Would you play a game of Russian roulette with a gun that has four chambers, one of which is loaded? What if we agreed that if you survive, you get a million dollars -- would you now be willing to play? 75% chance of a million bucks vs. 25% chance of certain death... I know what you're thinking: "Do I feel lucky?"
I think most people would agree that relative to the potential fatal consequences of losing, 25% is a pretty high risk to take, no matter what the potential rewards.
A local Jewish newspaper ran an editorial last week criticizing the choice many make to attend secular college. The challenges posed by the environment of a secular college, both ideological and in terms of shmiras mitzvos, present a danger for Jewish youth, especially for those who dorm. According to some studies as many as 25% of those who attend such colleges leave the fold. This week came the predictable letters to the editor in response justifying that choice. Here are some snippits with my reaction:
"I think most people, would look at a seventy-five percent retention rate and be overjoyed."
I guess some people just always see the glass as half-full, but is 1 in 4 Jews leaving the fold really something to be "overjoyed" over?
"...That is almost certainly more a product of an inferior elementary and secondary education than the result of the permissive atmosphere that sometimes prevails during college."
First of all, who cares what the cause is -- bottom line is that a 25% attrition rate is unacceptable. But let's grant the letter writer's assumption -- Dear principals of HALB, HAFTR, HANC, etc., what does a 25% attrition rate tell us about the state of modern orthodox elementary and secondary education which encourages and condones choices that lead to these abysmal statistics?
"Then there were some famous rabbis who studied before the war at the University of Berlin — Rabbi Soloveitchik, Rav Hutner and others."
And your child is the next R' Soloveitchik? And U. of Penn is just like Berlin before the war?
Does the letter writer really think R' Hutner would condone dorming at a secular college? And might it not be a good idea to first emulate the learning of R' Soloveitchik and R' Hutner and then have a debate about secular college?
"Finally, there is a growing fundamentalism and conformity in the Jewish colleges, which does not encourage intellectual growth."
Indeed, your child may go to yeshiva and be brainwashed to learn Torah, be more shomeir mitzvos, and have lots of yiras shamayim. Better to take that 25% chance of his/her becoming an apikores than chas v'shalom risk him/her becoming a chareidi.
For some people, there is no question that secular college offers an advantage that YU or Touro do not. If your heart is set on a career in engineering or science and were accepted to MIT, you would be setting yourself up for disappointment if you turn that offer down and pursue some lesser educational option alongside yeshiva. But by the same token, one is setting oneself up for religious failure if one thinks that study at secular university can be grafted onto avodas Hashem without sacrifice and challenge. Relishing the situation and portraying it as somehow superior to full immersion in a Torah environment is naive and misguided. And truth be told, it's not just the university, but the secular workplace as well which poses challenges, and it requires constant reinforcement of Torah values to emerge spiritually unscathed from the daily grind.
The Noam Elimelech uses the image of the yonah and the raven from Parshas Noach to reflect upon two different types of personalities. The yonah emerges into the world, "v'lo matzah manoach l'kaf raglah," and it finds no resting place. These are people who simply disdain all that the physical world offers and want no part of it, but that is certainly not the path for the masses.
The raven is called an "orev," a name which shares the same root as "ta'aroves," a mixture. Most of us lead a life where we try to balance a mixture of different interests and responsibilities, some secular, some religious. The raven emerges and travels "vayeitzei yatzo v'shov," darting away from the ark but then returning, constantly repeating the cycle again and again. For those who choose to engage in the secular, the key to spiritual survival is to emulate this process -- engaging in the secular world, be it for the sake of work or education, as required, but then immediatly returning to the safe haven of the ark.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Bull's eye.
ReplyDeleteThis post should be made into a billboard poster on every rooftop in the tri-state area (outside Boro Park, Monsey, and Lakewood)
Reminds me of what a doctor friend once told me; "Yes, statistics do show that elderly people who undergo general anesthesia develop cognitive problems at a much higher rate, but this is only because of underlying problems."
ReplyDeleteWell that helps a lot, doesn't it?
i think that the broader point Rabbi Willig made, unaddressed here, is spot-on; and it is the same point Barzilai mentions and dismisses.
ReplyDeleteand it is a point which Rabbi Bleich mentioned in terms of halachic issues of risk of surgery to save someone else, in terms of general anesthesia:
if statistics show that overall, people don't wake up from general anesthesia at high rate X, does that mean that it poses a serious risk? no, because that is the rate including many elderly people and people with underlying health problems. and that skews the statistics in one direction. but an individual not in that demographic should look at the statistics for his particular demographic.
similarly, if even for elderly people, the reason for the much higher rate of cognitive problems is that they had underlying problems beforehand, then the statistics are not really so meaningful for someone who does *NOT* have those underlying problems. rather, there are better statistics, for that particular person's demographic.
and that is what Barzilai's doctor friend, who seems to know a lot about statistics, was saying. and it is true.
the 25% was from attendees of Orthodox camps. what percentage of attendees are really committed? how many are already MO-lite, if not less? what are their homes like? what about their schools? i once saw an attendee at a MO school talk about how he purchased a non-kosher ice cream, and was "caught" by his rebbe. yet he attended a religious school. he would likely become non-religious if allowed to in that secular college environment. but that is not the same as the "frummest" kids.
what are the demographics for left-wing yeshivish or right-wing modern orthodox? i don't know, but that would be much more informative.
And as Rabbi Willig wrote:
" Figures don’t lie but liars figure. The drop out rate may be higher for reasons of self-selection. Some of the students who attend secular colleges may be looking for an opportunity to drop out; some may find their way back, stronger than before. Should parents be aware of potential problems? Yes, of course. But each child is different and there is no one-size-fits-all solution."
now, the editorial may have been geared to the general public, and it is absolutely true that in general, when addressing the community in general, these statistics would likely be born out.
personally, i think that YU and Touro offer advantages that secular colleges do not.
but there *are* strong possibilities of being "brainwashed", as you put it, in certain religious institutions which are also colleges. but it is not "Indeed, your child may go to yeshiva and be brainwashed to learn Torah, be more shomeir mitzvos, and have lots of yiras shamayim." rather, the fear is that the brainwashing in hashkafah would lead to a *poorer* Judaism, in which one's limud haTorah and theology is stilted (from the MO/Centrist perspective).
in summation, i think there are merits to both sides. secular college can be a spiritual *disaster* for some. but i don't think that the 25% figure is really true. rather, for people from particular demographics, it is probably closer to 75%; but for other demographics, not so much. one needs to know one's child -- and this is true for much of chinuch.
kol tuv,
josh
Thank you, Josh. Now I understand what my friend was saying-- if, and only if, the 'underlying problems' can be discerned before surgery. I would guess that the enlightenment only occurs post facto: it is only long afterward, when the cognitive problems emerge, that the analysts say "Aha! Now we see there was underlying problem x."
