ישיבות: די אפציעס אין געריכט - Wall St. Journal
אזוי ווי מ'קען זיך אוודאי פארשטעלן, וועלן פארשטייער פון די היימישע ישיבות זיך ווענדן אין פעדעראלן געריכט, און מ'וועט טענה'ן אז לויט די יאָדער קעיס, האט די סטעיט נישט קיין רעכט איינצוטיילן דעם חינוך וואס מיר געבן פאר אונזערע קינדער. דאס איז אונזער קאנסטיטוציאנעלער רעכט, צו געבן דעם חינוך וואס מיר האלטן פאר וויכטיג, און אמעריקע גאראנטירט די פרידאם אוו רעליגיע פאר אלע בירגער. און די סטעיט אוו ניו יארק און די באורד אוו רידזשענס טוען אן אומרעכט מיט'ן אוועקנעמען אונזערע רעכט.
What Rights Do Hasidic Schools Have?
Government can impose some limits on religion when there’s a compelling reason.
By William A. GalstonFollow
Sept. 13, 2022 12:39 pm ET
The recently published New York Times report on the educational practices of some of New York’s Hasidic elementary and secondary schools, many of them run by Satmar Jewish groups, is prompting state and local officials to crack down on their alleged deficiencies. The response has sparked a furious reaction from many Jewish leaders.
Understanding this controversy forces us back to first principles.
No right is absolute, not even the free exercise of religion, because the government has fundamental interests that can override individual claims in some circumstances. Some of these interests concern the time, place and manner in which rights are exercised. For example, local governments have the authority to preserve public order by banning groups from conducting late-night religious revivals in residential areas.
In extreme cases, the government may prohibit forms of religious exercise outright. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints gave up polygamy in the 19th century under pressure from Washington, and obviously human sacrifice would never be tolerated.
In education, the courts have balanced the legitimate interests of the faithful and the broader society. U.S. courts have long held that state governments can require all children to attend school up to a certain age and prescribe the core subjects that all children—whether in public, private or parochial schools—are expected to study. These basic requirements may include a substantial amount of instruction in the English language. Schools may choose to add instruction above this baseline, but they must not fall below it. If they do, government may intervene to enforce compliance. By acting in this matter, government exercises its legitimate authority to educate its young to become good citizens and contributing members of society.
But religious freedom limits that authority. That was the issue posed in Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972). The state of Wisconsin required students to continue their education until age 16, contravening the Amish practice of ending education at 14 and having young people assume adult responsibilities in the community.
The Amish argued that their faith was more than inward belief; it is exercised through discharging the responsibilities of communal life. The state didn’t challenge this claim but asserted that its responsibility to educate the young took priority.
The Supreme Court rejected Wisconsin’s claim without denying the force of the state’s argument. If Amish educational practices had failed to produce good citizens and contributing members of society, the court probably would have sided with the state. But Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote for the court: “The record strongly indicates that accommodating the religious objections of the Amish by forgoing one, or at most two, additional years of compulsory education will not impair the physical or mental health of the child or result in an inability to be self-supporting or to discharge the duties and responsibilities of citizenship, or in any other way materially detract from the welfare of society.”
This brings us to the current controversy over the educational practices of some traditional and insular Jewish communities. Richard Foltin, a respected Jewish leader and legal expert, argues that the court’s decision in Yoder should resolve the controversy between New York officials and the schools now under scrutiny. “If there’s any community that’s comparable to the Amish, I’d say it’s the Hasidic communities of Brooklyn,” Mr. Foltin said.
He is right—to a point. I agree that Yoder provides the right template for thinking about this controversy, but I doubt that the facts of the New York case will lead to the same outcome. State tests suggest that the schools in question have poorly served their students, who are mostly educated in Yiddish and emerge with little mastery of core subjects and without a working knowledge of English.
If so, this wouldn’t be an accident. The leaders of these communities see the modern world as a threat to their way of life and do everything in their power to insulate their members from its effects. Education in secular subjects and the English language is a threat, a dangerous bridge to the outside world.
An impartial inquiry is essential. As a condition for receiving public funds, students in these schools should be required to take New York state’s math and English tests in the third and eighth grade, and all students should graduate with the ability to speak and read English.
