Day School Blues

A recent visit to a day school that serves immigrant families provides additional evidence that while in some respects this is the best of times for Jewish education in the U.S., in other respects it is also the worst of times. In a community that is driven by the imperative of public relations, we usually get to hear only the good news.

There is much to celebrate. Day school enrollment is growing steadily in New York and elsewhere and it will easily pass the 200,000 mark when the next school year begins in four months. While much of this increase results from Orthodoxy’s high fertility rate, there is also significant growth in the non-Orthodox sectors. Day school education is now accepted, at times enthusiastically, in places and homes where it was once regarded as the wrong way to go.

Moreover, there is an extraordinary building boom in the day school world. I estimate that in the 2000-2005 period, at least 200 or one-quarter of the day schools in the U.S. will be in one stage or another of expanding or improving their facilities. This represents a huge capital investment of perhaps one-billion dollars.

So what can be bad? The school that I visited gives part of the answer. It is one of a considerable number of low-tiered day schools that cater to immigrant, outreach and poor families. Its operating budget for nearly 300 students comes to about one-million dollars or $3,500 per year per student. The annual cost for a public school student in New York and New Jersey is above $10,000 and there are constant complaints that the public schools in these states are badly underfunded. There are Jewish day schools, some with a limited Jewish studies component, that charge well in excess of $10,000 per year. Then there are the immigrant and outreach schools and those for the poor that attempt to provide a dual education program at a cost of about one-third of what is being expended elsewhere. These schools and many yeshivas cover only a small part of their budgets through tuition income.

It would take a miracle for such schools to have strong and attractive programs, with the enhancements and facilities that are expected elsewhere. Trees may grow in Brooklyn; miracles do not. Too many schools struggle to get by and have no resources for special or, at times, basic needs. Furthermore, their weaknesses are self-perpetuating, as more affluent and more Jewishly-secure parents obviously do not send their children to such institutions. The philanthropic sector does little to help on the ground that it is wrong and futile to assist schools that, after all, are not doing a good job.

There is an unfortunate tendency among philanthropists to support the richer and stronger schools, they also being the institutions that offer the least scholarship assistance. As a reward for their decency and caring, yeshivas and day schools that reach out to the poor and marginally-involved Jewish families receive the short end of the philanthropic stick.

Support for day schools is further undermined by the expanding tendency to embrace the worst practices of public education. Tens of millions of dollars a year are allocated for trips, conferences, training programs and the rest of the effluvium of educational bureaucracies that specialize in the perverse notion that the best way to support education is to fund activities that do not occur in the classroom.

The Orthodox philanthropic sector that is the mainstay of support for lower-tiered schools increasingly focuses on educational initiatives in Israel and on establishing kollels. The attitude is that basic religious education will somehow be favorably transformed as a consequence. The major transformation so far is that weak schools have become even weaker and some may be forced to close.

Nor are the more affluent day schools problem-free. Non-Orthodox institutions operate in an environment permeated by secularism and assimilation, by an outlook that proclaims that Jewish life can be traditional even as our traditions are being abandoned. To be sure, there are non-Orthodox schools that maintain a definite religious commitment. But too many are minimalistic Jewishly and they are unwilling to attempt to upgrade the religiosity of their students and families.

These Jewishly-substandard schools may turn out to be less effective than the old Talmud Torahs or congregational schools that flourished throughout nearly all of the twentieth century and were the handmaiden to massive Jewish loss. It’s a stretch and then some to believe that such schools will make a meaningful contribution to Jewish continuity simply because they are called day schools.

As more schools lower their Jewish expectations to accommodate the reduced religiosity of their parent body, we will be confronted by incontrovertible evidence that they have failed Jewishly. We already have some data pointing in this direction.

As we celebrate the progress being made by day schools, let’s not forget why they exist and what we need of them. Let’s also not forget the poorer schools whose commitment and accomplishments are not being matched by communal support or even understanding.

