United States Supreme Court Justices and newspaper editors share the challenge of selecting which matters will receive attention. The same is true of other fields of human activity. Each term, the Supreme Court receives as many as five-thousand certiorari petitions or requests that it review the decisions of lower courts, with review nowadays being granted in fewer than one-hundred cases. How do the Justices decide what to decide? Each day, there are far more stories than can make it into a newspaper. How do editors decide what to publish?
Fifty years ago, when the Supreme Court received three-thousand certiorari petitions in a term, Joseph Tanenhaus, my beloved teacher, friend and dissertation supervisor, and I developed what we referred to as the cue theory, arguing and statistically demonstrating that the Justices use cues, such as a dissenting opinion in the court below or conflict among lower courts, to select which appeals it will hear. This research remains the principal study of this aspect of Supreme Court activity.
What about journalists? Nearly everything depends on the nature of the publication, its audience and mission, as well as what editors prefer. A daily newspaper serving a major metropolitan area is certain to have different coverage than a weekly and a newspaper with an ethnic orientation obviously will provide distinctive coverage. In each setting, choices must be made and doubtlessly there are cues governing these choices because editors are bombarded by those who seek to see their stories in print. Which cues determine Jewish Week coverage?
There are a number of cues, but none more powerful and likely to result in publication than “Orthodox abuse” or, better yet, “Orthodox sexual abuse.” A content analysis of what has appeared in this newspaper over the years will bear this out. This preference was on display in a poorly written article on Ohel Children’s Home that occupied nearly two full pages and apparently took weeks and significant resources to prepare. The article, which Ohel strongly challenges, primarily covers whether this highly-regarded agency complied with New York’s reporting requirements in a case involving a mentally ill mother who may have abused her son.
Ohel requires no defense from me. Nor am I in any way involved in its vital activity. The agency deals daily with heartbreaking situations, often when the facts are not fully known. It has to make judgment calls, at times guessing about the best course to take. It fulfills its responsibilities with humanity and dignity, struggling to do what is right. Its staff is professional, caring and often courageous. Any of us who have responsibilities in social services or education know how these responsibilities are enmeshed in uncertainties and options that have drawbacks.
A primary, if not the primary, source for the attack-Ohel story is Asher Lipner, a psychologist who once worked at Ohel and left, shall we say, under unfriendly circumstances and remains angry and determined to retaliate. In a McCarthyistic twist, the article refers to other unnamed sources who cannot be identified because of the prospect of retaliation. That is nonsense. As for Lipner, it is remarkable that his unhappy relationship with Ohel did not make it into the article or, a week later, into the follow-up defense of the article. Why?
Last June, the Jewish Week published an opinion column,“Jewish Community Still Behind on Confronting Abuse,” under Lipner’s byline. The Orthodox were the target, not the other 90% of American Jews. Lipner wrote, “Our community still shamefully lags behind even the Catholic Church in addressing our catastrophe, due to the unwillingness of our leaders to apologize and to reach out effectively to survivors of abuse. We are regularly bombarded in the media with rabbinic sex scandals, convictions of Orthodox child predators and law suits against yeshivas harboring molesters.”
Each of these statements was not true. They were written with a reckless disregard for the truth and they were published with a reckless disregard for the truth. The comparison with the situation in the Catholic Church is false and repugnant. We are not regularly bombarded in the media by stories of rabbinic sexual scandals, nor by the convictions of Orthodox child predators. The reference to lawsuits against yeshivas is another distortion.
Sexual abuse is a horrific sin and equally great is the sin of those who know of the abuse and remain silent. My questioning of the severe distortions by Lipner and this newspaper must not be distorted into a defense of those who engage in abuse.
The Ohel coverage needs to be seen in the context of the endless attacks on the Orthodox that is a hallmark of the Jewish Week. This isn’t just my opinion or perception. It is the view of a great number of Orthodox, mainly those who are modern in their orientation, who are perturbed by what they regard as an anti-Orthodox animus. In a March 2, 2011 post on his blog, Gary Rosenblatt wrote, “We have no animus” toward Ohel “or any other Jewish organization.” I am sure that he is convinced of this. I and other Orthodox are convinced otherwise.
About the time that the Ohel story was published, Jonathan Mark, an associate editor of the Jewish Week, posted a blog on this newspaper’s site sharply critical of the Reform movement. This evoked what I believe is an unprecedented response by Gary Rosenblatt who apologized for what Mark had written and removed the offending post from the newspaper’s site.
Gary wrote, “We do not allow the denigration of any religion or any Jewish religious streams.” Yet, the Jewish Week published Lipner’s offensive and false claims and has constantly published material hostile to the Orthodox. The Ohel article includes these words: “In the ultra-Orthodox community, most people do not report for fear of being an ‘informer,’ because rabbis have instructed them not to.” It’s time to stop the offensive against the Orthodox. The Jewish Week should apologize to Ohel.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Let Them Work
When extreme polar positions are placed at opposite ends of a continuum, the distance between them is 180°, the maximum. If the line is reconfigured and made into a circle, the gap is eliminated entirely as the two extremes abut, the lesson being that no matter how far apart they may seem to be, extremists of all stripes have much in common.
A case in point is the perennial Israeli issue of charedim or the fervently Orthodox in the workforce. At one extreme, there are the ultra-secularists with their anti-religious baggage. At the other end, are the religious extremists who pounce on any in the Orthodox camp who advocate greater charedi participation in the job market. As Shahar Ilan demonstrated the other day in Ha’aretz, the anti-religious extremists fabricate statistics showing that overwhelmingly charedim do not work. Ilan’s pseudo-statistic is 70 percent. Other writers who are not as biased, come up with a statistic of about 50 percent, which is also off the mark.
The truth is that a great number of charedi wage earners do not earn anything close to what is needed to sustain their families, largely because of family size and the high cost of religious living and also because many hold low paying positions, such as teaching in religious schools. As is true of lower socio-economic groups nearly everywhere, there is significant involvement of charedim in the underground economy, meaning that their work and income are essentially unreported, and although this circumstance should not merit a certificate of good behavior, it remains that work is work. The higher classes have their own lucrative tax games, so that only those who are without sin should cast any stone.
Another factor in the charedi work profile is discrimination against them by employers, a situation that rarely gets attention. The subject was addressed forcibly by Israel’s president, Shimon Peres, as he launched a campaign to encourage the hiring of the fervently Orthodox. Peres noted, “People believe that the religious don’t want to work. That’s nonsense. There are thousands of charedim who want to make a living – men, too. This is a stigma that divides the people.” He continued, “The belief that there are two nations – one that works and one that’s lazy – is false.”
According to Chaim Guggenheim, head of a manpower organization, “There are tens of thousands of charedim looking for work.” Many face job discrimination, as according to one report, “92% of companies [in Israel] still don’t employ charedim.” A survey conducted by Ono Academic College found “that employers preferred to hire disabled persons as opposed to charedim.”
In 1965, I was instrumental in forming the National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs, a group comprised mainly of young Orthodox lawyers, becoming its first president. We quickly came to focus on discrimination against religious persons, particularly in the workplace. During one of my trips to Israel in the early 1970s, I approached Joseph Burg, the longtime leader of Mizrachi, the Religious Zionist party, and suggested that Israel follow America’s lead and enact legislation protecting Sabbath observers. By Israeli law, Sabbath is a day of rest and businesses are required to close, yet even in the early 1970s an expanding number of employers were able to secure exemptions on the ground that necessity mandated Sabbath work. Burg demurred, arguing that protection of religious Jews would be tantamount to accepting that other Jews could work on Shabbos and Mizrachi could not go along with that. The upshot is that job discrimination against religious Jews abounds in Israel.
