Thursday, March 31, 2005
And You Shall Choose Life
Hard cases make bad law, never more so than when ideology accompanied by passion distorts judgment. There are no winners in the Terri Schiavo case, but plenty of bad law, including the wrongful intrusion by Congress and the President and the wrongful exclusion of her parents from the determination of their daughter's fate. This is a case that will echo for a long while. An incompetent woman has become a pawn in the intensifying conflict between social conservatives with their religious agenda and liberals with their secular agenda.
Although under halacha or Jewish religious law there may be wiggle room permitting action or inaction that hastens death, removing feeding tubes and bringing about death through an extended period of starvation and dehydration is not such an occasion. While we may not require measures that prolong life, we do not under halacha allow steps whose sole purpose is to terminate life. What this woman has been subjected to is cruel and unusual, even if it does not constitute punishment, and this judgment is not altered by medical testimony that she has not experienced pain as her life ebbs away. Is it possible to know whether someone in her situation is free of pain?
Irrespective of our ideological orientation, we should be able to agree that starving people to death is not moral. Regrettably, the Schiavo case has been beclouded as she became the rallying cry of those who ardently proclaim the right to life even as they ardently champion policies that are flagrantly anti-life. I refer not to public issues such as the environment where the nexus between policy and protection of life may be viewed as distant. There are other examples. How telling it is that those who champion life are the strongest supporters of the National Rifle Association. Were the lives of the many innocent people who have been murdered because of NRA's pro-gun crusade any less worthy of protection than Terri Schiavo's?
What about the sick and elderly whose health is endangered because they cannot get affordable drugs from Canada? Or the lives that might be saved through stem cell research? Choosing life is not a selective process that is subject to ideological whims, yet it seems that those who are most vociferous in proclaiming the right to life are concerned about life at the time of conception and as death approaches but have little regard for what happens to human beings in between.
The moral hypocrisy of pro-lifers is breathtaking. Of course, two wrongs never make a right and strange bedfellows are part of the human condition. The company we keep in advocating against starving anyone to death should not deter us from taking the position that we believe to be morally right. What makes the Schiavo case more compelling is her husband's untrustworthiness - she obviously did not give instructions that she be allowed to starve to death - and also the plea of her parents that they be granted custody. I recognize that under Florida law the husband is the legal guardian, that many courts have diligently reviewed the case and that Congressional intervention was cynical. But even if the law supports Michael Schiavo, his actions were immoral, so that while state and federal courts reached the right result under existing law, the outcome is immoral.
The Schiavo case is the tip of a quickly expanding legal and social iceberg as technology, medical advances and raised socio-economic standards have resulted in a remarkable increase in life expectancy, a development that has enormous moral, financial and other practical consequences. Oregon's law sanctioning assisted suicide is before the Supreme Court. Whatever the outcome, there will be other cases, other conflicts. In view of the split in public opinion and divisions among those who are referred to as ethicists as to what constitutes ethical behavior in medical situations, it's a certainty that there will be a stream of quality of life issues.
As society attempts to grasp increasingly complex issues, the presumption should be in favor of life. While living wills are not likely to become standard fare and they will not resolve all situations, their use should be strongly encouraged, thereby limiting the role and discretion of legal guardians. Where legal guardians are authorized to make decisions on behalf of severely incapacitated persons who have not left written instructions, courts should weigh the totality of circumstances and allow directly related persons such as parents or siblings to take responsibility. A particularly painful element in the Schiavo affair is that inadvertently the parents have been regarded as interlopers. As we know, the husband has another family and if this isn't sufficient cause to question his guardianship, we might reflect on the unbearable pain suffered by parents who hopelessly stand by as their daughter is starved to death.
We hear much about quality of life, a term that is employed by advocates of assisted suicide or other measures that terminate life. The phrase is elastic and highly subjective, yet that isn't its primary defect. In the U.S. alone, there are countless millions whose quality of life is quite poor, the great many who are seriously ill and the great many who are frail and elderly. There are those who are severely handicapped and others who are mentally incapacitated. In a blink of the eye, the dubious concept of quality of life has become something of a signal as to how we should look at such people.
Persons of religious faith do not look at life solely in physical or even rational terms. There are spiritual elements that cannot be easily articulated, if only because they run counter to the rationalist grain that is ingrained in us. A feature of this spiritual dimension is to let life run its natural course, perhaps so that we may understand that we who are competent and blessed with a high quality of life are as finite in this world as those who aren't as blessed.
