Immanuel Beit Yaakov Controversy, Israel

 This blog contains links to articles regarding the Immanuel Beit Yaakov controversy, 2008-2010, which involved allegations of racism against a school in Israel and an overreach of the Israel Supreme Court's powers.

These links are important as many have turned into broken links, that is, you cannot find many of the original articles from these links. Thus I used the WayBack machine to get as many as I could. 

Anyone researching this case will have to search for the original articles that claimed an ethnic split. The Israeli public was faced with the fact that this school was not an ethnic split only when the fathers marched to jail. Then, interestingly enough, many of the original articles that claimed racism just disappeared.

After the large scale protests, the fathers stood at the prison gates and a guard read the last names of the fathers to be jailed, "Avraham, Biton, Beit Yaakov, Baruch..." the guard looked up and said, "I thought I was getting a bunch of Ashkenazim here", one of the fathers retorted, "it took you one minute to understand what the supreme court never did." 

In September 2007 two new girls' schools opened in Immanuel, Israel: a Chassidic Beit Yaakov and a Sephardic Shas school called Ohel Rachel. The Sephardic girls' school opened in the same building as the Beit Yaakov high school, the Chassidic girls' school opened in the same building as the original Beit Yaakov. 

 A Channel 2 television report, Ha'Aretz news, and New Israel Fund websites claimed that the founding of the Chassidic school was solely an ethnic split between Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jewish children. 

 In 2008, The New Israel Fund and the Noar KeHalacha organization sponsored Yoav Lallum to file  a law suit against the Beit Yaakov Chassidic School of Immanuel, claiming racism and an ethnic split between Sephardim and Ashkenazim.

The state of Israel has socialist-Marxist roots. This affects its  media and courts. 

 Sephardic  - Jewish communities expelled from Spain in 1492 and settled in north Africa and some parts of Europe; Chassidic - in this context, haredi Jews who keep to a stricter level of modesty in clothing and minimize exposure to secular influences. Neither "Sephardic" nor "Chassidic" nor "Ashkenazic" are ethnicities,  but refer to customs and philosophy.

He saw that, contrary to press reports that stated an ethnic split between the students, 27% of the girls in the Chassidic school were Sephardic, and 25% of the girls in the original school were Ashkenazic, and that no one who applied and agreed to the more insular rules of a Chassidic school was refused admittance. 

He emphasizes that evaluating ethnicity was difficult, as ethnicity is not noted anywhere in the school records, and he adds, "this is a good thing!"

 Attorney Bass concludes:

“The division was not ethnic, it was religious. I am convinced that there is no ethnic discrimination.”
 

And:

"When ethnic discrimination actually occurs, we must combat it with all our might. I express my sorrow about complaints like these - thrown in the air - that increase hatred among Israel, and are totally baseless.”

"י"האם הייתה בפיצול בית הספר אפליה עדתית...תשובתי היא כי שוכנעתי שלא היתה אפלייה כזו

דף 15 פרק 27: י"אין לי אפוא אלא להביע צערי על שטעונות כאלא - שבכל מקום שבו אנו מוצאים כי יש להן, הצדקה, לאזור את כל כוחותינו ולהלחם באפליה העדתית מלחמת חורמה - מעולות ונזרקות לחלל .האוויר, ומרבות שנאה בישראל, במקום בו אין להן בסיס"י

 

In June 2010 Judge Levi of the Israel Supreme Court ordered imprisonment of the parents who sent their children to the Chassidic girl's school until they switched their girls to the original Beis Yaakov.

At that court hearing, Judge Levy announced, "There is no authority higher than the Supreme Court!" to which the fathers responded, "God is Lord! God is Lord!" and repeated this phrase seven times, as is traditionally done when accepting the authority of the word of God. Here is the clip:

https://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3905379,00.html

footage of the march to jail with much public support for the families of Imanuel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuXJbUIqrqQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3z60g4IVA0

The fathers marched peacefully in a rally to prison, with thousands marching in support. The   mothers had been ordered to submit to imprisonment, reached the gates of the prison, then took their children and went into hiding. The number of children in each of these families ranged from four to ten.

 

The following week, the mothers were ordered to a court hearing at the Israel Supreme Court and were threatened with jail time. Upon this summons, one mother of nine collapsed and miscarried a four month term unborn baby. She did not appear in court because she was hospitalized in order to care for her and attempt to save the baby, but she miscarried. A public outcry followed, and the Israel Supreme Court rescinded their threat of jail time for the mothers.

This court hearing was off-limits to the press, and the mothers were not allowed to speak. Judge Levi again threatened them with jail time. One mother told me afterwards, "Judge Levi wagged his finger at us and said, 'in one hundred and twenty years you will have to answer for not heeding the order of the Supreme Court!'"

So a Supreme Court judge threatened heavenly punishment. 

The strong Haredi women, some Sephardic, some Ashkenazic, some from generations of rabbis and scribes, some who are children of converts, were united in defying the Supreme Court's bid to wield power over religious education. They were willing to go to jail. Some vowed a hunger strike. See more here:

https://cross-currents.com/2010/06/24/i-accompanied-the-women-of-emanuel-to-court-today/

Only after a direct interview was conducted with one of the imprisoned fathers in June 2010, a Ha'Aretz article concedes that "a third of the group ...are Sephardic themselves."

 

You can get direct access to to Supreme Court documents:

1) Go to the Supreme Court website http://court.gov.il/
2) Go to the place where it says
החלטות ביהמ"ש העליון
Ask for file 1067/08 (that means case 1067 in their year 2008)
3) That number is enough. But you can also find the files by putting in the names of the 3 judges
Levy, Arbel, Meltzer or the date when the petition was first filed 4 Feb. 2008

--------- 

"There are more differences within ethnic, racial, and religious groups than there are between such groups" - Jordan Peterson

https://cross-currents.com/?s=EMANUEL

It is not social justice that only those who get sued get evaluated. Where was the nation-wide audit to vet all Israeli schools ethnic composition? If you really believe in this cause, that ethnic composition is the most important factor in an organization, then you should promote automatic audits of all schools, all places of work, the members of the NIF, everywhere, to vet their ethnic composition.

 ====

NEWS REPORTS:

Since the jailing of the fathers and exposure that this was not a ethnic split, many of the links to news reports became "broken", this may reveal a media cover up, upon being exposed as having misled the public. Anyone who wants to thoroughly research  this case needs to search libraries for original sources.