The other extreme has been amply and unhappily on display in the disgraceful reaction to Rabbi Chaim Amsellem’s suggestion that more charedim join the workforce rather than remain full-time in yeshiva. Amsellem had been a Shas Party member of the Knesset.
Shas overwhelmingly is oriented toward traditional but not fervently religious persons of Sephardic heritage, yet Amsellem was quickly drummed out of the party, an offensive and foolish act. It may be that Shas’s political leader, Eli Yishai, Israel’s Interior Minister, is afflicted by an advanced case of messianism, a condition arising perhaps out of his belief that his name compels such behavior.
Amsellem’s sin – if he did sin – is his speaking out, meaning that what he said made sense but he should have kept his opinion to himself and not give voice to a view held by many charedim. Apart from my lifelong notion that, consistent with religious obligations and discipline, it is appropriate for religious Jews to have opinions and express them because a mind is a terrible thing to waste, Orthodox laypeople and lower rabbinic figures spoke out on public matters in pre-Holocaust Europe at the major conferences of Agudath Israel. There were lively debates and disagreement on vital issues, including of a religious nature, in which lay leaders participated. In the recent period, the attitude that one’s opinions must be put into cold storage has unfortunately taken hold.
The effort to delegitimize Amsellem sends the message to young charedi men eager to enter the workforce that doing so would diminish them as religious Jews. Torah study is our highest pursuit. Working for a livelihood is also a noble pursuit.
Predictably, the Amsellem matter serves as a feeding opportunity for those in an attack mode against charedim. They have embraced Amsellem as one of their own, although assuredly he is not. The Times featured the story, indulging in numbers games, including the claim that more than 50 percent of charedi women do not work. Indeed, a great number are hard at work at home caring for a household of children. Whatever the failings of Rabbi Amsellem’s new bedfellows, his message is on target. More charedim are needed in the workforce and more charedim want to work. When Shas attacks those who advocate greater charedi involvement in Israel’s economy, it is joining forces with those who promote discrimination against charedim. Extremists are, after all, birds of a feather that flock together.
A case in point is the perennial Israeli issue of charedim or the fervently Orthodox in the workforce. At one extreme, there are the ultra-secularists with their anti-religious baggage. At the other end, are the religious extremists who pounce on any in the Orthodox camp who advocate greater charedi participation in the job market. As Shahar Ilan demonstrated the other day in Ha’aretz, the anti-religious extremists fabricate statistics showing that overwhelmingly charedim do not work. Ilan’s pseudo-statistic is 70 percent. Other writers who are not as biased, come up with a statistic of about 50 percent, which is also off the mark.
The truth is that a great number of charedi wage earners do not earn anything close to what is needed to sustain their families, largely because of family size and the high cost of religious living and also because many hold low paying positions, such as teaching in religious schools. As is true of lower socio-economic groups nearly everywhere, there is significant involvement of charedim in the underground economy, meaning that their work and income are essentially unreported, and although this circumstance should not merit a certificate of good behavior, it remains that work is work. The higher classes have their own lucrative tax games, so that only those who are without sin should cast any stone.
Another factor in the charedi work profile is discrimination against them by employers, a situation that rarely gets attention. The subject was addressed forcibly by Israel’s president, Shimon Peres, as he launched a campaign to encourage the hiring of the fervently Orthodox. Peres noted, “People believe that the religious don’t want to work. That’s nonsense. There are thousands of charedim who want to make a living – men, too. This is a stigma that divides the people.” He continued, “The belief that there are two nations – one that works and one that’s lazy – is false.”
According to Chaim Guggenheim, head of a manpower organization, “There are tens of thousands of charedim looking for work.” Many face job discrimination, as according to one report, “92% of companies [in Israel] still don’t employ charedim.” A survey conducted by Ono Academic College found “that employers preferred to hire disabled persons as opposed to charedim.”
In 1965, I was instrumental in forming the National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs, a group comprised mainly of young Orthodox lawyers, becoming its first president. We quickly came to focus on discrimination against religious persons, particularly in the workplace. During one of my trips to Israel in the early 1970s, I approached Joseph Burg, the longtime leader of Mizrachi, the Religious Zionist party, and suggested that Israel follow America’s lead and enact legislation protecting Sabbath observers. By Israeli law, Sabbath is a day of rest and businesses are required to close, yet even in the early 1970s an expanding number of employers were able to secure exemptions on the ground that necessity mandated Sabbath work. Burg demurred, arguing that protection of religious Jews would be tantamount to accepting that other Jews could work on Shabbos and Mizrachi could not go along with that. The upshot is that job discrimination against religious Jews abounds in Israel.
The other extreme has been amply and unhappily on display in the disgraceful reaction to Rabbi Chaim Amsellem’s suggestion that more charedim join the workforce rather than remain full-time in yeshiva. Amsellem had been a Shas Party member of the Knesset.
Shas overwhelmingly is oriented toward traditional but not fervently religious persons of Sephardic heritage, yet Amsellem was quickly drummed out of the party, an offensive and foolish act. It may be that Shas’s political leader, Eli Yishai, Israel’s Interior Minister, is afflicted by an advanced case of messianism, a condition arising perhaps out of his belief that his name compels such behavior.
Amsellem’s sin – if he did sin – is his speaking out, meaning that what he said made sense but he should have kept his opinion to himself and not give voice to a view held by many charedim. Apart from my lifelong notion that, consistent with religious obligations and discipline, it is appropriate for religious Jews to have opinions and express them because a mind is a terrible thing to waste, Orthodox laypeople and lower rabbinic figures spoke out on public matters in pre-Holocaust Europe at the major conferences of Agudath Israel. There were lively debates and disagreement on vital issues, including of a religious nature, in which lay leaders participated. In the recent period, the attitude that one’s opinions must be put into cold storage has unfortunately taken hold.
The effort to delegitimize Amsellem sends the message to young charedi men eager to enter the workforce that doing so would diminish them as religious Jews. Torah study is our highest pursuit. Working for a livelihood is also a noble pursuit.
Predictably, the Amsellem matter serves as a feeding opportunity for those in an attack mode against charedim. They have embraced Amsellem as one of their own, although assuredly he is not. The Times featured the story, indulging in numbers games, including the claim that more than 50 percent of charedi women do not work. Indeed, a great number are hard at work at home caring for a household of children. Whatever the failings of Rabbi Amsellem’s new bedfellows, his message is on target. More charedim are needed in the workforce and more charedim want to work. When Shas attacks those who advocate greater charedi involvement in Israel’s economy, it is joining forces with those who promote discrimination against charedim. Extremists are, after all, birds of a feather that flock together.
Monday, January 10, 2011
RJJ Newsletter - January 2011
Schools are for children and about children. Without children, there is no school. There are, to employ a term much in favor these days, other vital stakeholders, including faculty and staff, parents, and depending on the situation or nature of the school, government officials, community leaders and contributors. It remains that unless students come, the best faculty in the world, a first-rate facility and all of the funds needed to provide a great education are for naught. We must never forget this.
When students come, they come in all sizes, meaning not only physical sizes. They come with diverse intellectual capabilities and diverse interests and they come from diverse home backgrounds and with diverse emotional needs. Except in a limited sense in some families, there is no societal setting quite like the typical classroom.