ReplyDeleteI don't know if this is urban legend or truth, but the story goes that Reb Yisrael Salanter sent talmidim to a university in Paris to counteract the haskala effect of higher education, and every one of them went off the derech. Now, I know that community colleges are not Ivy League colleges, and even today's Ivy League are not hotbeds of theological ferment these days, as they were in the last century. But if university education exposed some flaw in the hashkafos of Reb Yisrael's talmidim, then nobody can be confident of coming out whole and we're all better off not taking the risk.
I'm reading "Stars of David," by Abigail Pogrebin. She interviewed 62 prominent American Jews on how they feel about being Jewish. It's like reading pornography; Tony Kushner: I think that being Jewish was invaluable preparation for being gay," the several women who abandoned Judaism when, as children, they weren't counted for a minyan in their shiva house when their parent died, people whose parents hid their Jewishness from them, and so on. Relevant to today's topic, Allan Dershowitz said that his mother is often asked whether she has nachas from his great success. She answers no, because "it's my fault that he's not Orthodox. I let him go to Brooklyn College." And, says Dershowitz, who was raised in a strictly Orthodox home, "...she's one hundred percent right."
ReplyDeletethe story, whether urban legend or not, or Rav Yisroel Salanter's talmidim is an anecdote, rather than data. and as you noted, there are major differences between the situation back then and today. that one can extrapolate that "there is danger" is not the same as the data being presented, of 25% of the derech. and Alan Dershowitz is also an anecdote, which is undoubtedly true for some Orthodox people in the particular environment available back then.
ReplyDeletei can give a counter-anecdote, in that my wife went to Columbia, and within her chevra of religious, committed Jews, none of them became non-Orthodox. such than the reaction to such misapplied statistics is to snort, and think that this is lying with statistics, for the reasons mentioned.
to contrast the talmidim of Rav Yisroel Salanter with, e.g., Rabbi David Willig's son: they were probably NOT already acculturated and probably did NOT have Torah UMaddah as part of their religious upbringing. Indeed, today if you took the most committed bachurim from Bnei Brak and suddenly threw them into MIT, I wouldn't doubt that some could go off the derech. But as noted in the letter to the editor, he has a father committed to these ideals, and has frum Rabbeim who also went through this experience at the same college and came out strongly, and likely *PREPARED* him, chinuch-wise to survive and thrive in such an environment. and indeed, our own experience is that people prepared in this way have managed to survive and thrive as frum individuals. such that a comparison with the anecdote is inappropriate, and that the scare-tactic with the misapplied statistics is unconvincing.
and the point of this post, and the original editorial, were the *statistics*, which as Rabbi Willig noted are probably being misapplied.
kol tuv,
josh
"or Rav Yisroel Salanter's talmidim" should have read "OF Rav Yisroel Salanter's talmidim."
ReplyDeletein terms of Dershowitz, to cite wikipedia:
ReplyDelete"Dershowitz attended Yeshiva University High School, where he played on the basketball team. He was a rebellious student, often criticized by his teachers. The school's career placement center, however, told him that he had talent and was capable of becoming an advertising executive, funeral director, or salesman. In a video interview on Leadel.NET, a Jewish media portal, Dershowitz later said that his "teachers said I should do something that requires a big mouth and no brain ... so I became a lawyer.""
i don't know Alan Dershowitz, but based on this description, it might indeed be the case that sending him to Brooklyn College was the wrong approach for this particular individual, if they wanted him to remain Orthodox. and chanoch lanaar al pi darko applies.
kt,
josh
“Better to take that 25% chance of his/her becoming an apikores than chas v'shalom risk him/her becoming a chareidi.”
ReplyDeleteI view being haredi as just another type of apikorsus. It requires one to believe in a satanic landlord deity. Better my son eat chazor traif than not eat chazor traif because he believes that God will burn him in an eternal lake of fire if he did. It also puts one at risk of going to rebbes for something more than spiritual advice hence worshipping idols.
“Better to take that 25% chance of his/her becoming an apikores than chas v'shalom risk him/her becoming a chareidi.”
I view being haredi as just another type of apikorsus. It requires one to believe in a satanic landlord deity. Better my son eat chazor traif than not eat chazor traif because he believes that God will burn him in an eternal lake of fire if he did. It also puts one at risk of going to rebbes for something more than spiritual advice hence worshipping idols.
Yes, Izgad, you make an interesting point, but I have to say that try as I may, and with all due respect, you make it very difficult to discern whether you are a navuch, a mumar le'hachis, a mumar le'tei'avon. or stam ah sheigitz. As a student of history, you must agree that the theology of Orthodox Judaism, at least that which is recorded in the rabbinic literature of the last two thousand years, while it may be very broad, is not flexible enough to encompass what you want to believe. So basically you are saying that you utterly and vituperously reject normative Orthodox belief, but claim the high ground of moral and theological superiority in prescribing what you think is best for Orthodox Jews. I just don't understand what you are aiming for. Is it a Cri du coeur to the world that expresses the tension of rejecting what you once believed?
ReplyDelete>>>and likely *PREPARED* him, chinuch-wise to survive and thrive in such an environment.
ReplyDeleteWhat does such preparation consist of? Learning less gemara than kids in RW schools, being more permissive with respect to dress, tzniyus, and other areas of halacha, ensuring minimal seperation between the sexes, emphasizing the "need" for a superior secular education while sacrificing parallel superiority in limudei kodesh, etc. Take away the year in Israel that undoes much of the damage and the tragic results speak for themselves.
I know the Divrei Chaim believe it is pointless to respond at this point, but really, Josh, you are guilty of a some logical fallacies here. First off, let me clarify that I am not against university per se. It would be rather hypocritical, considering that I hold a PhD in English. But let's consider if there is, in fact, cause for concern. It depends on how you view a child going off the derech. Is it something devastating, tragic, or merely unfortunate?