New Israel Fund grantee, Tmura, states:

"The students have been physically separated within this school based solely on ethnicity." And elaborates on its legal assistance in this suit. (if page is not found, type in the search bar "Old-Fashioned Discrimination, New-Style Battle" on the Tmura website)

http://www.jewishideas.org/articles/old-fashioned-discrim.pdf


http://www.nif.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=422.pdf


Ha'Aretz website claimed that this was solely an ethnic split:

http://www.haaretz.com/misc/search-results?view=results&forid=1&startDate=&sort_method=relevance&title=&ie=ISO-8859-1&sessionId=1&client=pub-3359258982778815&q=beit+yaakov+immanuel&cof=GALT%3A%23008000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3BVLC%3A663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3A336699%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A0000FF%3BGIMP%3A0000FF%3BFORID%3A11&am p;page=0&search_type=site&oe=ISO-8859-1&endDate=&channel=3983316430&hl=en&author=&submitBtn=textSearch.pdf

(Type in the search box "Beit Yaakov Immanuel" for the list of articles)



http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/imprisoned-immanuel-father-our-children-will-study-this-in-history-books-1.297539.pdf




News articles: המלחמה המתחסדת של האחים החילונים באחיהם החרדים החרדים מלמדים ילדיהם בהתאם לקוד החינוכי המקובל עליהם - אז למה לשלחם לכלא? המוטו החדש של בגאהרון רול פובליציסט "צ: נכה בחרדים - ונציל את העולם http://www.news1.co.il/Archive/003-D-49130-00.html


http://www.jpost.com/Features/MagazineFeatures/Article.aspx?id=180822

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=178999

http://www.cross-currents.com/?s=emanuel

http://www.jpost.com/Features/MagazineFeatures/Article.aspx?id=180822

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/Emanuel+School+Crisis/64533/Understanding+The+Emanuel+Saga+&+The+Agreement+Reached.html

in Hebrew: articles, pictures, and videos:

http://www.bhol.co.il/news_category.asp?cat_id=97

 

Aviad Visoli, in "Tragedy of Sentencing Error", writes:
"The only law that falls upon the parents is mandatory education – to register the child in an educational institution and to ensure their continuous attendance. There is no doubt that the parents fulfilled this.

"On the seventh of April, 2010, the parents were included in the suit.

"The Supreme Court has no authority to preside in judgment over the parents. Paragraph 15 of the basic law of judgment states the following on the authority of the court: “(The Supreme Court) may give orders to government bodies, municipal bodies, and those individuals who fulfill a public function according to the law. (These orders) can be to force action or to prevent action in the fulfillment of their public duties according to the law.” The Supreme Court has no authority to issue an order against anyone who is not fulfilling a public role. The Court, by law, cannot instruct an individual citizen to send his child to a particular school.

"Thus, the Supreme Court has no authority to give any order to any private individual who is not fulfilling a public duty. According to the law, the Supreme Court has no authority to order anyone to send his child to any particular school.

"The Supreme Court is duty bound to enforce the laws passed by the Knesset. It has no authority to create new laws, and certainly not new laws that expand its own authority.

"The court’s decision in ordering the parents to send their daughters to a school they do not wish to is supposedly based upon the law that applies to recalcitrant citizens. However, it appears that this decision itself is illegal as it exceeds the power granted by the legislature. This is not a “marginal” violation, but a broad and systemic violation of the law. 

 י"בג"צ הוא פורום מינהלי. אין בו כלים לחקר האמת - אין ראיות, אין גילוי מסמכים, אין עדויות ואין חקירות נגדיות. את כל מסקנותיו העובדתיות על האפליה גזר בג"צ מ"מלחמת ההודעות והודעות שכנגד", כדבריו. ברור שאין בית משפט אמור לדון אדם לכף חובה ללא בחינה עובדתית מהימנה, חקירת עדים והצגת ראיות. קל וחומר שאינו יכול לשלוח אדם למאסר מבלי לשמוע את עדותו. ההורים שנשלחו בהוראת בג"צ "למאסר - אף לא אחד מהם העיד בבית המשפט לבג"צ אין כל סמכות לתת צו נגד כל אדם שאינו ממלא תפקיד ציבורי על-פי דין. בג"צ, על-פי החוק, אינו מוסמך כלל לתת צו לכל אדם מן הישוב המורה לו לשלוח את ילדו לבית ספר כלשהו. בג"צ יכול, וחייב, לפרש את החוקים שנחקקו בכנסת. בג"צ אינו מוסמך לחוקק חוקים חדשים. קל וחומר שבג"צ אינו מוסמך לחוקק חוקים שירחיבו את סמכויותיו-שלו. התקדים שנטבע בבג"צ עמנואל - שליחתם לכלא בסיטונות של הורים לילדים חפים מפשע שכלל לא היו (ולא יכלו להיות) צד להליכים בבית המשפט, ללא כל ראיה או עדות, ותוך חריגה בוטה של בג"צ מסמכותו על-פי החוק - מהווה תקדים מסוכן שיפגע קשות בשלטון החוק וירחיב את הסדק ההולך ומעמיק באמון הציבור בבתי המשפט ככלל ובשופטי בג"צ בפרט ללא כל ראיה או עדות"

 http://www.news1.co.il/Archive/003-D-49148-00.html?tag=02-34-4549210-00.html?tag=02-33-07

 

_________________________________-

A letter from a Beith Din - religious Jewish court

"Lallum Did Not Keep His Word to the Beth Din. The Beth Din Responds":

Beith Din Tsedek
Jerusalem
28 Chaiey Adam Street

Founded in the year 1978 by HaGaon Rav Levin zt”l

Ninth of Tammuz 5770 (June 21 2010)

File number 1590
Slonim of Emanuel et al (side A) vs. Yoav Lallum et al (side B)

Protocol

As of now, the Beth Din has not received any notice stating that Mr. Lallum notified the Supreme Court on his alleged withdrawal of his suit against side A. This, despite the decision of the Beth Din yesterday afternoon that he is obligated to do so immediately, within three hours.

The decision of the Beth Din yesterday –that beginning this year there should be no divisions in the Chinuch Atzmai Emanuel School unless ordered by the Beth Din – has been spread to the media as if “the Beth Din supports the ruling of the Supreme Court …that the school was divided racially” This has created an awful desecration of the Holy Name, and goes against all the Gedolei Yisrael that came out against this Supreme Court ruling.

Decision and Clarification

First it shall be clarified, that after Mr. Lallum signed on the letter from the Beth Din, the Beth Din agreed to enter into this issue in order to save the women from imprisonment, and also to free the men, as long as Mr. Lallum would remove the case from the Supreme Court.

