NYT Times VS. Hassidic Schools FOLLOW UP

Important read

A few weeks ago, Yael and I had a conversation on the podcast about the New York Times article regarding the Hassidic schools in New York. I was pretty defensive, as I generally am when the Orthodox community is featured in the MSM. We received a very well-written, well-thought-out personal essay written by one of the Yeshiva students quoted in the article in response to our conversation. My first instinct was to say, “Everything I say is always correct!!!!” but I am trying to be as open to new ideas and new ways of thinking about things as possible. Therefore, I am sharing the entire essay here for you to read. There are many things written here that challenge me greatly but I want you to get the other side of the story. I hope to follow up this follow-up with thoughts from our guest Yehoshua Bredrick and some more of my own thoughts on the issue. I don’t agree with everything written here but I am excited to engage in the conversation.

Please let me know what you think in the comments. Thank you to Chaim and Tzvi for writing this essay and for sending it to me. I look forward to many follow-up conversations/arguments about this!!

UNDERSTANDING THE ISSUE

By Chaim Fishman and Tzvi Cohen

The recent episode discussing The New York Times’ exposé on Hasidic yeshivas was an informative, empathetic conversation. It was clear that all participants care deeply about this issue and strived to have a good-faith discussion about a complex and sensitive topic.

 

Yet, as someone who attended one of the Hasidic yeshivas mentioned in the article and currently still has siblings, cousins, and friends in those schools, I feel that there were some important points that were either downplayed or missing from the conversation. And some other points were misrepresented entirely.

 

As a starter, none of the participants attended the Hasidic yeshivas in New York the article talks about nor have any children in such yeshivas, a fact that they are all honest about but is still important to highlight. This does not necessarily imply that they therefore have no valid opinions on the issue, but it does mean that they have no firsthand experience like the many hundreds of people the Times interviewed and on which the article is based on. 

 

While the participants acknowledged the problem and conveyed genuine sympathy for those affected by these very real issues, the message one takes away from the overall conversation is that the issue is contained to only a very small subset of schools and the Times was exaggerating with their claims. Further, the tone of the conversation suggests that even within those schools that do fail to provide their students with a proper education the problem is not as severe as the Times’ article portrays. Overall, I was left feeling that the discussion was very one-sided and that there was no fair voice defending the claims in the article and more importantly the victims of educational neglect.

Much of the conversation centered around open-ended questions. Why is the Times writing about Hasidic Jews? Will the new regulations introduced by New York do more harm or good? What’s the purpose of an education? These are all important topics, some profound points were made on the podcast, and there’s plenty of room for healthy debate there. But there’s no room for debate on the facts, and those are the points of the conversation I wish to address.

Hasidic Vs. Haredi

Orthodox Judaism is composed of modern-Orthodox and Haredi communities. Haredi is further broken down into Hasidic and Litvak/Yeshivish. These divisions are not 100% clear cut, but they are the general breakdown. The key point is that Hasidim and Haredim are not the same; Hasidim are a subset of Haredim.

(As an aside, Haredi is also often referred to as ultra-Orthodox. Unlike what Mr. Bedrick suggests, this term is sometimes used even among Orthodox Jews and it’s not necessarily a pejorative term. And contrary to the suggestion that the Times uses this term to vilify Haredim, nowhere in the article is the term ultra-Orthodox used.)

The distinction between Hasidic and Haredi is paramount. Indeed, Mr. Bedrick highlights that conflating the two can lead to disingenuous and misleading statements. Early in the discussion, he offers the following critical analysis of the Times’ article: 

“But [the Times is] playing fast and loose with some of the facts. Like when they’re talking about how much money is in the system, it seems to me that they’re actually including all of the Haredi schools, including the ones that are teaching secular ed[ucation]. But when they’re talking about very low test scores, they identified nine [Hasidic] schools that have really really low test scores. Sometimes they’re looking at a larger slice of the pie [i.e., all Haredim], other times they’re looking at a narrower slice of the pie [i.e., only Hasidim]. And whichever way they’re looking at it, they’re doing it in such a way to, I think, put these Jewish schools in a bad light.”

Mr. Bedrick correctly points out that when discussing these issues, it is crucial that we consistently differentiate between Hasidim and Haredim. And he (falsely) accuses the Times of failing to do so. 