ReplyDeleteWhat would you consider similar -- death, disfigurement, loss of limbs, loss of vision or hearing, loss of mental ability, getting arrested, failing out of school, getting sunburned? There is no correct answer, but how one answers could indicate their own attitude about just how bad is it, in his view, for a child to go off the derech.
Yes, there are dangers associated with anesthesia, and that is why one would not take it unless that person is confronted with grave medical necessity. Should someone just wish to relax with recreational drugs, on the other hand, that person is putting himself at risk for no positive end. I would venture to say that less than 25% of people driving under the influence end up in serious accidents. Nevertheless, prevailing wisdom dictates that it still wise to avoid the danger altogether by not driving after imbibing enough to raise the BAC above the legal limits. And while teens may seek to test their limits, a parent that allows them to do so by drinking and driving would be considered reprehensibly irresponsible. The reason there are such stiff penalties for DUI is because it is found to because alcohol plays such a prominent role in auto accidents, especially among younger drivers. This reality is what resulted in laws like DUI limits and minimum ages for drinking -- they are intended as safeguards for a very real danger. Because it can and does result in death, even if it is for far less than 25% of the drunk drivers, DUI is seen as something to be avoided as much as possible. If one sees going off the derech as something as terrible as death or serious physical damage, does it not make sense to keep out of danger?
On the other hand, if you see it as nothing more than a sunburn (and don’t consider the long term effects that could lead to skin cancer), then you may believe it’s fine to allow your child to pursue a tan by exposure to ultra-violet rays. Personally, I insist on using sunscreen.
25% happens to be the risk of having a baby with Tay Sachs when both parents are carriers. So it seems that odds are good ; after, the couple still has a 75% chance of having an unaffected child. Still the whole purpose of organizations like Dor Yeshorim is to prevent the situation from arising because the heartache of seeing one’s child die – even if there are 3 others who survive – is so devastating to a parent. If a parent conceives of the child going of the derech as a tragedy, 25% odds, or any odds, are not good enough.
As to significant risk, after having a placental abruption that resulted in an emergency C-section, doctors insisted I would have to have an IV as soon I would be admitted in labor because I was considered a greater risk. Just what were the numbers? 1 in 10,000. We’re not talking 25% or even 2.5%, but just .01% being considered a substantial enough risk to take more invasive measures that extended to other steps.
Barzilai, I wish I could say I couldn't have put it better myself, but in truth you put it far better than I could.
ReplyDelete"What does such preparation consist of? Learning less gemara than kids in RW schools, being more permissive with respect to..."
ReplyDeleteR' Chaim, please recall that you are talking about a specific person, who has been named -- Rabbi Willig's son. and you don't know this person. though i suppose you are intending to insult the whole group.
but no; not being more permissive with respect to...; but exposing him to ideas about the simultaneous valuing of science and Torah, and how to grapple with it, such that this would not be such a shock. finding the value in the sophisticated parts of secular culture, rather than pop culture; and having role models, his rabbeim, who went to Brandeis and emerged as sophisticated yet committed frum individuals. who might e.g., and off the top of my head, know what professors might present in terms of heresy, and preempting by preparing with the appropriate counter-balance.
by the way, as someone from the same group you are painting broadly (based on stereotypes of MO-Lite), i take offense. i am just as committed to halacha as you are. i went to a single sex school, as did my wife. i didn't really even talk to girls until i started dating, which was into my twenties. one can defend some of the ideals of those to the left of me, but you are painting with a pretty broad brush.
but forget all this. what do you say about the point about the 25%? snark aside, do you stand by it?
kt,
josh
Placental abruption: another reason that if childbirth were left to men, mankind would have disappeared a long, long time ago.
ReplyDelete"Josh, you are guilty of a some logical fallacies here."
ReplyDeletei don't think i am. first, let me reiterate that ideologically, i think a place like YU is an optimal place, and the places like Touro or other religious / college arrangements are the best match for *many* people. But that for others, secular college may be the best match.
"Yes, there are dangers associated with anesthesia, and that is why one would not take it unless that person is confronted with grave medical necessity?"
well, rabbi bleich was discussing it in terms of things such as kidney donation, where saving someone else's life is involved. one might say that the risk of general anesthesia is significant enough that one is not obligated to put one's own life at risk. but in order to assess this, perhaps one should use accurate statistics.
"On the other hand, if you see it as nothing more than a sunburn"
we are talking about becoming non-Orthodox. i admitted up-front that i do consider it to be something a lot more than a "sunburn".
but being killed, or losing an arm, in a car accident is also horrific. and yet, people drive. people eat hamburger, though there is some very *small* risk of getting mad cow. they take what can be considered minor risks, because otherwise one cannot live life.
my point was that the statistics being brought to bear were off, because they were based on a very broad demographic, that likely contained an element that skewed it pretty high in one direction. to harness such an argument is casting FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt).
want to make the argument in the absence of such statistics. great! go ahead and do it.
despite this, from direct experience, i have seen that a group of committed frum Jews can attend a secular college and come out Orthodox. a large part of this came from being ideologically prepared; and another large part of it came from having the support of a developed Jewish community.
such that i look at the casting of FUD as not really convincing, and where this is a real concern; but more a ploy to drive people to the educational institutions that person would favor on other ideological grounds.
put a kid in a bubble and he wont develop to his full potential, but he will be safe. send a kid to live in Bnei Brak, don't teach him any secular subjects, or any science, and he will almost surely be unlikely to become non-Orthodox. but is the exchange worth it?
kol tuv,
josh
But would you say the same, Josh, if that child were not put at risk for going off the derech but for physical harm or death? It really is very simple If something is really, really bad, we don't want it to happen to our children. We would not consider 25% a good risk.
ReplyDeleteby the way, in terms of ideological preparation, here is an article by Rabbi Pinchas Rosenthal (which I disagree with for other reasons), where he puts as one of his goals preparing his students for being able to hold their own in an anthropology course in Queens College.
ReplyDeletehttp://masliah.googlepages.com/midrashim.pdf
this has nothing to do with teaching the girls in his school to flirt with boys, or engage in mixed swimming, or not learn Torah, or be less committed to halacha.
kt,
josh
"But would you say the same, Josh, if that child were not put at risk for going off the derech but for physical harm or death?"
ReplyDeleteyes, i would say the same. i let my kid play in the playground, or ride in a car. in my scenario, the percentages for these risks are quite similar.
kol tuv,
josh
by the way, in terms of the IV, there was very little downside, and by doing this across the board, the doctors certainly manage to save *some* patients, as well as practice defensive medicine to avoid potential malpractice suits. whether *you* in such a situation could sanely choose to ignore the doctor's advice is another issue, and it is a matter of weighing the risks, benefits, and loss.
