by Melissa Langsam Braunstein in The Washington Examiner

A.G. Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times, recently acknowledged the controversy surrounding his paper’s coverage of New York’s Hasidic yeshivas. Writing in the Columbia Journalism Review, Sulzberger declared, “The central criticism is not so much about the accuracy of the coverage itself, but whether it could be misused.”

In fact, from the beginning, experts have pointed out that the articles were filled with inaccuracies. One representative article was “rife with half-truths and distortions,” wrote Jason Bedrick and Jay P. Greene in this magazine in September.

Yet beyond the misrepresentations, another question has hung in the air: What did the New York Times leave out? Interviews with 34 people, including yeshiva graduates, parents, and teachers, along with education scholars and elected officials, 16 of whom contacted the New York Times or were interviewed by it, have now helped answer that.

The New York Times relied heavily on critics of the community and those who have left it. Giving the Hasidic community itself a voice in its own story, it turns out, upends the carefully crafted and selective narrative.

In its initial article, the New York Times asserted Hasidic parents “feel they have little choice but to send their children to the[se] schools.” But what the New York Times paints as peer pressure, said Rabbi Yaakov Menken, managing director of the Coalition for Jewish Values, is actually a genuine commitment to religious education and religious life.

As for the insinuation that families would otherwise be seeking an excuse to flee the yeshiva system, meet Moyshe Silk. He was assistant secretary for international markets at the Treasury Department after having already been a “senior partner at a global, elite law firm.” Silk, the first Hasid to serve as a senior presidential appointee, commuted to Washington during his three years in government “so my kids wouldn’t be uprooted from their school[s].” The Silks prioritized schooling because “educationally, we don’t think there’s better training for critical thinking and textual analysis. … Our kids grow up well rounded, highly productive, with good communal and family values, and filled with optimism.” Yeshivas are “the crown jewel of the community.”

A central claim of the New York Times’s attack on religious education is that these yeshiva graduates are left unprepared for life after high school. But the yeshivas’ moral education translates nicely into practical use. Penina G., a registered nurse, credits her yeshiva education for making college feel easy “because I was taught how to study properly.” Beyond the life lessons, “curiosity and creativity were encouraged in school.”

Malka, a graduate of a Bobov Hasidic yeshiva, described the experience of her husband, now a doctoral candidate in molecular biology, in similar terms. It turns out that imparting analytical habits of mind is no mere abstraction. “He found that he was always at the top of his class [post-yeshiva] because of the way he had been trained to think,” Malka said. “The advanced analytical skills, logic development, and the rigorous questioning all stood him in good stead.”

In other words, a yeshiva education teaches skills that are applicable to students who go outside the community for further education and the workforce.

Just ask Assemblyman Simcha Eichenstein, the first Hasid elected to New York’s state legislature. “The yeshiva system produces outstanding young adults who have highly developed educational and critical thinking skills, are compassionate, generous, bright, and inquisitive,” Eichenstein said. That’s why their parents “are happy to pay considerably high tuition rates.” In general, the community’s parents see it as a good investment in their children’s futures.

But don’t the standardized test score data printed by the New York Times contradict that? Actually, no.

The New York Times’s initial article cited “dismal outcomes” at the Central United Talmudical Academy and “nearly a dozen other schools.” Those unnamed schools were effectively precluded from refuting the charge that their students were “failing by design.”

Dr. Moshe Krakowski, professor and director of doctoral studies at Yeshiva University’s Azrieli Graduate School of Jewish Education and Administration and “the only [American] academic who studies Hasidic schools,” observed, “When they’re talking about test scores, they’re talking about 10 or 12 schools at the bottom of the distribution [of approximately 200 Hasidic yeshivas]. But they are in fact providing students the basics, even if it’s not showing up on test scores.”

Standardized test scores at Hasidic boys’ yeshivas can underwhelm for several reasons. First, yeshivas are unlikely to teach to the test. Second, there are “Hasidic schools [that] start secular studies a year later [than public schools do],” so some Hasidic students “are not being tested on what they’ve learned that year.” Put differently, third graders in a Hasidic yeshiva could cover the secular studies content public schools covered in second grade, meaning their statewide test covers material they won’t recognize. Third, there are schools where students’ ages may not line up with standardized testing’s expected pool. Taken together, that helps explain why the New York Times found that “only nine schools in the state had less than 1% of students testing at grade level in 2019. … All of them were Hasidic boys schools.”

Part of the frustration with the New York Times’s distortions of test scores is that they are meant to give the impression that not only are yeshiva students doing terribly but also that nonreligious schools in New York are thriving, or even up to par. But a more complete look at the state’s students shows that’s not remotely the case.

Albany’s Times Union reported that in 2022, only “46.6 percent of [third through eighth grade] students [across New York] scored at or above grade level” in English, while “38.6 percent of students” did so in math. And of the 60% of Schenectady eighth graders tested on math, none passed.