Money Does Talk

Offenses against language and sensibility come with the social activity known as fundraising. This is true of fundraising for political purposes and it is true of fundraising for philanthropic purposes. Attention is paid to those who have money and little or no attention is paid to how they came about their wealth. Those who give – more accurately, those who are asked to give – are called public servants, humanitarians, community leaders and they are extolled in language that often comes as news to those who best know these newly-anointed saints, including their family members and close friends. Money does talk.

Because the six-million American Jews have what seems to be a nearly equal number of organizations and causes to support, a good part of our communal creativity and energy is devoted to ferreting out those who might part with some of their riches. They are targeted by shnorrers, aka directors of development. We have an incredible number of fundraising events. While they do little for Jewish continuity, they are a boon for plaque-makers, caterers, printers and many other entrepreneurs. On occasion, a meaningful sum is left over for the cause that is the cause of it all.

It is probably true that there is little harm in all of this. False praise, ostentation and a shvitzer ambience are a small price to pay to keep our communal enterprises afloat. There’s nothing terribly wrong when we barter fleeting moments of ersatz glory for charitable contributions. For all of the obvious organizational fundraising excesses, they are insignificant when compared with what goes on in the political world where contributors seek to purchase access and influence and do not care about being given a plaque or any other honor. As public recognition is a key component of philanthropic fundraising, stealth is the hallmark of its political counterpart. With some exceptions, political contributions are not intended to promote good government but its reverse. The intention is to leverage gifts by obtaining governmental benefits worth many times more than what is being contributed.

The political process is tailor-made for contributors whose motives veer between the unethical and the illegal. Politicians often serve as the willing dupes of those who know how to exploit the need for campaign funds for personal gain. There is something pathetic, even comical, about politicians as they hustle to do the bidding of contributors. What isn’t funny are the consequences for the fundraising process. There is corruption galore and favoritism rules. Ethnic and religious groups are particularly hurt when operators claiming to represent them gain access. Orthodox Jewry in New York has been hurt by the eagerness of the Guiliani administration to embrace hustlers who cannot pass even the most attenuated spell test.

The already celebrated Marc Rich affair represents the unholy union of the evils of political fundraising and the excesses of philanthropic fundraising. American Jews have been embarrassed by the cupidity and stupidity of influential persons who should have known that what they were doing was far outside the pale of propriety.

For all of the fall-out from this affair and other cases of fundraising abuse, there is little reason for optimism that it will be possible to rein in practices that sully both philanthropy and politics. Where money is the prey, rectitude does not have a prayer.

Congress may enact, as it should, McCain-Feingold or some variation of what they propose. When this happens, there are certain to be hymns celebrating a great victory against fundraising abuses. When the dust clears – and it won’t take long – the no-goodniks will be back at their old influence-peddling stand, figuring out the loopholes and using money to purchase access and favors. It’s a good bet that politicians of all stripes will be eager to accommodate them.

We ought not forget that the current reform movement seeks to undo certain reforms enacted after Watergate, reforms that are now believed to have contributed to a worse situation than what previously existed. A generation hence, there will be a Senator Water and a Senator Gate who will introduce legislation seeking to undo abuses resulting from legislation enacted in 2001.
___________

When I played courtyard basketball as a kid, my timing was invariably off. It’s apparently even worse when I write about basketball, thanks to Charlie Ward who immediately repaid my kind words about his religious commitment with a flurry of anti-Semitism. I feel like I was deliberately fouled, but while I perhaps should not write about basketball and find Ward’s remarks entirely offensive, I continue to believe that religious commitment is admirable.

Dissing Religion

There are museums that have an instinct to display works that disparage religion. The Brooklyn Museum is one such place. Its latest sacrilege is a huge photograph showing a naked woman at the Last Supper. Predictably, Mayor Guiliani is once more on a tear, establishing a so-called decency panel. This collection of sycophants and misfits has generated an excess of irreverence and has scarcely advanced the cause of religion. It’s hard to figure out what the lame duck mayor has accomplished other than the dubious achievement of being a foolish lame duck.