Which Yeshivas are we Talking About?

Critics of the lack of secular education at yeshivas in New York have always been crystal clear about which yeshivas they’re complaining about: Hasidic boys' schools. Not yeshivas, not Orthodox yeshivas, not Haredi yeshivas. Hasidic yeshivas.

And within Hasidic boys' yeshivas this problem is nearly universal. Yes, even among Hasidic yeshivas in NY the curriculum differs, and indeed the Times’ article acknowledges that “Hasidic boys’ schools are not a monolith.” Still, virtually every Hasidic boys' yeshiva in the New York area fails to teach the core subjects required by law.

The Times took extra effort to make explicitly clear throughout the article that they’re talking only about Hasidic yeshivas. In every paragraph where the article uses the term “yeshivas” or “schools” to refer to the schools considered in their exposé, they repeatedly precede it with “Hasidic.” At no point in the article is the term Haredi, ultra-Orthodox or another synonyms term used, leaving absolutely no room for ambiguity. 

The Times' meticulous reiteration is no coincidence. Confusion between the various Jewish denominations and groups is common, and Hasidic leaders have used this as a cheap ploy in the past to intentionally mislead the general public unfamiliar with the nuance and mask their systemic failings.

Unfortunately, despite Mr. Bedrick highlighting this important distinction, throughout the podcast conversation Hasidim and Haredim are conflated in an attempt to minimize the problem and discredit the Times’ article.

When setting the context for which schools are failing to provide their students with a well-rounded education, Mr. Bedrick states the following:

“[Problematic schools] would include probably less than half of the Haredi and Hasidic schools.''

This is a necessarily ambiguous statement seeking to incorrectly minimize the issue. Are we talking about Haredi or Hasidic schools? That distinction is crucial. Imagine after someone highlights that nearly 13% of women will be diagnosed with breast cancer someone states that “the percent of humans who will be diagnosed with breast cancer includes less than 6.5% of men and women.” While technically true, this statement is undeniably misleading in a way that unjustly minimizes the occurrence of a serious issue.

I don’t presume that this obfuscation by Mr. Bedrick was intentional to mislead but rather likely a sloppy attempt to not get stuck on the verbiage. But given how he then proceeds to malign the Times for including all Haredi schools when discussing the funding, I would have expected him to lead by a better example.

Mr. Bedrick’s claim that the Times is disingenuously “playing fast and loose with some of the facts” and slyly attempting to include “all of the Haredi schools'' when discussing government funding, suggesting that Hasidic schools received less than $1 billion over the past four years, is unfounded. In the same sentence discussing government funding for these schools, the article again specifies that they’re talking exclusively about “Hasidic boys’ schools.” In fact, one of the Times’ journalists who wrote the article clarified in a later interview that the $1 billion figure allocated is “a significant under account” and is just for the boys' schools; Hasidic girls’ schools receive a similar amount.

How Bad is it Really?

When discussing the severity of the issue in the problematic schools, Mr. Bedrick acknowledges that “they’re not doing algebra, let alone calculus” and have “very little science or history.” 

Unfortunately, even this bleak summary does not tell the harsh reality entirely. Not only do Hasidic boys' schools not cover algebra and calculus, many don’t even ever get to fractions. And while there’s indeed very little science or history in some Hasidic boys' schools, a majority don’t have any time dedicated to these subjects.

This was my personal experience in a Hasidic school in Williamsburg: We were only introduced to the ABCs in the third grade and our classes continued with rudimentary English and arithmetic until the eighth grade. The most advanced math I was ever taught was division. I was never taught any science, history, geography, government, health, literature, or computers. 

After eighth grade, secular studies ended entirely, despite a 13-hour school day in high school.

Not only did we not study algebra or calculus, the vast majority of my childhood Hasidic friends have to this day never even heard those words along with terms such as “atom”, “biology” or “civil rights.”

In other schools, notably Yeshiva Oholei Torah of the Chabad community both Mr. Bedrick and Mrs. Sufrin are a part of, even the basic arithmetic and introductory English spelling that were taught in my Hasidic elementary school are absent. There, no secular studies are offered whatsoever.