ReplyDeletekt,
josh
"yes, i would say the same. i let my kid play in the playground, or ride in a car. in my scenario, the percentages for these risks are quite similar."
ReplyDeleteWhere are you getting your statistics from? You're way off here. At worst, one has a 1 in 10,000 chance of being in a car accident not a 4 in 100. Playing in a playground can lead to needing stitches or breaking a bone, but not 4 in 100 deaths due to falling off monkey bars. There is a world of difference between a freak accident with to a tiny fraction of a percent of the population and something that occurs with the regularity of 255.
Do you let your 2 year-old cross a street him/herself? Do you tell your children not to wear a helmet while bike riding? Do you tell them it's just fine to get friendly with strangers and pick up rides from people they don't know?
Not every stranger will harm your child, but would you want to take that chance? I know I wouldn't.
BTW my raising my doctor's arguments was not a point of my sanity or lack thereof ;-). It was to point out that in the medical profession just 1 in 10,000 was considered a significant enough risk to override my preference for no IV. Whether or not the birth would have proceeded fine without it is immaterial; the question is of perception of risk based on percentages. If 1 in 10,000 is significant, what to make of 4 in 100?
ReplyDelete"There is a world of difference between a freak accident with to a tiny fraction of a percent of the population and something that occurs with the regularity of 255."
ReplyDeleteI assume that 255 is a typo for 25%, by missing a Shift key.
Yes, there is a world of difference. But recall, I am *contesting* the 25% figure. I think it is likely more along the lines of 1 in 10000, or much less, for the reasons I elaborated upon above. Whether or not my contesting is valid, I am working within the assumptions put forth by Rabbi Willig, that there is self-selection bias skewing the statistics towards that high percentage.
kol tuv,
josh
Typo, yes, obviously that should read 25%. What basis do you have for your figures? What basis do they have for their figures? I assume they did not merely pull numbers out of a hat. So how would you account for 1 in 10,000 becoming 4 in 100? If they wish to magnify for effect, then why not go for 30, 40 or 50% once the actual number basis doesn't matter.
ReplyDeleteselection bias, as Rabbi Willig wrote.
ReplyDeleteof course they did not pull their numbers out of a hat, nor were they ideologically driven to make up numbers to scare people. but "Orthodox" carries a wide range of values. would you agree that it is plausible that a MO-Lite person would be much more likely to go off the derech in such an environment than a right-wing yeshivish person? i think this is certainly so.
so taking the 25% figure overall, and applying conclusively it to specific subdemographics is misguided. for the right wing yeshivish, it may very well be that only 1 in 10000 go off the derech, and that among the MO-Lite, 99.999% go off the derech, and much more MO-Lites go to secular colleges than right wing yeshivish, skewing the statistics. see again what i cited Rabbi Bleich as saying, above.
if this is so, ask me whether a right wing yeshivish is at the same risk, based on this honest study, and i will tell you that this study does not really show anything.
kol tuv,
josh
also, what percentage of those MO-Lite would have gone off the derech even without going to secular college?
ReplyDeleteif a high amount, then it is quite possible that we are seeing correlation rather than causation; that college isn't causing them to go off the derech. rather, "going to college" is just a useful way of selecting this subdemographic of MO-Lite from the larger demographic of Orthodox Jews.
for example, I could say that 10% of those who have had premarital relations among the Orthodox population become non-Orthodox. but that does not mean that the former causes the latter. rather, it is a selection bias, that those who eventually go off the derech are already engaging in this type of behavior. so it is a means of selecting a subpopulation, rather than demonstrating causality.
kol tuv,
josh
In a rather circular fashion, Josh, you appear to be conceding a point here. As you posit, the "MO-Lites" (I find the term mildly amusing, though I doubt those you would classify under that name to agree.) are more apt to dorm in Penn, for example, and they are already perched to take the step over the line that would define them as OTD, then you would say, that, of course, such stats would indicates a very high percentage. But as you are certain that far fewer of the firmly yeshivish -- who are far less apt to go OTD -- opt to dorm in universities, we can relax about their spiritual safety at university. Is this summation correct?
ReplyDeleteLets start with this:
ReplyDelete"one needs to know one's child -- and this is true for much of chinuch."
I don't think this is arguable at all. The question becomes: How well do you actually know your child; what you believe about them may not be the truth. But Josh's point re Dershowitz is exactly right; it wasn't Brooklyn College that made him non-Orthodox, though going to YU may have brought him back on the derech.
>>>
>>>and likely *PREPARED* him, chinuch-wise to survive and thrive in such an environment.
What does such preparation consist of? Learning less gemara than kids in RW schools, being more permissive with respect to dress, tzniyus, and other areas of halacha, ensuring minimal seperation between the sexes, emphasizing the "need" for a superior secular education while sacrificing parallel superiority in limudei kodesh, etc. Take away the year in Israel that undoes much of the damage and the tragic results speak for themselves.<<<
I'll speak from my own experience here. After 8th grade, I switched from Rabbi Zweig's yeshiva on Miami Beach to Hillel, a day school in North Miami Beach. Rabbi Zweig is a tremendous talmid chacham, and we were learning rigorously, in a non-coed setting. Hillel was a co-ed school more known for its secular education.
Had I stayed in the Mesivta, I have no doubt that I would have gone off the derech. Unfortunately (and this is no reflection on Rabbi Zweig, just the luck of the draw with the teachers I had), my teachers there were singularly ill-prepared to deal with an inquisitive, questioning teenager (I got a lot of "we don't ask those types of questions" responses), and I didn't particularly love learning. At Hillel, which my parents switched me to for the better secular education, I found teachers who not only knew how to teach me, but who helped me love to learn. They are the reason I'm still frum, the reason I still learn today.
>>>Josh, if that child were not put at risk for going off the derech but for physical harm or death? It really is very simple If something is really, really bad, we don't want it to happen to our children. >>>
Actually, not to speak for Josh, yes. If the only way to protect my kids from a risk of harm is to put them in a bubble and prevent them from living . . . then I choose the risk.
" Actually, not to speak for Josh, yes. If the only way to protect my kids from a risk of harm is to put them in a bubble and prevent them from living . . . then I choose the risk."
