THE JEWISH NEWS
Incorporating The Detroit Jewish Chronicle commencing with issue of July 20, 1951
Member American Association of English—Jewish Newspapers, Michigan Press Association, National Editorial
Association.
Published every Friday by The Jewish News Publishing Co., 17100 West Seven Mile Road, Detroit 48235 Mich.,
VE 8-9364. Subscription $6 a year. Foreign $7.
Second Class Postage Paid at Detroit, Michigan
PHILIP SLOMOVITZ
Editor and Publisher
SIDNEY SHMARAK
CARMI M. SLOMOVITZ
Advertising Manager
Business Manager
CHARLOTTE HYAMS
City Editor
Sabbath Scriptural Selections
This Sabbath, the 29th day of Nisan, 5725, the following scriptural selections wlil
be read in our synagogues:
Pentateuchal portion: Levit. 16:1-18:30; prophetical portion: I Samuel 20:18-42.
cz,
Licht benshen, Friday, April 30, 7:11 p.m.
VOL. XLVII, No. 10
Page 4
April 30, 1965
NewTrends in 'Separation' and School Aid
We are entering a new era under the
provisions of the newly adopted legislation to
provide aid to parochial as well as to public
schools. Jewish ranks were sharply divided
on the issue. Orthodox spokesmen strongly
supported President Johnson's proposals,
while the secular elements battled hopelessly
against the departure from previously estab-
lished policies of viewing such steps as
leading towards breaking down the basic idea
of church-state separation.
The internal Jewish debates have gone so
far that the American Jewish Congress plans
court action to test the constitutionality of
the adopted and the Johnson-approved bill,
while the Jewish groups that favor the
measure have begun a campaign to condemn
the American Jewish Congress position.
Regardless of the result of the continuing
debate over the "separation" and the school
aid problems, it now seems inevitable for the
parochial schools to come in for a share of
government aid. It appears certain that there
are to be new trends in viewing the status of
private schools as contrasted with our public
school system, and those who are striving to
retain the basic American idea of church-state
separation may be compelled to seek new
means of restricting whatever intrusions may
appear on the horizon.
* * *
The most important analysis of the
adopted legislation which gave an over-
whelming victory to President Johnson's aid-
to-education program was made by Walter
Lippmann. The eminent columnist made these
observations on the new American program:
The bill which Congress has passed contains
in itself a statement of the limits beyond which
Congress does not wish to go. Section 605 says
that "Nothing contained in this Act shall be
construed to authorize the making of any pay-
ment under this Act, or under any Act amended
by this Act, for religious worship or instruction."
Thus, subject to a judicial review, the principle
affirmed by the Congress and the President is
that religious schools are schools which offer
their pupils not only religious worship and in-
struction but also education. Admittedly, the
boundary line between religious and non-religious
instruction is in part not black and white but
gray, notably in the study of history, literature
and philosophy. But granting that there is a gray
zone, there is also a great deal of education, for
example in the physical sciences and mathe-
matics, which is theologically neutral. There is
here a very considerable ground which is com-
mon to the public and the religious schools, and
here, say the proponents of the Act, it is con-
stitutional to provide Federal aid.
Without presuming to anticipate the decision
of the Supreme Court, we may justly ask our-
selves what is the sound public policy. The. Act
is a breakthrough. The Federal aid to religious
schools which it authorizes is, to be sure, not
wholly without any precedent. There have been
in recent years certain fringe benefits accorded
to the religious schools. But in the field of na-
tional policy, the Act is a great innovation.
What is novel in it and highly significant
is the recognition by Congress that religious
schools are American schools, that they are an
essential part of the American school system.
Inasmuch as the religious schools instruct in
religion, they cannot be given Federal aid without
contravening the first amendment. But insofar
as they provide education which is non-religious,
they are entitled to receive Federal aid.
It has long seemed to me that the public
policy of the Act can be stated in the following
way. It is a fundamental principle of American
society that education is so indispensable that
government rightly makes it compulsory. At all
levels of government, the nation since it was
founded has promoted education in schools and
colleges. It has never been the rule or the
practice to make it compulsory that children
be educated in public schools alone. From the
beginning, American governments have accepted
religious and private schools as educational
agencies, provided they met certain standards
of educational efficiency.
If, then, private schools are legitimate and
recognized institutions, then justice demands and
the public interest requires that they receive
public assistance, outside the prohibitions of the
First Amendment. A parochial school, and those
who would deny it any public assistance ought,
if they had the courage of their convictions, to
ask that parochial schools be outlawed. In fact,
parochial schools are regarded as legitimate edu-
cational facilities, and in actual practice they
have long been helped in one way or another
by state and local authorities.
Those of use who believe in the Act take as
our major premise the paramount importance
of educating the young. However, without a very
substantial increase in the money available for
education, we shall not be able to make progress
in the attempt to educate the masses of our
large and growing population.
There are, to be sure, many things besides
money that must be provided in order to im-
prove American education, to raise it from back-
wardness in the backward areas to an average
level and to bring it in sight of excellence. But
since it is not possible to raise enough money
through state and local governments, the para-
mount principle requires that the Federal Gov-
ernment, with its far greater financial resources,
be brought in to help. This makes the Act an
epoch-making advance towards the improvement
of American education.
This is a very strong statement. It will
please the President and will hearten those
who are battling for federal aid to parochial
schools. But it won't end the battle.