The great challenge facing educators is how to mold the inevitable and often far-reaching diversities into a classroom that works. The challenge is how to bring into being the experience that is called education that will allow children to acquire knowledge and skills, including social skills, and to learn and accept the obligation referred to as discipline, the goal being that they will be successful in adulthood and contribute to society. In Jewish day schools, there is the added challenge of inculcating in students in the practices and values of our religion, as well as the knowledge and skills that are essential in Torah education.
No school is perfect. Some obviously are better than others, at times much better. At the end of the day, there is always a measure of failure in the educational process. There are students who do not succeed academically. There are students who do not live up to behavioral standards. There are students who fall away religiously. There are students who do not possess the requisite emotional health or strength to cope well enough in school. Inevitably, therefore, as in all human experiences, there is the falling short of achieving aspirations and goals. Life is not all victories. There is always some disappointment, with the glory of the human species particularly manifested in the determination to go on despite defeat or disappointment.
Overall, schools do a good job, often despite there being without sufficient resources. This is clearly true of yeshivas and day schools, most of which live on a shoestring or less. The lion’s share of the credit for what is achieved in schools goes to educators, so many of whom reach out to students or do far more than is required of them in order to become more effective classroom teachers and in order to achieve better student performance. I am in awe of the dedication of the women and men who teach at yeshivas and day schools and who despite incredibly low salaries, benefits that are nearly nonexistent and paychecks that are often late, come to school determined to do all that they can to teach well and to motivate their students.
There is much research on education, such things as how much teachers are paid, the degrees they have, the time they spend in classrooms, the number of years they stay in the profession, etc. Here is a research project that deserves to be undertaken, especially with respect to religious schools: How much out-of-classroom and out-of-school time do teachers devote to preparation, reviewing and grading paperwork and doing other things that enhance their classroom performance.
There are teachers who do not belong in the classroom, some because they never should have become teachers and some because they have lost their effectiveness. Over-whelmingly, teachers do a good job and deserve our gratitude. They do not deserve the kind of criticism that is heard far too often.
Teachers have nachas when their students do well and this feeling of nachas can be maintained over the years, so that there are teachers who feel wonderful when they see how those whom they taught years earlier have matured and developed. Teachers also have nachas when their students are happy, when a smile comes across their face. I read the following the other day by a Puerto Rican writer: “The happiness of children is my reason to smile.” That’s how teachers feel.
There are children who do not smile, children who are always unhappy or seem to be unhappy. There are children who do not succeed, academically or socially, and there are children who succeed academically or socially who have behavioral difficulties. There are students who do well in secular subjects but not in Judaic subjects or the other way around and there are children who do not abide by religious standards.
This is because in the territory or process that we call education children come in different emotional and intellectual sizes. That is how it is in many families and in all schools. Parents may want to have only angels and a few do. Most are confronted by a range of complexities and try to impart caring and love, as they hope and pray that all will turn out well. Schools do not have the same obligation as parents to accept all children, yet, they have an obligation to accept and to teach children who may be difficult. One size does not fit all in life and one size does not fit all in education.
The hardest part of my work for RJJ concerns the admission and retention of students. There are, of course, constant financial pressure, difficult decisions to be made and the hard work that is fundraising. Personnel matters can be painful, especially when they involve persons I am close to. Yet, none of these difficult responsibilities causes the anguish that arises when the status of a child is at stake. It is never easy to figure out what is the right course and it is always wrenching when the decision is not to admit a student or not to allow him or her to remain.
What I believe is that to the greatest extent possible, the scales must be tipped in favor of children. A child is precious and also an unknown, in a sense he or she is a work in progress. Poor behavior or poor performance may be transient. We all know children who at a young age were poor students or misbehaved who turned out magnificently in adulthood.
For all of the goodness that is evident in classrooms, there is too much of an attitude in yeshivas and day schools that smacks of “if in doubt, throw it out.” A child is not a food product whose kashruth is uncertain. Why, then, is there too much of a culture of rejection in many of our schools?
The answer is that the prevailing attitude, with some exceptions, is that it is not only appropriate but also necessary to reject students who are difficult. We have come to believe that that is the right thing to do. In short, children are treated too often as akin to a food product.
I have written about this subject often during the thirty-eight years that I have been RJJ’s president and, I believe, prior to this responsibility, as well. I believe that what too many people of good intentions are doing is sinful. We look at the products of our schools and we proclaim how wonderfully they have turned out. The students we have rejected are not on our radar screen. We do not know how they turned out and it seems that we scarcely care. Too many have turned away from Judaism.
I know that there are children who should be expelled or not admitted and that, at times, such decisions work out beneficially for the children and their families. These situations are the exception. Doubt about a child’s behavior or suspicions that he or she will cause trouble are not sufficient to justify expulsion. What is needed to justify expulsion is behavior that is clearly wrongful and that is harmful to the school or other students.
Even then, as I have advocated over the years, the decision must not be made by one person. Local rabbis or respected lay people should be included in the process. I have cited in the past the view of the Chazon Ish, the transcendent Torah leader of the last century, that expulsion and admission decisions fall into the category of life decisions and that therefore a Beth Din is required. It is astounding that in the Torah world the guidance of the Chazon Ish is not followed.
When students come, they come in all sizes, meaning not only physical sizes. They come with diverse intellectual capabilities and diverse interests and they come from diverse home backgrounds and with diverse emotional needs. Except in a limited sense in some families, there is no societal setting quite like the typical classroom.
The great challenge facing educators is how to mold the inevitable and often far-reaching diversities into a classroom that works. The challenge is how to bring into being the experience that is called education that will allow children to acquire knowledge and skills, including social skills, and to learn and accept the obligation referred to as discipline, the goal being that they will be successful in adulthood and contribute to society. In Jewish day schools, there is the added challenge of inculcating in students in the practices and values of our religion, as well as the knowledge and skills that are essential in Torah education.
No school is perfect. Some obviously are better than others, at times much better. At the end of the day, there is always a measure of failure in the educational process. There are students who do not succeed academically. There are students who do not live up to behavioral standards. There are students who fall away religiously. There are students who do not possess the requisite emotional health or strength to cope well enough in school. Inevitably, therefore, as in all human experiences, there is the falling short of achieving aspirations and goals. Life is not all victories. There is always some disappointment, with the glory of the human species particularly manifested in the determination to go on despite defeat or disappointment.
Overall, schools do a good job, often despite there being without sufficient resources. This is clearly true of yeshivas and day schools, most of which live on a shoestring or less. The lion’s share of the credit for what is achieved in schools goes to educators, so many of whom reach out to students or do far more than is required of them in order to become more effective classroom teachers and in order to achieve better student performance. I am in awe of the dedication of the women and men who teach at yeshivas and day schools and who despite incredibly low salaries, benefits that are nearly nonexistent and paychecks that are often late, come to school determined to do all that they can to teach well and to motivate their students.
There is much research on education, such things as how much teachers are paid, the degrees they have, the time they spend in classrooms, the number of years they stay in the profession, etc. Here is a research project that deserves to be undertaken, especially with respect to religious schools: How much out-of-classroom and out-of-school time do teachers devote to preparation, reviewing and grading paperwork and doing other things that enhance their classroom performance.
There are teachers who do not belong in the classroom, some because they never should have become teachers and some because they have lost their effectiveness. Over-whelmingly, teachers do a good job and deserve our gratitude. They do not deserve the kind of criticism that is heard far too often.
Teachers have nachas when their students do well and this feeling of nachas can be maintained over the years, so that there are teachers who feel wonderful when they see how those whom they taught years earlier have matured and developed. Teachers also have nachas when their students are happy, when a smile comes across their face. I read the following the other day by a Puerto Rican writer: “The happiness of children is my reason to smile.” That’s how teachers feel.