ReplyDeleteOn a literal level, your decision would be considered AMA (against medical advice) and, quite possibly, immoral. There are real children afflicted with SCID, as well as other conditions that prevent them from enjoying the usual activities of childhood. There is not kindness in exposing them to what will kill them.
How are you measuring what is living? Some may think all Orthodox Jews are missing out by not experiencing eating at McDonald's. There are many other laws we live by that appear absurdly restrictive and not really "living." Take it a step beyond the black and white halacha. Perhaps living should include jumping out of a plane and holding off on opening a parachute (there are people who do this and survive, after all). But it is possible that the thrill does not warrant the risk.
I want to address now what you said: "Had I stayed in the Mesivta, I have no doubt that I would have gone off the derech. Unfortunately (and this is no reflection on Rabbi Zweig, just the luck of the draw with the teachers I had), my teachers there were singularly ill-prepared to deal with an inquisitive, questioning teenager (I got a lot of "we don't ask those types of questions" responses), and I didn't particularly love learning. At Hillel, which my parents switched me to for the better secular education, I found teachers who not only knew how to teach me, but who helped me love to learn. They are the reason I'm still frum, the reason I still learn today."
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that there are people who are not a good fit for tradition RW educational systems, which for boys is dominated by Gemara, and often does not offer a forum for honest questions. Forcing boys into that system is an attempt to make them conform. And for some that will result in a superficial conformity but hypocritical life, and for some others, there will be a point at which they will openly rebel.
Parents should be honest about where their children's strengths and inclinations lie and put them in the school that will foster them accordingly. Unfortunately, many parent choose a school to reflect themselves instead. Our society with its emphasis on labels pushes people into that.
"In a rather circular fashion, Josh, you appear to be conceding a point here"
ReplyDeletei concede nothing. :)
what i am doing is trying to put the same point forth in several different ways, and to illustrate a basic point about statistics.
have you ever taken a course in statistics? if so, did they cover how correlation is not the same as causation?
http://xkcd.com/552/
did they cover selection bias? rabbi willig made a very basic point, and i am trying to explain it over and over, in different ways.
"(I find the term mildly amusing, though I doubt those you would classify under that name to agree.)"
probably not. but i am trying to capture here not just left-wing modern Orthodoxy, but those who are nominally Orthodox, but otherwise not really committed to halacha and Jewish hashkafa.
"But as you are certain that far fewer of the firmly yeshivish"
i was putting it in a way with which you would be more likely to agree.
"opt to dorm in universities, we can relax about their spiritual safety at university"
i don't know for certain, because i have not conducted such studies. but i do have anecdotal evidence to support this, about an ideologically Centrist Orthodox group. and i have reason not to just jump on this survey, which as Rabbi Willig noted, quite possible has the problem of selection bias.
again, the following is the point rabbi willig made:
"Figures don’t lie but liars figure. The drop out rate may be higher for reasons of self-selection. Some of the students who attend secular colleges may be looking for an opportunity to drop out; some may find their way back, stronger than before. Should parents be aware of potential problems? Yes, of course. But each child is different and there is no one-size-fits-all solution."
one can expand on this point in multiple ways, including ways that do not malign the MO-Lite in general.
kol tuv,
josh
"But it is possible that the thrill does not warrant the risk."
ReplyDeleteit is also possible that it is not the "thrill", but the appropriate way to live one's life. in some people's view, this may be the optimal way to live our lives, and precisely what Hashem wants of us.
kt,
josh
To put it one more way, just for fun. Let us say that 1 out of 29 people who eat kosher meat are carriers for Tay Sachs. Does that mean that eating kosher meat *causes* one to become a Tay Sachs carrier, and that therefore one should avoid eating kosher meat?
ReplyDeleteNo, it means that people who are Jewish overwhelmingly are the ones who eat kosher meat, and that about 1 in 29 Ashkenazic Jews are carriers for Tay Sachs.
That is the difference between correlation and causation.
all the best,
josh
There are numerous studies which demonstrate the effect of environment and peer pressure on adults as well as youth. Wiser people have already tried the argument that just because it happens to others doesn't mean it will happen to me -- "ani arbeh v'lo asur...." Didn't work for far greater people than 17 year old self-assured kids.
ReplyDeleteso this means you are distancing yourself from the 25% figure?
ReplyDeletekt,
josh
'"But it is possible that the thrill does not warrant the risk."
ReplyDeleteit is also possible that it is not the "thrill", but the appropriate way to live one's life. in some people's view, this may be the optimal way to live our lives, and precisely what Hashem wants of us.
kt,
josh'
That is precisely the question, is it not? What does Hashem want of us? Only one thing, I believe, is identified - yiras Hashem. What degrees we have or how much status we garner in the world at large are all irrelevant to what Hashem wants.
Anyone who could even think about letting their son or daughter dorm at a secular college in the year 2009 is so completely out of the loop, it is hard to even explain. I think that if religious parents had any clue what was going on there, they would absolutely freak out.
ReplyDelete"Only one thing, I believe, is identified - yiras Hashem. What degrees we have or how much status we garner in the world at large are all irrelevant to what Hashem wants."
ReplyDeletethat is a pretty absolute statement, based on one pasuk which was a mussar statement. though of course it continues and specifies other things:
וְעַתָּה, יִשְׂרָאֵל--מָה יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, שֹׁאֵל מֵעִמָּךְ: כִּי אִם-לְיִרְאָה אֶת-יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לָלֶכֶת בְּכָל-דְּרָכָיו, וּלְאַהֲבָה אֹתוֹ, וְלַעֲבֹד אֶת-יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, בְּכָל-לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל-נַפְשֶׁךָ.
לִשְׁמֹר אֶת-מִצְוֹת יְהוָה, וְאֶת-חֻקֹּתָיו, אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ, הַיּוֹם--לְטוֹב, לָךְ.
so keeping the mitzvos is also there.
but perhaps talmud Torah should also be there, and being a good person. i would guess Hashem wants that as well, and i suspect that you agree.
"What degrees we have or how much status we garner in the world at large are all irrelevant to what Hashem wants."
quite likely. but what about intellectual inquiry and development? could it be that (as i believe Rambam maintained), there is a value to studying philosophy? that is surely different from degrees and status...
kol tuv,
josh
Barzilai
ReplyDeleteI am very familiar with the history of Jewish dogma. I recommend you take a look at Dr. Kellner’s History of Jewish Dogma and Must a Jew Believe Anything. In the second book he comments that ironically enough most Haredim would not survive the first five of Maimonides’ Ikkarim as Maimonides understood them. At the same time there are likely many Conservative Jews who would though they might get into trouble with a few of the later ones. If anything we should put the greater emphasis on the earlier ones. They are the bedrock for the later ones and they are the ones that Maimonides himself focused on. At the very least we should not go about ignoring the first ones.
