The Truth About Chasidim

Young students of Yeshiva Mesivta Arugath Habosem (NYT)

Yet another negative article against the Chasidic community has once again been featured in the New York Times. Considering that there has been an uptick in antisemitic violence recently, this was not a particularly good time to feature an article like this. Especially since a lot of that violence is directed toward anyone of us that is identifiably Jewish. (From wearing a Kipa to wearing the highly distinctive garb that Chasidim do.) The more ‘Jewish’ we look, the greater the chance of being targeted. This new article has brought yet another condemnation of the Times by the Agudah.

They are justifiably worried that this will increase those attacks. 

Furthermore, I agree with their accusation that the Times never includes anything positive about Chasidim in their articles. Making them seem like Chasidim are primitive human beings whose religious practices border on cruelty. Encouraging a lifestyle that forces many of  them to take advantage of government welfare programs. 

If I am a typical non Jewish reader of the Times who is generally ignorant about this community, I can only conclude that Chasidim are terrible people. And if I am an antisemite it will justify my hatred of.- and animosity toward - the Jews

The truth about these communities is that they are far from terrible. Quite the opposite. Within the confines of their own culture, they are the most kind and generous individuals anyone can imagine despite their relatively modest means. Often spreading their time and money even to nonobservant Jews. And in some cases even to non Jews.  

Far from being the leaches they are often portrayed as, most of them generally do quite well  financially – able to provide for their families via the various small businesses created that cater to their fellow Chasidim – or anyone else that that finds their way into to their neighborhood shopping district. 

Their families are large by design. This makes their personal cost of living much higher than the national average. It thus legally qualifies many of them to government financial aid. Same as any other American in similar circumstances. However, there are also more than a few very wealthy Chasidim that have become multi millionaires in business ventures like real estate and assorted other business (like B&H) . The following excerpt  from an article by one of their many defenders also noted the following: 

Hasidic school alumni are not found in bars, on street corners, or participating in smash-and-grab robberies. They are homeowners and taxpayers, who build stable families and work to provide for them. Even the Times admitted, in a backhanded fashion, that drug or alcohol addiction, a recurrent aftereffect of leaving the community, is practically unheard of among the great majority who remain. They remain committed to education throughout their lifetimes; their homes are filled with books rather than flat-screen TVs.  

Quite true. But you wouldn't know any of this by reading the Times. Overall the majority of these Chasidim live quite well by the standards that matter to them. And are generally much happier with their lot and way of life them many of the rest of us.  They are happy to live their insulated lives as they are. Different though it is from the rest of us.              

So, there is indeed  much to admire about the Chasidic world that the Times has completely ignored. The fact that they have yet to say anything at all positive at all in their many articles about them is indeed troubling.  

But even though the condemnations against the Times treatment of the Chasidic world are justified, that does not make what they reported any less true - even though it was based almost exclusively on the words of expatriate Chasidim who are no longer observant. True, it colors what they say. But the basic facts of their stories are hard to dispute.  

Facts that I too have issues with. Such as the lack of any independent Limudei Chol (secular studies) in their school curriculum.  Something that has yet to be properly dealt with. The opposite is true. Their curriculum has been defended by the very people that are condemning the Times now.  People whose own education did not suffer any the consequences of a ‘No Limudei Chol’ curriculum.

I believe the claims of those parents about being deprived of any autonomy over their children’s education after a divorce. Derived of a divorce agreement that requires their children to stay in the school they are in at the time of the divorce - or lose custody.  Even though the vast majority of their former community has no problem with those schools that does not mean other Orthodox schools are problematic with respect to teaching religious studies.

I understand the reason that condition is insisted upon at the time of the divorce. The fear is that the no longer observant divorced parent will send their children to a public school and disabuse them of observance. 

Requiring the same school is not the only way to prevent that. If they are only concerned about the child being observant - there are many other fine religious  schools that would give both parents what they want. A decent religious education and a decent secular one. 

It’s easy to say (as the Agudah does) that the picture drawn by the Times is based on the words of disgruntled former Chasidim who are probably not observant anymore. That have some sort of vendetta against their former community.  And that therefore their claims are a total fabrication. Depicting a grossly distorted picture of what life is really like for the vast majority of their former peers. 

But as I keep saying, facts are stubborn things. What’s positive is positive. But what’s negative is negative. And that still needs to  be corrected. That should not be forgotten even while expressing justifiable outrage at the New York Times.