Nevertheless, it appears that the debate is
nearly over that advocates of aid to religious
schools have won their case, that defenders
of the "separation" principle will have to
adopt new approaches to their pleadings for
the strictest adherence to the First Amend-
ment.
*
*
There is no doubt that Jewish groups that
supported the President's new program were
in large measure motivated by the aid that is
to be given to the parochial and to the Day
Schools. The struggling private schools will
greatly be aided by the new government pro-
gram and it is no wonder that the ranks of
the supporters of federal aid-to-religious-
schools has grown so immensely.
The new policy may lead to the expansion
of parochial school systems. It may give a
new lease of life to the Jewish Day School
movement. We have already witnessed a
trend by many Jewish parents to send their
children to religious and private schools, and
the explanations offered were that the
standards of the public schools have declined
and that the children who go to Day Schools
are receiving better training and more ade-
quate attention from the teaching staffs.
If this is so, then our public school system
is faced with a serious charge and a challenge
to strive for urgently needed improvements.
The regrettable decline in educational
standards, occasioned by the difficulty that
is encountered in teacher training and in
some measure by the lowering of standards
occasioned by neighborhood changes and the
uncertainties caused by the civil rights evolu-
tion, is contributing towards the _ growing
tendencies of sending children to private
schools, to parochial ones, to progressive and
religious Day Schools. This creates a new
system of classes and affects the public school
set-up. The newly adopted aid-to-education
bill may add considerably towards the expan-
sion of such a class system wherein the more
affluent will be the more privileged—instead
of the earlier method which equalized all
citizens within our public school system.
Indeed, we have just entered a new era
in educational activities. Many other aspects
of American life may thus be affected. We
are part of a changing society and our chil-
dren may be part of a system that will be
motivated by new ideas and will be faced
with revisions involving the religious influ-
ences on the life of this nation.
History of Yiddish Theater, Its
Universality, Told by Dr. Lifson
Sharing a role as effective and as important as the Yiddish press,
the Yiddish theater was one of the most influential elements in the
life of the Jew in this country for more than 60 years. It left its
mark on the American stage, and many of the actors whose begin-
nings were on the Yiddish stage emerged among the great on
Broadway.
The history of the Yiddish theater in this country forms one
of the intriguing chapters in our history, and it is fortunate that a
man as well qualified as Prof. David S. Lifson undertook to write
"The Yiddish Theater in America," a most illuminating work published
by Thomas Yoseloff.
This is history in most effective form. It traces the background
of the Jewish theater and shows how its roots are strongly linked
with Jewish culture and tradition.
Dr. Lifson, explaining why the Jewish theater started so
late — in 1876 — explains that "origins of the Jews were among
Semitic people, and none of them wrote drama, while what
Semitic poetry was written was subjective — philosophical or
lyrical, never narrative or dramatic—and the Hebrews were like
their neighbors. The early Jews were too busy writing philosophy,
lyrical literature and laws for their religion and state."
There was a blocking of such cultural development due to anti-
Jewish restrictions, but the Purimspiel began to develop in the ninth
century and later the shtetl of Eastern Europe became the locale and
the birthplace of the theater.
Dr. Lifson traces the history of. the Yiddish theater in this
country to the Progressive Dramatic Club in New York. He shows
how the Haskalah movement became the road to the Yiddish theatrical
art and in the course of its historical reviews shows how the litersTh
activities of Peretz, Opatoshu, Mendele, Sholem Aleichem, and mt
other giants in Yiddish literature had inspired the theater.
The great value of Dr. Lifson's historical account is the
analysis he offers of the status of Yiddish, from its great heights
in the early decades of this century. He contrasts the Yiddish
theater's status with that of the Yiddish press, and his excellently
compiled facts provide valuable material on the influence of the
language of the masses of Jews in this country.
He deals with the many plays, their authors, the reviewers, the
influence on the audiences, and the reader is introduced to the
many outstanding actors whose fame emanated from a theater that
was powerful and left its deep roots as a great cultural factor.
Dr. Lifson contends that "the Yiddish theater lost much of its
audience due to the competition from other entertainment media."
But it also had "the seeds of its own destruction." He points to
alienation of the audience due to changing production styles and a
dearth of new playwrights, and the emergence of shund crudities.
Emphasizing that his history is "not intended to be a memorial
to a deceased institution," Dr. Lifson declares: "The life blood
of the Yiddish drama flows in the American theater; its append'
ages and offsprings are flourishing in other countries; its liter-
ature, although collecting librarious dust, may yet find 'if --
stages on which to appear as has been shown by the revival
the `Dybbuk' a few seasons ago . . . The Yivo has a growing" \)_
Yiddish theater collection."
Dr. Lifson's history has the added merit of listing the produc-
tions of Maurice Schwartz and the Yiddish Art Theater of New York,
from 1918 to 1941, giving in addition to the dates of the productions
the names of the plays and their authors. In view of the success of
"Fiddler on the Roof," it is interesting to note that Schwartz staged
Sholem Aleichem's "Tevye, the Dairyman," in 1919. Listed also are
the Artef productions from 1928 to 1936 and the Folksbuehne plays
from 1915 to 1940.
Study in Victorian Criticism
"The Crowns of Apollo—A Study in Victorian Criticism and
Aesthetics," by Robert L. Peters, has been issued by Wayne State
University Press.
The volume contains a detailed study of Algernon Charles
Swinburne's system of aesthetics. It is an evaluation of Swinburne's
principles of art and literature.
The volume is the first winner of the Hilberry Publication Prize
to be awarded annually by WSU Press and the board of advisers to
the press.