Though his remedy is excessive and doomed to failure, Mr. Guiliani has a point. There are talented artists aplenty who never have the opportunity to exhibit in our exalted cultural emporia because they aim for esthetic fulfillment and not for momentary shock or monetary gain. There are mediocre artists who know that dissing religion is a reliable meal ticket, an attention-grabber for museums that seek to boost their attendance. The Brooklyn Museum is one of the architectural wonders of the western world, with top-flight exhibitions to boot. It should not have to stoop so often to the tawdry. But it wants to attract more viewers and this results in offensive displays of works by artists skilled at self-promotion who have the cultural illiterati to serve as their claque.

The Mayor again took the bait, thereby providing tons of publicity for that which he purports to loathe and ensuring a far greater turnout for a display that on its merits would have attracted little interest. An explanation of this behavior is better left to students of psychology.

For all of City Hall’s folly, the Brooklyn Museum is wrong and it is contributing again to an anti-religious field day. Cultural arbiters should be able to distinguish between what is constitutionally protected – as virtually all art is – and what they select for display. The art world is, after all, deeply implicated in processes of selection and exclusion, of subjective choices of what is to be preferred or ignored. There is no compelling reason to give preference to what is hostile to religion, unless those who make the choice are hostile to religion.

This latest incident illustrates the ingrained American hypocrisy about religion. We talk a good game and we want our Presidents to go to church. We also revel in symbolic acts that convey the notion that we are a religious people. In fact, we are not, if only because hedonism and consumerism are antithetical to the spiritual dignity that is essential for a religious life.

We had another display of this problematic approach to religion when Jeff Van Gundy, the coach of the Knicks, criticized the pre-game private prayer sessions conducted for some of his players. To make matters worse, said the coach, players from the opposing teams join in these sessions. “Everybody is hugging before games, praying together.” I guess it’s preferable for players to choke the coach or slug each other or engage in off-court antics that may land them in jail. These are the appropriate American role models, not the huggers or the prayers.

Van Gundy acknowledges that he was wrong to speak out, but he continues to believe that prayer sessions are inappropriate. Charlie Ward is probably the Knicks leading prayer, although as a player he is no more than a solid journeyman. He always displays a quiet dignity which suggests that there are other things on his mind, as if he knows that what he does as a Knick is only a game and the spiritual dimension of his life is far more important.

Ward does not accept his coach’s strictures about prayer. This is not the first time that his religious commitment has placed him at odds with the dominant ethos of the sports world. Several years ago, he challenged the policy of allowing women reporters into the locker rooms after the games when the athletes were dressing, showering, etc. Ward did no more than claim for himself a sense of modesty that most of us naturally insist on in our own homes. Furthermore, it has often been suggested that privacy is a basic right. Still, he was rebuffed, largely because the political correctness crowd believes that to deny women reporters the right to enter dressing rooms when male reporters are permitted to enter violates the notion of equal protection. This tenuous position was embraced years ago by a local federal judge who no one regards as a pillar of the judiciary.

As Steven Carter has argued, this country needs to respect religious sensibilities and to recognize that religion is usually (but not always) a force for good.

Cooperate, Yes. Federate, No.

One hundred years ago, the federation movement was in full bloom in American Jewish life. Communal leaders believed that it wasn’t sufficient for Jewish-sponsored hospitals, social service agencies and educational institutions to go it alone. It was necessary to have centralized planning, coordination of services and one main address for philanthropy. Federations were established throughout the land and, as American Jewry dispersed, the number grew, so that there are now far in excess of 100 federations in the U.S.

New York was a laggard in this development, doubtlessly because of its immense Jewish population and the difficulty of bringing a great many service agencies into a cooperative arrangement. Eventually, New York joined the federation parade

Inevitably, federation fever led to the corollary impulse to create a super-agency to coordinate the work of the local coordinators. We were blessed with what in its latest incarnation is known as the United Jewish Federation. In a way, this intensive organizational activity proved that we were good Americans, for in the 1830’s the great Tocqueville noted that Americans were a nation of joiners.

