 |
| NY state assemblyman, Simcha Eichenstein |
The Times editorial hasn’t been published yet. But based on a synopsis, Agudah pretty much describes it as a hit piece against the Charedi community. A response published in the New York Sun was written by New York State assemblyman, Simcha Eichenstein, a 39 year old Chasid from Boro Park. (Availbale in PDF here)
I am not going to get into the details of his response. We have heard it all before. I will even concede that much (but certainly not all) of his points have merit. But if – as I suspect - the Times editorial focuses on the state of Charedi – or more specifically Chasidic education in New York, then all of his arguments do not address the fact that a few of the more extreme – and yet very large segments of the Chasidic world do not offer their youth a basic secular education. Substituting religious studies in its place.
If I understand correctly from Eichenstein’s oped, the Times paints all Charedi schools with a very broad negative brush. If that’s true, they are indeed guilty of bias. But what Eichenstein does not say is that the Times accusations are indeed accurate with respect to those Chasidic schools.
Eichenstein then goes about making the same tired arguments that the way Chasadim are educated produces a more productive citizen than the does the typical public school. In both economic and social terms. And that they are much happier individually than the typical American.
This may all be true. But it doesn’t diminish the fact that they are still short changed by not getting the basic education that will surely better their lives both materially and socially – even though they may not realize it because of how they are indoctrinated.
Are there wealthy Chasidim, that did not get that education? Sure. Plenty of them. But there are a lot more that aren’t wealthy. And among them are those that live in relative poverty. Which they might have avoided had they gotten enough of an education to at least know how to put an English sentence together without major spelling and grammatical errors.
It is somewhat disingenuous for Eichenstein to use himself as an example of the kind of product his Chasidic Yeshiva education produces. First, because we have no idea whether his particular Yeshiva offered a core secular curriculum or not. And even if it didn’t, his ability to write an oped that is grammatically correct without spelling errors might just mean that he has been self taught. Or that it was proofread and edited by someone who did.
That someone like Eichenstein was motivated to become more fluent in the English language does not mean that everyone else in his community does, Or that they even CAN if they wanted to.
True not all jobs require a mastery of the English language. Or even a decent working knowledge of it. But a lot of jobs do – all of which they are cut off from getting. Thus forcing substantial numbers of them to earn a lot less income than they might have otherwise.
And all of this doesn’t even address the fact that – unless they self educate – they will be woefully ignorant of the culture just outside the world in which they live. A culture they will surely come into contact with throughout their lives out of necessity.
That they are admired by people who have come into contact with them from that outside culture because of all the things Eichenstein mentions, does not mean that their ignorance isn’t noticed. And surely not what is admired. It is noticed. It is just overlooked. They are in fact seen as ignorant of a basic education.
Doesn’t Eichenstetn and Agudah place any value on that? Is it only about being happy - and even pruductve in one’s own environment that matters? Is it really OK to not care what others think about your ignorance? Do we not have the obligation to show the world how intelligent and knowledgeable the Jewish people are?
How can we be a light unto the nations if we are perceived as happy but ignorant of such basic things as speaking the English language well? Or being unable to put a sentence together on paper without major spelling and grammatical errors?
True, we are all educated in our religious traditions. And we can be proud of the considerable knowledge we get from that and the lifestyle we lead in large part because of that. But if we are perceived as ignorant of basics it will not reflect well on our intelligence and knowledge.
And yet this is what Agudah is fighting to perpetuate. It is more than ironic that their lay leaders - such as their current executive vice president, Rabbi Cham Dovid Zweibel (and all of his predecessors) have had the very education they are fighting to deny the Chasidim that attend those schools. I would be willing to bet that Agudah would never hire someone in that role that did not receive any secular education. I cannot imagine someone who can’t put an English sentence together without making huge mistakes leading Agudah.
I realize I am spitting in the wind. Agudah will contnue fighting for the right for Jews to remain ignorant if they so choose. I just protest their implication that forcing a school to offer a core curriculujm interferes with their right to educate their children religiously. They know that this is not true. If it were, no religious school would offer one
All of this being said, I suspect that Agudah and Eichenstein might be right about the Times prejudice against Charedim in that editorial. But the Times is probably right as it applies to the few Chasidic schools that don’t properly educate their youth. They probably just incorrectly painted all Charedi schools with a broad a brush. Obviously they are not all like that. Most do offer a core secular curriculum. I just wish that the Agudah would make that distinction. Because their broad brush is just as inaccurate as the Times broad brush.