There are children who do not smile, children who are always unhappy or seem to be unhappy. There are children who do not succeed, academically or socially, and there are children who succeed academically or socially who have behavioral difficulties. There are students who do well in secular subjects but not in Judaic subjects or the other way around and there are children who do not abide by religious standards.
This is because in the territory or process that we call education children come in different emotional and intellectual sizes. That is how it is in many families and in all schools. Parents may want to have only angels and a few do. Most are confronted by a range of complexities and try to impart caring and love, as they hope and pray that all will turn out well. Schools do not have the same obligation as parents to accept all children, yet, they have an obligation to accept and to teach children who may be difficult. One size does not fit all in life and one size does not fit all in education.
The hardest part of my work for RJJ concerns the admission and retention of students. There are, of course, constant financial pressure, difficult decisions to be made and the hard work that is fundraising. Personnel matters can be painful, especially when they involve persons I am close to. Yet, none of these difficult responsibilities causes the anguish that arises when the status of a child is at stake. It is never easy to figure out what is the right course and it is always wrenching when the decision is not to admit a student or not to allow him or her to remain.
What I believe is that to the greatest extent possible, the scales must be tipped in favor of children. A child is precious and also an unknown, in a sense he or she is a work in progress. Poor behavior or poor performance may be transient. We all know children who at a young age were poor students or misbehaved who turned out magnificently in adulthood.
For all of the goodness that is evident in classrooms, there is too much of an attitude in yeshivas and day schools that smacks of “if in doubt, throw it out.” A child is not a food product whose kashruth is uncertain. Why, then, is there too much of a culture of rejection in many of our schools?
The answer is that the prevailing attitude, with some exceptions, is that it is not only appropriate but also necessary to reject students who are difficult. We have come to believe that that is the right thing to do. In short, children are treated too often as akin to a food product.
I have written about this subject often during the thirty-eight years that I have been RJJ’s president and, I believe, prior to this responsibility, as well. I believe that what too many people of good intentions are doing is sinful. We look at the products of our schools and we proclaim how wonderfully they have turned out. The students we have rejected are not on our radar screen. We do not know how they turned out and it seems that we scarcely care. Too many have turned away from Judaism.
I know that there are children who should be expelled or not admitted and that, at times, such decisions work out beneficially for the children and their families. These situations are the exception. Doubt about a child’s behavior or suspicions that he or she will cause trouble are not sufficient to justify expulsion. What is needed to justify expulsion is behavior that is clearly wrongful and that is harmful to the school or other students.
Even then, as I have advocated over the years, the decision must not be made by one person. Local rabbis or respected lay people should be included in the process. I have cited in the past the view of the Chazon Ish, the transcendent Torah leader of the last century, that expulsion and admission decisions fall into the category of life decisions and that therefore a Beth Din is required. It is astounding that in the Torah world the guidance of the Chazon Ish is not followed.
Friday, December 31, 2010
An American Disgrace
In retribution for his serious crimes, Jonathan Pollard has been severely punished to the point that the wrongs committed by him are matched by the wrongs committed against him by our government. Spying for Israel is apparently a far worse offense than spying for the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War or, more recently, for Russia. If for no other reason, this is why the Pollard story is an American disgrace.
It requires no justification of Pollard’s deeds or even sympathy for the man to recognize that he has been confined to a fate unprecedented in U.S. history. He is, metaphorically, a man in an iron mask, someone to be locked away until death frees him. His prosecutor was duplicitous, his original lawyers were incompetent, his sentencing judge was cruel and unjust and, to top all of this off, there was his wife’s ill-conceived Sixty Minutes interview and also Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger’s secret and fundamentally dishonest sentencing memorandum. Pollard had the further misfortune that his appeal was heard by a three-judge U.S. Court of Appeals panel that included two Jewish judges, one extremely liberal and the other extremely conservative, who over a powerful dissent by the one non-Jew blithely ignored the inappropriateness of the process that resulted in a life sentence. Fate hasn’t been kind to Pollard.
If this sounds paranoid, with perhaps the charge of anti-Semitism thrown in for good measure, it is assuredly is anything but that. A fair assessment of the case forces the conclusion that Pollard’s sentence was excessive and now should be commuted to time served. In the time-honored tradition applicable to freed spies, he should be sent to the country for which he did his spying. A surprising number of congressmen, a breed not known for courage under fire, and Lawrence Korb who was an Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration, have called for commutation.
What will now happen cannot be known. It is hard to figure out why Pollard has never caught a break. It may be his fate to fall through the cracks. Anti-Israel sentiment, which is not quite the same as anti-Semitism, in high government positions may be a contributing factor, as his continued imprisonment is a way of striking back at Israel by those who believe that Israel has been the recipient of too much support by successive administrations.
Israel hasn’t helped. True, in the Clinton years and during the Wye Israel-Palestinian peace talks – they seem ages ago – Benjamin Netanyahu who was in his first term as Israel’s Prime Minister, pressed the Americans for Pollards’ release. President Clinton went along, only to be vetoed by CIA Director George Tenet who threatened to resign if the President commuted the sentence. Mr. Clinton backed down, which was wrongful because a president should never yield to such threats. Worse yet, because he backed down, Tenet stayed on, playing a key role in the intelligence failures that preceded 9/11. For incompetence bordering on misfeasance, George W. Bush awarded Tenet our nation’s highest civilian honor.
Although Mr. Netanyahu has asked for Pollard’s release, he invariably has dropped the request when the U.S. said no or simply ignored the issue. Nor has release been advanced as a formal Israeli government position. This has just changed, increasing the prospect of commutation, although doubtlessly the CIA and the Pentagon will object. A more critical barrier is President Obama’s determination, amply on display during the past two years, not to be seen as soft on American security. His Press Secretary, the glib Robert Gibbs, has already said that Pollard’s release is not on the horizon.
Mr. Netanyahu should be insistent because nations ought not turn their backs on the spies they recruit. Unfortunately, Israel does not have chips to swap in the form of American operatives who have spied on Israel. They exist, for sure, although for sure it would be impolitic, even risky, for Israel to arrest CIA agents who have engaged in such espionage.
What should our major organizations and rank and file do? Over the years, most American Jews have been mute, leaving pro-Pollard advocacy to fringe elements, including too many who believe that Pollard did nothing wrong. Our organizations have also stayed away. Now calls for commutation are coming from the American Jewish mainstream. It is now legitimate to advocate for Pollard, which is why there is congressional support.
It may be better for us to refrain from public advocacy, as a public campaign could backfire, serving as a wake-up call for those who want Pollard locked up for life, with the keys thrown away. If Mr. Netanyahu is serious about Israel working to secure Pollard’s release, at some point he will have to decide whether to yield to American pressure on some Palestinian issue. About a month ago, there was what he could offer without undermining Israeli security, notably another two-month freeze on settlement construction. Now that the U.S. is no longer asking for a moratorium, that option does not exist. Presumably there are other issues that can serve as bait. The key obligation is to see that Pollard’s release is on the U.S.-Israel agenda.
The call is Mr. Obama’s not Mr. Netanyahu’s. Of note, except at the time of his arrest and a bit thereafter, Pollard has not been on the American public radar screen. If the President decides to commute, it is doubtful that there will be much of a reaction. He should commute because that is the right thing to do. Continued imprisonment adds to America’s disgrace and not at all to America’s security.
