I am a big fan of Rabbi Jonathan Rosenblum. And I usually agree with his take on most issues. But somehow I find it hard to believe that the words in a cross-currents essay were written by him. In fact I note at the bottom of the essay that it was co-authored by an individual named of Hershel Brand. So I’m not sure these are exactly Rabbi Rosenblum's words.
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach had written an op-ed back on January 7th upon which I commented at the time. But it was an entirely different aspect of that article. In the cross-currents article Rabbi Boteach was taken to task for his lack of understanding about expulsion policies... or rather apparent lack of them when called for by Israeli Yeshivos and women’s seminary heads. Rabbi Boteach excoriated the arrogance of these educators for thinking they can solve the serious problems of young post high school students and therefore refusing to expel them. This he claimed caused the other students to be exposed and influenced by their bad behavior. In defending these educators from that proposition, the cross-currents essay claims:
“Even in the classic Lithuanian yeshivot, the decision to expel a student is typically treated as one of life and death, and certainly never to be undertaken lightly.”
And
“Moreover, his suggestion that the decision not to expel students with drug and alcohol problems is financially driven insults a group of highly dedicated educators.”
I am very troubled by these assertions. I realize that in many cases there are indeed decent and dedicated Roshei Yeshiva and Menahalim who do care and take great pains to do what’s right. They know when to retain a child they can help, and when to to transfer him or her to institutions with good track records that specialize in problems they know they can't handle. Or, as a last resort to expel a truly irredeemable child.
But this is not a universal truth. And the exceptions are huge. Too huge to make the kinds of blanket assertions that the cross-currents article makes. There are two instances that I will relate that will show just how untrue are these assertions of universal caring for the individual child and not letting money influence their decisions. In both cases, the institutions are mainstream and well respected. And in both cases money influenced their decisions, the greater good being served.
I was a high school student in Telshe (Cleveland) in 1960-62. This was the era of Rav “Motel” Katz, Rosh HaYeshiva. The S’gan Roshei Yeshiva were Rav Mordechai Gifter, ZTL, Rav Baruch Sorotzkin, ZTL, and Yibadel L’Chaim Tovim Aruchim, Rav Chaim Stein, Shlita.
There were two high school students there who used to habitually violate some of the more overly stringent rules. The rules for high school students at the time was that they could not participate in local “Goyishe” recreational activities like going bowling even during their free time. They were admonished about doing this from time to time by the Rosh Mechina (high school Hebrew principal) in Shmuessen (public Hashkafa talks) give in the Beis HaMedrash.
These two students didn’t think much of those Takanos and they habitually violated them, by going bowling on their free time. One time after such a Shmuess, these two boys snuck out and went bowling anyway. It was on a Motzoei Shabbos. And they were caught in the act. Two of the high school Roshei Yeshiva walked into the bowling alley and took them back to the Yeshiva campus. One of those boys was immediately expelled. The other went on about his business as though nothing had happened, not being punished in the slightest.
To be expelled for going bowling hardly took into account the spiritual well being of the child. He was humiliated and so were his parents. And he was about to have a big black mark on his record. But that didn’t matter to these Roshei Yeshiva. The greater good needed to be served. They wanted to be rid of someone who they thought to be a rotten apple. After all he broke the rules. He went bowling!
But the other child who was equally guilty of the same infraction got a pass. Why? His father was a wealthy benefactor whose generosity enabled their branching out succesfully to another city. They did not want to jeopardize that relationship. So one boy was expelled for breaking a relatively minor rule and the other boy… nothing!
I was there. And I have intimate knowledge of both boys and the situation. They were good boys with no past history of rebellion. Certainly there was never at any time in their lives any violation like drinking or any other substance abuse. Certainly nothing like “being dragged back after curfew after partying with a bunch of girls”!
Nope. They just went bowling. That was it! One got expelled. He was immediately told to pack his bags and his father was called to pick him up! The other boy got off scott free. Eventually the father of the expelled boy pleaded with the school and they relented. They required a Mashkon from him of $500 to guarantee that the boy would not stray again. And they regimented this young man with a number of additional strictures such as never being able to leave the campus grounds without explicit permission over the course of the rest of that year.
I’ve seen this scenario played out in various different ways in other Yeshivos many times since then. In one instance back in the eighties, a young decent boy was expelled for infractions that were far less severe than those of other boys who were allowed to stay... and by “pure co-incidence” ...whose parents were wealthy and generous patrons of the school. The boy who was expelled had to be made an example of, despite the fact that his spiritual well being was put in tremendous jeopardy. The greater good needed to be served! If not for one caring Rosh Yeshiva who went out of his way to stay close to his Talmid during that trying time, who knows where this fellow would be today? Because of this RY the young individual eventually became a big Talmid Chacham.
So please do not preach about Lithuanian Yeshivos, never treating a decision to expel a child as one of life and death, or that money is never an issue. I have seen it with my own eyes and have personal and intmate details about each case. And it is simply not true.
