, this should result in the states being obligated and certainly permitted to fund the academic curriculum that public schools are required to offer. It is universally accepted that in social service and health activities that are governmental responsibilities, religious agencies and institutions perform vital public functions and are eligible for funding on a par with public institutions, irrespective of their religious nature. Schools should be treated no differently.
Given the intellectual rigor mortis that characterizes mainstream American Jewish attitudes on church-state issues, our community is certain to do battle against any change in current policy. We have convinced ourselves that great evil will result from the expenditure of public funds to ensure that parochial school children are properly educated, this despite abundant evidence from quite a few democratic countries that do provide such aid that the world does not come to an end when public funding is available in a neutral fashion.
In a sense, we are a paranoid community, placing full faith in our dark fantasies and nightmares about the role of religion. We also walk, with the exception of the Orthodox, in lockstep to this false orthodoxy. Not a contrary word is heard from even a single Federation, nor from the Conservative movement that is enduring a slow death, in some measure because of the constant weakening of its Solomon Schechter schools that cannot receive public funding.
If I have any consolation, it is the sure knowledge that I won’t be at this for another fifty years.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Reflections on Rabbi Elya Svei, Ztl
Although he was gravely ill for years and could no longer fulfill his leadership responsibilities, Rabbi Elya Svei continued to influence many of us who are involved in Torah education, whether as principals or teachers or lay leaders. For nearly a generation, he was without question the key figure in the spread of Torah chinuch in the United States, giving without personal regard of his endless commitment and remarkable insight into religious education at all levels. His passing last week leaves us with the feeling of loss and leaderlessness, of a void that makes the task of building and sustaining Torah even more difficult.
For all of his understanding of day school education in an environment that was far removed from the pre-Holocaust yeshiva world of Eastern Europe, in a curious way it was as if Rav Elya was of the generation of the transcendent Roshei Yeshiva who were educated in Slabodka, Mir and other outstanding Torah institutions. In this respect, he provided a contrast with his peers in the United States, the yeshiva deans who emerged as Torah leaders about a generation ago.
He came here with his parents and brothers as a young boy, studying briefly in elementary school at the Rabbi Jacob Joseph School and then, for high school, at Yeshiva Torah Vodaath. His advanced yeshiva education was both in Israel and at Beth Medrash Govoha in Lakewood where he emerged as an outstanding student of the great Rosh Yeshiva, Rabbi Aharon Kotler. In these years, he followed the extraordinary path of his beloved teacher, combining intensive Torah study with activism on behalf of the religious Jewish community, here and in Israel. I remember his vital role in the 1950s in the American Peylim, the effective advocacy group that did much to promote and protect religious life in Israel in the years after the establishment of the State.
This developmental period served as an apprenticeship as he worked under the tutelage of Torah leaders, earning their confidence and respect as they entrusted him with expanding responsibilities. It is a major deficit of the yeshiva world of today that the crucial process of shimush or apprenticeship has been neglected, a deficit that I fear will escalate in its untoward consequences in the coming years.
For all of his obedience to Torah leaders, Rav Elya had a strong independent streak, a quality that was evident in his establishment nearly fifty years ago of the major advanced yeshiva in Philadelphia where he was soon joined by Rabbi Shmuel Kaminetsky. He eschewed the perhaps easier path of serving as a Rosh Yeshiva at the Mirrer Yeshiva in Brooklyn, then headed by Rabbi Avrohom Kalmanowitz, his father-in-law. In Philadelphia, Rav Elya educated and influenced thousands of students, a great number of whom have had fruitful roles in our religious life.
With the passing of the Torah giants of the previous generation, Rav Elya was thrust into leadership, not as a result of any election or selection but simply through the recognition that he was, in effect, designated by his predecessors. This role was especially acknowledged by Israeli Torah leaders. In one of my few involvements with Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv regarding an American religious issue, I was told that this preeminent Torah leader was interested in hearing the views of Rabbi Svei and no one else.
Although his influence extended across our religious life, Rav Elya’s impact was most strongly felt in the educational sphere where he worked without personal regard and often in a state of exhaustion, assisting yeshivas and day schools throughout North America. He had remarkable awareness and insight into the dynamics of day school education. For all of his Herculean and singular efforts, he was intensely modest, not once speaking of his own role.
Over the years, the circle that relied on his guidance grew, as was often apparent at weddings and dinners where there was constantly a line of educators and lay leaders seeking his counsel. For all of the public persona that emerged, he was a quiet and thoughtful man and I confess that, at times, I hoped that he would abjure public speaking altogether. He was a terrific listener, drawing out the salient points from those who sought his advice. He treated those who came to him with respect and he regarded each situation and institution as unique. There was no formulaic response to the questions that came to him. He was, at once, wise and fair. When years ago, the Rabbi Jacob Joseph School took the extraordinary step of ensuring the survival of the Jewish Foundation School of Staten Island, Rav Elya’s guidance was critical as we traversed difficult issues.
A man of total integrity, I doubt that he ever felt fully comfortable in the organizational world, even in situations where he was vested with authority. Organizations require a degree of loyalty that can compromise one’s commitment to integrity. He struggled with this dualism for years and the struggle constituted a painful chapter that cannot readily be discussed, at least not yet. When he decided to leave organizational life, many in his circle followed his example, not because he instructed them to do so but because they believed that it was the right thing to do.
In his deeply moving hesped or eulogy more than twenty-five years ago for Rabbi Shneuer Kotler in Lakewood, Rav Elya cried out, “You can now go to your father and say, ‘I have fulfilled your mission, I have fulfilled your mission.’” So, too, Rav Elya can now go to the great Rosh Yeshiva and say, “I have fulfilled your mission, I have fulfilled your mission.”
For all of his understanding of day school education in an environment that was far removed from the pre-Holocaust yeshiva world of Eastern Europe, in a curious way it was as if Rav Elya was of the generation of the transcendent Roshei Yeshiva who were educated in Slabodka, Mir and other outstanding Torah institutions. In this respect, he provided a contrast with his peers in the United States, the yeshiva deans who emerged as Torah leaders about a generation ago.
He came here with his parents and brothers as a young boy, studying briefly in elementary school at the Rabbi Jacob Joseph School and then, for high school, at Yeshiva Torah Vodaath. His advanced yeshiva education was both in Israel and at Beth Medrash Govoha in Lakewood where he emerged as an outstanding student of the great Rosh Yeshiva, Rabbi Aharon Kotler. In these years, he followed the extraordinary path of his beloved teacher, combining intensive Torah study with activism on behalf of the religious Jewish community, here and in Israel. I remember his vital role in the 1950s in the American Peylim, the effective advocacy group that did much to promote and protect religious life in Israel in the years after the establishment of the State.
This developmental period served as an apprenticeship as he worked under the tutelage of Torah leaders, earning their confidence and respect as they entrusted him with expanding responsibilities. It is a major deficit of the yeshiva world of today that the crucial process of shimush or apprenticeship has been neglected, a deficit that I fear will escalate in its untoward consequences in the coming years.