It requires no justification of Pollard’s deeds or even sympathy for the man to recognize that he has been confined to a fate unprecedented in U.S. history. He is, metaphorically, a man in an iron mask, someone to be locked away until death frees him. His prosecutor was duplicitous, his original lawyers were incompetent, his sentencing judge was cruel and unjust and, to top all of this off, there was his wife’s ill-conceived Sixty Minutes interview and also Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger’s secret and fundamentally dishonest sentencing memorandum. Pollard had the further misfortune that his appeal was heard by a three-judge U.S. Court of Appeals panel that included two Jewish judges, one extremely liberal and the other extremely conservative, who over a powerful dissent by the one non-Jew blithely ignored the inappropriateness of the process that resulted in a life sentence. Fate hasn’t been kind to Pollard.
If this sounds paranoid, with perhaps the charge of anti-Semitism thrown in for good measure, it is assuredly is anything but that. A fair assessment of the case forces the conclusion that Pollard’s sentence was excessive and now should be commuted to time served. In the time-honored tradition applicable to freed spies, he should be sent to the country for which he did his spying. A surprising number of congressmen, a breed not known for courage under fire, and Lawrence Korb who was an Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration, have called for commutation.
What will now happen cannot be known. It is hard to figure out why Pollard has never caught a break. It may be his fate to fall through the cracks. Anti-Israel sentiment, which is not quite the same as anti-Semitism, in high government positions may be a contributing factor, as his continued imprisonment is a way of striking back at Israel by those who believe that Israel has been the recipient of too much support by successive administrations.
Israel hasn’t helped. True, in the Clinton years and during the Wye Israel-Palestinian peace talks – they seem ages ago – Benjamin Netanyahu who was in his first term as Israel’s Prime Minister, pressed the Americans for Pollards’ release. President Clinton went along, only to be vetoed by CIA Director George Tenet who threatened to resign if the President commuted the sentence. Mr. Clinton backed down, which was wrongful because a president should never yield to such threats. Worse yet, because he backed down, Tenet stayed on, playing a key role in the intelligence failures that preceded 9/11. For incompetence bordering on misfeasance, George W. Bush awarded Tenet our nation’s highest civilian honor.
Although Mr. Netanyahu has asked for Pollard’s release, he invariably has dropped the request when the U.S. said no or simply ignored the issue. Nor has release been advanced as a formal Israeli government position. This has just changed, increasing the prospect of commutation, although doubtlessly the CIA and the Pentagon will object. A more critical barrier is President Obama’s determination, amply on display during the past two years, not to be seen as soft on American security. His Press Secretary, the glib Robert Gibbs, has already said that Pollard’s release is not on the horizon.
Mr. Netanyahu should be insistent because nations ought not turn their backs on the spies they recruit. Unfortunately, Israel does not have chips to swap in the form of American operatives who have spied on Israel. They exist, for sure, although for sure it would be impolitic, even risky, for Israel to arrest CIA agents who have engaged in such espionage.
What should our major organizations and rank and file do? Over the years, most American Jews have been mute, leaving pro-Pollard advocacy to fringe elements, including too many who believe that Pollard did nothing wrong. Our organizations have also stayed away. Now calls for commutation are coming from the American Jewish mainstream. It is now legitimate to advocate for Pollard, which is why there is congressional support.
It may be better for us to refrain from public advocacy, as a public campaign could backfire, serving as a wake-up call for those who want Pollard locked up for life, with the keys thrown away. If Mr. Netanyahu is serious about Israel working to secure Pollard’s release, at some point he will have to decide whether to yield to American pressure on some Palestinian issue. About a month ago, there was what he could offer without undermining Israeli security, notably another two-month freeze on settlement construction. Now that the U.S. is no longer asking for a moratorium, that option does not exist. Presumably there are other issues that can serve as bait. The key obligation is to see that Pollard’s release is on the U.S.-Israel agenda.
The call is Mr. Obama’s not Mr. Netanyahu’s. Of note, except at the time of his arrest and a bit thereafter, Pollard has not been on the American public radar screen. If the President decides to commute, it is doubtful that there will be much of a reaction. He should commute because that is the right thing to do. Continued imprisonment adds to America’s disgrace and not at all to America’s security.
Monday, December 27, 2010
The Expanding World of Anything Goes Judaism
Lindsay Lohan, the troubled starlet who has had numerous run-ins with the law, is no poster girl for virtue and certainly not for Judaism, yet as the Times has reported, she is a poster girl for American Jewish World Service, along with several other celebrities, making a pitch for contributions, saying that although she isn’t Jewish the cause deserves support. The campaign, a compound of camp and celebrityship, is apparently doing well. What this says about contemporary Jewish life is another matter. We are again in the ever-expanding world of anything goes Judaism, a world that bears little – at times, no – resemblance to the world of our fathers, including the world of Jewish fathers who weren’t religious but who strongly identified as Jews.
In this brave new world, Judiasm is to a great many, including non-Jews, what anyone says it is. This attitude is dynamic, so that the inventions that we have been witness to are prelude to additional formulations that shall have not even a residual connection to the beliefs and practices that have sustained us.
A useful definition of anything goes Judaism was provided earlier this week by Steven M. Cohen, the noted demographer, when he accepted an award from the Association for the Social Scientific Study of Jewry. Steve spoke of his relationship with Calvin Goldscheider, a sociologist at Brown University, who according to Steve believes that “whatever Jews do in a manner or frequency different from others, whether they agree to call it exclusively Jewish or not, is by definition Jewish culture and Judaism. Intra-group ties and social boundaries are at the core of Jewish vitality and continuity. If so, then Jews can (and do) change the putative essence of being Jewish. They engage in continuing invention and reinvention of the meaning of Jew, Jewish, Jewishness and Judaism, creating the possibility for ongoing transformation.”
Change and a measure of transformation are part of modern living. It is a stretch to say, for example, as some have said that fervently religious Jews in the U.S. have forged living patterns that strongly resemble how religious Jews lived in pre-Holocaust Europe. Time, economic conditions and social forces have brought about significant mutations in religious life-style, including certain values, with core religious beliefs and practices remaining largely intact. However, the notion that we can do and believe whatever we want and still call it Judaism is alien to our history and heritage and dangerous to our future.
The notion that we can constantly reinvent Judaism scarcely affects the Orthodox. The principal impact is on non-Orthodox life, in the undermining of institutions and arrangements that still are vital to a great many Jews. If a few tweaks and a Jewish label are sufficient to impart Jewish legitimacy to any activity, it’s a good bet that younger Jews will go in that direction, associating with activities that are only Jewish in name and embracing what is fashionable in the general culture. There is little hope that synagogues and old line institutions will be able to compete, as a Gresham’s Law will mandate that weak activities and associations will prevail over more substantial Jewish experiences. We see this in the rapid deterioration of the Conservative movement.
I first wrote about this development in the late 1980s and then developed the theme in a book-length monograph in which I suggested that what we were already witness to would not run its course during my lifetime because minimalistic Judaism – which I now refer to as anything goes Judaism – is being sustained and reinforced by substantial communal support, effective promotion and a critical mass of advanced assimilation Jews, including many who have intermarried, who desire to retain Jewish identity even as they chuck off nearly everything that being Jewish meant.
In previous generations, such Jews would have walked away entirely from Jewish life and, in fact, many have in the recent period. What is extraordinary is the number who haven’t. For them, the reinvention of Judaism is tailor-made. Also propping up a residual connection with Jewishness among assimilated Jews who have not vanished into the great American melting pot is the remarkable phenomenon of Jews being at the top of the American ethnic hit parade. We may dwell endlessly on our own warts, yet to other Americans we are hardworking, intelligent, successful, charitable and laden with good values. This helps to explain the stratospheric intermarriage rate.