B. It has become clear that Mr. Lallum broke the order of the Beth Din from the fourth of Tammuz (June 16 2010), in requesting of the Supreme Court to judge the Chinuch Atzmai for contempt of court, to remove from it funds and to remove license from the Emanuel parents to make a private school.

Mr. Lallum has not complied with the Beth Din’s order yesterday to withdraw his suit from the Supreme Court, and this nullifies the decision of the Beth Din…thus the Beth Din views this as contempt of the Beth Din, and any case that was appointed between the sides is null and void.
….Turning to a secular court is without any approval of the Beth Din, and is akin to brazen rebellion against the Torah of Moses.
The Beth Din clarifies that its order yesterday was not intended against side A concerning the division that was done in the school in Emanuel, in so far as no parent in Emanuel ever came to protest against this division of levels of education in the school.
The interpretation that was given to the media concerning yesterday’s Beth Din decision as if it supports the Supreme Court ruling is against Da’as Torah. Any portrayal as if the Beth Din determined that there was discrimination, is null and void. This is a completely, wickedly twisted message that was given to the media. The decision of the Beth Din – as all of the Gedolei Yisrael – was and remains, that every decision in the management of schools shall only be according to Da’as Torah of the Gedolei Yisrael. It is Da’as Torah which decides, and none other.

Mr. Lallum had intended to sue Chinuch Atzmai schools, and not necessarily the parents and others in Emanuel, thus the restraint order was not against side A.

Signed
HaRav Avraham David Levin, Av Beth Din
HaRav Mordechai Eichler
HaRav David Yehoshua Kenig

With the Seal of the Beth Din Tsedek, Chayey Adam Street, Jerusalem

Indication that Yoav Lallum's suit receives funding form the New Israel Fund:
http://www.nif.org/issue-areas/stories/court-orders-emmanuel.html 

 
  
________________________________________-

Still, even after the fathers were in prison, and it could no longer be denied that this was not an ethnic split, but a new school founded on differences in level of observance, commentators continued to paint the founders of the Chassidic school as racist.

 Arthur Green writes: http://www.forward.com/articles/128935/

See more articles in the "Forward" website, including: "Parents of European, or Ashkenazi, descent at the all girls’ school don’t want their daughters to study with schoolgirls of Mideast and North African descent, known as Sephardim."

 http://www.forward.com/articles/128853/

 "Religious Girls' School Fails To Integrate Ashkenazic and Sephardic Students"

http://blogs.forward.com/sisterhood-blog/127209/

 Read more: http://blogs.forward.com/sisterhood-blog/127209/#ixzz1VbA6CPej


 

-----------

Synopsis of letter from Rachel Guveri, head of education, town council of Emanuel, to Emanuel’s mayor Ezra Gerashi

December 2009

As my duty as head of education, I check on the schools and kindergartens. I have visited the Beis Yaakov School five times this year.

Concerning allegations of discrimination that have arisen:

1. There is no separation wall in the school.

2. There is one uniform dress code for the whole school.

3. There are no separate recesses.

4. The yard is shared; the girls (from both schools) play together.

The students are happy with the situation.

1. Registration – each family was given a choice at the beginning of the year which school to choose from – Chasidi or general.

2. Prayer – each girl prays according to her home custom. In the first grade they receive a prayer book from the Sephard tradition.

3. Girls learn the gamut of Jewish law, both Sephardi and Ashkenazi traditions, as a seamless whole.

4. Both schools learn the same curriculum.

5. The rules for both are the same.

6. There are teachers who teach in both schools.

I see that the girls are happy in these schools. (Additionally) the new Mayan-Shas (Beit Rachel and Leah) school has a nice atmosphere and the girls are happy.

There are schools in Emanuel for all to choose from for their individual needs.

The directive to unite the two Beis Yaakovs has opposition from parents in both schools.

I recommend allowing (the Beis Yaakovs) to remain two separate tracts – Chasidi and general, this is the first preference.

__________________

 

INVITATION TO APPLY

All students in both the original and the new Beis Yaakov to apply to whichever track they wish.


PETITION TO COURT BY SEPHARDIC PARENTS:

 There was a  petition to the court submitted by the 26 Sephardic parents of the Chassidic Beit Yaakov school. They explain that their way of life is incompatible with the kind of education available in Immanuel at that time. They declare in paragraph 14 that this is a religious and not an ethnic issue. They request a hearing at the Supreme Court. This request was denied.


January 19 2010 – The Sephardic parents of the Chassidic Beit Yaakov presented an emergency appeal to appear before the Supreme Court. (For easier reading I translate in the first person)

They note in Paragraph 6:
We do not feel comfortable presenting ourselves merely in terms of our ethnicity. We do not raise our daughters to regard themselves solely in terms of their ethnic background. To further emphasize the absurdity of accusing us of racism, some of us have blended Sephardic and Ashkenazi heritage.

Paragraphs 12 and 13 :…this is the only school in Immanuel which is fitting to our strict Haredi educational values, any other school here is detrimental to our daughters’ education.

Our need to found a new school is based solely on religious needs, how can we be accused of separating between Sephardim and Ashkenazim when some of the founders of the Chassidic school are Sephardi?!

The list of parents includes both well known, established families in the Haredi world and newly religious families. Rav Meir Elmaliach is from a well known family, and Rav Eliyahu Biton, is a Rosh Kollel.

15. Every family in both schools was invited to choose where to send their daughters, to the Chassidic or general school.

We cannot send our daughters to a school that threatens our way of life. We will have to leave Immanuel if it comes to this.

The right to choose the education of our daughters is a fundamental principal in Israeli law. See the work by Yoram Rabin, “The Right to Education”, Nevo publishers, p 112 – 113. (They go on to cite other sources in Israeli law of freedom of choice in education.)

32. We hereby request an opportunity to present ourselves before the honorable court.

This request was denied.

The head of education in Emanuel, recommends the continuation of the Chassidic Beis Yaakov. See English translation below.

I here enclose a couple of quotes from the letters as a way of illustrating the insularity and level of modesty that they seek in educating their children:

"Girls from all communities and ethnicities attend the Chassidic school....
I educate my children in the Chassidic style which includes loosely fitting, long sleeved, collared and buttoned-up shirts, full length stockings, hair that is short and gathered (ponytail or braid)....There were girls who brought in things foreign to us such as inappropriate movies. We do not allow our daughter to have a connection with anyone who has unseemly influences so that she will not absorb negative traits...I was in contact with the principal who tried to help but finally raised her hands and said, “In this population we cannot have that kind of Haredi education and I must make compromises.”