Mr. Bedrick and Mrs. Sufrin assert that Hasidic students do learn many other things and point to the different languages taught in Hasidic schools. Mrs. Sufrin states that her kids speak four languages—Hebrew, Yiddish, English, and Aramaic—and purports to claim that all Hasidic yeshivas students are generally literate in Yiddish, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Mr. Bedrick later makes this claim explicitly:

“They’re actually highly educated in a different sphere of learning… They’re literate in three languages. Yiddish that they speak at home, and then Hebrew and Aramaic. Now they’re not walking around speaking Aramaic, but they are able to read and understand highly complex discussions in Aramaic so I would consider that to be literate in Aramaic.”

This claim would be laughable if it weren’t so dishonestly misleading. The Talmud indeed contains Hebrew and Aramaic, but I would wager a hefty sum if you can find a random student on the streets of Boro Park or Williamsburg who can speak more than a few words of Aramaic. Most wouldn’t even be able to speak Hebrew.

In fact, no language at all is properly taught in most yeshivas, including Yiddish. I was never taught Yiddish grammar or spelling. I was never taught how to write a proper paragraph in any language. And that’s the case in most other Hasidic yeshivas.

What About the Outcomes?

The hosts have a good-natured sense of humor, which makes the podcast engaging and which I appreciate. Even during a discussion of such a serious, personal topic, their humor elicited some good chuckles from me. At the same time, though, there's a risk in downplaying the severity, discounting the real experience of many hundreds or thousands of people.

It’s important to humanize these “Hasidic people”, to understand their experience, to recognize that there are real people being harmed by the current status quo. Yes, many people are perfectly happy and live meaningful fulfilling lives within the community. But many others are not, and the point of an exposé is to reveal those who are forgotten.

Think about these situations, which are unfortunately still experienced frequently by many of my family and childhood friends in New York City:

Imagine being an intelligent 20 year old boy who was born and raised in NYC and who spends his entire day in school. Yet, when you go to a doctor's appointment, you must go with your mother or wife (or have them on the phone) because you cannot understand English well enough to communicate. Imagine the humiliation, imagine the health risks, imagine the frustration.

Imagine finishing school and not knowing the English months in order, not knowing your English date of birth, or not even knowing how to write your own name in English.

While the conversation focuses on the ability to speak English and economic outcomes, a well-rounded education offers so much more than that. Living in a democratic country which enables us to live and practice our religions freely, we should all learn about its history, the different branches of government, and the Constitution. Understanding how our complex bodies and the fascinating world we inhabit operate enables us to live healthier and more fulfilling lives. Learning about the histories and cultures of others enables us to live in harmony with one another, which is especially crucial in such a diverse city as New York.

What Does Pew Research Tell Us about Hasidic Income?

The Times’ article highlights significant levels of poverty among Hasidim. There are many different studies and metrics one can look at relating to this topic, and I’m not getting into this larger debate. Mr. Bedrick points to a Pew Research study in an attempt to minimize the levels of poverty among Hasidim and refute the Times’ conclusions, so let’s take a look at that:

“I got here some statistics from Pew… If you are looking at households that are making over $150,000 a year, 8% of the general public makes over $150,000 and among Haredim 24% make over $150,000, which is to say 3.5 times as many of these ‘uneducated’ Haredim, so called ‘uneducated’, are making more than $150,000 a year. So I don’t actually buy the ‘Oh, they’re trapped in a cycle of poverty.’”

First, the discussion is about Hasidim, not Haredim. So even if Mr. Bedrick’s claim were true, it should immediately stand out as an intentional and misleading red herring.

What’s even more shockingly dishonest is that when I looked at the latest Pew Research study, these statistics offered by Mr. Bedrick are about all Orthodox Jews. Not only are they not about Hasidim, they’re not even about Haredim. Orthodox Jews include the modern Orthodox, a group that’s generally well educated and known to earn considerably more.

Here are some other interesting results from this same Pew Research study, which Mr. Bedrick conveniently fails to mention:

Jews without a college education also are more likely to have low household incomes. About one-quarter of Jews with a high school education or less (27%) say they have household incomes below $30,000, while just 4% of college graduates say the same.

And:

Economic well-being is often linked with education, and that is the case here as well. Compared with more highly educated Jews, those without any college education are the least likely to say they live comfortably (36%) and the most likely to say their household is able just to meet basic expenses (30%).