This sociological brew provides a frame-of-reference for anything goes Judaism. Far out measures are being undertaken to keep the patient called American Jewry alive and they are having some success. A generation ago, I thought that this attitude had staying power. I still do. Anything goes Judaism may be bogus Judaism, yet it is an important sociological reality.
Change will come because the full impact of intermarriage cannot be put off permanently. The evidence is already here in the diminished identity of the offspring of the intermarried. Other changes will result when the dynamic nature of anything goes Judaism as legitimate will induce behaviors that are even more distant from our traditions, including much that is outlandish and even repugnant to our beliefs. This means that the prospect is not rosy for Federations, synagogues and the Hadassahs of our organizational world. This does not mean that our large army of organizations will disappear, although some will. We must never underestimate the capacity of an organization that is functionally dead to remain alive.
For all of its defects, anything goes Judaism is an extraordinary phenomenon and it will be fascinating to see what awaits us.
In this brave new world, Judiasm is to a great many, including non-Jews, what anyone says it is. This attitude is dynamic, so that the inventions that we have been witness to are prelude to additional formulations that shall have not even a residual connection to the beliefs and practices that have sustained us.
A useful definition of anything goes Judaism was provided earlier this week by Steven M. Cohen, the noted demographer, when he accepted an award from the Association for the Social Scientific Study of Jewry. Steve spoke of his relationship with Calvin Goldscheider, a sociologist at Brown University, who according to Steve believes that “whatever Jews do in a manner or frequency different from others, whether they agree to call it exclusively Jewish or not, is by definition Jewish culture and Judaism. Intra-group ties and social boundaries are at the core of Jewish vitality and continuity. If so, then Jews can (and do) change the putative essence of being Jewish. They engage in continuing invention and reinvention of the meaning of Jew, Jewish, Jewishness and Judaism, creating the possibility for ongoing transformation.”
Change and a measure of transformation are part of modern living. It is a stretch to say, for example, as some have said that fervently religious Jews in the U.S. have forged living patterns that strongly resemble how religious Jews lived in pre-Holocaust Europe. Time, economic conditions and social forces have brought about significant mutations in religious life-style, including certain values, with core religious beliefs and practices remaining largely intact. However, the notion that we can do and believe whatever we want and still call it Judaism is alien to our history and heritage and dangerous to our future.
The notion that we can constantly reinvent Judaism scarcely affects the Orthodox. The principal impact is on non-Orthodox life, in the undermining of institutions and arrangements that still are vital to a great many Jews. If a few tweaks and a Jewish label are sufficient to impart Jewish legitimacy to any activity, it’s a good bet that younger Jews will go in that direction, associating with activities that are only Jewish in name and embracing what is fashionable in the general culture. There is little hope that synagogues and old line institutions will be able to compete, as a Gresham’s Law will mandate that weak activities and associations will prevail over more substantial Jewish experiences. We see this in the rapid deterioration of the Conservative movement.
I first wrote about this development in the late 1980s and then developed the theme in a book-length monograph in which I suggested that what we were already witness to would not run its course during my lifetime because minimalistic Judaism – which I now refer to as anything goes Judaism – is being sustained and reinforced by substantial communal support, effective promotion and a critical mass of advanced assimilation Jews, including many who have intermarried, who desire to retain Jewish identity even as they chuck off nearly everything that being Jewish meant.
In previous generations, such Jews would have walked away entirely from Jewish life and, in fact, many have in the recent period. What is extraordinary is the number who haven’t. For them, the reinvention of Judaism is tailor-made. Also propping up a residual connection with Jewishness among assimilated Jews who have not vanished into the great American melting pot is the remarkable phenomenon of Jews being at the top of the American ethnic hit parade. We may dwell endlessly on our own warts, yet to other Americans we are hardworking, intelligent, successful, charitable and laden with good values. This helps to explain the stratospheric intermarriage rate.
This sociological brew provides a frame-of-reference for anything goes Judaism. Far out measures are being undertaken to keep the patient called American Jewry alive and they are having some success. A generation ago, I thought that this attitude had staying power. I still do. Anything goes Judaism may be bogus Judaism, yet it is an important sociological reality.
Change will come because the full impact of intermarriage cannot be put off permanently. The evidence is already here in the diminished identity of the offspring of the intermarried. Other changes will result when the dynamic nature of anything goes Judaism as legitimate will induce behaviors that are even more distant from our traditions, including much that is outlandish and even repugnant to our beliefs. This means that the prospect is not rosy for Federations, synagogues and the Hadassahs of our organizational world. This does not mean that our large army of organizations will disappear, although some will. We must never underestimate the capacity of an organization that is functionally dead to remain alive.
For all of its defects, anything goes Judaism is an extraordinary phenomenon and it will be fascinating to see what awaits us.
Friday, December 03, 2010
Ultra Bigotry
In a New Republic review of Gal Beckerman’s well-received book on the struggle for Soviet Jewry, Yossi Klein Halevi who grew up in Brooklyn and now lives in Israel tells of his Jewish Defense League involvement during that crucial period and then offers the following nasty parenthetical aside, “The ultra Orthodox community that did virtually nothing to save Soviet Jews now tries to prevent their full absorption into the Jewish people.”
We can perhaps forgive Klein Halevi for being inaccurate, as he was young when the events being described occurred and he was certainly distracted by the efforts of his JDL buddies to engage in violence. What, however, does “virtually nothing” mean? More pointedly, his current bias is not an excusable offense. There was significant activity by the fervently Orthodox on behalf of Soviet Jews, although much of it was out of the public eye, such things as Chabad’s role in keeping Jewish life alive in the USSR, at times at great risk. There was the work of Rabbi Pinchas Teitz of Elizabeth and Rabbi Harry Bronstein of Brooklyn, both now deceased, and the remarkable efforts of Rabbi Mordechai Neustadt who remains active. Malcolm Hoenlein who played a key role working for Soviet Jews early in his distinguished career of Jewish public service points out in an email, “Agudah types certainly came to the rallies.” There was a good deal other involvement from this small sector which is now being smeared once more by a writer with a bigoted agenda.
Why the distortion? There are patterns in how people live, in their friendship circles, food preferences, values, use of language, etc. So it is with groups. This is what is meant by culture. Yossi Klein Halevi does not write on a clean slate. Negativism toward the Orthodox is ingrained and all the better when “ultra” can be added to the identification, so as to convey a picture of extremism, even fanaticism. It is as if denigrating the Orthodox is a Jewish cultural imperative.
I have protested against the “ultra Orthodox” usage, to little avail. No other religious group in the world, including those that stone people or amputate limbs or engage in violence, have “ultra” as part of their identity. We Orthodox are the chosen people, whether in the New York Times or most major Jewish and general publications. Constant usage does not impart legitimacy to the term, nor accuracy, as is evident from its application to Shas, the Israeli political party that caters to Sephardic needs and whose share of Knesset votes tops by a wide margin the percentage of charedim announced by Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics. The governmental data obviously consists primarily of chassidim and persons in the yeshiva world. Although Shas is labeled ultra Orthodox, more than a few of its loyalists can be found at soccer games on Shabbat and engage in other distinctively non-Orthodox activity.