Although under halacha or Jewish religious law there may be wiggle room permitting action or inaction that hastens death, removing feeding tubes and bringing about death through an extended period of starvation and dehydration is not such an occasion. While we may not require measures that prolong life, we do not under halacha allow steps whose sole purpose is to terminate life. What this woman has been subjected to is cruel and unusual, even if it does not constitute punishment, and this judgment is not altered by medical testimony that she has not experienced pain as her life ebbs away. Is it possible to know whether someone in her situation is free of pain?
Irrespective of our ideological orientation, we should be able to agree that starving people to death is not moral. Regrettably, the Schiavo case has been beclouded as she became the rallying cry of those who ardently proclaim the right to life even as they ardently champion policies that are flagrantly anti-life. I refer not to public issues such as the environment where the nexus between policy and protection of life may be viewed as distant. There are other examples. How telling it is that those who champion life are the strongest supporters of the National Rifle Association. Were the lives of the many innocent people who have been murdered because of NRA's pro-gun crusade any less worthy of protection than Terri Schiavo's?
What about the sick and elderly whose health is endangered because they cannot get affordable drugs from Canada? Or the lives that might be saved through stem cell research? Choosing life is not a selective process that is subject to ideological whims, yet it seems that those who are most vociferous in proclaiming the right to life are concerned about life at the time of conception and as death approaches but have little regard for what happens to human beings in between.
The moral hypocrisy of pro-lifers is breathtaking. Of course, two wrongs never make a right and strange bedfellows are part of the human condition. The company we keep in advocating against starving anyone to death should not deter us from taking the position that we believe to be morally right. What makes the Schiavo case more compelling is her husband's untrustworthiness - she obviously did not give instructions that she be allowed to starve to death - and also the plea of her parents that they be granted custody. I recognize that under Florida law the husband is the legal guardian, that many courts have diligently reviewed the case and that Congressional intervention was cynical. But even if the law supports Michael Schiavo, his actions were immoral, so that while state and federal courts reached the right result under existing law, the outcome is immoral.
The Schiavo case is the tip of a quickly expanding legal and social iceberg as technology, medical advances and raised socio-economic standards have resulted in a remarkable increase in life expectancy, a development that has enormous moral, financial and other practical consequences. Oregon's law sanctioning assisted suicide is before the Supreme Court. Whatever the outcome, there will be other cases, other conflicts. In view of the split in public opinion and divisions among those who are referred to as ethicists as to what constitutes ethical behavior in medical situations, it's a certainty that there will be a stream of quality of life issues.
As society attempts to grasp increasingly complex issues, the presumption should be in favor of life. While living wills are not likely to become standard fare and they will not resolve all situations, their use should be strongly encouraged, thereby limiting the role and discretion of legal guardians. Where legal guardians are authorized to make decisions on behalf of severely incapacitated persons who have not left written instructions, courts should weigh the totality of circumstances and allow directly related persons such as parents or siblings to take responsibility. A particularly painful element in the Schiavo affair is that inadvertently the parents have been regarded as interlopers. As we know, the husband has another family and if this isn't sufficient cause to question his guardianship, we might reflect on the unbearable pain suffered by parents who hopelessly stand by as their daughter is starved to death.
We hear much about quality of life, a term that is employed by advocates of assisted suicide or other measures that terminate life. The phrase is elastic and highly subjective, yet that isn't its primary defect. In the U.S. alone, there are countless millions whose quality of life is quite poor, the great many who are seriously ill and the great many who are frail and elderly. There are those who are severely handicapped and others who are mentally incapacitated. In a blink of the eye, the dubious concept of quality of life has become something of a signal as to how we should look at such people.
Persons of religious faith do not look at life solely in physical or even rational terms. There are spiritual elements that cannot be easily articulated, if only because they run counter to the rationalist grain that is ingrained in us. A feature of this spiritual dimension is to let life run its natural course, perhaps so that we may understand that we who are competent and blessed with a high quality of life are as finite in this world as those who aren't as blessed.
Have We Become Right-Wingers?
I understand why many, perhaps most, Orthodox Jews have come to reject liberal positions on a number of public issues. In some instances, such as abortion, there is conflict between what halacha requires and what is essentially being embraced by people of a liberal orientation. More generally, there is disagreement over the role of religion in society, particularly in what is referred to as the public square. Finally, there is that nebulous term called "values" which was a feature of the recent presidential election and subsequent political analysis.