The Pew study Mr. Bedrick uses to contradict the Times’ findings explicitly states that Jews without a college education, a group in which nearly all Hasidic yeshiva graduates fall into, are more likely to struggle economically. Still, he references the study to claim otherwise.

It’s incredibly disappointing that Mr. Bedrick is grossly cherry picking and misrepresenting the data.

Are Claims About Abuse a Blood Libel?

On the issue of corporal punishment in Hasidic yeshivas, a topic the Times’ article also highlights, Mrs. Sufrin offers the following take:

“This accusation of [physical] abuse that the New York Times seems to be making across the Haredi schools, which is, in my opinion, a blood libel. It is absolutely not true. They cherry picked a few cases of [physical] abuse. And I’m not saying that those stories didn’t happen, but… they made it sound like the kids are absolutely suffering in these schools and they’re scared of their teachers and administrators and they’re getting beaten up if they don’t memorize the Talmud. I mean, this is just nonsense. It’s horseshit, in my opinion.”

First, to hammer the point home yet again, the Times’ article never talks about Haredi schools. Second, even if Mrs. Sufrin meant to say Hasidic, her representation of the Times’ claims is wildly exaggerated and inaccurate.

The Times never claims that “kids are absolutely suffering” or suggests that “they’re getting beaten up if they don’t memorize the Talmud.” Rather, the Times states that within Hasidic boys’ schools in New York, the lessons within the classroom “regularly involved corporal punishment”, and the article immediately follows up with concrete testimony and examples to prove the claim. 

It’s clear that Mrs. Sufrin doesn't know the reality of non-Chabad Hasidic schools and incorrectly assumes that these are isolated instances when in fact this is far from the case. There has been steady improvement over the years on this issue, a fact the Times acknowledges, but it's still the norm in some yeshivas.

We can argue about how rampant physical abuse is in Hasidic yeshivas, but calling the Times’ statements a “blood libel” is shameful. The term blood libel refers to the false allegation that Jews used the blood of non-Jewish, usually Christian children, for ritual purposes. I was not a particularly terrible student and yet have vivid memories of getting hit by virtually all my teachers (all except for 6th grade) and principals in my Hasidic cheder.

I understand that this term was used in the loose sense and that no direct comparison was intended. Still, equating real experiences of abuse in Hasidic schools with baseless antisemitic assaults our ancestors faced, no matter how subtle, is incredibly disheartening. This is particularly unsettling because the conversation did touch on the importance of our precise words when discussing such a sensitive topic (e.g., usage of the term ultra-Orthodox, criticizing the Times for using the term “enclaves” rather than “communities”).

But What About …?

Throughout the conversation, different topics are brought up along the lines of “Okay, these Hasidic schools are not providing a secular education. But what about…?”. But what about the successful people in the community? But what about the different things these students do learn? But what about the failures in the public school system? But what about…?

All these discussions miss the point. They’re a way to deflect from the issue at hand and a form of whataboutism. There are indeed many happy people in the community. There are successful businessmen in the community. But so what? None of these points negate the facts about the systemic lack of a well-rounded education and the overall poverty experienced by many members of the community.

There are indeed many issues with the public school system in New York City, but none of them are systemically put in place, unlike the lack of secular education and unqualified teachers in Hasidic yeshivas. And indeed there’s abuse happening in many schools, but the level of cover up that goes along with it in Hasidic schools is sadly hard to match.

Another important point is that, although Hasidim may currently be just another small ethnic community in NYC, they are perhaps the fastest growing one in the city. The Hasidic birth rate is one of the highest in the nation, and an analysis by YAFFED projects that by 2030 between 23% and 37% of school age children in Brooklyn will be Hasidic. In short, if this issue is not properly addressed now, the problems will only continue to grow.

As a final note, I’m glad that the discussion did include the many positive aspects of the Hasidic community. Indeed, the sense of family and community is unmatched. The amount of chesed shown for one another and the number of different organizations helping the members of the community, from volunteer emergency medical service, to helping cancer patients, to free roadside assistance, to helping families when a loved one passes should indeed serve as a role model for all other communities. It’s certainly unfortunate that certain people who generally know nothing about the Hasidic community are only exposed to these critical articles. While the many good aspects of the Hasidic community should be elevated, however, they should not serve as a cover to deflect from the real issues that need to be addressed.