Michael Steinhardt has spent much of the past two decades funding some of the most important efforts to promote Jewish identity. From Jewish education initiatives to the free trips provided by the Birthright Israel program, the hedge fund mega-millionaire has helped prop up a host of worthy causes and been rightly celebrated as a visionary philanthropist.
But Steinhardt’s backing for the establishment of a Hebrew-language charter school in Brooklyn and for a national support center to assist in the founding of similar schools around the country should not be greeted with similar hosannas. The decision of the New York State Board of Regents to approve the application of Brooklyn’s Hebrew Language Academy Charter School last month gives momentum to a movement that has the capacity to lead American Jewry into an educational dead-end and drain support from other, more viable projects.
On its face, the Hebrew charter idea is fairly innocuous. In a public school culture where students are offered venues where they can concentrate on Latin, Spanish, Chinese and even Arabic, surely they can do the same with Modern Hebrew without shaking the foundations of the republic.
But there is a lot more to Hebrew charters than the aleph bet. The motive behind the Hebrew charter school movement — which got its start in 2007 with the opening of Florida’s Ben Gamla Charter School — is not to bring the glories of Hebraic expression to Americans who might otherwise never be able to read the prose of S.Y. Agnon or the poetry of Yehuda Amichai in the original Ivrit. No, as Steinhardt has himself publicly acknowledged, the driving force behind his interest in Hebrew charter schools is the promotion of Jewish identity. Indeed, it appears that Steinhardt sees in Hebrew charter schools an alternative to the Jewish day school movement that he has funded generously in the past.
Though widely hailed for their ability to instill Jewish knowledge and values, day school enrollment has stalled for two main reasons: One is the high cost of tuition that has put them out of the reach of many middle-class families. The other is that for many, if not most, American Jews, the notion of sending their children to a school whose focus is to promote religious belief is anathema. Many would not send their kids to such a school even if it cost nothing.
Supporters of Hebrew charters believe they can overcome both of these objections. By securing state funding as charter, rather than private, schools, the tuition obstacle will vanish. In addition, since such schools will be required by law not to teach religion, secular Jews might find them attractive.
It is telling that the Hebrew charter schools seem to have made particular efforts to engage heavily secular Jewish sub-groups. Sara Berman, the lead applicant for the Brooklyn academy (and Steinhardt’s daughter), has admitted that the large concentrations of Russian and Israeli Jews near the Sheepshead Bay neighborhood where the charter school will be located are among her school’s target populations. Similarly, Ben Gamla’s founder, former congressman Peter Deutsch, told The New York Times that “South Florida is one of the largest Hebrew-speaking communities in the world outside Israel, so there are lots of really good reasons to try to create a program like this here.”
In some respects, this makes sense. Israeli immigrants retain their love of the Hebrew tongue but often view religion through the prism of Israeli society, where it is seen as the sole property of an Orthodox rabbinate they view with distaste. Russian Jews, for their part, are largely secular, since they are the product of a country in which the teaching of Judaism was long prohibited. Both of these groups have had a hard time fitting into American Jewish life, which has as its central institution the synagogue. So why not give them charter schools where they will get at least a smattering of Jewish culture and knowledge of Hebrew?
The problem is that such schools are bound to fail as both public education and as promoters of Jewish identity.
In contrast to other languages, Hebrew cannot be completely divorced from the rest of Jewish culture, in which religion is an inextricable element. Given the fact that the founders of the charters are interested in promoting Jewish identity, there is little doubt that such schools will, sooner or later, run afoul of the strictures separating religion from state in public schools.
Even more to the point, the idea that Jewish life can be perpetuated by purely secular education is itself a misconception.
It is possible to build a Jewish culture without religion in a state that lives by the Jewish calendar and speaks the language of the Jewish people. Immigrants from Israel may still want to be Jewish on such terms even though they have left. Yet absent a set of unique core beliefs that religion can provide, knowledge of a language is not sufficient to sustain an identity. Speaking Hebrew is not by itself a way of life that can be handed down to future generations anymore than speaking Yiddish was for those who once thought they could sustain a secular Jewish culture without religion or Zionism.
Similarly, without the barrier of discrimination that kept Jews together in the Soviet Union, group ties will eventually collapse in the absence of religion.
The only viable educational answer to the dilemmas posed by living in a free society for Jews who want to ensure that their community will persist remains the day school model. If some backers of these schools are frustrated by the obstacles that cost and sectarianism pose to their success, then the answer is to work harder to create more funding and to promote acceptance of them, not to give up.
Even if Steinhardt spent all his money on them, Hebrew charter schools would not succeed in giving us a Jewish future. Diverting any of our community’s scarce resources into this folly is a mistake American Jewry can ill afford.
Jonathan S. Tobin is executive editor of Commentary magazine.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
To post a comment, click to login:
Copyright © 2012, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Mr Tobin - You have described the Hebrew charter idea as if it's competition for the day school idea. Absolutely not! Those families that send their children to day schools - primarily the orthodox - do so for ideological reasons. They wish to provide their children with solid foundation of Jewish religious studies, and they will continue to do so despite the rise of Hebrew language charter schools. The Hebrew language charter school is meant to appeal to those families that ordinarily send their children to the public schools. Such children (hopefully) attend the synagogue Sunday school (or the afternoon Hebrew school). It is a very meagre educational program that usually ends at bar-mitzvah. Now, despite the poor nature of such a Jewish education, going to the supplementary Hebrew school is quite the norm for the non-orthodox. Surely, going to the supplementary synagogue school on Sunday mornings for a few hours of religious instruction AFTER spending a week in a Hebrew language charter school would be a clear improvement over the present norm. They will come to the synagogue school for their bar-mitzvah training after getting a solid foundation in Hebrew language and literature and Jewish history. The situation in America is so desperate. Jewish illiteracy is so widespread. Most Jews couldn't write down the 22 letters of the alphabet. Why would you attack the new charter school idea? Closing the schools will not bring the children to the Jewish day school; rather, it will send them back to the public schools where they will probably study the basics of Spanish or French. The opportunity of providing quality Hebrew language instruction should not be missed. The synagogue supplementary school should be eager to receive students who know modern Hebrew - and therefore are likely actually to understand their bar-mitzva parasha!
As a supporter of the Hebrew charter school concept, I was bound to disagree with the thrust of the article. Like Yehuda noted, I don't see charter schools in direct competition with day schools. Unlike Yehuda, though, I don't see the Hebrew charter schools appealing to the bulk of unaffiliated Jewish families (although I would certainly be eager to see them send their kids). As Mr. Tobin himself noted, the real targets for these schools are sub-groups within the broader Jewish community. Tobin describes them as "heavily secular", while I would term them "heavily Israel-invested" (i.e. Israeli emigres and Russians emigres, who likely either spent considerable time themselves in Israel and/or have many relatives there). In other words, these families seek out Hebrew language opportunities not because they need to find a "secular alternative" to Judaism (even though many of them remain unaffiliated from synagogue life). Instead, they seek a deeper connection to Israeli culture because for them, unlike for most other non-Orthodox American Jews, Israel is a (if not *the*) central pillar of modern Jewish identity. While we constantly hear about the importance of pluralism in American Jewish life from 'mainstream' leaders like Mr. Tobin, we rarely get an acknowledgement that there is a significant sub-community within Jewish America that seeks a much deeper connection to Hebrew/Israeli culture than most other non-Orthodox institutions are willing or able to provide. Helping this "Hebrew American" sub-community to flourish would indirectly benefit the entire Jewish community over the decades to come.