Here is a quote from a Kupat Ha’ir pamphlet telling people about the value of Kever Rochel:
Because Rochel Imeinu’s tears on behalf of her children never dry up; her prayers never end. She is concerned about everything that affects us, whether a physical matter or a spiritual one, whether we are there or not, whether we are healthy or, G-d forbid, sick. Her shoulders absorb every cry and sigh, every tear and expression of pain.
That sounds like veneration and prayer to me. If what the Catholics do with Mary and saints is idolatry than I see no reason why this is not idolatry to.
Who has any sensible statistics? I know of none, comparing comparable cohorts. Whether we are speaking of college or of seminaries and kollels, or of joining the workforce after high school. Is the 25% number quoted based on any real data? Does anyone know what fraction of kollel students are secretly off the derech? Or how many leave the derech openly after leaving kollel?
ReplyDeleteOr how many of those who leave from any particular starting point eventually return?
And while the 25% number sounds horrendous, and the eras are not comparable, the fraction of Volozhiner alumni of the late 1800's who left the path of Torah for any of the various secular enthusiasms of the period was at least comparable. In Eastern Europe between the wars it was well over 50%. Lack of a "kosher" way to satisfy a yearning to learn something about the sciences and the broader world played no small part in this exodus. In America in the same period lack of intense Torah education let the vast majority slip from observance.
Without good statistics the arguments are of hunch and conjecture. Unfortunately, there is no method of educating children that does not pose some risk of them leaving the path of Torah. My only advice is to know your child and where his or her strengths and weaknesses lie, and help him or her choose the best path without regard to what the neighbors will think; whether you are chareidi and worry what the neighbors will think of college, or modern and worry what the neighbors will think of forgoing college.
Josh, how you get from the point that the pasuk continues to suggesting Hashem also desires for us to study philosophy (which, BTW, the RAMBAM does not prescribe for people in general) is a logical leap that even at maximum warp drive, the distance would take over a year to traverse! Keeping the mitzvos naturally follows from Yiras Hashem in our religion, which is not one of faith without the requirement for good works. So you're pointing out that the pasuk continues hardly contradicts my point.
ReplyDeletesorry, we don't found our religion on that one pasuk. there are many things of value in our religion. and study of philosophy in order to understand God's creation is just one of them. i understand you *may* not value Maddah as something worthy in itself, but without bothering to prove it in the comment section of a blog, there are major religious Jewish thinkers who *did* see some value in it.
ReplyDeletebut you are evaluating it from your perspective. understandable, but other people, such as Rabbi Willig and his son, take another other perspective and have a different hashkafa, in which this is not about prestige or status, but about living life in the optimal way.
kt,
josh
Izgad: there's a difference between reverence and veneration. Veneration is not idolatry. Nobody worships the Venerable Bede, they just respect him and present him as a role model. The fact that the Kupat Ha'ir people use language more appropriate to a mother than an ancestor is a far cry from idolatry. But, as Professor Maslow said, "When all you own is a hammer, every problem starts looking like a nail."
ReplyDeletechaim:
ReplyDeleteThere are numerous studies which demonstrate the effect of environment and peer pressure on adults as well as youth. Wiser people have already tried the argument that just because it happens to others doesn't mean it will happen to me -- "ani arbeh v'lo asur...." Didn't work for far greater people than 17 year old self-assured kids.
i will now expand on what i wrote before, asking if this is a different claim and if you are backing away from the 25% figure.
sure, it makes "sense" that peer pressure *could* cause it. and i guess that therefore you think that this somehow demonstrates that this is causation and not mere correlation. but the *study* does not show this. and while the example i used was designed to be a clear instance of correlation rather than causation, there are a great many instances in which it is also correlation rather than causation, but people assume otherwise because it makes "sense." but then, deeper analyses later on show that causation was not in play.
if it was peer pressure, how do you know that peer pressure is sufficient to bring it to 25%? if it was peer pressure, well, many people in colleges are Christians. how come we don't find 25%, or 10%, becoming Christian?
the answer is that while peer pressure may exist, and have an impact, you have no basis for asserting that this is what is operating in the results of this particular study. you don't know that peer pressure does not extend only, e.g., to the smoking of weed, or cheating on tests, or joining the debate team, rather than specifically changing one's religious identity in this *particular* way.
and if so, you don't have a basis to start saying, and endorsing, this whole mussar shmuez against secular college, and against secular pursuits in general.
by the way, did you READ the study? i know i didn't, because no one linked to it.
but a commenter on my website DID read it, and he gives an extremely insightful summary and analysis. check it out there:
http://parsha.blogspot.com/2009/10/interesting-posts-and-articles-226.html#comment-4669121268759377349
kt,
josh
Speaking for myself, I went to an Orthodox School(males only, 4 hours of learning for six days a week) for High School, spent a year in Israel and attended and dormed at a secular college.
ReplyDeleteThe 25% number seems plausible. But the large majority of that 25% had decided they weren't interested in being religious long before entering college.
But there were a group of us that dormed at the school and were committed to staying frum. A few of us left college at a lower religious level then when they started, but nearly all of us stayed religious(out of a group of maybe forty, there's one person that possibly could be considered becoming not religious). And there were a good number of people that became frum due to our influence.
I know the YU crowd doesn't want to hear this, but most of those 25% were lost in religious high schools and not in college. I'd say that we made more people frum then the opposite.
david hartman tells the story of how he approached the rav to ask if should study philosophy.. the rav made a statement as if to say 'whats the problem' hartman replied well they say that some people who do end up going off the path... the rav replied 'rarely there a planes that crash...does that mean we should fly?'
ReplyDeletehartman finishes off the stroy by saying...'well my plane crashed'...
r.a.
I did read the study, and am not sure what to make of the 25% number cited. In the first place data about sampling techniques and size are not presented, so one doesn't know how statistically significant any of the numbers in the report are. More important, it is a change in self-identification. One doesn't know whether this is a result of change in belief and practice, or the result of identifying with a group that better reflects one's beliefs and practices. The fact that the study reports only 11% who said college caused them to "Question your religious beliefs" (number not broken out by denomination) at least hints that some of the change in denomination reflects more accurate self-identification rather than change in practice.