But if Orthodox Jews reject liberalism, does this mean that we need to or should reject liberal policies on a number of public and social issues where there are no clear halachic requirements? As an illustration, are we to reject what liberals advocate regarding a minimum wage? I don't know a single Orthodox Jew who can make do on what is now the minimum wage. What about racism? Or the environment which encompasses a number of increasingly frightening concerns? I could readily give other examples.
And even if we are not comfortable with anything espoused by liberals, shouldn't it be sufficient - and probably religiously correct - to eschew all ideologies? Yet, it is evident that a great number of Orthodox Jews are comfortable with the right-wing. They agree with the right-wing on gun control. What is emerging is an increasingly expanding comfort zone between Orthodox Jews and right-wingers. Are we forgetful of history? Do we delude ourselves and forget that those on the right include far too many who have articulated anti-Semitic views? Are we forgetful of what Jews experienced for centuries at the hands of devout Christians?
I am not advocating that we come out against the right or become liberals. I am advocating that we be true to Judaism and recognize that halacha is our guide, not any political ideology.
But if Orthodox Jews reject liberalism, does this mean that we need to or should reject liberal policies on a number of public and social issues where there are no clear halachic requirements? As an illustration, are we to reject what liberals advocate regarding a minimum wage? I don't know a single Orthodox Jew who can make do on what is now the minimum wage. What about racism? Or the environment which encompasses a number of increasingly frightening concerns? I could readily give other examples.
And even if we are not comfortable with anything espoused by liberals, shouldn't it be sufficient - and probably religiously correct - to eschew all ideologies? Yet, it is evident that a great number of Orthodox Jews are comfortable with the right-wing. They agree with the right-wing on gun control. What is emerging is an increasingly expanding comfort zone between Orthodox Jews and right-wingers. Are we forgetful of history? Do we delude ourselves and forget that those on the right include far too many who have articulated anti-Semitic views? Are we forgetful of what Jews experienced for centuries at the hands of devout Christians?
I am not advocating that we come out against the right or become liberals. I am advocating that we be true to Judaism and recognize that halacha is our guide, not any political ideology.
Sunday, March 27, 2005
The Jewish War Against Religion
Which geniuses at the American Jewish Congress decided that it is a good idea to challenge on First Amendment grounds Notre Dame University's participation in the AmeriCorps national service program for college-age youth? AmeriCorps is a highly-regarded initiative which provides modest stipends to those who perform community service, including teaching. The law establishing the program stipulates that funding cannot be used "to provide religious instruction, conduct worship services, or engage in any form of proselytization."
This is not good enough for AJC's separation of church and state extremists. They hauled Notre Dame, a participating institution, and AmeriCorps into federal court in Washington, getting from a district judge summary judgment in AJC's favor. On March 8, in a decision that has gotten zero attention in Jewish media and little attention elsewhere, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed, ruling in language that strikes me as dismissive that the program does not violate the establishment clause when participants engage in secular activity at an educational institution that has a religious orientation.
Why did AJC go to court against a major Catholic university with a strong liberal tradition and against a program that, at most, has a negligible connection to religion? The organization has shown in recent years flexibility in church-state matters, departing from the rigidity that long was its hallmark. Interestingly, the key lawyer for AJC's Commission on Law and Social Action was not on the organization's brief to the Court of Appeals. Can it be that the decision to litigate was something of a rogue action by some AJCers?
In the reckoning of religious-group membership, the figure usually given for American Jews is between five and six million. This is way off the mark, for half of those who are included scarcely consider themselves to be Jewish. As for the other half, the majority are secular in orientation and increasingly removed from traditional Jewish practices and beliefs. Among those who continue to identify themselves as Jews, quite a few are hostile to religion. The AJC lawsuit is one of many current examples of the anti-religious strain and stain in Jewish life. It's not only that we do not practice and we do not believe, too many American Jews do not respect the right of others to practice their religion.
In the obvious tension between the two religion clauses in the First Amendment - free exercise and establishment - free exercise generally loses out. Organized American Jewry has cared preciously little about this clause and has shirked its obligation to defend this fundamental right.
In the Ten Commandments case now before the Supreme Court, the Anti-Defamation League and other Jewish groups submitted briefs arguing against any public display, as if such an innocuous action constitutes an establishment of religion. The Siyum Hashas (completion of the Talmud) ceremony at Madison Square Garden took place the evening before the Supreme Court heard arguments in this case. In a gesture demonstrating how it is truly tolerant of those who go to court against religion, Agudath Israel sat the head of the ADL in an honored place next to Mayor Bloomberg.