Ezra Gerashi, mayor of Emanuel, says that one of the court documents submitted by the plaintiffs claims that his daughters were rejected by the Chassidic school. He declares that this is false, and that his daughters never applied.

https://law.haifa.ac.il/images/documents/Immanuel.Final.PDF

 


FAITH

While leftists and liberals see even the wrong gender pronoun as a reason to riot, the Haredim showed a patient and faith-based response to this persecution act against them. Here are some examples:

"Sometimes it is better to undergo a trial in this world that suffer in the next, could be that my husband needed this rectification of jail time from a previous lifetime."

"Perhaps my baby's death prevented more deaths." - The mother who miscarried.

---------------

Two of the founders of the Chassidic school were Rav Shimon Ba’adani of Bnei Brak and Rav Bar Lev, Rabbi of Emanuel. What makes the Chassidic Beis Yaakov school different is its standards of religious observance, concerning modesty (length and tightness of dress), no makeup, no MP3s, exposure to media, etc.

The original Beis Yaakov was largely comprised of Chassidic families. The demographics here changed. Members of the chassidic community were moving out, and the flavor the original Beis Yaakov was eroding.

OUTREACH IN THE COMMUNITY - previous to the founding of Beis Yaakov Chasidi

Before the founding of the Beis Yaakov Chasidi, outreach programs began in an effort to encourage people to move the original Beis Yaakov back towards its original narrower interpretation of the Israeli Haredi lifestyle. For about three years, there was a steady stream of lectures that were designed to educate parents about the Chassidic lifestyle. "The soul is parallel to the body. Just as we have muscles we can control - our arms and legs for example - we have muscles we cannot control - as in our heart muscles. The heart muscles are parallel to the spiritual muscle of 'being-influenced'. We cannot control 'being-influenced'. We must protect our childrens' souls from the time they are born." and..."we can devote every thought we have to the service of the King..."

Outreach means - this is philosophy, not ethnicity. This outreach did not succeed. There were Beis Yaakov pupils who continued using innappropriate speech - picked up from places that their parents ought to be protecting them from, if they want to be in this system. The Chassidim formed their own school – in their minds, returning to the original school’s former style.

There is a court document that claims that this third floor was built in 2007 for the new Chassidic Beis Yaakov. This is untrue. The third floor housed the high school since the school's inception in the early 1980's.

SEPARATION MYTHOLOGY

This same document states that a separation wall was built within the school building. This is untrue. A door was built on the second of three floors, surrounded by a plaster wall frame, but still - it was a door. The ground floor had open access and one could easily walk to both of the stairwells of each school. The third floor, formerly the high school, was used for the Chasidi school. The second floor was used for both the Chasidi and original school, and this door was built between them. Why a door and not a wall? So that those teachers who worked in both schools could go back and forth. The door has been mythologized in the popular press as a "separation wall", but it really was a door. It was built in August 2007.

One web site claims that a fence was built inside the grounds, and posts a photo of the fence that has surrounded the entire school since the school's founding in the early 1980's - another false image.

Another web site posts a picture of a fence surrounding the school, taken at a sharp angle, so it looks solid. Fences surround most schools in Israel. The sharp angle makes the fence look solid, but it is not, and it is not within the school grounds.

If anyone can find a picture of this "wall", or any other picture that appears to delineate separation, please post in the comments section below

SCHOOL UNIFORM

This same document decries the Chassidic school's use of a different school uniform. All religious schools in Israel, and some secular schools, have distinctive school uniforms.

SCARE TACTICS

I have so far in this blog been busy denying lies told about my community, like frantically swatting flies. Maybe that is what is really going on here. Put the religious on the defensive, make them waste their energy in denying slander against them and in defending themselves against media hoaxes and miscarriages of justice. A social scare tactic against those who are already religious and against those contemplating a religious lifestyle - think twice, you may be lied about, you may look bad on television.

There are two other girls’ schools in Emanuel – the Chabad Lubavitch school, founded in the late 1990’s, and the Ohel Rachel and Leah, under the Shas-Mayan network of Sephardic schools, founded in 2007. The three boy’s schools were then and continue to be Chabad Lubavitch, Shas-Mayan Sephardic, and Chassidic. Many residents of Emanuel send their children to neighboring towns to non-Haredi national religious schools or to Chassidic schools in Bnei Brak, to special education schools, vocational schools, etc. Thus, there is a wide variety of choices in education for families who live in Emanuel.


In the fall of 2007, a reporter from Channel 2 and some cameramen came to the Beis Yaakov school. They were filming some of the girls. I attempted to talk to her off camera. I insisted that the new school was a different philosophy, and that this was not an ethnic divide. I tried to describe the difference between Chassidic and middle of the road Beis Yaakov schools, but she cut me off quickly, saying, "I know that this is racist because it is in the same building!" I retorted, "but the Chabad school also started in this building before they got their own building." She blushed, blinked rapidly, eyes darted back and forth, said, "I have work to do." and marched away.

A Chassidic neighbor was nearby, I gestured to him, he made a call on his cell phone, came over and said, "I just spoke to Rav Ba'adani, he says we are not allowed to go to the secular media." The Beis Yaakov girls then hurried away. Then Rav Ba'adani wrote the letter described below, which was distributed to every mailbox in Emanuel within a few days.

RAV SHIMON BA'ADANI FORBIDS USING SECULAR COURTS AND SECULAR
MEDIA TO AIR GRIEVANCES

HaRav HaGaon Rav Ba’adani wrote a letter that was distributed to every family in Emanuel in 2007 forbidding the bringing of grievances to the secular media or courts, and that any grievance must be brought to a religious court. It is a widely held practice to air grievances with the local Rabbi before going to religious court.

Rav Ba’adani is widely respected in the Haredi world. It is unlikely that anyone in the Beis Yaakov Chasidi or the original Beis Yaakov or Ohel Rachel and Leah (the newly founded girls’ Sephardic School, unnoticed by the media or courts) or the Sephardic boys’ school or the Chassidic boys’ school would bring complaints to the secular media.


For more information and comment, see:

http://www.cross-currents.com/

http://www.jpost.com/Features/MagazineFeatures/Article.aspx?id=180822

http://www.jpost.com/Features/MagazineFeatures/Article.aspx?id=180822

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/Emanuel+School+Crisis/64533/Understanding+The+Emanuel+Saga+&+The+Agreement+Reached.html

http://www.bhol.co.il/news_category.asp?cat_id=97

 

COURT HEARING APRIL 29 2010

The parents of the girls in the Beis Yaakov Chasidi who happen to be Sephardic petitioned to meet with the Supreme Court Judge Levi during the initial phases. He refused to meet with them. The very first time the judge met with the parents was on April 29 2010. Only half the parents were allowed into the court, as there were many spectators in the courtroom. But if these parents were subpoenaed, shouldn’t the court have made room for them?