As the federation movement gained momentum, few questioned the efficacy of our communal handiwork, the assumption being that we were reaping substantial benefits and saving money. In fact, our pride was shared by outsiders who admired the range and quality of services provided by Jewish agencies and our fundraising success.

When the federation world made its move to incorporate the United Jewish Appeal into its ambit, the naysayers were relatively few and they were easily subdued. We were in a state of euphoria and each year the celebratory tone was highlighted by a multi-million dollar extravaganza known as the General Assembly, it being a gathering of 3,000 pseudo machers, functionaries and assorted hangers-on in the federation world.

The federation world was being undermined by powerful forces that it could not counteract. Governmental programs, especially those launched by the Great Society, provided funding opportunities that dwarfed federation subventions. These opportunities were usually accompanied by regulations mandating services irrespective of religious affiliation, this at a time when a new sense of ethnicity in Jewish life was pressuring federations to go in the opposite direction. Then came the extraordinary expansion of private Jewish wealth which has resulted in an impressive roster of well-endowed family philanthropies that are committed to Jewish causes but which go it alone.

Functionally, federations were de-federating. Hospitals recognized that they could do far better on their own and while they did not disaffiliate, their relationship with federations is without substance or meaning. Much the same is true, to one extent or another, of many Jewish social service agencies. In reality, federations have little left to coordinate. The concept that led to their creation has dissipated, but the expensive organizational shell that was formed to house the concept remains in business.

Far more than the cost or waste, federations – and especially UJF – are tired organizations. Instead of encouraging creativity they stifle it. The emphasis is on the bureaucratic, on endless rounds of meetings, task forces and commissions, reports that few people read and have zero impact, press releases that exalt and exaggerate the mundane and conferences and conventions, which provide federationniks the opportunity to run into familiar faces. I guess that maintaining these trivial pursuits passes for Jewish continuity within the Jewish establishment.

In New York, the situation is worse than it is elsewhere. For all of the public relations claims, the federation network has little to do any longer with providing for needy Jews. There is, instead, an Orthodox-sponsored voluntary network of service agencies that deal directly on a daily basis with thousands of Jews who are in need.

There are communities where federations still have vitality, where they play a useful role. Sadly, even they are entrapped in the federation world’s bureaucratic imperative and their resources and energy are sapped.

One especially damaging feature of the current arrangement is the inadvertent barrier established between American Jews and Israel. We are asked to make our gifts to a joint campaign, which is to say that after the substantial expenses of running the federations are taken off and local and U.S. allocations are made, a declining share goes to UJA and Israel.

The problem is less financial than psychological. Israel is endangered, perhaps more seriously than in 1967 and 1973. During these earlier crises, there was an outputting of financial and emotional support for Israel, largely through UJA. There is nothing of the sort today and I believe that to an extent this is because UJA is no longer a meaningful entity to us, no longer in our frame of Jewish reference. Instead of an emotional outpouring about Israel, we get a stream of press releases and xeroxed statement about what we should write to our representatives in Washington.

There are powerful reasons why the federation world should be dismantled. This is unlikely to happen anytime soon because of inertia and apathy and because too many functionaries have a stake in maintaining the dysfunctional status quo. But the system cannot endure as it is.

Not in Sanctification of Money

When the sun sets each day, there are fewer surviving Holocaust survivors than there were when the sun rose. And when the sun sets, there are more claimants for Holocaust funds, as additional lawyers, organizations and functionaries join the already long queue. In short, as the Holocaust litigation docket expands, there is a reciprocal decline in the benefits that may be paid one day to the survivors.