Krakowski concluded, “Look at what’s going on elsewhere to see how crazy it is to get fourth, fifth-grade kids to translate Aramaic legal texts [as they do in yeshiva] and have sophisticated legal arguments about rights, responsibilities, damages, and contracts. … They’re operating at a very high level, and that’s most of their day.”

To underscore the point, a recent Princeton University graduate whose yeshiva taught nothing secular at all told the Washington Examiner that even in his case, “it’s not like it’s overly difficult to catch up with the standards of the public school system.” That’s probably why the students who come from the vast majority of yeshivas, which do teach secular studies, find they have a head start on advanced education.

Jeff Ballabon, a Yale Law School graduate who attended both Haredi, though not Hasidic, and Modern Orthodox yeshivas, described encountering the chasm between early secular and religious schooling: “At Yale, they give you ethical dilemmas to discuss among yourselves. Other than a small minority of students who had attended private religious schools, I was struck by how almost none of the students had the language to talk about ethical concepts I’d grown up with since preschool. … My first observation of the outside world was that that which concerned us primarily, they never addressed at all.”

Ray Domanico, senior fellow and director of education policy at the Manhattan Institute, visited “three boys’ yeshivas in Brooklyn” and mostly observed Talmud classes. He recounted, “It is not rote memorization of Scripture or prayers. It’s what we call in public education ‘critical thinking.’” Domanico recalled seeing “boys as young as third and fourth grade having very advanced discussions about how to resolve various commentaries on the Scriptures.”

Yeshiva education is also rigorous from the outset. Domanico recalled being “kind of impressed” seeing “a young staff member” tracking second-grade boys’ Hebrew reading comprehension. The school expected Hebrew literacy “by the end of first grade.” By contrast, “charter and public schools in New York State don’t test for English reading proficiency until third grade.”

“I’m not saying there are no problems,” Domanico clarified. “What I am saying is that I saw other things going on in those schools that were not reflected in the media coverage.”

But the New York Times conjured a Dickensian vision, charging that, among other things, corporal punishment is common at boys’ yeshivas. They reported the New York Police Department “investigated more than a dozen claims of child abuse at the schools” over five years. Seemingly, no criminal charges were filed.

Krakowski commented, “Almost all [yeshivas] have eliminated corporal punishment. … Twenty years ago, that was the default punishment, you’d get a slap on the hand. But if that’s the culture, you make it very easy for somebody to abuse that. … I’m glad they’ve stopped.”

No school should use corporal punishment. For the sake of student safety, though, it’s imperative to ask if this signifies a larger problem.

The New York Times tried to downplay the use of corporal punishment in public schools, rounding down the number of incidents, but a Times Union investigation found: “In recent years, the state Education Department has documented nearly 18,000 complaints of corporal punishment in public and charter schools across New York, although corporal punishment is generally banned. Investigators and school officials substantiated more than 1,600 of those complaints from 2016 through 2021, according to a Times Union review of state Education Department records. … The vast majority of the substantiated complaints were in New York City public schools.”

The New York Times further painted the Hasidic community as what used to be derisively called “the undeserving poor.” After graduation, the paper claimed yeshiva students were shunted off into “a cycle of joblessness and dependency.” The New York Times shames no other demographic group for using public assistance, but there’s also abundant evidence that this is not true.

As Orthodox Jewish advocacy group Agudath Israel of America noted, a 2021 Nishma Research study found the median Hasidic household income was $102,000. A study that Krakowski is “working on, that is still in progress, shows a median income of $115,000” among 30-, 35-, and 40-year-old graduates from a “weak” yeshiva. Meanwhile, the U.S. Census Bureau reported the “real median household income [for all Americans] was $70,784 in 2021.”

Orthodox Jewish Public Affairs Council data compared employment among men ages 20-64 in New York City, in the Hasidic enclave Kiryas Joel, and statewide. At 75%, Kiryas Joel outperformed the Bronx’s 68.7% but was slightly below the statewide 76.8% and Queens’s 79.7%. OJPAC rightly emphasized that Hasidic families skew younger and larger than average, which distorts comparisons.

It’s “a very big [media-driven] misconception” that Hasidic men “study Torah all day,” said Frieda Vizel, who grew up as part of the Satmar Hasidic community and now leads walking tours of Hasidic Brooklyn. “Especially in Williamsburg, the men are usually very active in the workforce,” Satmar men especially. “The men are the breadwinners. The Satmar Rebbe thought men shouldn’t sit in Kollel [yeshiva for married men] unless they’re really qualified for it. They’re fairly impatient with men not going out and earning a living.”

And members of the community aim to improve that further with innovative programs that meet the needs of Hasidic would-be professionals. Raizel Reit founded Testing and Training International, which the New York Times mischaracterized as “an online firm.” (Pre-pandemic, classes met at a Brooklyn public school, but the pandemic pushed classes online.) Brooklyn-based TTI matches students, many of them Orthodox Jews, with culturally sensitive bachelor’s and master’s level programs in their preferred fields.