In the numerous zoning battles synagogues and day schools have faced in dozens of communities, far more often than not their opponents are secular Jews. In a major zoning case in the New York metropolitan area that is now in federal court, one of the main opponents of a Modern Orthodox day school is a top person at Federation. Fifty years ago, Philip Roth portrayed this reality in his notable story, "Eli the Fanatic."
Today's Jewish fanatics are those secularists who use the First Amendment as both a cover and club for their antipathy to religion. These are people who are on a mission and it is not to advance Jewish life but to harm it. Those who oppose allowing religion a neutral and very minimal place in the public square have not changed their tune for at least two generations, even as secular Jews are willing and eager to jettison nearly all that has enriched and sustained Jewish life for generations.
At a time when on such hot-button issues as gay rights and abortion there is a willingness on the part of many proponents to rethink their strategy and to moderate their message, if only because of what transpired in November, our secularists stay the course, seeking to ferret out every imagined act that might show public tolerance of religion. At least the fellow who brought the Pledge of Allegiance case was open about his anti-religious sentiments.
American Jewry is on a collision course with America. For all of their invocation of religion, most Americans are not a particularly religious people. Like most people elsewhere, they want to have faith in an ideal that transcends their everyday experiences and this somewhat emotional desire is formulated in a mostly symbolic attachment to religion. When organized Jewry opposes this sentiment, we are going against the grain of what most Americans want. In the process, we are becoming marginalized.
A high cost is being exacted as a consequence of our intransigence. Jews have significant influence on the Democratic Party and on the course of liberalism, both of which have lost their way because of an inability to adjust and to understand that man does not live by bread alone, that people want to believe and that the war against religion is alienating many.
The Jewish war against religion is dangerous because it may compromise support for Israel. It could be that no matter how steadfast we are in fighting against religion, social conservatives who are primarily Christian will continue to embrace Israel because the Jewish state is the fulfillment of their theology. This is a big maybe and we are taking a huge risk.
This is not good enough for AJC's separation of church and state extremists. They hauled Notre Dame, a participating institution, and AmeriCorps into federal court in Washington, getting from a district judge summary judgment in AJC's favor. On March 8, in a decision that has gotten zero attention in Jewish media and little attention elsewhere, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed, ruling in language that strikes me as dismissive that the program does not violate the establishment clause when participants engage in secular activity at an educational institution that has a religious orientation.
Why did AJC go to court against a major Catholic university with a strong liberal tradition and against a program that, at most, has a negligible connection to religion? The organization has shown in recent years flexibility in church-state matters, departing from the rigidity that long was its hallmark. Interestingly, the key lawyer for AJC's Commission on Law and Social Action was not on the organization's brief to the Court of Appeals. Can it be that the decision to litigate was something of a rogue action by some AJCers?
In the reckoning of religious-group membership, the figure usually given for American Jews is between five and six million. This is way off the mark, for half of those who are included scarcely consider themselves to be Jewish. As for the other half, the majority are secular in orientation and increasingly removed from traditional Jewish practices and beliefs. Among those who continue to identify themselves as Jews, quite a few are hostile to religion. The AJC lawsuit is one of many current examples of the anti-religious strain and stain in Jewish life. It's not only that we do not practice and we do not believe, too many American Jews do not respect the right of others to practice their religion.
In the obvious tension between the two religion clauses in the First Amendment - free exercise and establishment - free exercise generally loses out. Organized American Jewry has cared preciously little about this clause and has shirked its obligation to defend this fundamental right.
In the Ten Commandments case now before the Supreme Court, the Anti-Defamation League and other Jewish groups submitted briefs arguing against any public display, as if such an innocuous action constitutes an establishment of religion. The Siyum Hashas (completion of the Talmud) ceremony at Madison Square Garden took place the evening before the Supreme Court heard arguments in this case. In a gesture demonstrating how it is truly tolerant of those who go to court against religion, Agudath Israel sat the head of the ADL in an honored place next to Mayor Bloomberg.
In the numerous zoning battles synagogues and day schools have faced in dozens of communities, far more often than not their opponents are secular Jews. In a major zoning case in the New York metropolitan area that is now in federal court, one of the main opponents of a Modern Orthodox day school is a top person at Federation. Fifty years ago, Philip Roth portrayed this reality in his notable story, "Eli the Fanatic."
Today's Jewish fanatics are those secularists who use the First Amendment as both a cover and club for their antipathy to religion. These are people who are on a mission and it is not to advance Jewish life but to harm it. Those who oppose allowing religion a neutral and very minimal place in the public square have not changed their tune for at least two generations, even as secular Jews are willing and eager to jettison nearly all that has enriched and sustained Jewish life for generations.