The objections to the practices of these schools go beyond the legal. Although religious groups have the constitutional right to protect their communal practices, they aren’t allowed to imprison their young by denying them the capacity to live anywhere else if they choose. This freedom is essential to American citizenship.
Members of these Jewish communities exercise the right to vote, which they use to promote their interests. In return, they must accept the responsibilities of citizenship, which isn’t a one-way street.
Government can impose some limits on religion when there’s a compelling reason.
By William A. GalstonFollow
Sept. 13, 2022 12:39 pm ET
The recently published New York Times report on the educational practices of some of New York’s Hasidic elementary and secondary schools, many of them run by Satmar Jewish groups, is prompting state and local officials to crack down on their alleged deficiencies. The response has sparked a furious reaction from many Jewish leaders.
Understanding this controversy forces us back to first principles.
No right is absolute, not even the free exercise of religion, because the government has fundamental interests that can override individual claims in some circumstances. Some of these interests concern the time, place and manner in which rights are exercised. For example, local governments have the authority to preserve public order by banning groups from conducting late-night religious revivals in residential areas.
In extreme cases, the government may prohibit forms of religious exercise outright. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints gave up polygamy in the 19th century under pressure from Washington, and obviously human sacrifice would never be tolerated.
In education, the courts have balanced the legitimate interests of the faithful and the broader society. U.S. courts have long held that state governments can require all children to attend school up to a certain age and prescribe the core subjects that all children—whether in public, private or parochial schools—are expected to study. These basic requirements may include a substantial amount of instruction in the English language. Schools may choose to add instruction above this baseline, but they must not fall below it. If they do, government may intervene to enforce compliance. By acting in this matter, government exercises its legitimate authority to educate its young to become good citizens and contributing members of society.
But religious freedom limits that authority. That was the issue posed in Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972). The state of Wisconsin required students to continue their education until age 16, contravening the Amish practice of ending education at 14 and having young people assume adult responsibilities in the community.
The Amish argued that their faith was more than inward belief; it is exercised through discharging the responsibilities of communal life. The state didn’t challenge this claim but asserted that its responsibility to educate the young took priority.
The Supreme Court rejected Wisconsin’s claim without denying the force of the state’s argument. If Amish educational practices had failed to produce good citizens and contributing members of society, the court probably would have sided with the state. But Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote for the court: “The record strongly indicates that accommodating the religious objections of the Amish by forgoing one, or at most two, additional years of compulsory education will not impair the physical or mental health of the child or result in an inability to be self-supporting or to discharge the duties and responsibilities of citizenship, or in any other way materially detract from the welfare of society.”
This brings us to the current controversy over the educational practices of some traditional and insular Jewish communities. Richard Foltin, a respected Jewish leader and legal expert, argues that the court’s decision in Yoder should resolve the controversy between New York officials and the schools now under scrutiny. “If there’s any community that’s comparable to the Amish, I’d say it’s the Hasidic communities of Brooklyn,” Mr. Foltin said.
He is right—to a point. I agree that Yoder provides the right template for thinking about this controversy, but I doubt that the facts of the New York case will lead to the same outcome. State tests suggest that the schools in question have poorly served their students, who are mostly educated in Yiddish and emerge with little mastery of core subjects and without a working knowledge of English.
If so, this wouldn’t be an accident. The leaders of these communities see the modern world as a threat to their way of life and do everything in their power to insulate their members from its effects. Education in secular subjects and the English language is a threat, a dangerous bridge to the outside world.
An impartial inquiry is essential. As a condition for receiving public funds, students in these schools should be required to take New York state’s math and English tests in the third and eighth grade, and all students should graduate with the ability to speak and read English.
The objections to the practices of these schools go beyond the legal. Although religious groups have the constitutional right to protect their communal practices, they aren’t allowed to imprison their young by denying them the capacity to live anywhere else if they choose. This freedom is essential to American citizenship.
Members of these Jewish communities exercise the right to vote, which they use to promote their interests. In return, they must accept the responsibilities of citizenship, which isn’t a one-way street.