None of the parents were put on the stand or cross-examined.

Judge Levi ordered representatives of the Beis Yaakov Chasidi to work out a compromise with the plaintiffs. That means that Yoav Lallum was to be involved in the forming of the school's rules.

JUDGE LEVI PROPOSED THAT ASHKENAZIM AND SEPHARDIM SEPARATE FOR PRAYERS AND CLASSES IN JEWISH LAW

Since no "agreement" had been reached, unlikely when working with an anti-religious activist, on May 17 Judge Admon Levi ordered that the Sephardic and Ashkenazi girls will be separated for prayer and classes on Jewish law, and learn together the rest of the day. This was utterly out of line with the Beis Yaakov philosophy.

In all Beis Yaakov schools, the girls have always prayed together, usually using the Sephardic liturgy. And there are not separate halacha classes for Sephardim and Ashkenazim, not in the more open Beis Yaakovs, nor Chassidic Beis Yaakovs, nor in the Shas-Ma'ayan Sephardic girls' schools. All the pupils in these schools learn the entire spectrum of Jewish law, and all learn the various nuances of each community. An Ashkenazi pupil can study in a Shas Sephardic school. A Sephardic pupil can study in a Beis Yaakov. Both will learn the gamut of Jewish law. B

DEFINITION OF TERMS

Jews are not a race.

There are not races of Jews within the Jewish people.

According to Jewish law, if one is born to a Jewish woman or converts according to Jewish law, that person is Jewish.

If the father is Jewish and the mother is not, the child is not Jewish.

The orthodox believe that a Jew is required to follow the commandments of the Torah.

Jewish people-hood cannot be undone.

Both the exclusivity of matrilineal descent and the existence of conversion to Judaism show that Jews are not a race.

Have you noticed that so far no one has even offered a definition of the terms "Sephardic" and "Ashkenazic"?

Sephard is Hebrew for Spain. Sephardic Jews are the descendants of the Jews who were expelled from Spain in 1492. They moved to North Africa, Western Europe - Holland and England - some to Eatern Europe, Italy, even as far as Iraq. Colloquially, the term Sephardic also refers to Jews of Yemenite and Iranian communities, though these are more accurately referred to the Edut HaMizrach - the Eastern communities.

Ashkenazic refers to the Jews of middle and western Europe, although Jews from the expulsion of 1492 also made it to Eastern Europe. The Chmielnicki pogroms of 1648 and 1649 found Jewish refugees moving from Poland to the Sephardic communities of Turkey. We do not fall into neatly divided sub groups.

In the Haredi world, the terms Sephardic and Ashkenazic refer to the traditions you keep. Traditions here refers to what is permissible to eat on the Passover holiday, the prayer liturgy used in the home, etc. The rule of thumb is that traditions generally go through the father, but this is not an absolute. I personally know three young men who happen to be of European heritage who took upon themselves the Sephardic traditions. Two did so because they married Sephardic women. One simply wanted to follow the Sephardic traditions and be part of that community. They are now Sephardim. Their heritage has nothing to do with it. All this time people are using these terms without defining them. One definition is ethnic, the other emphasizes minhagim - traditions. It appears that the secular press defines these terms according to ethnicity. And what about all the many marriages between Jews of European descent and Middle Eastern descent?

The administration of the Chassidic school refused Judge Levi's very unusual separation order, so Judge Levi ordered the schools to unite under the original school. The press has skipped over this crucial fact. The Chassidim of Emanuel were not merely refusing to unite, they were refusing Judge Levy's own order to separate according to terms that they do not recognize in the first place.

It was stipulated in the court order that the parents could sign up their girls in any schools they wished, other than the Beis Yaakov Chasidi of Emanuel. The parents of the Beis Yaakov Chasidi then signed up their girls in the Beis Malka School in Bnei Brak.

STALKED TO BNEI BRAK

On Sunday morning May 30, the first day that the girls from Emanuel attended this school in Bnei Brak, a group of reporters came to Emanuel and followed the morning bus, and filmed the girls entering this school. That day the school informed the parents that the Ministry of Education declared that they are not allowed to accept the girls from Emanuel.

Why? The parents – Ashkenazic, Sephardic, blended, etc - followed the order and signed up their girls in another school that is in line with their philosophy.

Since that day the girls in the Chassidic track learned in the homes of their teachers.

The next day in court was June 15. Judge Levy ordered the parents back to the original more lenient school, saying that the Supreme Court is the highest authority. In response to that perceived insult of the supremacy of the Torah and the Rabbis who lead them, the fathers cried out, “Hear Oh Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One!”, and “God is Lord!” repeatedly. Then Justice Levy said in anger that the parents will be jailed for two weeks for contempt of court.

None of the parents were ever tried or cross examined. There was no formal hearing.

Two days later there were peaceful marches in Bnei Brak and Jerusalem, accompanying the fathers to jail. This was a pre-emptive, peaceful march, done before the parents had received the written order for jail. Over 100,000 people attended teh demonstration despite the very short notice. The mothers made their way to jail, but secretly dispersed and went into hiding with their children, since they had not received the actual jail order, hoping that the judge would relent and not imprison them.

On Tuesday June 22 there was another hearing for the mothers. No reporters were allowed in. Many mothers are pregnant or nursing, and have small children. Again, they just sat, no questions, no cross-examination, and were told they must send their girls to the original school, and again threatened with jail time. Judge Levy wagged his finger at the women and said, "in one hundred and twenty years, you will have to account for not heeding the Supreme Court!"

He really said that. Judge Levy used the traditional euphemism for the after life and threatened heavenly judgment on the defendants. Since when does a judge in a secular court make threats about the afterlife, a religious topic?

After they left the chamber, the news arrived that the Rabbi’s wife had miscarried. Her unborn child was four months term. The Rabbi himself was in jail. He was not allowed to be with his bereaved wife until the following day. Then Judge Levy exempted all women who are pregnant or nursing from jail, leaving nine women total.

On Sunday morning, the imprisoned fathers and nine mothers were called to court, again, given no opportunity to speak. The Judge was obviously angry at the parents refusal to put thier girls in the original Beis Yaakov - a school that they do not wish to. The parents thought they were in for a prolonged jail sentence.