At a time when on such hot-button issues as gay rights and abortion there is a willingness on the part of many proponents to rethink their strategy and to moderate their message, if only because of what transpired in November, our secularists stay the course, seeking to ferret out every imagined act that might show public tolerance of religion. At least the fellow who brought the Pledge of Allegiance case was open about his anti-religious sentiments.
American Jewry is on a collision course with America. For all of their invocation of religion, most Americans are not a particularly religious people. Like most people elsewhere, they want to have faith in an ideal that transcends their everyday experiences and this somewhat emotional desire is formulated in a mostly symbolic attachment to religion. When organized Jewry opposes this sentiment, we are going against the grain of what most Americans want. In the process, we are becoming marginalized.
A high cost is being exacted as a consequence of our intransigence. Jews have significant influence on the Democratic Party and on the course of liberalism, both of which have lost their way because of an inability to adjust and to understand that man does not live by bread alone, that people want to believe and that the war against religion is alienating many.
The Jewish war against religion is dangerous because it may compromise support for Israel. It could be that no matter how steadfast we are in fighting against religion, social conservatives who are primarily Christian will continue to embrace Israel because the Jewish state is the fulfillment of their theology. This is a big maybe and we are taking a huge risk.
Monday, March 21, 2005
Rav Aharon Kotler And Rav Soloveitchik
I am writing to protest in the strongest terms the falsehood directed against the great Rosh Yeshiva of Lakewood and Rav Soloveitchik. The falsehood is directed against both of them because it is equally wrongful to write that Rav Aharon Kotler said something that he never said and that Rav Soloveitchik was denigrated by him. It is known that Rav Aharon gave a shiur at Yeshiva in the mid-1930's and that for whatever reasons, the experience left him with a negative feeling about the institution. It is also obvious that he did not accept the notion that at the Beth Medrash level, limudei kodesh should be combined with secular studies. But to claim that he spoke so negatively about Rav Soloveitchik is to distort the truth. While such terms as apikursos and minus were often used by him, to my knowledge he did not refer to aspects of American Jewish life that he did not accept by using the term tumah. There are now four volumes of his discourses and much other material and one will not find a single negative word about Rav Soloveitchik in any of this.
Indeed, throughout much of the last ten years of his life, the great Rosh Yeshiva endeavored to maintain contact with Rav Soloveitchik who was quite helpful in the early years of Chinuch Atzmai. As I noted last week in a Cross-Currents posting, Rav Soloveitchik was the featured speaker at the first Chinuch Atzmai dinner and I believe that he spoke at a subsequent dinner. If Rav Aharon felt about him as described by an anonymous blogger, do you think that he would have asked him to be the guest speaker?
There is more to say about this matter, but I will limit my words in the hope that the falsehood that has been spread will be withdrawn. I will conclude with a poignant incident that I was witness to toward the end of Rav Soloveitchik's life. On a hot and humid night - I think it was a Tuesday - during the shiva for Rav Shneuer Kotler, I was at his home in Lakewood when at around 8 pm in the evening a car pulled up in front of the house. Several men got out and virtually carried Rav Soloveitchik who was quite frail by then into Rav Shneuer's home. He sat next to Rav Malkiel Kotler and said the following: "I was a friend of your grandfather, I was a friend of your father and I will be your friend." When Rav Soloveitchik died, I called Rav Malkiel Kotler and asked that he go to the funeral in Boston as an expression of hakoras hatov. He responded that I was right that he should go and then told me why he could not do so.
Indeed, throughout much of the last ten years of his life, the great Rosh Yeshiva endeavored to maintain contact with Rav Soloveitchik who was quite helpful in the early years of Chinuch Atzmai. As I noted last week in a Cross-Currents posting, Rav Soloveitchik was the featured speaker at the first Chinuch Atzmai dinner and I believe that he spoke at a subsequent dinner. If Rav Aharon felt about him as described by an anonymous blogger, do you think that he would have asked him to be the guest speaker?
There is more to say about this matter, but I will limit my words in the hope that the falsehood that has been spread will be withdrawn. I will conclude with a poignant incident that I was witness to toward the end of Rav Soloveitchik's life. On a hot and humid night - I think it was a Tuesday - during the shiva for Rav Shneuer Kotler, I was at his home in Lakewood when at around 8 pm in the evening a car pulled up in front of the house. Several men got out and virtually carried Rav Soloveitchik who was quite frail by then into Rav Shneuer's home. He sat next to Rav Malkiel Kotler and said the following: "I was a friend of your grandfather, I was a friend of your father and I will be your friend." When Rav Soloveitchik died, I called Rav Malkiel Kotler and asked that he go to the funeral in Boston as an expression of hakoras hatov. He responded that I was right that he should go and then told me why he could not do so.