I know that it is difficult to write about the Holocaust without running the risk of trivializing that which was terrifying and beyond comprehension and description. There is another difficulty because to write about Holocaust-litigation and restitution efforts runs the risk of offending survivors. There is now a third risk in that criticism of Holocaust litigation and the organizations that benefit from it may provide material for Holocaust deniers and the likes of Norman Finkelstein, the CUNY professor whose obscene book, “The Holocaust Industry” has made him the darling of Europe’s neo-Nazis.

For nearly 25 years, we experienced something like communal amnesia about the destruction of European Jewry, as if the trauma and pain conspired to obliterate memory. This was changed by the Six-Day War, emergence of Soviet Jewry and the new sense of ethnicity and militancy embraced by many Jews. The Holocaust became a communal and philanthropic priority, with museums and memorials and all kinds of projects in just about every nook and cranny of Jewish communal life.

It was, I suppose, inevitable that the Holocaust would eventually be yoked to class action litigation and organizational needs and greed, two of the dubious charms of American civilization. In fact, Jewish organizations were active on the restitution front long before American Jewry awoke from its slumber. An old-boys network came into being long ago, gaining control of restitution funds and property confiscated from Jews.

In the process, these organizations anticipated or borrowed from the Swiss by creating a bureaucratic maze that made it impossible for survivors or their heirs to regain property, especially in Germany. The sordid story has been covered in detail in The Jerusalem Report, but American Jewish publications have maintained a “see no evil, know no evil” policy, in line with their practice of giving our dysfunctional army of organizations a free ride as they squander each year well in excess of a billion dollars in communal funds.

There are Jewish organizations that are salivating at the prospect of getting their hands on Holocaust funds generated by the class action litigation of the past decade. They will have to wait in line until the lawyers, accountants and assorted functionaries take their cut and the surviving survivors get their meager shares. If all goes according to plan, organizational patience will be handsomely rewarded.

If the funds were to be allocated to Jewish education or to sustain communities and institutions that are the direct continuation of what was destroyed in Europe, there would be justification for the use of Holocaust funds for communal purposes. That is not what is happening or likely to happen.

It’s time to regain perspective about the evil that befell our people. The families cheated by the Swiss banks that were in the steal business and those whose property was confiscated have every right, of course, to pursue their claims. As a community, though, we need to shift course and recognize at long last that our actions are sending the terrible message that our Holocaust-related activity is not about memory or renewing tradition but about money and how we can get our hands on lots of it.

To make matters worse, our efforts are aimed in part at securing Holocaust funds for other groups that are willing to stay in the background as Jews fight the tough battle. I attended one meeting on the Swiss funds, in the offices of the lead attorney, a good man who is not seeking a fee. Toward the end of the meeting, a group of Gypsies demanded a share of the settlement and we were told that they would be included, as would other non-Jewish groups. This situation is more pronounced in the slave labor litigation.

It turns out that we Jews are on the front lines and giving the impression that Holocaust-memory is about money and all along we have silent partners who will not get their hands dirty but who are eager to reap the fruit of our activity. Isn’t this nice?

Increasingly we have become caught up in a seedy business that we should stay away from. We cannot justify what we are doing on the ground that a small number of survivors will receive modest payments.

It’s time to say enough, to insist that the destruction of European Jewry not be treated as a pocketbook matter. It’s time to feel once more the searing pain and awe of the Holocaust, to know that court cases distort memory.

Jews were murdered because they were Jews and not because they wanted to preserve their property. They were murdered Al Kiddush Hashem, in sanctification of G-D’s name, and not in sanctification of money.

A Stone Would Have More Mercy

We do not need Mary Jo White, the U.S. Attorney, to demonstrate that prosecutors can be bullies, vindictive and blind to justice. These qualities have been abundantly on display in many cases, perhaps most notably in the celebrated trial of Patty Hearst who was kidnapped, kept blindfolded for weeks in a closet, physically and sexually attacked and then prosecuted for joining in the criminal acts of those who had terrorized her. A stone would have shown more mercy.