The flip side of deprecatory writing about the Orthodox is what is neglected. If there was an English-language daily Jewish newspaper, most of us would imagine that it would get tons of attention. There is such a phenomena and it is called Hamodia. It has been around for a bunch of years and is read each day by thousands. To boot, it’s well-written and the layout is superb. For nearly all American Jews it does not exist, not because they do not read it but because they have never heard of it and that’s because this and other newspapers that report on much trivia in Jewish life pretend that it does not exist.
There is a galaxy of Orthodox magazines – I dare not call them ultra – including two under Hamodia auspices, as well as Mishpacha, that are attractive and interesting reads and they too do not exist in the mindset of nearly all American Jews. The talented people at Hamodia, under the direction of Mrs. Ruth Lichtenstein, a remarkable woman, have produced a major work on the Holocaust called “Witness to History” that is perhaps the first textbook on this critical period. It is already in use in many high schools. Sir Martin Gilbert and Dr. Michael Berenbaum are among the major scholars who were involved in its preparation. Why the neglect?
ArtScroll represents another aspect of the treatment of activities associated with the fervently Orthodox. Attention is paid, too often in a deprecatory fashion, and rarely with adequate appreciation of the quality of the scholarship or how it has transformed the study of sacred texts, notably of the Talmud, which is its most glorious achievement. I admire Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz for his monumental career, yet his Talmud which gathers favorable press at the drop of his name cannot hold a candle to ArtScroll’s, not in usage and not in usability. This is evident in Modern Orthodox and some non-Orthodox homes.
Attention, at times inordinate, is paid when there is real or alleged Orthodox - and especially ultra - wrongdoing to report on. No claim for immunity from coverage can be made when the story concerns a communal matter or official. Even then, balance is required. A couple of weeks back, the lead story, if it can be called that, in this newspaper was about how North Shore Hebrew Academy high school was raiding or recruiting students from the Solomon Schechter of Nassau County. I am not sure how this is wrongful. The more important story should be about the sad and steep decline of this Solomon Schechter school, a decline so pronounced that documents I have seen deal with the continued viability of its high school. This situation merits attention, if only because it might engender support for the school.
In view of the extent of Orthodox activities to assist the needy, much of it ultra inspired, it is probably too much to hope that sufficient credit be given to these achievements. Is it too much to hope, however, that the next time Yossi Klein Halevi veers toward anti-Orthodox bigotry, he might just ponder this activity?
We can perhaps forgive Klein Halevi for being inaccurate, as he was young when the events being described occurred and he was certainly distracted by the efforts of his JDL buddies to engage in violence. What, however, does “virtually nothing” mean? More pointedly, his current bias is not an excusable offense. There was significant activity by the fervently Orthodox on behalf of Soviet Jews, although much of it was out of the public eye, such things as Chabad’s role in keeping Jewish life alive in the USSR, at times at great risk. There was the work of Rabbi Pinchas Teitz of Elizabeth and Rabbi Harry Bronstein of Brooklyn, both now deceased, and the remarkable efforts of Rabbi Mordechai Neustadt who remains active. Malcolm Hoenlein who played a key role working for Soviet Jews early in his distinguished career of Jewish public service points out in an email, “Agudah types certainly came to the rallies.” There was a good deal other involvement from this small sector which is now being smeared once more by a writer with a bigoted agenda.
Why the distortion? There are patterns in how people live, in their friendship circles, food preferences, values, use of language, etc. So it is with groups. This is what is meant by culture. Yossi Klein Halevi does not write on a clean slate. Negativism toward the Orthodox is ingrained and all the better when “ultra” can be added to the identification, so as to convey a picture of extremism, even fanaticism. It is as if denigrating the Orthodox is a Jewish cultural imperative.
I have protested against the “ultra Orthodox” usage, to little avail. No other religious group in the world, including those that stone people or amputate limbs or engage in violence, have “ultra” as part of their identity. We Orthodox are the chosen people, whether in the New York Times or most major Jewish and general publications. Constant usage does not impart legitimacy to the term, nor accuracy, as is evident from its application to Shas, the Israeli political party that caters to Sephardic needs and whose share of Knesset votes tops by a wide margin the percentage of charedim announced by Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics. The governmental data obviously consists primarily of chassidim and persons in the yeshiva world. Although Shas is labeled ultra Orthodox, more than a few of its loyalists can be found at soccer games on Shabbat and engage in other distinctively non-Orthodox activity.
The flip side of deprecatory writing about the Orthodox is what is neglected. If there was an English-language daily Jewish newspaper, most of us would imagine that it would get tons of attention. There is such a phenomena and it is called Hamodia. It has been around for a bunch of years and is read each day by thousands. To boot, it’s well-written and the layout is superb. For nearly all American Jews it does not exist, not because they do not read it but because they have never heard of it and that’s because this and other newspapers that report on much trivia in Jewish life pretend that it does not exist.
There is a galaxy of Orthodox magazines – I dare not call them ultra – including two under Hamodia auspices, as well as Mishpacha, that are attractive and interesting reads and they too do not exist in the mindset of nearly all American Jews. The talented people at Hamodia, under the direction of Mrs. Ruth Lichtenstein, a remarkable woman, have produced a major work on the Holocaust called “Witness to History” that is perhaps the first textbook on this critical period. It is already in use in many high schools. Sir Martin Gilbert and Dr. Michael Berenbaum are among the major scholars who were involved in its preparation. Why the neglect?
ArtScroll represents another aspect of the treatment of activities associated with the fervently Orthodox. Attention is paid, too often in a deprecatory fashion, and rarely with adequate appreciation of the quality of the scholarship or how it has transformed the study of sacred texts, notably of the Talmud, which is its most glorious achievement. I admire Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz for his monumental career, yet his Talmud which gathers favorable press at the drop of his name cannot hold a candle to ArtScroll’s, not in usage and not in usability. This is evident in Modern Orthodox and some non-Orthodox homes.
Attention, at times inordinate, is paid when there is real or alleged Orthodox - and especially ultra - wrongdoing to report on. No claim for immunity from coverage can be made when the story concerns a communal matter or official. Even then, balance is required. A couple of weeks back, the lead story, if it can be called that, in this newspaper was about how North Shore Hebrew Academy high school was raiding or recruiting students from the Solomon Schechter of Nassau County. I am not sure how this is wrongful. The more important story should be about the sad and steep decline of this Solomon Schechter school, a decline so pronounced that documents I have seen deal with the continued viability of its high school. This situation merits attention, if only because it might engender support for the school.
In view of the extent of Orthodox activities to assist the needy, much of it ultra inspired, it is probably too much to hope that sufficient credit be given to these achievements. Is it too much to hope, however, that the next time Yossi Klein Halevi veers toward anti-Orthodox bigotry, he might just ponder this activity?
Thursday, December 02, 2010
The Challenge of Insularity
Nearly fifty years ago, I wrote an article on Orthodox Jews and the civil rights movement that was published in the Jewish Observer, then the magazine of Agudath Israel, arguing among other things that it is appropriate to contribute to such causes. Although the contribution might not qualify as tzedakah, it would certainly be charity and a good use of our discretionary resources.
I taught at Hunter College in the 1960s, with the lion’s share of my time devoted to COLPA, the National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs, which in a brief period made great strides in advancing the rights of religious persons. As an additional voluntary activity, I represented the American Civil Liberties Union in connection with its non-governmental organizational status at the United Nations, working toward the adoption of human rights treaties.
In a sense, the article and ACLU activity pointed in the same direction. An Orthodox Jew who was embedded in his community and was extremely active in religious life need not and perhaps should not be entirely insular.