Do We Still Care About Day Schools?
When I visited the Shalom Torah Day School in Old Bridge, New Jersey, in June 2003, the school was a collection of unattractive trailers with an enrollment of about one-hundred. Three months later, Shalom which is noted for its effective outreach, was in an impressive new building in Marlboro, built by my friend Yossi Stern in memory of his father. I wrote at the time that the facility would serve as an instrumentality for outreach to unaffiliated and marginally involved Jewish families. Today, Shalom enrolls 240 and there is talk of expansion.
That's the good news, demonstrating once more that day school education is our most effective tool for bringing Jewish families back to Judaism.
This fundamental principle was like a mother's milk to an infant when great Orthodox leaders established and nurtured the day school movement. Nowadays, basic religious education gets much lip service and little practical support. Day schools are regarded as a consumer product, the obligation of parents and not of the community. Most of these schools are in great difficulty, with their faculty being badly underpaid and often not paid in a timely way, vital educational services not being provided, psychological services not being provided and their facilities being inadequate and poorly maintained.
There was a key exception in Orthodox ranks to the consumerist mentality in the support given to outreach schools and those that serve immigrant populations. But this is changing. With the notable exception of Lev Levayev's tuition-free (at least so far) Gymnasia in Queens, nearly all immigrant/outreach day schools are in trouble. Between 1998 and 1993, overall day school enrollment grew by 11%, but in the immigrant/outreach sector it declined by 7%. A Queens school, established in 1965, with a strong record of outreach is closing in June, while two important Brooklyn outreach schools are sharply cutting back. It is likely that there will be additional bad news in this sector.
Efforts will be made, of course, to transfer the students in the affected institutions to comparable day schools, yet the likelihood is that some will be lost altogether. Inevitably, fewer schools will mean fewer children getting a meaningful religious education.
Demographic changes account for some of the bad news. In some communities, with the aging of the Jewish population there are fewer children of school age. There are families that move away and this clearly affects enrollment. Competition from newer schools is another factor. In the five-year period covered by my recent day school census, nearly 150 or 20% of all day schools experienced enrollment declines and another 30 closed. It remains that what is happening in the immigrant/outreach sector constitutes a significant and unhappy development in day school education.
When a school closes, the loss is felt. What we do not sense - and for good reason - are the losses resulting from the unavailability of day schools in areas that are underserved. In the New York metropolitan area there are huge chunks of Jewish population for whom there is no day school that meets the situation and needs of families that are not observant but which would consider a day school such as Shalom Torah. Children that never were in day school and schools that were never opened do not make it onto our spiritual radar screen.
Embedded in the day school movement during its formative years was the understanding that chinuch (religious education) and kiruv (outreach) needed to be linked and that this linkage would bring about transformative results in greater religiosity in Jewish homes. This understanding was a principle of faith in the Orthodox day school world. Paradoxically, the development and relative success of kiruv has in an unintended way undermined day schools as instrumentalities of outreach. Kiruv has become a distinct activity, separate from day schools, not only in the institutional sense but in the more important sense that the primary focus has been on adults.
With the exception of Chabad and a small number of day schools, the chinuch-kiruv linkage has evaporated. This has hurt day schools immensely, if only because there is greater excitement in many communities about kiruv and too little concern about chinuch. In my view, the effectiveness of kiruv has been reduced.
As I have lamented, day schools are now regarded as a product or service to be paid for by parents. Outreach is understandably viewed as the agent for Judaic transformation. This helps to explain, but not fully, why Torah Umesorah-the National Society for Hebrew Day Schools has shifted its focus. The decline of Torah Umesorah as a vital force in day school education is a painful subject, especially for me. This is an issue that needs to be faced by the yeshiva world which from the outset has assumed primary responsibility for an organization that once was a treasure of American Jewish life but which has badly lost its way. If yeshiva deans are unwilling to face this reality, the organization will continue to decline. Worse yet, additional children will be deprived of their heritage.
When the New York Federation shamefully terminated basic grants to yeshivas and day schools, Torah Umesorah stood mute, as if what happened was someone else's problem. It has gone the way of all organizational flesh, indulging in frivolities that are being marketed as the fulfillment of its mission. One such example is a weekend in a posh hotel for affluent Orthodox; another is a three-day excursion of principals to Israel. There is no message and there hasn't been for years that support for basic Torah education is a communal obligation.