For all of his obedience to Torah leaders, Rav Elya had a strong independent streak, a quality that was evident in his establishment nearly fifty years ago of the major advanced yeshiva in Philadelphia where he was soon joined by Rabbi Shmuel Kaminetsky. He eschewed the perhaps easier path of serving as a Rosh Yeshiva at the Mirrer Yeshiva in Brooklyn, then headed by Rabbi Avrohom Kalmanowitz, his father-in-law. In Philadelphia, Rav Elya educated and influenced thousands of students, a great number of whom have had fruitful roles in our religious life.
With the passing of the Torah giants of the previous generation, Rav Elya was thrust into leadership, not as a result of any election or selection but simply through the recognition that he was, in effect, designated by his predecessors. This role was especially acknowledged by Israeli Torah leaders. In one of my few involvements with Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv regarding an American religious issue, I was told that this preeminent Torah leader was interested in hearing the views of Rabbi Svei and no one else.
Although his influence extended across our religious life, Rav Elya’s impact was most strongly felt in the educational sphere where he worked without personal regard and often in a state of exhaustion, assisting yeshivas and day schools throughout North America. He had remarkable awareness and insight into the dynamics of day school education. For all of his Herculean and singular efforts, he was intensely modest, not once speaking of his own role.
Over the years, the circle that relied on his guidance grew, as was often apparent at weddings and dinners where there was constantly a line of educators and lay leaders seeking his counsel. For all of the public persona that emerged, he was a quiet and thoughtful man and I confess that, at times, I hoped that he would abjure public speaking altogether. He was a terrific listener, drawing out the salient points from those who sought his advice. He treated those who came to him with respect and he regarded each situation and institution as unique. There was no formulaic response to the questions that came to him. He was, at once, wise and fair. When years ago, the Rabbi Jacob Joseph School took the extraordinary step of ensuring the survival of the Jewish Foundation School of Staten Island, Rav Elya’s guidance was critical as we traversed difficult issues.
A man of total integrity, I doubt that he ever felt fully comfortable in the organizational world, even in situations where he was vested with authority. Organizations require a degree of loyalty that can compromise one’s commitment to integrity. He struggled with this dualism for years and the struggle constituted a painful chapter that cannot readily be discussed, at least not yet. When he decided to leave organizational life, many in his circle followed his example, not because he instructed them to do so but because they believed that it was the right thing to do.
In his deeply moving hesped or eulogy more than twenty-five years ago for Rabbi Shneuer Kotler in Lakewood, Rav Elya cried out, “You can now go to your father and say, ‘I have fulfilled your mission, I have fulfilled your mission.’” So, too, Rav Elya can now go to the great Rosh Yeshiva and say, “I have fulfilled your mission, I have fulfilled your mission.”
Thursday, March 19, 2009
No More More
The worldwide economic depression is a transformative event. Hopefully, strong governmental action will stem the decline, this despite the mean-spirited and even mad hope of Rush Limbaugh that the stimulus package and other Obama Administration measures will fail. When the dust settles, as it must, although probably not anytime soon, the economic and social landscapes will be different and a great number of lives shall have been changed. Tens of millions of jobs shall have been lost, major industries decimated, careers and relationships destroyed, dreams shattered or abandoned. Banking will be different, but not at the ordinary consumer level where greedy executives will continue to work overtime figuring out how to prey even more on those whose sin is to entrust these institutions with their money.
Yet, in most ways, life will be as it was. Most of us will continue to live where we have lived and work where we have worked and the inner structure of our lives will not be much affected by the economic storms around us. People will go on spending, some foolishly.
There will, however, inevitably be lifestyle changes. These will include, to an extent, a quenching of excess, a measure of restraint and fightback against the impulses imposed by conspicuous consumption. What will the effect be on Jewish life? We are a people who in the aggregate have learned to live the good life. We have been on an ever-expanding spending spree since the end of World War II, both at the communal and personal levels. Doubtlessly, there will be less charitable giving, an impact that is already strongly felt throughout much of our vast institutional and organizational sectors. There already has been downsizing throughout the Federation world and many organizations. This crisis is likely to accelerate, with some agencies closing, while others may merge. We should not expect a huge reduction in the army of American Jewish organizations. Many have survived serious crises, including nothing useful to do.
The most intriguing questions concern individual choices and changes. We are contributing less and probably already spending less on ourselves, but it will take a lot more to wean us away from our addiction to extravagance. We have indulged relentlessly on trips to everywhere and erehwon, on additional homes, on expensive remodeling of existing homes that are in perfectly good condition but do not meet the latest extravagance in design and on all kinds of luxuries. We are, again in the aggregate, a nation of shopaholics.
I know that this portrait is overdone. Not all of us are bitten by the spending bug and there are more than a few poor Jews, although not close to the number projected by our povertycrats who confidently claim that we are among the poorest of America’s ethnic groups. We are in behavior and attitude, if not in money in the bank, an upper-middle class group and this entails a heavily developed instinct for ostentation.
The greatest impact of our hedonism is on our children, too many of whom have been conditioned to believe from the time that they were in the cradle that money and what it can buy comes from a water tap that can be turned on at will. The absence of restraint is accompanied by a declining sense of responsibility, as parents come to accept that they must avoid saying “no” to their children, else they will feel deprived. Of course, when adulthood comes, reality usually sets in and the notion of entitlement is no longer sustainable in most families.
Our transformation into a society of wanters is expressed in the recent newsletter of Ezrah, a wide-ranging Orthodox-sponsored chesed project in Bergen County, New Jersey, which provides significant voluntary assistance to a large number of local families. According to a statement attributed to the late Rabbi Shalom Schwadron, a well known religious figure for decades in Jerusalem, “In the past we wanted what we needed. Today we need what we want.”
Now that the economic crisis is here, and there is a downturn in spending, the question is whether we will turn away from extravagance, from needless luxuries, from behavior that marks too many of us as show-offs. There still will be much discretionary money to spend. Prospects aren’t promising that there will be a fundamental change in behavior and attitude. Old habits never die easily. Our sense of community – as for example living together in clusters in suburbia or the inner city – paradoxically diminishes the likelihood for restraint because communal living enhances the pressure to keep up with the Jonses. Maimonides makes the point in a memorable passage in Hilchos De’os. We are powerfully influenced by environmental factors and Jewish environmental factors do not induce confidence that we can turn away from patterns that are already engrained.
The challenge is articulated in a “Dear Community Member” letter sent by the Angel Fund which is based in the close-knit Syrian Jewish community in Brooklyn: “We are very concerned about families at every level of our community since many have not recognized the seriousness [of the financial crisis] and have not changed their spending habits.” It continues:
“Many in our community have lost their jobs or are about to. Many business owners are having a difficult time, and some may be forced to close because the banks are not lending and there is nowhere to go. Yet most in our community, both wives and husbands, are in denial. Many are still spending and shopping, taking vacations to Aruba, leasing expensive cars and continuing to plan lavish weddings and bar mitzvahs – all while owing money to banks, to friends and are struggling to pay tuition.”
