SPECIAL COMMENTARY

Dollars, Identity And Jewish Education

New York

meaningful dent is to involve some
here are increasing signs
form of government funding.
This sea change in thinking is
that the organized Jewish
community is inching
underscored by the fact that a daylong
toward at least reconsider-
conference here last week on Jewish
ing its long-sacred policy of opposing
education and public policy was con-
any breach in the separation of
vened by the American Jewish Com-
church and state. The issue: funding
mittee, once the bastion of the liberal
Jewish education.
Jewish establishment. But
Until now, the community,
times have changed. Last
with the exception of some
December, the AJCommit-
elements of the Orthodox,
tee issued a statement call-
has opposed any government
ing on the community to
assistance to religious schools
step up significantly its
or to families who send their
financial support for Jewish
children to these schools. The
education on all levels,
consensus has been that
from day schools to after-
church-state separation helps
noon Hebrew schools to
protect us as a minority in an
summer camps and infor-
GARY
overwhelmingly Christian
mal programs. It suggested
ROSENBLATT
society, and that any breach
establishing a communal
Special to
in the wall would weaken
endowment fund to pro-
the Jewish News
American Jewry or the public
vide per-student subsidies
school system, or strengthen
for any form of quality Jew-
ish education.
the Christian right, or impose govern-
ment influence on the curriculum of
Jewish day schools.
The Funding Dance
But some of our most thoughtful
Much of the discussion at last week's
communal leaders are questioning
conference, whose tone one speaker
these suppositions. They argue that
described as "urgency without
the need to improve Jewish education
panic," focused on funding day
is vital if we are to survive as a people
schools. Once the exclusive purview
in this century, that church-state sepa-
of the Orthodox community, these
ration need not be total, and that the
schools are now recognized widely as
costs of Jewish education are so enor-
the most effective means of ensuring
mous that the only way to make a
Jewish continuity.
The day school movement has
Gary Rosenblatt is editor and publish-
grown dramatically in recent years,
er of the New York Jewish Week.
particularly with the creation of a

T

number of pluralistic community high
schools. There are about 210,000 stu-
dents in day schools and yeshivas
around the country, though about 80
percent of Jewish youngsters do not
attend such schools. The costs of day
schools themselves, with tuition gener-
ally ranging from about $7,000 a year
per child to more than $15,000, are
prohibitive for many families. What's
more, many of these schools are in
dire financial straits, unable to pay
competitive salaries for teachers and
often barely managing to stay afloat.
This crisis for day schools led Chica-
go businessman George Hanus to start a
national grassroots effort several years
ago, encouraging every Jew in America
to leave 5 percent of his or her wealth in
an endowment to a Jewish school.
Speaking at the conference, the
enthusiastic Hanus asserted that Jew-
ish education must be our highest pri-
ority and that the 5 percent gift
should be seen as a voluntary tax to
that end.
"We need to create a standard of
normative behavior," he said, "so that
to be a Jew means to give 5 percent of
one's income, regardless of denomina-
tion or school." He insisted that given
the wealth of the American Jewish
community, an endowment of billions
of dollars could be created.
While applauding Hanus' com-
mitment and approach, others
argued that the cost involved was
too great.

Government Support?

Jack Wertheimer, a professor at the
Jewish Theological Seminary here,
pointed out in his presentation that
providing even a modest Jewish
communal stipend of $2,000 a year
per child now in day school would
amount to $420 million. That
would require an endowment of
more than $4 billion, a far greater
sum than the current endowments
of all Jewish federations in the U.S.
And the $2,000 stipend would
"barely make a dent on family bud-
gets," asserted Wertheimer, given the
cost of tuition.
"If we are truly serious about day
school education," he said, "the orga-
nized Jewish community must recon-
sider the role of government funding,"
since the community alone "cannot
muster the resources, despite the fine
talk to the contrary."
He argued that day schools and other
private schools offer quality education
and provide a service to the state by
teaching general subjects. What's more,
he suggested that American Jewish resis-
tance to government funding is based
more on fear and closed-mindedness
than the current situation.
John Ruskay, the top professional
at the UJA-Federation of New York,
renewed his call for strengthening a
wide range of institutions "where
most marginal Jews encounter Jew-
ish life," from synagogues to sum-

DOLLARS . on page 36

Reform Needs Standards

En lewood, Colo.
he Reform rabbis' recent
resolution on same-gender
officiation affirms two
mutually contradictory
actions: It supports any Reform rabbi
who wishes to perform a same-sex rit-
ual, including, though not so speci-
fied, marriage; and it supports any
Reform rabbi who refuses to perform
same-sex rituals.

Dennis Prager is the author of four
books, including The Nine Questions
People Ask About Judaism and Happi-
ness Is A Serious Problem. He has a
national radio show heard in 30 cities
and lectures widely. This commentary
first appeared in the Connecticut Jewish
Ledger. He may be reached through his
Web site www.dennisprager.com

In an important
way, there is noth-
ing new in this res-
olution. A Reform
rabbi always could
have performed a
same-sex commit-
ment service.
There are no reli-
gious standards in
DENNIS
Reform Judaism
PRAGER
(this is not criti-
Special to
cism;
it is descrip-
the Jewish News
tion). Reform rab-
bis can do any-
thing they want ritually.
Reform Judaism is very important
to the Jewish people. It has served as a
way back, into Judaism for many Jews
who would not set foot into a Conser-
vative or Orthodox shul. It is also a
wonderful vehicle for experimentation

with the tradition.
But because, as a movement,
Reform has no religious standards, it is
entirely understandable why move-
ments based on standards would find
it theologically difficult, if not impos-
sible, to regard Reform rabbis as nec-
essarily the religious equals of their
rabbis.
This same-sex officiation resolution
is a good example of Reform's lack of
standards. What are Reform Judaism's
standards regarding religious same-sex
marriage? There are none. They are'
whatever a Reform rabbi wants them
to be. And the same is true about
every other Jewish religious issue. The
Reform rabbi or temple may have
standards, but the Reform movement
does not.
Those in the Reform movement
regard their position on homosexuality

as, more than anything, "progressive."
The irony here is that it is not pro-
gressive, but regressive.
Homosexual behavior was regard-
ed as religiously and morally no dif-
ferent from heterosexual behavior
throughout the ancient world.
Torah, however, listed it as one of
the practices of ancient Canaan from
which Israel must desist. The eleva-
tion of male-female sexual love as
the human ideal was the work of the
Torah.
Reform Judaism's primary self-
image is as a progressive movement.
The truth, however, is it has often
been a follower of the spirit of its
times precisely when it most regarded
itself as progressive. For example:
• Reform Judaism thought it was

REFORM on page 36

trif

6/23

2000

35

