Across New York City, 65,000 ultra-Orthodox Jewish children are not receiving an adequate secular education. In the case Beatrice Weber et al v. New York State Education Department et al, one mother has filed suit to change this. Weber’s son attends a Yeshiva, a Hasidic Jewish community school, and she feels as if this yeshiva is not providing him a secular education. In the state of New York, there are curriculum regulations for private schools, as there is a legal requirement to provide a secular education. Under Education Law § 3204(2), secular education in private schools must be “substantially equivalent” to what a student would receive in a public school. This includes teaching in arithmetic, reading, writing, and other basic skills. The Board of Education commissioner is the one who determines whether schools are doing an adequate job. In 2019, an investigation was launched into these yeshivas. The NYC Department of Education (DOE) found that 26 out of the 28 schools did not meet the minimum standards for secular education. Weber’s son can already read English better than his teacher, with fewer than 90 minutes spent on secular study and the rest of the school day focused on Judaic studies. In the investigation, the DOE found that English and math are taught to 7-13 year-olds an average of 90 min a day, 4 days a week, with other secular subjects not being taught and older students only receiving Judaic teachings. Weber is worried her child will be unprepared for any future employment unless he wants to be a religious scholar. In the Hasidic community, secular knowledge is considered irrelevant and even dangerous, but in society outside of the Orthodox communities, lack of secular knowledge may be even more detrimental.
The main constitutional question in this case is whether the NY DOE can impose regulations and secular standards on religious private schools, or if this is a burden on free exercise of religion. Other private schools in the city have joined the yeshivas in a fight against regulations. Is it a burden on the religious practices of the ultra-Orthodox Jews to have to meet secular standards in their schools? It is one of the basic requirements of the state to provide children with an education, especially since education is mandatory until the age of 16.
I believe it would be constitutional to enforce stricter regulations on the yeshivas. Based on the precedent set in Wisconsin v Yoder, the government has often chosen to not interfere with traditional religious communities. However, there is a strong argument for a compelling state interest to regulate education standards. The effect on children of not receiving a proper secular education has lasting impacts. They will not be able to obtain a job outside of the Orthodox community, as Weber is worried about. In Wisconsin v Yoder, the Supreme Court ruled that Amish children did not have to attend public high schools past eight grade. They argued that it placed a substantial burden on the Amish community, as the secular subjects taught in school were “in sharp conflict with the fundamental mode of life mandated by the Amish religion.” The Amish children had completed schooling up until eight grade, so the court ruled that the additional years of schooling would not be beneficial enough to endanger the community in this way. On the other hand, the children in the Hasidic communities are never receiving a proper secular education. The court did not rule that Amish children did not have to attend school at all, they simply said after a certain age, it was no longer necessary. The compelling state interest to ensure education for all children outweighs free exercise in this case. The court in Wisconsin v Yoder even points out the importance of an early secular education and how it can be incorporated into religious communities. It is difficult to determine when secular knowledge interferes too much with religion for it to be unconstitutional. In both cases, secular knowledge was considered dangerous to the community. However, in Wisconsin, the children were provided with enough of it to ensure their functionality in society outside of the Amish community, where the children of the Hasidic community are not receiving a substantial amount.
The Yeshivas were found to not meet the law set in place to provide a substantially equivalent secular education. They are breaking the law in the name of free exercise. This was denied in Reynolds v United States, when a Mormon was not allowed to practice polygamy as it was against the law. In both cases, a substantial burden is placed on religion, but the compelling state interest to uphold the law and maintain a safe society outweighed this burden on free exercise. It can also be argued that there is excessive entanglement if the commissioner is able to monitor whether religious schools are meeting these requirements. There is a balance of how much say a government can have in private school education, as these are not in their domain. However, it has been established that the government has the responsibility to regulate education and ensure each child gets a quality education, even if that interferes with religious practices. The Judaic studies can continue to occur even with more secular education. The Parents for Educational and Religious Liberty in Schools group is working to develop a yeshiva-friendly curriculum. The state has an obligation to ensure children are properly educated, so even if there is a slight burden on the yeshivas by having slightly less Jewish education, I believe it is constitutionally permissible.
Sources:
https://www.politico.com/states/f/?id=0000016f-1fc6-dc86-ab7f-bfeed3d50000
https://religionnews.com/2022/04/07/the-case-for-secular-education-in-hasidic-schools/
https://gothamist.com/news/de-blasio-yeshiva-probe
6 comments:
I agree that it is Constitutional for the curriculum to be regulated at religious private schools. Your argument for a compelling state interest in education is the same argument I would make, as it is strong. The US government has determined that children must receive an approved education up until a certain age, which applies to private school regulation as well. If the religious schools were to not follow this, they would be asking for special treatment, thus deeming the practice not neutral, as it would favor religion.
You provided a great analysis, However, I must dissent. While some regulation is permissible, I believe that free exercise is imperative to a free and just society. Just like in Wisconsin v. Yoder the Court ruled in favor of the Amish community's right to educate their children how they see fit to be able to function within their own enclave/subculture. I see no difference here, especially since most Orthodox Jewish communities are a very close-knit group of people, who share a common culture, religion, and practices. While one may argue that their education is subpar and setting them up for failure or the lack of opportunities in the future, I would have to disagree since within these communities there are vast sums of established and successful Orthodox Jews. All of which contribute greatly to the broader society. I find it dangerous when the state attempts to interject and put itself into the lives of those who chose to be separate from its indoctrination.
I believe that curriculum must be broadly regulated among private schools, including religious ones. These schools inevitably have a great amount of discretion in their curriculum, however there should be a core standard to ensure the public interest of educating the youth. If this did not exist, it would be possible for private schools to teach their own ideals without regard to the children's basic educational needs. This would give young children a significant obstacle for the future at no fault of their own (but more of the state). That being said, such curriculum must not hinder free exercise of religion. Therefore, I believe that the court should follow the Wisconsin v. Yoder precedent in establishing a cut-off age whereby all children must learn basic secular information.
hmm.. this case is super interesting. I agree with the majority of your analysis and I think you craft a really good argument regarding compelling state interest and the importance of education. The only reason why I am hesitant about the constitutionality of the DOE is because of the strong cultural values of the Orthodox Community that differs from the conventional. I agree with Wisconsin v. Yoder because the court acknowledged how secular education is not and has not been a part of the Amish's lifestyle and ability to succeed. The Orthodox community abides by a strict set of religious laws that dictate their behavior at home, in the workforce and in the classroom. I question if the DOE has the right to change a curriculum that is clearly derived from the cultural and religious values of the Orthodox community. I think it is fair to argue that the community sincerity does not believe secular education is an integral part of childhood development and I think the woman should have removed her child from the school and sent him somewhere else. I also want to add that I think it is ironic that the court argues for the ability of Amish/Orthodox to excel in "modern society" when the two communities outwardly reject modernity's themes of technology and capitalism by adhering to tradition.
I agree that the New York DOE should be able to regulate the education at religious private schools. I think that no matter what the school, whether it is private secular or private religious school, there is compelling state interest to ensure that state curriculum is being adhered to if this is a school children can attend. I think that Wisconsin v. Yoder is a bit different because they were educating their children at home, so I would guess that different rules would apply. However, here this is a real school that religious, or not, must follow educational standards. I think it would be a bit different if families were wanting to take their children out of school for religious and cultural reasons, but if they are going to stay in this school, I believe the DOE has compelling interest to regulate the core curriculum, while still allowing them to follow and teach their religious messages.
Post a Comment