ReplyDeleteWhat troubles me most about the discussion though, is the assumption that keeping one's kids isolated from the society does not involve taking risks as well. Many people find living in a bubble so stifling that they want nothing more than to break out at the first opportunity. Akiva (above) is hardly and oddball. Unfortunately, not everyone finds his opportunity to leave the bubble at an MO day school. My anecdotal experience (for the little it is worth) is that MO kids are a little more likely to leave the derech, but chareidi kids are likely to go much further off when they do leave.
I don't understand this derision of anecdotal evidence. That's what we rely on when we get married, when we hire an employee, when we make investments, when we make most life decisions. True, anecdotal evidence often hides counter intuitive truths; but just because some planes crash doesn't mean that we should never fly.
ReplyDeleteJosh, are you utterly deluded about people today? Your views are far more quixotic than those held by the group that believes they are doing what is best for their children by sending them to dorm in a prestigious college. The typical undergraduate is not setting out to college in order to discover the TRUTH about LIFE, the UNIVERSE, etc. The typical undergraduate who is directed by his or her parents to a top ranked school follows that path because it is supposed to open doors to a career and status. Even at YU, the study of madda is more about the study of the fast-track to mammon. I taught there for years, and had plenty of the less frum crowd (perhaps what you termed MO-Light, though some really self-identified as Conservative) in my classes, so I have first-hand experience with the mindset of these students.
ReplyDelete"sorry, we don't found our religion on that one pasuk."
You are wrong to make an absolute statement. While there are certain complexities to the religion which prompted Shamai to throw out the man who wanted to be taught all on one foot, Hillel found a maxim that worked. Likewise, this pasuk identifies what G-d wants of us. I do believe a pasuk is more authoritative than your own intuition, Josh.
"there are many things of value in our religion. and study of philosophy in order to understand God's creation is just one of them." Again, you don't understand what students hope to get out of college, and that is not just the case for YU students. The degree is seen as a key to the status that comes from a highly respected white-collar career. That is what motivates the parents to send them there even when they pay lip service to the value of education.
As for this comment, "if it was peer pressure, how do you know that peer pressure is sufficient to bring it to 25%? if it was peer pressure, well, many people in colleges are Christians. how come we don't find 25%, or 10%, becoming Christian?"
ReplyDeleteJosh, you are descending into absurdity. Yes, most of the population is Christian in name, but very few of them would consider themselves religious. I have had only a handful of students -- among the many Christians in my classes -- for whom religion was a definitive factor of life. With the possible exceptions of schools like St. John's, Molloy, Iona, etc., (I haven't taught in any of those) Christianity is not the general culture of college life. Actually, the usual assumption is that no intelligent person would subscribe to religion at all. Ah, there are echoes of that in these comments.
Barzilai
ReplyDeleteThe Venerable Bede is listed as Catholic saint. This means that Catholics believe that Bede was more than just a great scholar from the early eighth century, but that he has special powers to intercede on their behalf with God. Therefore Catholics will address requests to Bede and meditate on icons of him. Last I checked this is viewed by traditional Jewish legal thought as idolatry. This has important legal consequences. For example are you allowed to trade in Bede relics and icons? What do you do if your Catholic neighbor pays with a Bede medallion?
You may be allowed to go to your mother’s grave and recite Tehillim. You can even contemplate on what a righteous person she was and hope that God might do a miracle on your behalf in her merit. But the moment you start saying “oh dead mother, I need your help, please intercede with God for me,” we have a problem.
I like to think that I approach problems from a wide variety of angles. If you read my blog you will notice that I talk about a far wider range of topics than most blogs and approach issues with a variety of tools. I have my Haredi connection through my much of my elementary schooling and my family. I have my Modern Orthodox connection through attending Yeshiva University for five years. I also have my academic training from being at Ohio State for three years. To top it off I have my Asperger syndrome, my love of sci-fi and fantasy and my libertarian political views to keep things interesting. I am hardly a one note person.
>>>the answer is that while peer pressure may exist, and have an impact, you have no basis for asserting that this is what is operating in the results of this particular study.
ReplyDeleteThis is just silly already. You are missing the forest for the trees by repeating over and over the defects of this particular study but ignoring the larger point, namely there is a % of Jewish youth who are influenced by the environment of secular college, with all its ideological and physical temptations. Again, are you going to tell us that peer pressure and role models with an ideology antithetical to Torah values have no influence on youth? And that a MO education which provides kids with a bare bones knowledge of gemara and halacha and maybe a jewish philosophy class for a period a week at some point is adequete preparation to deal with this?
OK, Izgad, I know your family, I know you come from a pretty yeshivishe background, I know Elisheva Carlbach (she's my mechutenisteh), but I didn't realize that the Bede had been canonized. Huh. I still like Maslow's line, though.
ReplyDelete>>>is the assumption that keeping one's kids isolated from the society does not involve taking risks as well.
ReplyDeleteThere is a difference between wanton exposure to any and all society has to offer and exposure to meet specific needs under the guidence of parents and mentors who can provide the context of Torah values.
>>>I agree with you that there are people who are not a good fit for tradition RW educational systems, which for boys is dominated by Gemara, and often does not offer a forum for honest questions. Forcing boys into that system is an attempt to make them conform. And for some that will result in a superficial conformity but hypocritical life, and for some others, there will be a point at which they will openly rebel.
ReplyDeleteParents should be honest about where their children's strengths and inclinations lie and put them in the school that will foster them accordingly.>>>>>
And this, in the end, is what it comes down to. Which means general discussions of "secular college is traif and all about mammon" or "YU doesn't prepare people for the real world" is meaningless. That 25% number? Irrelevant, even if it were statistically valid for the use to which it was being put (and it is not).
The only relevant questions are 1) "who is my child?" and 2) "what does he/she need?"
Of course, in my view, a "forum for honest questions" is an absolute necessity for an educational millieu, so my children will be going to schools that provide that. Which will, of course, influence who they will be when it comes time to pick a college. So there's an a fortiori aspect to this as well (kids who are placed in RW yeshivas and don't get turned off there are less likely to want to go to a secular college to begin with). But (and this is a separate discussion) I think the value of openness to honest questions is paramount.
this is getting tiring and pointless, so i don't know how much farther i will pursue this conversation. and i apologize if i have insulted anyone. however, please realize that from the other side, it *looks* like an attempt to entirely delegitimize their religious beliefs, using extremely flawed data, while presenting it as entirely convincing data.