This is a tragedy. The leaders of the yeshiva world need to return the organization to the vision of their great predecessors. A good place to start is the establishment of a network of schools in the New York area that follow the wonderful example of Shalom Torah Centers. This goal can be readily reached, provided that we sufficiently care.
That's the good news, demonstrating once more that day school education is our most effective tool for bringing Jewish families back to Judaism.
This fundamental principle was like a mother's milk to an infant when great Orthodox leaders established and nurtured the day school movement. Nowadays, basic religious education gets much lip service and little practical support. Day schools are regarded as a consumer product, the obligation of parents and not of the community. Most of these schools are in great difficulty, with their faculty being badly underpaid and often not paid in a timely way, vital educational services not being provided, psychological services not being provided and their facilities being inadequate and poorly maintained.
There was a key exception in Orthodox ranks to the consumerist mentality in the support given to outreach schools and those that serve immigrant populations. But this is changing. With the notable exception of Lev Levayev's tuition-free (at least so far) Gymnasia in Queens, nearly all immigrant/outreach day schools are in trouble. Between 1998 and 1993, overall day school enrollment grew by 11%, but in the immigrant/outreach sector it declined by 7%. A Queens school, established in 1965, with a strong record of outreach is closing in June, while two important Brooklyn outreach schools are sharply cutting back. It is likely that there will be additional bad news in this sector.
Efforts will be made, of course, to transfer the students in the affected institutions to comparable day schools, yet the likelihood is that some will be lost altogether. Inevitably, fewer schools will mean fewer children getting a meaningful religious education.
Demographic changes account for some of the bad news. In some communities, with the aging of the Jewish population there are fewer children of school age. There are families that move away and this clearly affects enrollment. Competition from newer schools is another factor. In the five-year period covered by my recent day school census, nearly 150 or 20% of all day schools experienced enrollment declines and another 30 closed. It remains that what is happening in the immigrant/outreach sector constitutes a significant and unhappy development in day school education.
When a school closes, the loss is felt. What we do not sense - and for good reason - are the losses resulting from the unavailability of day schools in areas that are underserved. In the New York metropolitan area there are huge chunks of Jewish population for whom there is no day school that meets the situation and needs of families that are not observant but which would consider a day school such as Shalom Torah. Children that never were in day school and schools that were never opened do not make it onto our spiritual radar screen.
Embedded in the day school movement during its formative years was the understanding that chinuch (religious education) and kiruv (outreach) needed to be linked and that this linkage would bring about transformative results in greater religiosity in Jewish homes. This understanding was a principle of faith in the Orthodox day school world. Paradoxically, the development and relative success of kiruv has in an unintended way undermined day schools as instrumentalities of outreach. Kiruv has become a distinct activity, separate from day schools, not only in the institutional sense but in the more important sense that the primary focus has been on adults.
With the exception of Chabad and a small number of day schools, the chinuch-kiruv linkage has evaporated. This has hurt day schools immensely, if only because there is greater excitement in many communities about kiruv and too little concern about chinuch. In my view, the effectiveness of kiruv has been reduced.
As I have lamented, day schools are now regarded as a product or service to be paid for by parents. Outreach is understandably viewed as the agent for Judaic transformation. This helps to explain, but not fully, why Torah Umesorah-the National Society for Hebrew Day Schools has shifted its focus. The decline of Torah Umesorah as a vital force in day school education is a painful subject, especially for me. This is an issue that needs to be faced by the yeshiva world which from the outset has assumed primary responsibility for an organization that once was a treasure of American Jewish life but which has badly lost its way. If yeshiva deans are unwilling to face this reality, the organization will continue to decline. Worse yet, additional children will be deprived of their heritage.
When the New York Federation shamefully terminated basic grants to yeshivas and day schools, Torah Umesorah stood mute, as if what happened was someone else's problem. It has gone the way of all organizational flesh, indulging in frivolities that are being marketed as the fulfillment of its mission. One such example is a weekend in a posh hotel for affluent Orthodox; another is a three-day excursion of principals to Israel. There is no message and there hasn't been for years that support for basic Torah education is a communal obligation.
This is a tragedy. The leaders of the yeshiva world need to return the organization to the vision of their great predecessors. A good place to start is the establishment of a network of schools in the New York area that follow the wonderful example of Shalom Torah Centers. This goal can be readily reached, provided that we sufficiently care.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Matzitza B'peh
On March 4, 2005 Agudath Israel sent a letter to Dr. Tom Frieden, New York City's Health Commissioner, estimating that in the yeshiva world half of the brisim have been conducted with matzitza b'peh, while the other half have utilized a tube. In Modern Orthodox and even Centrist Orthodox circles, overwhelmingly the brisim have been with a tube.