The New York Times raised suspicions about TTI’s special education training program because “Students take weekly online classes and can obtain a provisional license in a few months, records show.” Reit responded, “The Times writes as if we’re doing something bizarre. This is a New York initiative [to accelerate teachers’ entry into classrooms]. Our partner, Daemen University, is one of the very many colleges offering” a state certification known as the Transitional B program. “Students are closely monitored, and [this program] has excellent results. So why should it be criticized? Because the students are Orthodox Jews?”

Reflecting on the hostile line of questioning from the New York Times, Reit commented that she’s doing what critics like the New York Times claim to want: “I’m taking yeshiva graduates and professionalizing them. They’re working hard and are excellent teachers.”

Those teachers are preparing to help and support the special needs children of New York. And while the way a community, or state, treats its children speaks volumes, the treatment of its special needs children may be even more revealing.

Sheva Tauby, a business owner and mother of eight, has a special needs son, and she gushed, “The respect and seriousness, the attentiveness at the school my son goes to, is unparalleled. … We believe he was created for a purpose, so there’s no reason he should get fewer services than other kids. Anyone with special needs kids in the religious community, we have tons of community programs. … What they do is unbelievable.”

Esther Horowitz, a mother of 11 and grandmother who does special education tutoring and evaluations for children of all backgrounds across New York City, said yeshiva “teachers are on top of things. Every child gets tested as soon as there’s a problem so there’s no problem later on in life.”

By contrast, the New York Times saw a community greedily gorging on special education funding: “In Orthodox Jewish religious schools, particularly in parts of the Hasidic community,” a policy enacted by then-Mayor Bill de Blasio in 2014 “has also led to a windfall of government money for services that are sometimes not needed, or even provided.”

The New York Times reported that an unspecified number of unnamed firms “now bill more than $200 an hour per student.” They allowed that company representatives “said that it was common practice across the industry not to pay employees the full amount billed per hour,” but only after claiming that “[non-school-affiliated] officers say the companies that provide services in yeshivas stand out for the rates they charge and the amount of money they receive.” The article also scrutinized a maximalist pool of schools: “More than $350 million a year now goes to private companies that provide services in Hasidic and Orthodox schools” [italics added for emphasis].

Horowitz responded, “I have never seen anyone I know” get more than $200. “People are earning $70-$85 an hour through an agency. If agencies are desperate, they might offer more. If you go directly to the Board of Education, you can get $150 an hour [in Manhattan], which is more than the agency pays.”

Chany Halpern, mother of eight, grandmother of many, and daughter of Holocaust survivors, has three daughters who have worked with special needs children. One daughter has advised schools and pediatricians about recognizing occupational therapy candidates earlier, thereby minimizing the amount of therapy needed. What the New York Times paints as greed is actually an early intervention, intended to save everybody time and money over the long haul.

Unfortunately, it is the special needs children who will suffer for the New York Times’s errors. According to Horowitz, “The Board of Education is already more skeptical of [Hasidic] children who need help because of the Times’s stories.”

What do elected officials think about the New York Times and its allegations? New York state Sen. Simcha Felder sees a “shameless mission to trample, besmirch, and decimate religious and traditional values at every opportunity.”

New York City Councilman Kalman Yeger called the series “part and parcel of a deliberate effort over the last several years to ‘otherize’ Orthodox Jews, to say we’re not part of society.” As for yeshivas, “some are great, some can do a bit better, some may need a little help. But that’s not the gist of the Times’s story. Fact is, the vast majority of yeshivas are superb in their approach and their outcomes, and sadly, the same cannot be said for the vast majority of public schools.”

For many Hasidim, the campaign against yeshivas recalls “the first decade of Soviet rule,” explained Dovid Margolin, senior editor at Chabad.org. “There was a section of the Communist Party called the Yevsektsiya, the Jewish section. They, themselves Jews, sometimes even from Hasidic families who left the community, were far more zealous with the Jews than any other anti-religious organizations in the Soviet Union, and they were successful. They closed yeshivas and took away synagogues. It was a full-time job for a decade.”

Margolin continued, “There’s a deep, historic trauma of people going to the government and trying to shut yeshivas down. There are people in the community whose parents, and students in these yeshivas whose grandparents survived the Gulags or were even executed as a part of this campaign. These stories are so deeply ingrained in the Hasidic community.”

Acknowledging “there are gaps [in the yeshiva system because] there are in every educational system,” Rabbi Aaron Kotler, president emeritus of the Haredi (though not Hasidic) Beth Medrash Govoha in Lakewood, New Jersey, opined, “The best arbiters of any educational system are typically the people internally in the system who want the best results for their families.” But in this case, “the Times is calling for enforced social change, and you do that at peril with any community.”