When will we understand? Are we prepared to say no more to the powerful instinct for more?
Yet, in most ways, life will be as it was. Most of us will continue to live where we have lived and work where we have worked and the inner structure of our lives will not be much affected by the economic storms around us. People will go on spending, some foolishly.
There will, however, inevitably be lifestyle changes. These will include, to an extent, a quenching of excess, a measure of restraint and fightback against the impulses imposed by conspicuous consumption. What will the effect be on Jewish life? We are a people who in the aggregate have learned to live the good life. We have been on an ever-expanding spending spree since the end of World War II, both at the communal and personal levels. Doubtlessly, there will be less charitable giving, an impact that is already strongly felt throughout much of our vast institutional and organizational sectors. There already has been downsizing throughout the Federation world and many organizations. This crisis is likely to accelerate, with some agencies closing, while others may merge. We should not expect a huge reduction in the army of American Jewish organizations. Many have survived serious crises, including nothing useful to do.
The most intriguing questions concern individual choices and changes. We are contributing less and probably already spending less on ourselves, but it will take a lot more to wean us away from our addiction to extravagance. We have indulged relentlessly on trips to everywhere and erehwon, on additional homes, on expensive remodeling of existing homes that are in perfectly good condition but do not meet the latest extravagance in design and on all kinds of luxuries. We are, again in the aggregate, a nation of shopaholics.
I know that this portrait is overdone. Not all of us are bitten by the spending bug and there are more than a few poor Jews, although not close to the number projected by our povertycrats who confidently claim that we are among the poorest of America’s ethnic groups. We are in behavior and attitude, if not in money in the bank, an upper-middle class group and this entails a heavily developed instinct for ostentation.
The greatest impact of our hedonism is on our children, too many of whom have been conditioned to believe from the time that they were in the cradle that money and what it can buy comes from a water tap that can be turned on at will. The absence of restraint is accompanied by a declining sense of responsibility, as parents come to accept that they must avoid saying “no” to their children, else they will feel deprived. Of course, when adulthood comes, reality usually sets in and the notion of entitlement is no longer sustainable in most families.
Our transformation into a society of wanters is expressed in the recent newsletter of Ezrah, a wide-ranging Orthodox-sponsored chesed project in Bergen County, New Jersey, which provides significant voluntary assistance to a large number of local families. According to a statement attributed to the late Rabbi Shalom Schwadron, a well known religious figure for decades in Jerusalem, “In the past we wanted what we needed. Today we need what we want.”
Now that the economic crisis is here, and there is a downturn in spending, the question is whether we will turn away from extravagance, from needless luxuries, from behavior that marks too many of us as show-offs. There still will be much discretionary money to spend. Prospects aren’t promising that there will be a fundamental change in behavior and attitude. Old habits never die easily. Our sense of community – as for example living together in clusters in suburbia or the inner city – paradoxically diminishes the likelihood for restraint because communal living enhances the pressure to keep up with the Jonses. Maimonides makes the point in a memorable passage in Hilchos De’os. We are powerfully influenced by environmental factors and Jewish environmental factors do not induce confidence that we can turn away from patterns that are already engrained.
The challenge is articulated in a “Dear Community Member” letter sent by the Angel Fund which is based in the close-knit Syrian Jewish community in Brooklyn: “We are very concerned about families at every level of our community since many have not recognized the seriousness [of the financial crisis] and have not changed their spending habits.” It continues:
“Many in our community have lost their jobs or are about to. Many business owners are having a difficult time, and some may be forced to close because the banks are not lending and there is nowhere to go. Yet most in our community, both wives and husbands, are in denial. Many are still spending and shopping, taking vacations to Aruba, leasing expensive cars and continuing to plan lavish weddings and bar mitzvahs – all while owing money to banks, to friends and are struggling to pay tuition.”
When will we understand? Are we prepared to say no more to the powerful instinct for more?
Friday, March 06, 2009
Stop the Prosecution and the Persecution
The ordeal of Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman drags on without an end in sight. They are the former AIPAC senior staffers who are accused of violating the Espionage Act by committing the high crime of talking about U.S. foreign policy, something that diplomats, public officials, journalists, etc., do each day in Washington. In the more than ninety years that the Espionage Act has been on the books, this is the first prosecution of its kind, the first prosecution that bears not even the faintest association with anything that can be called espionage.
Yet, these two unfortunates have been indicted for – we know not exactly what – speaking to other AIPAC people, Israeli officials and some folks from the media. There is, so far as I know, no award for organizational cowardice, else AIPAC which quickly jettisoned Rosen and Weissman on the instruction of top Bush Administration officials surely would have received this dubious recognition for its betrayal of two people who served it loyally. Admittedly, by the tens of thousands and even more, American Jews cling to the mirage that AIPAC is our salvation, that this organization which recklessly advertises itself as super-powerful is vital to the security of Israel and the Jewish people.
There is an expanding tendency in cases labeled as national security for the prosecution to claim that it cannot disclose much of its evidence to the defense or, if it can make such disclosure, the defense cannot utilize the material in order to mount a defense of those who have been accused. This is one of the toxic legacies of the late and surely unlamented administration and yet it is a posture that is difficult to challenge because, after all, who wants to be accused of jeopardizing this nation’s security. Especially in the Bush years, federal judges have been afflicted by an extra dose of timidity, too often accepting questionable governmental claims regarding security. In the process, the Bill of Rights has been lost in the shuffle.
A major issue in the Rosen-Weissman prosecution is whether documents that are vital to the defense can be placed on the record. According to a decision issued last week by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, a court not known for an overly developed attachment to the rights of accused persons, “Rosen and Weissman gave notice to the district court and the government that they expected to disclose at trial a large volume of classified information.” After conducting an extensive hearing, the trial judge “determined that a substantial volume of the classified information was indeed relevant and admissible.”
Subsequently, the government moved to produce edited summaries of these documents. The trial judge accepted this approach with respect to certain documents but also ruled that “other such redactions would not afford the defendants the same opportunity to defend themselves as would the admission of the unredacted documents containing classified information.” Predictably, the government appealed. The appellate court has now ruled in favor of the defense. It’s not likely that this is where the matter will end; we are in for additional appeals and legal skirmishes.
The two documents primarily in dispute are referred to as the “FBI Report” and the “Israeli Briefing Document.” It’s not possible to ascertain from the unanimous court of appeals opinion what all of this is about. Here is a delightfully Kafkaesque passage from the opinion:
“The defendants contend that the Israeli Briefing Document is relevant because [REDACTED], and the Document is the best evidence of [REDACTED] about the events described in the Document. The district court initially concluded that the Document was not relevant, but later reconsidered and revised that ruling. It is far from certain that the Document is relevant to show that the defendants [REDACTED]. The Document is a [REDACTED], a matter that could be proven by other means, including the [REDACTED].”
