Is the New York Times Really Antisemitic?

One of the negative articles about Chasidim in the New York Times (VIN)

I hate defending the New York Times. Their bias against Israel is frequent, long term, and legendary. Subtle though it may be. But are the really antisemetic? Clearly they are not since many of their reporters and opinion writers are Jewish (Bret Stevens and David Brooks come to mind.) 

Nonetheless there are many voices that have been saying that when it comes to Charedi Jews they are. Some of those voices include non Charedim (Professor Moshe Krakowski) and some that are not even Jewish. Are they all right? I’m not so sure about that. I recall not all that long ago (a couple of years?) a lengthy article in the New York Times about the Charedi world of Lakewood, New Jersey. It was full of praise and admiration for the idealistic way those religious Jews lead their lives. Not one negative word in it.

But that article has long ago been forgotten in light of what is now perceived as hit pieces against religious Jews. For those that have somehow missed it - there have been a series of articles by the Times on the state of Chasidic education. All of it negative.

The reaction of Agudah and quite a few others was to immediately label the Times as antisemitic when it comes to Charedim.  Their claim was that the Times did not say a word about any of the many positive aspects of the lives of the people they ‘vilified’. Nor did they bother to get ‘the other side’ of the story that would prove that the Chasidic educational system is not as bad as the Times painted it. Furthermore articles like those tend to exacerbate the already increased antiemetism (some of it violent) we see today. (They may be right about that.)

This prompted a massive campaign by the Agudah to set the record straight about what the world of Charedim is really like. A website has been developed to show all that and to counter the antisemitism they accused the Times of having.

It appears that another mainstream media source has given Agudah some publicity about this. Two popular Orthodox Jewish news media: The Jewish Press and VIN featured a JNS article that began with the following headline:

Fox News Gives Orthodox Jews the Voice that The New York Times Denies Them 

A new, 6-and-a-half-minute Fox News documentary—which Kassy Dillon, a former JNS news editor, reported—turns the camera on Orthodox leaders and scholars.

“We resent that the Times are engaged in what appears to be a crusade,” Chaim Dovid Zwiebel, an Orthodox rabbi and executive vice president of Agudath Israel of America, told Dillon. “A crusade to get people to consider chassidic Jews in a negative light. 

As I have repeatedly said, the Chasidic community has a lot going for it. It has indeed been mischaracterized by the Times focus on how the Chasidic educational system shortchanges their students in the following ways: Their lack of any formal curriculum of Limudei Chol (secular subjects), their disciplinary methods, the public funding they get (provided by the state to all private and parochial schools) and the ‘creative’ way in which they use those funds. 

I have no clue how accurate - all - of those accusations are. But I assume that they reported what they saw. Or at least what they thought they saw.  How pervasive it might be is another question.  But there one thing I am sure of  which I believe is the main thrust of the Times investigative reporting: The Chasidic sects that were investigated do not offer any kind of formal secular curriculum to their students. 

I assume what spurred the Times investigation was NYSED’s determination to enforce its public school equivalency requirements. The Times simply wanted to know what was actually going on in those schools. They found out and reported it. That was the focus of the article. It was not intended to be an overview of the way Charedi or Chasidic Jews lead their loves. 

It had nothing to say about whether this community is self sustaining. Or whether the typical family income was comparable to that of the general population. 

Although the Times they did report that a higher percentage of Chasidic families rely on government welfare programs  than does the general public. That was defended by Agudah. Government welfare guidelines allow Chasidim to utilize these programs despite incomes comparable to that of the general public. That’s because of their very large families. That makes an income that most people would consider quite adequate to not be adequate enough or their very large families. (10 or more i children in one family is not all that uncommon). 

Be that as it may, the Times investigated one important aspect of the community. And reported what they found. Which – as noted - was all negative. They didn’t report on any of the positive things in that community because none of it was relevant. 

Could they have doe a better job by at least mentioning that the fact that this community should not be judged as a whole because of one failing - serious though it may be? Sure. They could have. Perhaps they even should have? But that is not how investigate reporting works. The reporters did what they were tasked to do and focused entirely on that. Not with anything else.

I therefore do not believe that the New York Times should be judged as antisemitic (with respect to  Charedim) from this series of articles. But at the same time I understand why the Agudah and other defenders felt they are. I’m therefore happy to see a major news organization publicizing the positive side of the Chasidic world. 

What should not be lost in all of this is that their educational system is still badly in need of major repair. And to the extent that NYSED can do anything about it – more power to them.