In 2019, the Central United Talmudical Academy, a Kindergarten through 12th grade Hasidic private school in New York City agreed to give their students a standardized government test to see if the students are meeting the minimum education requirements set forth by NY state law. In return for giving the exam, the school was granted government funds. All of the students that took the exam failed. This outcome wasn’t surprising as the state has known about the secular education gap within the private Hasidic school community for the past few years. Prior to the pandemic, an investigation was started to see what could be done to correct the lack of a secular education within these schools but the investigation was put on pause as Covid worsened. It is important to note that while, “other schools might be struggling because of underfunding or mismanagement, [the private Hasidic] schools are different. They are failing by design” (Shapiro, Rosenthal). Within most of the private Hasidic schools, time spent learning topics like: Science, Math, English or History is seen as a waste of time. These schools instead prioritize learning about Jewish laws, traditions, prayers and duties within the community. The expectation is for these children to remain a part of the Hasidic Jewish community once they are adults. Therefore they believe their education should revolve around what they deem necessary skills to have in order to succeed within their community. As of Sept. 19th, the New York Education Policy Committee, “proposed amendments to New York State’s “substantial equivalency” regulations meant to clarify how the state determines that private schools offer instruction that is similar to that offered in public schools” it was further stated that “Monday’s vote only solidified rules on the methods the state will use to determine equivalency, not the actual curriculum schools need to follow” (Gergely).
Here is where the Constitutional Question arises: If the State of New York begins monitoring private Hasidic schools curriculums in order to ensure there is an equivalent secular curriculum being taught across the board between private and public schools, so that all students meet minimum state standards, would such a process of monitoring and mandating more secular education violate the free exercise rights of the Hasidic schools and families?
Most individuals within the Hasidic community would say yes; Monitoring and mandating a more secular education system within their private school system infringes upon their free exercise clause. The Hasidic community has, “since arriving in Brooklyn in the 1940s, … relied on religious schools to propel the community’s growth and maintain its continuity” (Shapiro, Rosenthal). The community is well aware of the poor test results from the standardized tests but in their eyes, “their schools are succeeding — just not according to the standards set by the outside world” (Shapiro, Rosenthal). The children of this community are being educated on the ways that they will succeed within their own community, which requires a different skill set than what is being offered in public schools.
The Wisconsin v Yoder case, may be used as a precedent in this case where the majority opinion found the Yoder children were allowed to be exempt from the minimum state educational requirement because the information the children would be learning in secular education wouldn’t help them in the lifestyle they would be living. Furthermore, a concern brought to light in the Wisconsin case was that students not being given a higher secular education wouldn’t be successful in the modern world, if they chose to leave the Amish community. However the courts dismissed the argument stating there was no evidence of that. Many of the parents that belong to the Hasidic community plan for their children to remain within the Hasidic community as they’re children enter into their adulthoods, therefore the parents have the sincere belief that the education being given to their child currently is the one that will be most beneficial to them in the long run. Additionally, if these children are forced into a more secular education system by the government, and stop receiving the strictly religious education that is accepted among their community, a ‘substantial burden’ may be placed upon them because “their leaders, the grand rabbis, wield significant power, and breaking the rules they set can carry serious consequences” one consequence may even be ‘shunning’ individuals from the entire community (Shapiro, Rosenthal).
I will make the counter argument, stating the state is remaining neutral by monitoring the education given within these schools and that the regulation, creating an equivalent curriculum for all schools, does not violate the free exercise clause. The government has a compelling state interest in ensuring all children are receiving an education where if they one day decide to leave whichever community they are currently a part of, they have the knowledge and skills necessary to leave said community and be successful. Furthermore by providing the children of this community with a more secular education, the effect on the children would be highly beneficial. As seen in the New York Times article, a man who grew up going to a private Hasidic school and has since left the Hasidic Jewish community, stated “It’s crazy that I’m 20 years old, I don’t know any higher order math, and never learned any science” (Shapiro, Rosenthal). It is likely that children who do choose to leave will be shunned from the only world they know about, with no tools or basic knowledge of the modern world to help themselves, they will likely struggle. If these children are given a more well rounded secular education base, the government isn’t infringing upon their freedom to continue practicing and studying their religion, the government is making it so that if the children do choose to leave their transition into the modern world will be less turbulent.