A prosecutor told me many years ago that the government never loses a case, even when the charges are dropped or the accused is acquitted, because defendants suffer severe hardship just by being indicted. For Rosen and Weissman, there has been the loss of their jobs and income, great financial pressure, shame and harm to them and their families, the loss of associations, severe and extended emotional stress and more. The government has had its pound of flesh and then some. It’s time to stop a prosecution that has become a persecution.
Unfortunately, it costs the prosecutors nothing to prosecute, while the defense costs are astronomical. Too frequently, prosecutors are schooled or operate in an environment that with too few exceptions encourages cruelty in service to the ideal of justice. Prosecutors run little or no risk when they exaggerate wrongdoing or twist evidence or pile on or do not disclose exculpatory evidence or even when they engage in lies. They see their mission and mandate as requiring the zenith of adversariness as they pursue the bad guys who deserve to be punished.
While considerable attention is paid to questions of legal ethics, admittedly with marginal beneficial results, too little attention is given to important questions of prosecutorial ethics, to how they can serve the end of justice when they are determined to prosecute at all costs. Prosecutorial abuse is rampant at the state and local levels, the Robert Morgenthaus of the world notwithstanding. It’s now evident that there has been a spread of abuse at the federal level and also that too few federal judges possess the backbone to challenge prosecutorial abuse.
It has been clear in the AIPAC prosecution from the beginning that while Rosen and Weissman may have acted foolishly – too prone to the AIPAC disease of boastfulness – they aren’t criminals. I am certain that what they did pales in comparison with what U.S. security and intelligence officials do daily in Israel.
Yet, these two unfortunates have been indicted for – we know not exactly what – speaking to other AIPAC people, Israeli officials and some folks from the media. There is, so far as I know, no award for organizational cowardice, else AIPAC which quickly jettisoned Rosen and Weissman on the instruction of top Bush Administration officials surely would have received this dubious recognition for its betrayal of two people who served it loyally. Admittedly, by the tens of thousands and even more, American Jews cling to the mirage that AIPAC is our salvation, that this organization which recklessly advertises itself as super-powerful is vital to the security of Israel and the Jewish people.
There is an expanding tendency in cases labeled as national security for the prosecution to claim that it cannot disclose much of its evidence to the defense or, if it can make such disclosure, the defense cannot utilize the material in order to mount a defense of those who have been accused. This is one of the toxic legacies of the late and surely unlamented administration and yet it is a posture that is difficult to challenge because, after all, who wants to be accused of jeopardizing this nation’s security. Especially in the Bush years, federal judges have been afflicted by an extra dose of timidity, too often accepting questionable governmental claims regarding security. In the process, the Bill of Rights has been lost in the shuffle.
A major issue in the Rosen-Weissman prosecution is whether documents that are vital to the defense can be placed on the record. According to a decision issued last week by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, a court not known for an overly developed attachment to the rights of accused persons, “Rosen and Weissman gave notice to the district court and the government that they expected to disclose at trial a large volume of classified information.” After conducting an extensive hearing, the trial judge “determined that a substantial volume of the classified information was indeed relevant and admissible.”
Subsequently, the government moved to produce edited summaries of these documents. The trial judge accepted this approach with respect to certain documents but also ruled that “other such redactions would not afford the defendants the same opportunity to defend themselves as would the admission of the unredacted documents containing classified information.” Predictably, the government appealed. The appellate court has now ruled in favor of the defense. It’s not likely that this is where the matter will end; we are in for additional appeals and legal skirmishes.
The two documents primarily in dispute are referred to as the “FBI Report” and the “Israeli Briefing Document.” It’s not possible to ascertain from the unanimous court of appeals opinion what all of this is about. Here is a delightfully Kafkaesque passage from the opinion:
“The defendants contend that the Israeli Briefing Document is relevant because [REDACTED], and the Document is the best evidence of [REDACTED] about the events described in the Document. The district court initially concluded that the Document was not relevant, but later reconsidered and revised that ruling. It is far from certain that the Document is relevant to show that the defendants [REDACTED]. The Document is a [REDACTED], a matter that could be proven by other means, including the [REDACTED].”
A prosecutor told me many years ago that the government never loses a case, even when the charges are dropped or the accused is acquitted, because defendants suffer severe hardship just by being indicted. For Rosen and Weissman, there has been the loss of their jobs and income, great financial pressure, shame and harm to them and their families, the loss of associations, severe and extended emotional stress and more. The government has had its pound of flesh and then some. It’s time to stop a prosecution that has become a persecution.
Unfortunately, it costs the prosecutors nothing to prosecute, while the defense costs are astronomical. Too frequently, prosecutors are schooled or operate in an environment that with too few exceptions encourages cruelty in service to the ideal of justice. Prosecutors run little or no risk when they exaggerate wrongdoing or twist evidence or pile on or do not disclose exculpatory evidence or even when they engage in lies. They see their mission and mandate as requiring the zenith of adversariness as they pursue the bad guys who deserve to be punished.
While considerable attention is paid to questions of legal ethics, admittedly with marginal beneficial results, too little attention is given to important questions of prosecutorial ethics, to how they can serve the end of justice when they are determined to prosecute at all costs. Prosecutorial abuse is rampant at the state and local levels, the Robert Morgenthaus of the world notwithstanding. It’s now evident that there has been a spread of abuse at the federal level and also that too few federal judges possess the backbone to challenge prosecutorial abuse.
It has been clear in the AIPAC prosecution from the beginning that while Rosen and Weissman may have acted foolishly – too prone to the AIPAC disease of boastfulness – they aren’t criminals. I am certain that what they did pales in comparison with what U.S. security and intelligence officials do daily in Israel.
Sunday, March 01, 2009
RJJ Newsletter - March 2009
It’s too early to know or assess the reach and consequences of the worldwide economic crisis. What we have seen so far is frightening and the bad news keeps on coming in the form of massive layoffs, the sharp decline in consumer confidence, home foreclosures, corporate bankruptcies, the near collapse of major banks and the severe tightening of credit. Worst of all is the spreading fear which feeds on itself. Hopefully, the unprecedented degree of governmental intervention will stem the tide, but certainly not quickly. In the long run, there will be a turnaround, but not before there is much additional pain and perhaps even social and political unrest. There will be alterations in the social fabric and they may be permanent.
The pain and damage will be everywhere; there will be few places to hide. There will be millions of unemployed and many who have left the workforce altogether. There will be, as we are already witnessing, devastated pension and savings accounts. There will be marriages and relationships under great stress. There will be homes lost and dreams shattered. Yet, life will go on and in important ways not much different than previously. A depression does not mean an economic collapse. It does mean widespread harm.
Of course, the Jewish community will not be immune from the bad news and there is already significant evidence of damage to our communal infrastructure. Yeshivas and day schools, our most vital institutions, will be strongly affected. Some schools will close and in too many places salaries will be late in coming. We all know that even in robust economic times, many of our schools live a parsimonious existence. The downturn can only make things worse. Worst of all, there will be children who are no longer in a Jewish school, children whose Jewish future will be undermined.