It’s doubtful that nowadays the Jewish Observer would publish an article that advocates contributions to non-Jewish causes and not only because the magazine is no longer in existence. Orthodox Jews who inherently and justifiably are insular have become more so. There are barriers and attitudes that limit our interactions with the general society. Yet, I cling to the view that I expressed long ago. When recently the back page of the Times Sunday Magazine, usually devoted to human interest stories, told of a courageous Glendale, Arizona woman who operates a home for abused women, after Google provided the name and address, I sent a contribution. It may be that this was not an act of tzedakah, although we are halachically enjoined under at least some circumstances to assist persons in need who are not Jewish.
For sure, this isn’t standard procedure for most Orthodox, at least not among the charedim, and, to an extent, for good reasons. Although in the aggregate the Orthodox are the least affluent of American Jews, they contribute a disproportionate share of the tzedakah given to Jewish causes, helping to sustain in the process and under increasingly difficult conditions a large and growing network of yeshivas and day schools, as well as other educational institutions, and a remarkable array of chesed activities that assist a vast number of Jews, including many who are not Orthodox. All of this despite the high cost of religious Jewish living.
For these reasons alone, the Orthodox can be forgiven for exhibiting parochialism in their charity. If any Orthodox contribute outside of the four cubits of their communal life, this, too, is understandable and even praiseworthy. There is, after all, Hillel’s great teaching about not being merely for ourselves.
Insularity is objectionable, however, when it is expressed, whether in word or deed, as negativity toward persons who are not Jewish. It is one thing to contribute exclusively to Jewish causes because they are our special obligation, need help and we cannot count on other people to be of assistance. It is something else and potentially ugly to justify parochialism on the ground that non-Jews are never worthy of assistance because they are inferior. I have challenged this wrongful attitude in writing for decades, without much apparent impact.
We are a Chosen People only by nature of our living sanctified lives. We are not sanctified – and certainly not better than other people – when we denigrate the 99.99+% of the world’s inhabitants who are not Jewish. Just as a practical matter, this attitude is at once silly and dangerous. Why should we expect other people to respect us, if we do not respect them?
Yet, there is a disturbing tendency among some Orthodox, religious figures included, to express in words but not deeds attitudes that are objectionable. When such language is not challenged, there is a good prospect that what is wrongful will be dynamic and breed even greater wrongs. If offensive rhetoric is regarded as appropriate, our community is seriously in need of improvement.
One highly unwelcome consequence of parochialism accompanied by negativism is that it serves as a justification, if not a cause, for Orthodox Jews who have abandoned a religious life. It is clear that by a considerable margin more Jews who were born into Orthodox families are rejecting that commitment than the number of Jews born into non-Orthodox families who have been attracted to religious life through outreach and other activity. There are, admittedly, strong forces at work to produce this unhappy situation, mainly that we live in an open society that provides powerful and exciting incentives to those who want to abandon religiosity. It remains that there are Orthodox who were turned off by inappropriate language about non-Jews.
When I point this out to my fellow Orthodox, they invariably invoke the long and painful history of persecution. For them the Holocaust remains an open wound that justifies the denigration of non-Jews. It is hard to argue with them about the history and yet their argument which is predicated on the notion that inherently every non-Jew is at least a potential anti-Semite is false and dangerous. The United States is not part of this history; it is a land of tolerance that has exhibited, even now, extraordinary esteem for our people. Nor is it accurate to depict all those among whom we have lived throughout the centuries as people who hate Jews.
There is a way of being on guard against anti-Semitism without regarding every non-Jew as an anti-Semite. There is a way to be insular without being negative and derogatory toward all other people.
I taught at Hunter College in the 1960s, with the lion’s share of my time devoted to COLPA, the National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs, which in a brief period made great strides in advancing the rights of religious persons. As an additional voluntary activity, I represented the American Civil Liberties Union in connection with its non-governmental organizational status at the United Nations, working toward the adoption of human rights treaties.
In a sense, the article and ACLU activity pointed in the same direction. An Orthodox Jew who was embedded in his community and was extremely active in religious life need not and perhaps should not be entirely insular.
It’s doubtful that nowadays the Jewish Observer would publish an article that advocates contributions to non-Jewish causes and not only because the magazine is no longer in existence. Orthodox Jews who inherently and justifiably are insular have become more so. There are barriers and attitudes that limit our interactions with the general society. Yet, I cling to the view that I expressed long ago. When recently the back page of the Times Sunday Magazine, usually devoted to human interest stories, told of a courageous Glendale, Arizona woman who operates a home for abused women, after Google provided the name and address, I sent a contribution. It may be that this was not an act of tzedakah, although we are halachically enjoined under at least some circumstances to assist persons in need who are not Jewish.
For sure, this isn’t standard procedure for most Orthodox, at least not among the charedim, and, to an extent, for good reasons. Although in the aggregate the Orthodox are the least affluent of American Jews, they contribute a disproportionate share of the tzedakah given to Jewish causes, helping to sustain in the process and under increasingly difficult conditions a large and growing network of yeshivas and day schools, as well as other educational institutions, and a remarkable array of chesed activities that assist a vast number of Jews, including many who are not Orthodox. All of this despite the high cost of religious Jewish living.
For these reasons alone, the Orthodox can be forgiven for exhibiting parochialism in their charity. If any Orthodox contribute outside of the four cubits of their communal life, this, too, is understandable and even praiseworthy. There is, after all, Hillel’s great teaching about not being merely for ourselves.
Insularity is objectionable, however, when it is expressed, whether in word or deed, as negativity toward persons who are not Jewish. It is one thing to contribute exclusively to Jewish causes because they are our special obligation, need help and we cannot count on other people to be of assistance. It is something else and potentially ugly to justify parochialism on the ground that non-Jews are never worthy of assistance because they are inferior. I have challenged this wrongful attitude in writing for decades, without much apparent impact.
We are a Chosen People only by nature of our living sanctified lives. We are not sanctified – and certainly not better than other people – when we denigrate the 99.99+% of the world’s inhabitants who are not Jewish. Just as a practical matter, this attitude is at once silly and dangerous. Why should we expect other people to respect us, if we do not respect them?
Yet, there is a disturbing tendency among some Orthodox, religious figures included, to express in words but not deeds attitudes that are objectionable. When such language is not challenged, there is a good prospect that what is wrongful will be dynamic and breed even greater wrongs. If offensive rhetoric is regarded as appropriate, our community is seriously in need of improvement.
One highly unwelcome consequence of parochialism accompanied by negativism is that it serves as a justification, if not a cause, for Orthodox Jews who have abandoned a religious life. It is clear that by a considerable margin more Jews who were born into Orthodox families are rejecting that commitment than the number of Jews born into non-Orthodox families who have been attracted to religious life through outreach and other activity. There are, admittedly, strong forces at work to produce this unhappy situation, mainly that we live in an open society that provides powerful and exciting incentives to those who want to abandon religiosity. It remains that there are Orthodox who were turned off by inappropriate language about non-Jews.
When I point this out to my fellow Orthodox, they invariably invoke the long and painful history of persecution. For them the Holocaust remains an open wound that justifies the denigration of non-Jews. It is hard to argue with them about the history and yet their argument which is predicated on the notion that inherently every non-Jew is at least a potential anti-Semite is false and dangerous. The United States is not part of this history; it is a land of tolerance that has exhibited, even now, extraordinary esteem for our people. Nor is it accurate to depict all those among whom we have lived throughout the centuries as people who hate Jews.
There is a way of being on guard against anti-Semitism without regarding every non-Jew as an anti-Semite. There is a way to be insular without being negative and derogatory toward all other people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)