It is unlikely that Ms. White will investigate President Clinton’s pardon of Patty Hearst. She is off to the races, however, on the clemency proffered in the Skwere case, although all that the President did was to reduce the sentences to what they probably should have been in the first place. Ms. White is determined to have her pound of flesh and then some. She is bereft of any sense of restraint in her crusade against a small and rather defenseless group, against a tiny community of people who live modestly and accomplish much good.

This sharp criticism of the prosecutor is not meant to serve any exculpatory purpose. What was done was wrong, terribly wrong, and apart from the fraud that was committed, an entire community has been tarnished and hurt. Beyond the particulars of the case, I am troubled by the foolish and dangerous tendency of chassidic leaders to enter political waters that involve risks that they do not even begin to understand.

If this case results in the reversal of what I regard as the instinct of chassidic leaders and their followers to embrace political opportunities, it would mean that some good has come out of this tragedy. There is no reason to be optimistic.

The wrongful acts of those convicted in the Skwere case do not give license to prosecutors to demonize a community, to use ugly language that is perhaps unprecedented in U.S. law. In an early stage of the case, I was asked by a highly respected defense attorney whether a formal complaint should be filed with the Justice Department. Guilt by association has no place in American life and it should not become part of the arsenal of a prosecutor who is incapable of distinguishing between the wrongful acts of a few and the hateful impulse to stigmatize an entire community.

This maliciousness has extended into the recent period – in court papers, in grand jury leaks, in providing misleading information to the media. After Mr. Clinton had acted, the media dutifully accepted and reported the U.S. Attorney’s false claim that the fraud amounted to $40 million, which is four times the true figure.

As we know, Ms. White is focusing on the Clinton clemency which occurred after 1) Mrs. Clinton met with the Skwere Rebbe during her campaign, 2) the Skwere community gave her nearly unanimous support and 3) the President – with his wife present – met with the Rebbe. Unless we are prepared to criminalize politics, there was nothing untoward about what happened. It takes little imagination to see that when candidates meet with union leaders, corporate heads, lobbyists and leaders of ethnic and religious groups, those who are being wooed have shopping lists and the support they give is determined by the degree of candidate receptivity to what is being requested.

The Skwere Rebbe is admired far outside of the boundaries of his small community, especially for his kindness and efforts to help others. He has literally been obsessed by the feeling that the prosecution was excessive. Even if he were not emotionally caught up in what had transpired, he would be under a moral obligation to assist persons in his community. In short, it was not only his right to ask the president for clemency, it was the right thing for him to do.

The sense of community that is the essence of Skwere is beyond the understanding of prosecutors who denigrate the lifestyle of its inhabitants and who could not restrain their feelings.

As wrong as the fraud was, what the U.S. Attorney’s office has done in this case is a lot worse. Those who were convicted of fraud are in prison and even with clemency, their sentences are quite long. They are paying a tremendous price for what they did. But what they did arose primarily from stupidity, out of a misguided view that they were helping their community. The prosecutors, on the other hand, are acting in cold blood and under the cover of governmental authority. They know what they are doing and why and their cruelty is deliberate.

This criticism will not deter Ms. White’s office one whit. They are on a bully-ride, with the encouragement of the media and probably public opinion, as well. It’s easy to pillory chassidim. The Skwere’s know this from their own history, a history of persecution and triumph.

Skwere Trial

(Originally published in the New York Jewish Week in September 1998)

Shortly after the holidays, the trial of a half-dozen religious Jews accused of defrauding the government is scheduled to begin in the Federal Courthouse in White Plains. All but one of the defendants are members of the Skwere chassidic group and residents of a small town known as New Square in Rockland County.

As the case has proceeded to trial, there have been some disturbing elements, although they do not challenge the confidence all of us must have in the judicial process. Media comment – Jewish and general – has assumed the guilt of the accused, a familiar feature when the defendants are Orthodox Jews. Too many of us have a selective view of the principle that people are innocent until they are proven guilty.