It may seem excessively parochial to lament such developments in our small world of religious schools. Yet, we must be parochial and not only because there is little we can do about the economy but because Torah education is our responsibility and no one else’s and it is our lifeline. We religious Jews believe that the world exists because of the breath of young children saying Aleph Bais and older students studying the texts that have sustained us through hardships far worse than financial deprivation.
We must focus on what our schools and our community can do in the crisis and on what small and even tiny steps they may take to deal with the situation that will confront them. Assuredly, those whose heads are in the sand or who rely on the mantra that G-D will help will inadvertently contribute to a greater disaster for Torah institutions. True, we ardently believe that Netzach Yisroel Lo Yi-shaker – that the eternity of the Jewish people will not be denied. This belief must not induce inaction but inspire us to take action.
What can be done? There is no ready answer because the yeshiva/day school world consists of more than eight-hundred schools and they vary enormously in size, orientation, financial situation and much else. There is no one size that fits all. Our hope must be that each school will have individuals – staff, parents, lay persons – who take responsibility and are willing to act.
Taking responsibility means making hard decisions. Consideration must be given to school mergers and to other cost-cutting approaches, such as sharing back office operations or a single fundraiser for two or more schools or the joint use of technology. Forty percent of yeshivas and day schools have fewer than one-hundred students and an extraordinary number have fewer than fifty. I am conducting another census of day schools in the U.S. and as the project has passed the two-thirds mark, the impression I have is that there is a tendency for even smaller schools, especially in the yeshiva world sector of Orthodoxy.
The efficacy of cost-sharing has been abundantly demonstrated on Staten Island in the fruitful relationship between the Jewish Foundation School and the two RJJ/Merkaz schools. This is an achievement that we can all be proud of. I am involved, as well, in a foundation-sponsored initiative whose aim is to encourage schools to develop cost-sharing and other cooperative projects.
Yeshivas and day schools rely heavily on the annual dinner to raise the funds needed to close the budget gap. It is necessary to consider how costs associated with this event can be trimmed, something that is already on the radar screen of more than a few institutions. Is a bloated dinner journal necessary? I doubt it. Can catering costs be cut? Certainly. What about gifts to the honorees or fancy invitations? The list can be expanded.
There are activities and expenses that can probably be justified when there is money around, but not when it is in very short supply. American Jewry has created and allowed for the rapid expansion of what I refer to as Jewish Education, Inc., consisting of consultants who charge much and offer little, expensive training programs, trips and too much else that occurs outside of the classroom while what occurs inside the classroom is shortchanged. We must learn to practice educational triage and this translates directly into giving preference to what occurs inside of a classroom.
With this in mind, I have informed our principals that we will not be paying for their attendance at any conventions or conferences and they have understood the necessity of this move. This includes Torah Umesorah’s annual convention. This step and other measures that are aimed at reducing expenses is intended to maximize the fulfillment of our moral and halachic obligation to pay our staff in a timely way. It is not a message of dissatisfaction with Torah Umesorah or anyone else. Over the past year, I have helped Torah Umesorah in a meaningful way. Unfortunately, the reaction of certain persons associated with the organization to my determination to reduce non-educational costs has been nasty and even worse.
Cost-cutting measures are necessary, yet there still will be a gap between the income and expense sides of the budget and it is apt to grow larger because the main sources of income are tuition and fundraising and both have already been impacted by the economic downturn. For all schools, payroll, including fringe costs, constitutes by far the lion’s share of the budget and, for most, there is little room to cut as these institutions are understaffed and, for the most part, faculty and office help are underpaid.
Schools that are exploring reducing payroll should seek halachic guidance and they must show compassion and concern for teachers and other staff who invariably work with great dedication. If staff cuts are to be made, it is best to seek the savings through attrition rather than through the firing of personnel.
This leaves the income side, which doesn’t seem promising. Tuition is a difficult challenge in schools like ours that accept the obligation to provide a Torah education irrespective of the ability to pay. There are, indeed, day schools – more than a few – that operate under a different principle, as they insist on high tuition which rises significantly each year, even as they offer limited scholarship assistance. I am in regular contact with yeshivas and day schools across the country and am struck by their blithe attitude toward parents who are struggling to meet tuition and other obligations, too frequently telling parents to seek another school for their children if the tuition is too high. What is even more striking about this is that as a general rule in Jewish day school education, the more affluent the institution and the higher the tuition it charges, the less likely it is to offer meaningful scholarship assistance.
It is no wonder that parents in what might be referred to as the expensive day school neighborhoods are increasingly exploring options that would certainly diminish the Torah education their children receive.
For schools that have a caring policy, tuition can be a painful balancing act. There is the reality that without sufficient income, they cannot provide a decent dual education and may not be able to survive, especially since contributions constitute a constantly smaller proportion of the income of a typical yeshiva. This is one of the sad consequences of the attitude that I have bemoaned for decades, namely that our community has come to look at basic Torah education as a consumer product that should be paid for entirely or nearly entirely by parents who are the consumers.
The reality on the other side of the scale is that in thousands of Orthodox homes, as well as a fair number of homes that are not Orthodox, day school tuition creates enormous pressures. I believe that far more families properly fulfill their tuition obligation than those that do not. The severe downturn is not going to help observant families with a bunch of young children at home and with tuition bills coming each month for each of them.
How can caring school officials, lay and professional, balance these two realities?
Tuition will not be increased next year at the three Staten Island schools, this despite their financial difficulties. We hope that there are parents who can give more and who will give more on a voluntary basis. We are mindful of the pressures facing many parents and therefore are taking the additional step of sharply limiting extracurricular expenses, the charges that are tacked on for trips and other out-of-school activities. I have advocated for many years restraint in this regard, referring not so much to our schools but to the yeshiva/day school world generally where such charges have gotten out of hand. This call has been disregarded by school officials who are blind and deaf to the ongoing hardship in many observant homes. The use of children to pressure parents to pay for extras adds to the sin.
There is, as we who labor in the vineyard of Torah education know too well, a second side to the tuition story, consisting of parents who can pay a fair share but who evade their obligation. There are parents of means who live comfortably and who are fiercely determined to shirk their responsibility, thereby harming the schools that educate their children. These parents are determined to deceive, in service to the perverse notion that not doing the right thing in the right thing. As with other wrongdoing, there is no way to root out entirely this rot.
Some yeshivas and day schools deal with this chronic problem by denying admission to or not readmitting students whose parents do not pay what the schools are determined to get. The lesson is taught, but as is true inevitably when draconian measures are employed, too many innocent people – meaning parents who are poor – get hurt along with those who are not innocent. The further serious damage is that there are children who are lost to Judaism.
A look at our tuition records would quickly provide a snapshot of our tuition policy. We try to get parents to pay a fair amount and there is a minimum tuition requirement, except in special circumstances, such as sickness and unemployment. At the end of the day, we relent, primarily because I insist that we relent, doing so with strong misgivings that teachers and staff and the schools generally pay a price when parents take advantage. The decisive factor in determining our policy is the sanctity of each child, the promise of each child. Education – and especially Torah education – must always put the child before any other consideration.