Sources:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/11/nyregion/hasidic-yeshivas-schools-new-york.html
I agree with you, and I do not think this is a violation of the right to free exercise. I think that making all education have the same basic requirements is a neutral law. No one is stopping the Hasidic community from still teaching about Jewish laws, but they just have to learn more in addition to this. Thus, this is not a substantial burden. They make the argument that secular education does not apply to them. However, if they leave the Hasidic community, it is important for them to know basic skill learned in school. This is a generally applicable law because all students will learn the same things.
ReplyDeleteWhat Wisconsin v. Yoder recognized was that the Amish community was separate from the United States. It operates upon its own traditions and values. But when it comes to laws, they must follow the laws of the United States. Similarly, the Hasidic community has not broken any laws by giving their children a jewish education. The only reason these scholars took the test was because the school wanted state funding. Furthermore, the Hasidic community follows traditional jewish laws with intense priority, and giving their children a jewish education follows this. Breaking the laws of their own faith would go against their religion, and community laws. The state has not compelling state interest in going out of their way to act against a religious community for following their own laws.
ReplyDeleteI think you did a great job with this post, Julia! One question I had was, why is the Hasidic private school allowed state funding for taking a NY state-administered exam? Would this action not violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment, in that the state is too entangled with the parochial schools? I know that this is not the constitutional question at hand, but I find it interesting that the school agreed to give their students a standardized government test for NY state funding, but are then raising a case that the state investigation and possible mandate of improved secular education in the Central United Talmudical Academy would infringe on their free exercise rights. If possible, the court should decide whether such a process of monitoring and mandating a secular education so that all students meet minimum state standards additionally violates the Establishment clause.
ReplyDeleteExcellent post! I agree with you on behalf of the compelling state interest. While I understand there needs to be respect to the private Hasidic school, there needs to be a certain degree of secular education. I disagree with the ruling of Wisconsin v Yoder as well due to the same rationale. I find this case similar to my blog post in week 1 with COVID-19 vaccination exemptions, as the government has an obligation for all children to be at least adequate in core functions for the foundation of society.
ReplyDeleteThere is a compelling government interest in making sure that students achieve a certain degree of secular educational achievement, both for the betterment of society and the betterment of the students, themselves. The right of the Hasidic Jews to provide their children with an education that teaches their values and customs is not being abridged in this case, simply amended, and the damage wrought by this secular education addendum is outweighed by the value it will add to the children's education.
ReplyDeleteGreat Post! After reading your post I stand at a cross road. I originally had thought that this was a violation of the schools free exercise rights because they are a private institution that runs on the foundation of religion and because of this there should be a division between church and state. However after reading your counter argument I have a little bit of a different perspective. I agree the state is staying neutral. I also think where this gets complicated is in regard to the funding being provided by the government. Something else that comes into question here, that Molly also touched on, is how the government is allowed to fund the school. I am confused as to why they can do that. Due to the merky water, I am still a little confused on where I stand on this case and I am looking forward to discuss more tomorrow. As of now I believe my opinion lies with yours as well.
ReplyDeleteI think that this post is really interesting, however, I am not sure how I feel as Wisconsin v. Yoder being used as a case to provide a precedent supporting the choices of the New York schools within Hasidic communities. It seems as though these schools prioritize religious education over traditional, secular education at all points in a student's education, therefore children attending these schools have never been exposed to the basic skills they need, while the students involved in Wisconsin v. Yoder have exposure to those basic skills up until the eighth grade. Because it seems as though these students are too far behind to act as functioning members of society if they choose to leave the religion, I feel that there is a compelling state interest in making sure these students have access to a more formal education.
ReplyDelete