Then Eli Yishai of the Shas Sephardic political party came running in with a statement from Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, spiritual head of the Sephardic community. Rav Yosef re-iterated the plan of having all the girls in Emanuel, including the two schools not in question, meet for three days of lectures on the subject of loving one’s fellow, on condition that the fathers be released. This plan had been rejected by Judge Levy the previous Friday. Now he agreed to it.

The fathers were released, families re-united.

They were still unsure as to whether there will be a Chassidic school for the upcoming year for the girls who wish to attend.The hearing for that is scheduled for August 25 2010, a mere week before the term is to begin. Another social scare tactic.

SOME MORE INFORMATION ABOUT EMANUEL

Emanuel was a fairly easy target – deep in the Shomron, an unlikely place for many to visit and check the facts for themselves. Not a well-off community, with few resources for self-advocacy. Small enough that you are easily exposed to the great variety that exists within the Charedi world, and any place in which variety is supported fosters a healthy, moderate environment.

If you like languages, you could improve your Hebrew, Arabic, French, Russian, Yiddish, English, Judeo-Yemenite, Moroccan, Persian, Bucharian, Tunisian.

For religious choices you have the spiritual Sephardim saying their blessings with fervor, proud of their glorious past under Islam and their good relations with local Arabs. Or the Lubavitchers, steadfast in their mission to spread Chassidut and make sure you learned some Torah today. The modern orthodox balancing it all and their doorway into the professions; the proper and learned Lithuanians happy to answer any question on Jewish law - by answering with another question. The meditative Breslover Chassidim crying “father” in Yiddish in the middle of the night as they pray on the hillside; the Slonimer Chassidim who migrated from Tiberias a generation ago – of a heritage part Russian and Old Yishuv Edut HaMizrach and their talent for teaching; the two Yemenite sects, one which favors kabala and mysticism, the other which cleaves to Maimonedean rationalism. You have the more open Sephardim and Ashkenazim – and blended - who flourish in the original Beis Yaakov or modern orthodox schools, the stricter Sephardim whose grandmothers wore purda with veiled faces. “Strict” and “lenient” are not ethnically delineated.

Emanuel is a place where you are easily exposed to the great variety that exists within the Charedi world. If we had hyphenated last names going back about three or four generations, revealing the many who have blended heritage, this whole Sephardic – Ashkenazi “divide” would fade away. Small towns like Emanuel are actually a very good place to live and get to know different types of people.

THE BEIS YAAKOV SCHOOL SYSTEM

The Beis Yaakov system was founded in 1917 in Cracow, Poland by Sarah Shneirer, and is “selective” according to level of religious observance and expectations of refined personal behavior.

The first set of grades on the report card of the Beis Yaakov School in Emanuel concern personal character traits: prayer, attitude towards studies, attitude towards peers, respect of elders, respect of property, neatness and cleanliness, task completion, homework preparation, behavior during class, modesty. In each category is a line for teacher’s comments. This is a good chance for personal growth for a child.

Rebbetzen Henya Liebermensh, late wife of Rav Nosson Liebermensh, told me, “my father used to cover the bottom half of my report card and look at the comments on my character traits. If they were good, he would praise me and hand back the report card with a smile.”

We need schools that help the whole child and family grow. Beis Yaakov has high standards. You do not have to attend it if you do not want to.

The vice principal of the Beis Yaakov Emanuel is a Sephardic woman. There are of course excellent Sephardic women teachers in the Beis Yaakov, and there are excellent Sephardic men teachers in the Chassidic boys’ school that my son’s attend.

BROKEN URLS TO NIF WEBSITE AND HA-ARETZ NEWSPAPER: As I note above, there are URL's to the NIF website and to HaAretz newspaper that no longer work. Here is the website that you can use to search for archived articles, but you need the original URL (web address of the article):

https://archive.org/

I had the original URL of the NIF links, but not of all the original HaAretz articles.

Here are the HaAretz articles that as of November 2014 are listed in the search engine. I unfortunately did not copy the URL's of the original articles published between 2007 and 2010, I did not suspect that search enginges could be tampered with or that HaAretz could possibly erase the articles written at the time:

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-given-one-week-to-reply-to-petition-against-segregation-at-ultra-orthodox-schools-1.400432

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-s-high-court-to-hear-petition-against-segregation-at-ultra-orthodox-girls-schools-1.400252

The next article by Yair Ettinger in the list concerns Haredi internet sites, I do not know why it is posted under the Beit Yakov Immanuel search:

http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/ultra-orthodox-and-online-1.321827

This article has no reader comments:

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/high-court-of-justice-approves-private-school-for-haredi-girls-in-immanuel-segregation-row-1.313853

Here, the title is, "Ashkenazi parents get okay for private school in Immanuel segregation row": This was published after the fathers were released from jail, one third of whom were Sephardic, yet HaAretz continues to use such rhetoric:

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/ashkenazi-parents-get-okay-for-private-school-in-immanuel-1.310240

(There are about thee more articles on that search option)

The next step is to track down the original articles published in HaAretz between 2007 and 2010 and compare them with those listed here.

 

References

1. Almog, Oz. 2010. Initials and honorary titles in ultra-Orthodox society.Anashim Israel. Available athttp://www.peopleil.org/details.aspx?itemID=30026(retrieved May 15th 2011) [Hebrew].

2. Almog, Shulamit, and Lotem Perry-Hazan. 2011. The ability to claim and the opportunity to imagine:Rights consciousness and the education of ultra-Orthodox girls.Journal of Law and Education40(2):273–303.

3. AP (Jerusalem) 241/06. 2006. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel v. The Ministry ofEducation, Culture, and Sports [Hebrew].

4. Assaf, David. 2008. Hasidism: Historical overview. InThe Yivo encyclopedia of Jews in EasternEurope, 659–660. New Haven: Yale University Press. Available athttp://www.yivoencyclopedia.org/article.aspx/Hasidism/Historical_Overview(retrieved May 15th 2011).

5. Bardugo, Meir. 2010. HCJ: most of the mothers will not go to prison: others will go to prison aftertheir husbands will be released.Nana10. Available athttp://news.nana10.co.il/Article/?ArticleID=727083&TypeID=1&sid=126(retrieved May 16th 2011) [Hebrew].