We have not come to our one-hundred and tenth year to reject children. Our mission from the turn of the last century until today is to educate children in the ways of the Torah so that when they reach adulthood they will be prepared for fulfilling lives as Torah-abiding Jews in a society that affords us the additional blessings of liberty.
The only meaningful source of income other than tuition is fundraising. Except for minor support, governmental assistance is closed off, in large measure thanks to the war against religion conducted by too many in the American Jewish community.
As the next item in this Newsletter reports, our fundraising is going badly so far in 2009 and the prognosis is not good. Similar reports are coming, of course, from schools across the country and from throughout the world of nonprofits and charitable activities. It could not be otherwise under present economic circumstances.
There are reasons to despair, but we must not despair, if only because that would make matters worse. In reality, a severe economic decline does not mean financial collapse. Overwhelmingly, most of us will continue to work and to earn. Luxuries and extravagances will not be banished from the face of the earth. There will be conventions, vacations and trips. Students will continue to study in Israel, usually at great expense, and Pesach will remain a time of exodus to hotels for many observant Jews. All is not lost and will not be lost.
The challenge each of us faces is how our values and our charity will fit into the financial equation at a time of economic decline. There will be people who give less or won’t give at all and some of these are people who cannot give. There are others who will be able to give but are reluctant to do so, perhaps out of fear or an inability to shake off the hedonistic impulse which dictates that it is more important to spend on oneself than to help others. I am reminded of the tshuva or responsum of Rav Moshe Feinstein, ztl, the great posek in the American religious Jewish experience, in which he wrote with uncharacteristic criticism of the tendency of persons of means not to properly fulfill their tzedakah obligations.
I am also reminded of the sacrifice that is an integral part of the history, legacy and mission of the Rabbi Jacob Joseph School. When the Great Depression came, the American Torah community that was already severely weakened by assimilation was badly harmed. Yeshivas closed. RJJ remained open because of the creativity and emunah of those who guided the yeshiva in that perilous period. People of faith kept us alive, some by giving and some by doing. I am frightened by what has already transpired and I am afraid about what lies ahead, not merely for us but for other yeshivas and other causes. There are schools in more perilous shape than we are in. Let us now have courage and faith. Let us be inspired by the example of those who preceded us and let us always be mindful of the eternal blessing, Blessed are those who sustain the eternal Torah.
The pain and damage will be everywhere; there will be few places to hide. There will be millions of unemployed and many who have left the workforce altogether. There will be, as we are already witnessing, devastated pension and savings accounts. There will be marriages and relationships under great stress. There will be homes lost and dreams shattered. Yet, life will go on and in important ways not much different than previously. A depression does not mean an economic collapse. It does mean widespread harm.
Of course, the Jewish community will not be immune from the bad news and there is already significant evidence of damage to our communal infrastructure. Yeshivas and day schools, our most vital institutions, will be strongly affected. Some schools will close and in too many places salaries will be late in coming. We all know that even in robust economic times, many of our schools live a parsimonious existence. The downturn can only make things worse. Worst of all, there will be children who are no longer in a Jewish school, children whose Jewish future will be undermined.
It may seem excessively parochial to lament such developments in our small world of religious schools. Yet, we must be parochial and not only because there is little we can do about the economy but because Torah education is our responsibility and no one else’s and it is our lifeline. We religious Jews believe that the world exists because of the breath of young children saying Aleph Bais and older students studying the texts that have sustained us through hardships far worse than financial deprivation.
We must focus on what our schools and our community can do in the crisis and on what small and even tiny steps they may take to deal with the situation that will confront them. Assuredly, those whose heads are in the sand or who rely on the mantra that G-D will help will inadvertently contribute to a greater disaster for Torah institutions. True, we ardently believe that Netzach Yisroel Lo Yi-shaker – that the eternity of the Jewish people will not be denied. This belief must not induce inaction but inspire us to take action.
What can be done? There is no ready answer because the yeshiva/day school world consists of more than eight-hundred schools and they vary enormously in size, orientation, financial situation and much else. There is no one size that fits all. Our hope must be that each school will have individuals – staff, parents, lay persons – who take responsibility and are willing to act.
Taking responsibility means making hard decisions. Consideration must be given to school mergers and to other cost-cutting approaches, such as sharing back office operations or a single fundraiser for two or more schools or the joint use of technology. Forty percent of yeshivas and day schools have fewer than one-hundred students and an extraordinary number have fewer than fifty. I am conducting another census of day schools in the U.S. and as the project has passed the two-thirds mark, the impression I have is that there is a tendency for even smaller schools, especially in the yeshiva world sector of Orthodoxy.
The efficacy of cost-sharing has been abundantly demonstrated on Staten Island in the fruitful relationship between the Jewish Foundation School and the two RJJ/Merkaz schools. This is an achievement that we can all be proud of. I am involved, as well, in a foundation-sponsored initiative whose aim is to encourage schools to develop cost-sharing and other cooperative projects.
Yeshivas and day schools rely heavily on the annual dinner to raise the funds needed to close the budget gap. It is necessary to consider how costs associated with this event can be trimmed, something that is already on the radar screen of more than a few institutions. Is a bloated dinner journal necessary? I doubt it. Can catering costs be cut? Certainly. What about gifts to the honorees or fancy invitations? The list can be expanded.
There are activities and expenses that can probably be justified when there is money around, but not when it is in very short supply. American Jewry has created and allowed for the rapid expansion of what I refer to as Jewish Education, Inc., consisting of consultants who charge much and offer little, expensive training programs, trips and too much else that occurs outside of the classroom while what occurs inside the classroom is shortchanged. We must learn to practice educational triage and this translates directly into giving preference to what occurs inside of a classroom.
With this in mind, I have informed our principals that we will not be paying for their attendance at any conventions or conferences and they have understood the necessity of this move. This includes Torah Umesorah’s annual convention. This step and other measures that are aimed at reducing expenses is intended to maximize the fulfillment of our moral and halachic obligation to pay our staff in a timely way. It is not a message of dissatisfaction with Torah Umesorah or anyone else. Over the past year, I have helped Torah Umesorah in a meaningful way. Unfortunately, the reaction of certain persons associated with the organization to my determination to reduce non-educational costs has been nasty and even worse.
Cost-cutting measures are necessary, yet there still will be a gap between the income and expense sides of the budget and it is apt to grow larger because the main sources of income are tuition and fundraising and both have already been impacted by the economic downturn. For all schools, payroll, including fringe costs, constitutes by far the lion’s share of the budget and, for most, there is little room to cut as these institutions are understaffed and, for the most part, faculty and office help are underpaid.
Schools that are exploring reducing payroll should seek halachic guidance and they must show compassion and concern for teachers and other staff who invariably work with great dedication. If staff cuts are to be made, it is best to seek the savings through attrition rather than through the firing of personnel.