The statistics cast a certain light on the issue that is now raging in certain Orthodox circles. I am not concerned here at all with what a particular Rabbi or Mohel may have done or said. What I am concerned about are the statements signed by dozens of Roshei Yeshiva and Rabbonim and published in Yated Ne'eman and on public posters denouncing the failure to do matzitza b'peh. The language is nearly violent.
Are we being told that half the brisim in the yeshiva world were not properly conducted? Are the signers of these statements unaware of the fact that, for example, the Breuer's community does not sanction matzitza b'peh? Isn't it likely that virtually all the signers have been at brisim where a tube is used? Isn't it likely that some of the signers served as the sandek or some other important function at brisim where tubes were used?
The issue of safeguards against the transmission of disease is not a trivial matter. Of course, I feel strongly that those who prefer matzitza b'peh should be allowed to go forward without government interference. But we must be cognizant of the reality that there are now powerful viruses that are transmitted through what seems to be quite innocuous contact. When we go into food establishments, we see workers wearing latex gloves. Are they wearing them because they want to help the latex glove industry? In hospitals and medical offices, there is scarcely a procedure anymore without such gloves being worn. Obviously, there are legitimate concerns that have generated changing practices. At the least, we need to be cognizant that those who prefer to use a tube in a bris have good grounds for this preference.
There is a second issue. Forty years ago I wrote an article for Jewish Life (then the publication of the Orthodox Union) called "The New Style of Orthodox Jewry." This was a landmark article indicating how the Orthodox were breaking away in communal activity from the dominant pattern of the non-Orthodox. If I had to write an article in 2005 on the new style of Orthodox Jewry, I would have to focus on the proclivity for prohibitions, for statements signed by rabbis taking positions that are untenable, for constantly harsh language that is critical of what many and perhaps most Orthodox Jews are doing.
As I have written often, in the great formative years of American Orthodoxy, when we were blessed with true Torah giants, prohibitory statements were rare and they were reserved for major issues. Each day now, we tragically see what we have lost. We tragically see, as Rav Schach, ztl, said in his remarkable hesped for Rav Moshe Feinstein, ztl, the period of the Acharonim has come to an end.
The statistics cast a certain light on the issue that is now raging in certain Orthodox circles. I am not concerned here at all with what a particular Rabbi or Mohel may have done or said. What I am concerned about are the statements signed by dozens of Roshei Yeshiva and Rabbonim and published in Yated Ne'eman and on public posters denouncing the failure to do matzitza b'peh. The language is nearly violent.
Are we being told that half the brisim in the yeshiva world were not properly conducted? Are the signers of these statements unaware of the fact that, for example, the Breuer's community does not sanction matzitza b'peh? Isn't it likely that virtually all the signers have been at brisim where a tube is used? Isn't it likely that some of the signers served as the sandek or some other important function at brisim where tubes were used?
The issue of safeguards against the transmission of disease is not a trivial matter. Of course, I feel strongly that those who prefer matzitza b'peh should be allowed to go forward without government interference. But we must be cognizant of the reality that there are now powerful viruses that are transmitted through what seems to be quite innocuous contact. When we go into food establishments, we see workers wearing latex gloves. Are they wearing them because they want to help the latex glove industry? In hospitals and medical offices, there is scarcely a procedure anymore without such gloves being worn. Obviously, there are legitimate concerns that have generated changing practices. At the least, we need to be cognizant that those who prefer to use a tube in a bris have good grounds for this preference.
There is a second issue. Forty years ago I wrote an article for Jewish Life (then the publication of the Orthodox Union) called "The New Style of Orthodox Jewry." This was a landmark article indicating how the Orthodox were breaking away in communal activity from the dominant pattern of the non-Orthodox. If I had to write an article in 2005 on the new style of Orthodox Jewry, I would have to focus on the proclivity for prohibitions, for statements signed by rabbis taking positions that are untenable, for constantly harsh language that is critical of what many and perhaps most Orthodox Jews are doing.
As I have written often, in the great formative years of American Orthodoxy, when we were blessed with true Torah giants, prohibitory statements were rare and they were reserved for major issues. Each day now, we tragically see what we have lost. We tragically see, as Rav Schach, ztl, said in his remarkable hesped for Rav Moshe Feinstein, ztl, the period of the Acharonim has come to an end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)