This letter was sent to Newsday in response to a guest editorial that appeared on 4/9/18:
William FB O'Reilly is way off base when he takes the position that yeshiva education that is woefully inadequate in all areas except religion should be protected as a matter of "freedom." He melodramatically declares that "it might ultimately decide the degree to which the state can determine what we are allowed to value and how we are permitted to think." Should we not value English, science, and mathematics? Teaching these basic skills does not dictate how we are permitted to think; it gives us the tools with which to think. By depriving their students of these skills, it is the yeshivas, and not the state, who are guilty of dictating what their students are permitted to think. The argument that the Orthodox have "been at this for 3,500 years" is ludicrous; 3,500 years ago slavery and human sacrifice were widely practiced, but we've moved beyond ancient superstition in most areas.
O'Reilly betrays his own political prejudices when he says, "...once a cultural outlier is identified by the progressive movement, the movement rarely lets it go." In fact, progressives have long been the defenders of "cultural outliers," such as the LGBT community, against attacks by conservatives. O'Reilly even manages to sneak in a gratuitous attack against transgenders. The difference is that, unlike the yeshivas in question, those groups were not hurting anyone. So how are yeshivas that do not teach the basic courses hurting anyone other than their own students? One may ask why we have publicly funded compulsory education in the first place. It is not just to benefit those who graduate, but society as a whole. A republic without informed, engaged, productive citizens cannot endure.
O'Reilly glibly points out that one of the chief complainants about his inadequate yeshiva education "nonetheless succeeded in college." The fact that one intelligent student overcame his educational handicaps does not change the fact that most do not. Too many yeshiva graduates can barely communicate in English and do not know basic math or science, although O'Reilly remains impressed with their knowledge of the Talmud. Yet many of them go on to have more children than they can support (as most do not practice contraception), and wind up on public assistance.
O'Reilly's solution -- that those dissatisfied with yeshiva education simply "vote with their feet" and send their children to different schools -- is preposterous in the extreme. It was often the case in past years that even non-Catholic parents would send their children to parochial schools precisely because their academic standards were higher than those of free public schools, not lower. Those state standards exist for a reason. If a parent chooses to homeschool their children, they cannot simply teach whatever they please; they must cover the basic state-mandated curriculum or face charges of truancy. Why should yeshivas get an exemption from those standards just because they claim "religious freedom" -- particularly when they are accepting public funds for buses and school security, which would constitute a clear violation of separation of church and state if they are merely providing religious instruction, and not basic education?
Richard Schloss, M.D.
Member, Board of Directors
Long Island Atheists
A Local Partner of American Atheists, Inc.
William FB O'Reilly is way off base when he takes the position that yeshiva education that is woefully inadequate in all areas except religion should be protected as a matter of "freedom." He melodramatically declares that "it might ultimately decide the degree to which the state can determine what we are allowed to value and how we are permitted to think." Should we not value English, science, and mathematics? Teaching these basic skills does not dictate how we are permitted to think; it gives us the tools with which to think. By depriving their students of these skills, it is the yeshivas, and not the state, who are guilty of dictating what their students are permitted to think. The argument that the Orthodox have "been at this for 3,500 years" is ludicrous; 3,500 years ago slavery and human sacrifice were widely practiced, but we've moved beyond ancient superstition in most areas.
O'Reilly betrays his own political prejudices when he says, "...once a cultural outlier is identified by the progressive movement, the movement rarely lets it go." In fact, progressives have long been the defenders of "cultural outliers," such as the LGBT community, against attacks by conservatives. O'Reilly even manages to sneak in a gratuitous attack against transgenders. The difference is that, unlike the yeshivas in question, those groups were not hurting anyone. So how are yeshivas that do not teach the basic courses hurting anyone other than their own students? One may ask why we have publicly funded compulsory education in the first place. It is not just to benefit those who graduate, but society as a whole. A republic without informed, engaged, productive citizens cannot endure.
O'Reilly glibly points out that one of the chief complainants about his inadequate yeshiva education "nonetheless succeeded in college." The fact that one intelligent student overcame his educational handicaps does not change the fact that most do not. Too many yeshiva graduates can barely communicate in English and do not know basic math or science, although O'Reilly remains impressed with their knowledge of the Talmud. Yet many of them go on to have more children than they can support (as most do not practice contraception), and wind up on public assistance.
O'Reilly's solution -- that those dissatisfied with yeshiva education simply "vote with their feet" and send their children to different schools -- is preposterous in the extreme. It was often the case in past years that even non-Catholic parents would send their children to parochial schools precisely because their academic standards were higher than those of free public schools, not lower. Those state standards exist for a reason. If a parent chooses to homeschool their children, they cannot simply teach whatever they please; they must cover the basic state-mandated curriculum or face charges of truancy. Why should yeshivas get an exemption from those standards just because they claim "religious freedom" -- particularly when they are accepting public funds for buses and school security, which would constitute a clear violation of separation of church and state if they are merely providing religious instruction, and not basic education?
Richard Schloss, M.D.
Member, Board of Directors
Long Island Atheists
A Local Partner of American Atheists, Inc.
Comments
Post a Comment