6. Bhol, Forums. 2010. To read and be shocked: An honest letter of an Ashkenazi mother fromImmanuel,http://bhol-forums.co.il/topic.asp?topic_id=2777114&forum_id=771(retrieved May 16th2011) [Hebrew].25One manifestation of the social changes within ultra-Orthodox society is the growing use of theInternet. There are several ultra-Orthodox websites that flourish despite the unequivocal denouncementsof theGdoilim. The website “Bhol”, in which the letter of the mother was published, is one of thesewebsites.

35. Liss, Yonatan. October 21st 2007. An ultra-Orthodox woman and a soldier were attacked for sittingnext to each other in a bus.Haa’retz. Available athttp://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1016435.html(retrieved May 16th 2011) [Hebrew].

 

7. Boyarin, Daniel. 1999.Dying for god: Martyrdom and the making of Christianity and Judaism.California: Stanford University Press.

8. Brown, Benjamin. 2007. And nothing is left except this Torah.Eretz Acheret41: 56–65 [Hebrew].

9. Caplan, Kimmy. 2003. The study of Israeli Haredi society: characteristics, achievements and chl-lenges. InIsraeli Haredim: Integration without assimilation?, eds. Kimmy Caplan and EmmanuelSivan, 224–278. Jerusalem: The Van Leer Jerusalem Institute [Hebrew].

10. Caplan, Kimmy. 2007.Internal popular discourse in Haredi society. Jerusalem: The Zalman ShazarCenter for the History of Israel [Hebrew].

11. Caplan, Kimmy, and Nurit Stadler eds. 2009. Leadership and authority in Israeli Haredi society:Challenges and alternatives. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuhad [Hebrew].

12. CC 226/08 (District Court—Jerusalem)The State of Israel v. Busaglo(2009) [Hebrew].

13. Chandler, Daniel. 2007.The basics of semiotics. London: Routledge.

14. Channel 2. 2011.360, Show 9. Available athttp://reshet.ynet.co.il/Shows/360/videomarklist,182371/(retrieved May 16th 2011) [Hebrew].

15. Dahan Caleb, Henriette. 1999. Ethnicity in Israel: a post-modern view. InModernism, postmodernismand education, ed. Ilan Gur-Ze’ev, 197–231. Tel-Aviv: Ramot [Hebrew].

16. El-Or, Tamar. 2009. “All the rights reserved to Anat”: big female Rabbis and little female Rabbis inthe religion and penitence industry, InLeadership and authority in Israeli Haredi society: challengesand alternatives, eds. Kimmy Caplan and Nurit Stadler eds., 129–163. Tel-Aviv: HakibbutzHameuhad [Hebrew].

17. Fish, Stanley. 1980.Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretive communities.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

18. Greenfield, Tzvia. 2007. Is it really so benign? gender separation in Ultra Orthodox bus lines,Lawand Ethics of Human Rights1(1) Article 8. Available at:http://www.bepress.com/lehr/vol1/iss1/art8(retrieved May 16th 2011).

19. Hacohen, Aviad. 2010. “Nicht von Unsere” (“Not One of Ours”): ethnic discrimination in Haredisociety and the legal representation of disadvantaged population groups from within it.Ma’aseiMishpatC: 123–143 [Hebrew].

20. Hall, Stuart. 1980. Encoding/decoding. InCulture, media, language: Working papers in culturalstudies 1972–79, ed. Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, 128–138. London: Hutchinson.

21. HCJ 1067/08 Noa’r Kahalacha Association v. The Ministry of Education (August 6th 2009)[Hebrew].

22. HCJ 1067/08 Noa’r Kahalacha Association v. The Ministry of Education (May 17th 2010) [Hebrew].

23. HCJ 1067/08 Noa’r Kahalacha Association v. The Ministry of Education (June 17th 2010) [Hebrew].

24. HCJ 1067/08 Noa’r Kahalacha Association v. The Ministry of Education (June 18th 2010) [Hebrew].25. HCJ 1067/08 Noa’r Kahalacha Association v. The Ministry of Education (June 27th 2010) [Hebrew].

26. HCJ 1067/08 Noa’r Kahalacha Association v. The Ministry of Education (September 14th 2010)[Hebrew].

27. Hanna Herzog, 2000. Any year can be taken as the beginning - periodization and identity in thedebate of the 1950s’.Theory and Criticism17: 209–216 [Hebrew].

28. Kalekin-Fishman, Devorah, and Karlheinz Schneider. 2007.Radicals in spite of themselves: Ultra-Orthodox women working outside the Haredi community. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

29. Katz, Menachem. June 23rd 2011. The Admor from Slonim: even in front of a firing squad—we willnot give up.Kikar Hashabat. Available athttp://www.kikarhashabat.co.il/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%93%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A8-%D7%9E%D7%A1%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%A0%D7%92%D7%93-%D7%91%D7%92%D7%A6.html(retrieved May 16th 2011)[Hebrew].30. Kershner, Isabel. June 17th 2010. Israel’s ultra-Orthodox protest schools ruling.New York Times.Available atwww.nytimes.com/2010/06/18/world/middleeast/18israel.html?scp=1&sq=israeli%20supreme%20court&st=cse(retrieved May 16th 2011).31. Kehat, Hanna. 2008.Feminism and Judaism: From contradiction to revival. Tel-Aviv: The Ministryof Defense [Hebrew].

32. Lehmann, David, and Batia Siebzehner. 2006.Remaking Israeli Judaism: The challenge of Shas.New York: Oxford University Press.

33. Lerner, Heidi. 2008. Researching Orthodox Judaism online.AJS Perspectives

36–38. Available athttp://www.ajsnet.org/ajsp08sp.pdf(retrieved May 16th 2011).34. Levinson, Haim. Where are the children of Shas? In the Ashkenazi yeshivas.Yedioth Achronot.Available at:www.frenkim.co.il/katavayediot.htm(retrieved May 16th 2011) [Hebrew

 

 

36. Lupu, Jacob. 2004.Can Shas restore past glory?. Jerusalem: The Floersheimer Institute for PolicyStudies.

37. Margalit, Avishai, and Moshe Halbertal. 2004. Liberalism and the right to culture.Social Research71(3): 529–548.

38. Mautner, Menachem, 2010. A dialogue between a liberal and an ultra-Orthodox on the exclusion ofwomen from Torah study (unpublished paper).

39. My Ynet. 2010.http://my.ynet.co.il/pic/judisem/1.PDF(retrieved May 19th 2011) [Hebrew].

40. Nachshony, Koby. June 20th 2010. Rabbi Yaakov Yosef: I wash my hand of the Immanuel affair.Ynet. Available athttp://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3907528,00.html(retrieved May 16th2011) [Hebrew].