This leaves the income side, which doesn’t seem promising. Tuition is a difficult challenge in schools like ours that accept the obligation to provide a Torah education irrespective of the ability to pay. There are, indeed, day schools – more than a few – that operate under a different principle, as they insist on high tuition which rises significantly each year, even as they offer limited scholarship assistance. I am in regular contact with yeshivas and day schools across the country and am struck by their blithe attitude toward parents who are struggling to meet tuition and other obligations, too frequently telling parents to seek another school for their children if the tuition is too high. What is even more striking about this is that as a general rule in Jewish day school education, the more affluent the institution and the higher the tuition it charges, the less likely it is to offer meaningful scholarship assistance.
It is no wonder that parents in what might be referred to as the expensive day school neighborhoods are increasingly exploring options that would certainly diminish the Torah education their children receive.
For schools that have a caring policy, tuition can be a painful balancing act. There is the reality that without sufficient income, they cannot provide a decent dual education and may not be able to survive, especially since contributions constitute a constantly smaller proportion of the income of a typical yeshiva. This is one of the sad consequences of the attitude that I have bemoaned for decades, namely that our community has come to look at basic Torah education as a consumer product that should be paid for entirely or nearly entirely by parents who are the consumers.
The reality on the other side of the scale is that in thousands of Orthodox homes, as well as a fair number of homes that are not Orthodox, day school tuition creates enormous pressures. I believe that far more families properly fulfill their tuition obligation than those that do not. The severe downturn is not going to help observant families with a bunch of young children at home and with tuition bills coming each month for each of them.
How can caring school officials, lay and professional, balance these two realities?
Tuition will not be increased next year at the three Staten Island schools, this despite their financial difficulties. We hope that there are parents who can give more and who will give more on a voluntary basis. We are mindful of the pressures facing many parents and therefore are taking the additional step of sharply limiting extracurricular expenses, the charges that are tacked on for trips and other out-of-school activities. I have advocated for many years restraint in this regard, referring not so much to our schools but to the yeshiva/day school world generally where such charges have gotten out of hand. This call has been disregarded by school officials who are blind and deaf to the ongoing hardship in many observant homes. The use of children to pressure parents to pay for extras adds to the sin.
There is, as we who labor in the vineyard of Torah education know too well, a second side to the tuition story, consisting of parents who can pay a fair share but who evade their obligation. There are parents of means who live comfortably and who are fiercely determined to shirk their responsibility, thereby harming the schools that educate their children. These parents are determined to deceive, in service to the perverse notion that not doing the right thing in the right thing. As with other wrongdoing, there is no way to root out entirely this rot.
Some yeshivas and day schools deal with this chronic problem by denying admission to or not readmitting students whose parents do not pay what the schools are determined to get. The lesson is taught, but as is true inevitably when draconian measures are employed, too many innocent people – meaning parents who are poor – get hurt along with those who are not innocent. The further serious damage is that there are children who are lost to Judaism.
A look at our tuition records would quickly provide a snapshot of our tuition policy. We try to get parents to pay a fair amount and there is a minimum tuition requirement, except in special circumstances, such as sickness and unemployment. At the end of the day, we relent, primarily because I insist that we relent, doing so with strong misgivings that teachers and staff and the schools generally pay a price when parents take advantage. The decisive factor in determining our policy is the sanctity of each child, the promise of each child. Education – and especially Torah education – must always put the child before any other consideration.
We have not come to our one-hundred and tenth year to reject children. Our mission from the turn of the last century until today is to educate children in the ways of the Torah so that when they reach adulthood they will be prepared for fulfilling lives as Torah-abiding Jews in a society that affords us the additional blessings of liberty.
The only meaningful source of income other than tuition is fundraising. Except for minor support, governmental assistance is closed off, in large measure thanks to the war against religion conducted by too many in the American Jewish community.
As the next item in this Newsletter reports, our fundraising is going badly so far in 2009 and the prognosis is not good. Similar reports are coming, of course, from schools across the country and from throughout the world of nonprofits and charitable activities. It could not be otherwise under present economic circumstances.
There are reasons to despair, but we must not despair, if only because that would make matters worse. In reality, a severe economic decline does not mean financial collapse. Overwhelmingly, most of us will continue to work and to earn. Luxuries and extravagances will not be banished from the face of the earth. There will be conventions, vacations and trips. Students will continue to study in Israel, usually at great expense, and Pesach will remain a time of exodus to hotels for many observant Jews. All is not lost and will not be lost.
The challenge each of us faces is how our values and our charity will fit into the financial equation at a time of economic decline. There will be people who give less or won’t give at all and some of these are people who cannot give. There are others who will be able to give but are reluctant to do so, perhaps out of fear or an inability to shake off the hedonistic impulse which dictates that it is more important to spend on oneself than to help others. I am reminded of the tshuva or responsum of Rav Moshe Feinstein, ztl, the great posek in the American religious Jewish experience, in which he wrote with uncharacteristic criticism of the tendency of persons of means not to properly fulfill their tzedakah obligations.
I am also reminded of the sacrifice that is an integral part of the history, legacy and mission of the Rabbi Jacob Joseph School. When the Great Depression came, the American Torah community that was already severely weakened by assimilation was badly harmed. Yeshivas closed. RJJ remained open because of the creativity and emunah of those who guided the yeshiva in that perilous period. People of faith kept us alive, some by giving and some by doing. I am frightened by what has already transpired and I am afraid about what lies ahead, not merely for us but for other yeshivas and other causes. There are schools in more perilous shape than we are in. Let us now have courage and faith. Let us be inspired by the example of those who preceded us and let us always be mindful of the eternal blessing, Blessed are those who sustain the eternal Torah.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Madoff in Perspective
The Madoff scandal, still in its infancy, will live in infamy. We will be reminded of his record-busting wrongdoing until the end of our days and the story will remain alive in generations not yet born. There is still much to learn and new information will come out, although I expect that unanswered questions will remain, that there will be competing versions about key details and competing theories. What is already certain is that Rabbis and other sermonizers have been given a plentitude of material. Alas, there are the sermons that have been given, the too frequent theme being that this is a Jewish scandal and disgrace.
An example is the “Letter to Madoff” posted on Newsweek’s website by Rabbi Marc Gellman who although “not comfortable with the fact that so many of the articles about you specifically identify your prominent place in the Jewish community,” laments that while Madoff “did not cause the anti-Semitic insults about Jews and money,” he “caused them to be revived” and “not since Julius Rosenberg spied for the Soviet Union has one person so damaged the image and the self-respect of American Jews.”
Self-respect is subjective and if some want to go on a guilt trip, that’s their problem. As for image, I lived through the Rosenberg story and despite many Jews publicly condemning the death sentence and more than a few claiming that the couple was railroaded, their trial and execution coincided with the great blossoming of America’s fascination with things Jewish and widespread admiration of Jews.
There are always undercurrents of anti-Semitism. What Madoff did is inconsequential in this regard. In fact, as can be ascertained by checking Gallup Poll surveys for the period, anti-Semitism in the U.S. surged in the 1930s and early 1940s as Jews were being persecuted and murdered by Nazi Germany.