New Square residents did not help matters with their frenzied reaction to the federal investigation, a posture that undercut confidence in their cause. Although what they did was wrong, it fundamentally was the confused reaction of people who did not understand what was happening and whose view of governmental action is liberally tinged with traces of paranoia, the unhappy legacy of centuries of persecution and destruction, too often at the hands of governmental agents.

Nor are the actions and words of the government beyond reproach. In pre-trial submissions, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District has suggested that the Skwere community is on trial, not merely individuals who may have acted wrongfully. The claim is made that –

“. . . many male members of the New Square community choose to pursue religious studies rather than vocational or professional training, and many female members of the community elect to marry in their teens and raise large families. These choices have contributed to the development of a community that cannot sustain – and has not sustained – itself economically, even with the assistance of legitimate governmental subsidies. As a result, the defendants and others have, for many years, chosen and undertaken to supplement the income of community members, and to fund the religious and educational institutions within the community, by defrauding the federal government.”

This smacks of the entirely unacceptable notion of communal guilt. By living in New Square one is guilty, if not of any crime then of attitudes and behavior which somehow must be regarded as harmful to society. Overwhelmingly, in fact, Skwere chassidim live honorable lives.

So far as I know, there is no precedent for the “community is guilty” tack taken by the U.S. Attorney. It is not difficult to imagine the outcry that would ensue should comparable language be used when minority group members are accused of crimes.

If the government would like to provide a full profile of New Square and its reliance on public funds, it would note that governmental expenditures are substantially below what they are elsewhere, if only because public school education which annually costs an average of $10,000 per student in New York is non-existent in the community. The need to invest in social programs to counteract pathologies that are rampant elsewhere is also very low.

New Square was established as a haven from unwanted secular influences, as the government notes, and also as a haven from materialism and hedonism. There is a quiet dignity to the town’s way of life. It is true that most young men pursue religious study, a choice that, to my knowledge, has not been criminalized. As for the adults, most, including women, work, although their income scarcely lifts them above the poverty level.

If it matters, the community has survived primarily because of the modest life-style of its members and the financial assistance given by outsiders, mainly non-Skweres, who admire the dignity and decency of a chassidic group whose members live a simple, religious life.

While New Square is not on trial, despite the government’s unfortunate efforts to the contrary, the case has taken a heavy emotional and physical toll. The point was made in a memo prepared by a medical doctor, a Fellow of Johns Hopkins University, who knows the community. I quote from it at length because it is a moving document that tells an important story:

“I have come to deeply respect this unique community which turns to me for medical care. The sincerity of their religious commitment and the simplicity of their life-styles have impressed, even inspired me time and again.

“The psychological well being of this community has been shattered. Psychological disorders of every sort are shockingly prevalent. Sleep and eating disorders connected to fears real and imagined now abound. Symptoms of paranoia and panic disorders are in evidence in many patients.

“This astonishing turnaround in the community’s psychological well being is clearly coincidental with the intensification of a grand jury investigation into alleged financial misdeeds by some village leaders. The details of this care are unknown to me. It is the human wreckage that has been created in its wake with which I am intimately familiar. From housewives to geriatric patients none are left unaffected.

“This is not a worldly community, and they seem not to be equipped to deal with the stress of the past few years. Because they have no advocate, I would like to express my concern for a lot of fine hard working men, women and children.”

None of this excuses fraud or lessens any individual’s possible guilt. But it adds a perspective to a picture that the government has distorted. Instead of the community being the guilty party, it has become the victim. In many other situations of fraud where institutions have been involved, the strong tendency has been to work out a civil settlement that includes penalties, presumably because the object of governmental action is to combat fraud and not to destroy an institution that provides needed services. In the case of New Square, despite efforts to bring about closure, the government has driven a hard bargain, one that is cruel to people who do not deserve to be treated cruelly.

I write this shortly before Yom Kippur, a period of reflection and forgiveness. Is it too much to ask our government to seek both justice and mercy?