41. News 2. June 22nd 2010. The HCJ is changing its decision: The mothers will not be imprisoned.Mako. Available athttp://www.mako.co.il/news-law/legal/Article-88e3d5e605f5921004.htm(retrieved May 16th 2011) [Hebrew].

42. “Noa’r Kahalacha” association: Promoting fundamental rights in the ultra-Orthodox sector,http://www.frenkim.co.il/(retrieved May 16th 2011).

43. Perry-Hazan, Lotem. 2011.On the right to education and the right to educate: The autonomy of theUltra-Orthodox education in Israel. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Haifa, Faculty of Law[Hebrew].

44. Rabinowicz, Tzvi. 2000.Hasidism in Israel: A history of the Hasidic movement and its masters in theHoly Land. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.

45. Reshef, Raffi. June 22nd 2010. A mother from Immanuel: “my child will be modest and will beeducated in a school that I will choose”.Nana10. Available athttp://news.nana10.co.il/Article/?ArticleID=727148&TypeID=1&sid=126(retrieved May 16th 2011) [Hebrew].

46. Schiffman, Eitan. 2005. The Shas school system in Israel.Nationalism and Ethnic Politics11(1):89–124.

47. Sella, Neta. August 21st 2008. Jerusalem police versus the Chastity Guard.Ynet. Available athttp://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3585941,00.html(retrieved May 16th 2011) [Hebrew].

48. Sheleg, Yair. 2007. The adjustment of Israeli religious society to modernization. Available athttp://www.idi.org.il/BreakingNews/Pages/opinions_m.aspx(retrieved May 16th 2011) [Hebrew].

49. Shenkar, Yael. 2009. In the light of introductions and forwards: on female writing and male authorityin Haredi Society. InLeadership and authority in Israeli Haredi society: challenges and alternatives,eds. Kimmy Caplan and Nurit Stadler, 78–98. Tel-Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuhad [Hebrew].

50. The Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labor. 2009. Structure of planned research 2009–2010: TheIsraeli Haredi sector. Available athttp://www.israel-industry-trade.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/E7C4C2C8-31D9-443B-819A-23FC863A7641/0/haredim1109.pdf(retrieved May 16th 2011) [Hebrew].

51. The State Comptroller and Ombudsmen, Israel. 2011.Annual report 61b for the year 2010. Availableathttp://www.mevaker.gov.il/serve/contentTree.asp?bookid=595&id=57&contentid=&parentcid=undefined&sw=1024&hw=698(retrieved May 19th 2011) [Hebrew].52. Zohar, Tzvi. 1996–1997. Torah sages and modernity: On orthodoxy, sephardic sages and the Shas

-------------------

 

 

Marxism

The New Israel Fund hid its role in the Lallum vs Chinuch Atzmai court case. The NIF did not want to appear as a leftist group fighting against religion. The NIF wanted it to seem like these were religious peole fighting amongst themselves - Sephardi vs Ashkenazi, a seemingly racist divide.

The larger picture is Marxist revolutionary dialectic - create social chaos by copying a survival of the fittest infighting, based on the laws of the jungle. On a simpler level, make it look like religious peole fight along ethnic lines, that gives an excuse for secular peole to distance themselves from religion, and for thr government to marginalize and de-fund religious organizations. But on a deeper level, this is Marxist dialectic - just like in nature, you have survival of the fittest borne of fighting and beating down an opponent - be it predator or challenge from nature, Karl Marx held that infighting among people causes social chaos, and the result is survival of the fittest socially.

You may have never heard of social dialectic that breeds infighting, then social control being seized by the fittest social group. That is how insidious social dialectic has become, you can hardly even get a perspective on it, you can hardly step outside of the box and question it.

 

 Universities provide gender studies and race studies. Graduates from such colleges condition people too think in terms of gender and race. But there really might be issues in society which transcend gender and race, there really may be people thinking in terms completely out of the box and not in terms of gender and race. Members of fundamentalist Muslim, Jewish, and Christian communities embrace values that are completely independent of race and gender. (I would add that this is true with most religious communities.

 
MIDDLEBURY COLLEGE in the 1980's

Middlebury College, late 1980’s. A great place to learn languages, ecology (we would walk to eco labs in the beautiful forests and fields of Vermont), and the international flavor meant it was a great place for those studying political science. I want to focus here on race relations at Midd in the 1980's, and the concept of vetting students both academically and socially, as the haredi schools do.

Internal tensions could run pretty high. Meetings were held to resolve these tensions but I felt they accomplished little. Minister Dr. Charles King flew up from Atlanta twice to speak to a packed house at the chapel, on race relations among the students at the college.

Affirmative action meant that some students were admitted who may not be up to the standards expected in that school. Sara was admitted but she was not accepted as "in". The liberal response had to chalk this up to subtle racism, without questioning the flaws of affirmative action.

Haredi schools give you a 2-3 page list of explanations and expectations of the given school. If Midd had done this, it would have gone something like this in the late 1980’s:

“Middlebury College is highly competitive academically and excellent writing skills are expected. The atmosphere is generally feel-good. Students can and will be involved in environmental and social activism, but not be expected to assume an intense or cynical disposition. Midd kids study hard, play hard, and socialize in a light and fun atmosphere. It is New England liberal, not radical left. This means universal tolerance for all who eat politely, are well groomed, hard working, and who will contribute something concrete to a stable society, whether that means American society or elsewhere. New England liberalism is tolerant in the sense that it values privacy, so if someone is, say, fundamentalist Christian or gay, that is okay as long as they fit the above description, but they are not expected to engage in evangelism or activities that revolutionize societal concepts of sexuality. Identity politics are acceptable if such efforts lead to a stable society, but not if it leads to fragmentation. Interpersonal harmony is a prime value. For those seeking a more revolutionary culture we refer you to Oberlin, Wesleyan, Hampshire Colleges and the like."But instead there were internal tensions that ran high, a lack of belonging, and the administration of Middlebury has sent int alumni questionairres askinig for feedback because of its low alumni involvement. I think the lack of a feeling of belonging was the issue. Explaining the culture of the school before admissions would have made a better environment. But the Left wants people to live in an agitated state.

 Only a very few strategically positioned activists can thrive in an individualistic framework.Strategically positioned activists in academia, the media, the legal field, are actually milking off the rest of stable society, not really offering any options other than endless activism, never really building anything.  There will always remain only a few of such activists, they can never become a majority precisely because they are poised to provoke; should they gain momentum, they begin destroying each other in their search for power, and decidedly not their search for what is ultimately good for people.