It is remarkable how with the predictable assistance of the New York Times, along with too many other media transmitters of the disease and our home-grown self-sermonizers, we embrace the perverse notion of guilt by association. Madoff is Jewish, his crime was monumental but he did not do what he did because he was Jewish and we are not responsible for what he did. The theme of responsibility was trumpeted a couple weeks ago in this newspaper by Rabbi Joshua Hammerman in a column that successfully aspired to the apex of foolishness. Called “We Are One and the Madoff Problem,” we are told that “like it or not…Madoff is One with us. His filthy patch stains our quilt.” Therefore, “it is vital that the organized Jewish world respond to Madoff with a formal separation” by declaring that “Madoff’s heinous crimes are so anathema to our value system.”
I had thought that heinous crimes refer to Auschwitz or perhaps 9/11 or lynchings and not to financial wrongdoing, no matter how monumental. Hammerman’s Madoff-induced parochialism intrigues me. Compare his “We Are One” Madoff mantra to what he wrote after the Mumbai massacres which, incidentally, he did not label as “heinous.”
“Now the world is ready to listen to us – but they can only listen to us if we take our eyes off our navels and engage them, recognizing that their suffering is as great as ours.” As I wrote previously, “I can only hope that his sermons are more sensible.” According to Hammerman, when Jews are murdered clearly because they are Jewish, we are to be universalists. When a Jew commits a crime, we are to be parochial, sharing responsibility for the wrongdoing.
Michael Steinhardt, ever clear-thinking, got it right at a symposium on Madoff, saying that while the criminal was Jewish, this was not a Jewish crime. This isn’t altered by any dollar figure attached to the wrongdoing, nor by the number of Jewish charities and individuals that were defrauded. Without making light of the losses sustained by nonprofits or private investors, it remains that what charities and individuals have lost on Wall Street and other investments in the unfolding of the depression that is now gripping the U.S. and most of the world dwarfs by perhaps as much as a hundredfold Madoff’s fraudulent scheme.
The trumpeting of the theme of Jewish guilt, even when accompanied by disclaimers of such guilt, provides hate points for anti-Semites. This old and dangerous social disease is nourished by those who in the name of some ersatz moral principle assert that we Jews bear responsibility for the sins of others. As has been noted without much avail, the notion that we are all guilty inadvertently translates into the unacceptable position that those who committed the crimes may not be more guilty than the rest of us.
There is the collateral social disease of Jewish self-hate that crops up when Jews behave in ways that are inappropriate or wrongful. What we do not like is labeled as a “Jewish” attribute and this, too, provides material for those who are hateful towards Jews. Clearly, Madoff’s crimes must not be dismissed as inconsequential or of little concern, yet we must not apologize for them. Mea culpas feed the notion that we Jews share the guilt of wrongdoers.
The Madoff story has a long way to go. Rabbis have sermons to give and we cannot expect them to look a gift horse in the mouth when so juicy a subject comes their way. We should expect them, as well as our columnists and editorial writers, to be restrained in their indulging in guilt by association, as well in their indulging in Jewish self-hate.
An example is the “Letter to Madoff” posted on Newsweek’s website by Rabbi Marc Gellman who although “not comfortable with the fact that so many of the articles about you specifically identify your prominent place in the Jewish community,” laments that while Madoff “did not cause the anti-Semitic insults about Jews and money,” he “caused them to be revived” and “not since Julius Rosenberg spied for the Soviet Union has one person so damaged the image and the self-respect of American Jews.”
Self-respect is subjective and if some want to go on a guilt trip, that’s their problem. As for image, I lived through the Rosenberg story and despite many Jews publicly condemning the death sentence and more than a few claiming that the couple was railroaded, their trial and execution coincided with the great blossoming of America’s fascination with things Jewish and widespread admiration of Jews.
There are always undercurrents of anti-Semitism. What Madoff did is inconsequential in this regard. In fact, as can be ascertained by checking Gallup Poll surveys for the period, anti-Semitism in the U.S. surged in the 1930s and early 1940s as Jews were being persecuted and murdered by Nazi Germany.
It is remarkable how with the predictable assistance of the New York Times, along with too many other media transmitters of the disease and our home-grown self-sermonizers, we embrace the perverse notion of guilt by association. Madoff is Jewish, his crime was monumental but he did not do what he did because he was Jewish and we are not responsible for what he did. The theme of responsibility was trumpeted a couple weeks ago in this newspaper by Rabbi Joshua Hammerman in a column that successfully aspired to the apex of foolishness. Called “We Are One and the Madoff Problem,” we are told that “like it or not…Madoff is One with us. His filthy patch stains our quilt.” Therefore, “it is vital that the organized Jewish world respond to Madoff with a formal separation” by declaring that “Madoff’s heinous crimes are so anathema to our value system.”
I had thought that heinous crimes refer to Auschwitz or perhaps 9/11 or lynchings and not to financial wrongdoing, no matter how monumental. Hammerman’s Madoff-induced parochialism intrigues me. Compare his “We Are One” Madoff mantra to what he wrote after the Mumbai massacres which, incidentally, he did not label as “heinous.”
“Now the world is ready to listen to us – but they can only listen to us if we take our eyes off our navels and engage them, recognizing that their suffering is as great as ours.” As I wrote previously, “I can only hope that his sermons are more sensible.” According to Hammerman, when Jews are murdered clearly because they are Jewish, we are to be universalists. When a Jew commits a crime, we are to be parochial, sharing responsibility for the wrongdoing.
Michael Steinhardt, ever clear-thinking, got it right at a symposium on Madoff, saying that while the criminal was Jewish, this was not a Jewish crime. This isn’t altered by any dollar figure attached to the wrongdoing, nor by the number of Jewish charities and individuals that were defrauded. Without making light of the losses sustained by nonprofits or private investors, it remains that what charities and individuals have lost on Wall Street and other investments in the unfolding of the depression that is now gripping the U.S. and most of the world dwarfs by perhaps as much as a hundredfold Madoff’s fraudulent scheme.
The trumpeting of the theme of Jewish guilt, even when accompanied by disclaimers of such guilt, provides hate points for anti-Semites. This old and dangerous social disease is nourished by those who in the name of some ersatz moral principle assert that we Jews bear responsibility for the sins of others. As has been noted without much avail, the notion that we are all guilty inadvertently translates into the unacceptable position that those who committed the crimes may not be more guilty than the rest of us.
There is the collateral social disease of Jewish self-hate that crops up when Jews behave in ways that are inappropriate or wrongful. What we do not like is labeled as a “Jewish” attribute and this, too, provides material for those who are hateful towards Jews. Clearly, Madoff’s crimes must not be dismissed as inconsequential or of little concern, yet we must not apologize for them. Mea culpas feed the notion that we Jews share the guilt of wrongdoers.
The Madoff story has a long way to go. Rabbis have sermons to give and we cannot expect them to look a gift horse in the mouth when so juicy a subject comes their way. We should expect them, as well as our columnists and editorial writers, to be restrained in their indulging in guilt by association, as well in their indulging in Jewish self-hate.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)