Eyes on the Prize

Click to enlarge

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has weighed in on the New York Times’ incessant negative coverage of the Orthodox Jewish and Chasidic communities in New York, calling upon the outlet to take into account the fuel it is adding to the exponentially growing antisemitic fire that is already tearing through New York. 

I don’t think this is arguable. The Times has indeed been focusing quite negatively on the Chasidic community. Without a hint about the many positive things that are part and parcel of their lives.  Indeed, there have been 12 articles of that nature recently. And the possibility of  increased antisemitic violence as a result is real. 

Despite the fact that the typical Times reader is not likely to be one of those carrying out any sort of violent attack, the negative vibes articles like this send out reverberate well outside of their immediate circle of readers. 

It would be wise of the Times to actually do some research beyond their focus on the problems and see who these people really are; what they are about; and  the many positive things they do. Things which many of us could learn from and even emulate.

That said, I do not believe that the motive behind the Times investigative report was antisemitic – or even particularly anti Chasidic. I just think their focus on the one thing that is negative, gives a false overall impression. Although to those of us who know the truth - it might seem like the Times intent was to smear Chasidim, I do not believe that it was.

The problem with all of these justifiable complaints against the Times is that it ignores the very reason their investigation was undertaken. Which was to expose an educational system that denies their students a basic education in Limudei Chol. A system so deficient that their students’ difficulty with the  English language is considered one of the ‘learning disabilities’ for which they take government  funds.  

While condemning the Times relentless series of negative articles about Chasidim in a climate if increased antisemtism is valid, we must not forget the legitimate problems that generated those articles. and remain vigilant in the goal of getting that community to correct them

In all of the discussion about the Times anti Chasidic articles, I do not recall it ever mentioned why the Times investigated them. I would take this a step further and say that there would never have been an investigation in the first place if these schools had not deprived their students of the same curriculum that  the vast majority of Orthodox schools do. 

But once they are being investigated, the Pandora's box has been opened and additional problems are revealed. 

I – for one – have not given up on my goal to improve the lives of the Chasidic community – even though they may not realize they need that improvement. No one will convince me that the inability to speak the language of the land well – or write a sentence in English that isn't filled with spelling and grammatical errors - is a good thing that shouldn't be tampered with. 

Which is why I am once again taking this opportunity to remind people of good will to NOT take their eyes off the prize - until Chasidic children are given the education they deserve.  Which should include the same curricula of Limudei Kodesh and Limjudei Chol that the vast majority of the rest of the Orthodox Jewish world provides their children. 

I will end with an excerpt from a Forbes article* Agudah had posted on Know Us  - the very website they set up to counter the Times negative narrative with a positive one. It was authored by an Irish Catholic who is strong supporter of the Chasidic community.   

If, for example, it really is the case that there are schools that are not teaching students the English language or rudimentary math, and they are graduating the equivalent of the 12th grade illiterate and innumerate, I do think that it is in the State of New York or New Jersey’s purview to require these schools to improve on those fronts. Children are a special, vulnerable class of citizens and as a society we do have a duty of care to them. While establishing where the line between parental rights and that duty of care falls is fraught and challenging, it seems like one can be drawn here reasonably easily without infringing on parental rights or school autonomy.

To this I say Amen.

*Not sure, but it seems that this article has been removed from that website.  I can no longer locate it there. But it was there when I first excepted it in a comment to a previous post.