ReplyDeletewhen my wife was in michlala, she certainly saw how they had hashkafa classes where the aim was to discourage them from going to college -- and it was tailored, such that in classes with students going to Columbia, the example was Columbia, and in classes with students going to Stern, it was Stern. i also got some mild criticism about YU, based on inaccurate information. and the post and comments seems to include knocks against the frumkeit of individuals and the entire group, broadly.
rewrite the post making the point using *real* data, and i *might* even agree somewhat. i never said that dorming at a secular college was ideal for everyone, and even stated that it may be quite harmful for certain subgroups...
kt,
josh
Josh writes "that is a pretty absolute statement, based on one pasuk which was a mussar statement. though of course it continues and specifies other things:"
ReplyDeleteReally? Have you considered that you are misreading? Can you point to a single source that reads it like you - counter to the Talmud, Midrashim etc. ? The second passuk is the consequence of the first one, not a sequential continuation. Otherwise the Gemara's discussion is absurd, and its answers ridiculous.
the following is well beyond the point of discussion, but anyway:
ReplyDelete"Have you considered that you are misreading?"
have you considered that what the gemara is offering there is a *midrashic* reading?
"Can you point to a single source that reads it like you - counter to the Talmud, Midrashim etc. ?"
how about Rashi?
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9974/showrashi/true
Judaica Press translates according to how they understand Rashi, and they maintain a lowercase letter t in the word "to" in pasuk 13 because they view it as a continuation. and that is because rashi on pasuk 13 writes:
שמור את מצות ה': ואף היא לא לחנם, אלא לטוב לך, שתקבלו שכר:
that is, it is a request of you (NOT a consequence), and this, just as (and as Ramban notes) the items in pasuk 12, is ALSO letov lach.
the gemara's reading does not have to be the same as rashi's reading, or the peshat reading. midrash is OFTEN hyperliteral, looking at the meaning of world in very narrow scope, ignoring context even of immediately following or preceding words.
if Rashi is not enough for you, how about Ramchal?
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2009/05/what-does-hashem-ask.shtml
to cite from the above link, which translated Rav Moshe Chaim Luzzato:
And now, Israel, what does Hashem your G-d ask of you, but that you fear / be in awe of Hashem your G-d to walk in all His ways, and to love Him and serve the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul. To observe the mitzvoth of God and His statutes…
- Devarim 10:12-13
Herein have been included all of the features of perfection of Divine service that are appropriate in relation to the Holy One blessed be He. They are:
1: היראה – fear/awe of G-d,
ההליכה בדרכיו – walking in His ways,
2: האהבה – love,
3: שלמות הלב – wholeheartedness, and
4: שמירת כל המצוות – observance of all of the mitzvoth.
he clearly does not read it as consequence, but rather as requirement.
so it is not just the innovation of the ignoramus Josh, who doesn't know how to read a pasuk -- ;) -- but Rashi and Ramchal as well.
kt,
josh
rabbi yosef ibn caspi as well:
ReplyDeletehttp://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9459&st=&pgnum=289
ועתה ישראל מ ה י״י אלהיך שאל מעמך וכו'. הטעם
איננו שואל ממך כסף וזהב או מסים אחרים, אינו שואל רק שתעבדהו
בשמירת מצותיו אשר אני מצוך היום, שמבואר לך קלותם. ותכליתם
ג״כ רק לטוב לך לא ל ו :
kt,
josh
josh - please look at the mefarshe Rashi (Mizrachi, Gur Aryeh etc.)!As for ibn Caspi, if you look carefully you will note that he reads it as I said (consequence, i.e. the yirah is asked for in order that etc., for otherwise he would negate the requirement of yirah)
ReplyDeleteMoreover, the questio/answer re vechi yirah milta zutrata would be a 'klotz-kashe' by your reading.
ReplyDeleteI thought you would come back by quoting the Midrash Tehilim 27 on achat sha'alti, which would seem (superficially) to support your reading, but does not so according to the mefarshim hapshtanim on this verse.
"josh - please look at the mefarshe Rashi (Mizrachi, Gur Aryeh etc.)!"
ReplyDeleteyes, i did before posting. different people can have different interpretations of rashi, just as of a pasuk. and i *often* think that many of the meforshei rashi do not give the correct peshat in rashi, with all due respect to them.
"As for ibn Caspi, if you look carefully you will note that he reads it as I said"
only if you misread the shin in שתעבדהו as "in order that" rather than "that".
and what about Ramchal?
"Moreover, the questio/answer re vechi yirah milta zutrata would be a 'klotz-kashe' by your reading."
no, it is not a klutz kashe. first, there can be a legitimate dispute as how to read it. and that one aggadic statement in gemara reads a pasuk one way does not compel us to read it the same way. see e.g. shmuel hanagid in mevo hatalmud on this.
second, what is happening in the "milta zutrata" is that we are living in the world of the hyper-literal midrash. but peshat is not the same as derash. and we don't need to reread every pasuk against it peshat in order to make it conform artificially with every random aggada.
i will also note that i had "trouble" finding people saying this, though those who i quoted certainly do say it. (particularly ramchal and ibn kaspi.) however, in this instance i don't think the silence is indicative of agreeing with a farfetched reading which comes out of trying to harmonize the pasuk with the gemara. rather, just the opposite. the rereading as consequence is difficult enough, and violates the simple reading enough, that one would expect seforno, ibn ezra, rashbam, ramban, chizkuni, etc., to make a point of explaining it this way, against what one would otherwise expect.
it is *kind* of like asking me to cite evidence that Bereishit 1:1 doesn't refer to space aliens. the silence on the matter does not indicate that everyone who does not explicitly say something that contraindicates space aliens is in fact a supporter of this view.
but as you might have intuited by now, the likelihood is that our approaches to aggada and peshat are quite different, and such different methodologies will yield quite different results.
kt,
josh
i would also note, more generally, that Moshe Rabbenu having said this statement in a mussar shmuez did not prevent Michah from saying that Hashem was Doresh from us other things. Michah 6:8:
ReplyDeleteהִגִּיד לְךָ אָדָם, מַה-טּוֹב; וּמָה-יְהוָה דּוֹרֵשׁ מִמְּךָ, כִּי אִם-עֲשׂוֹת מִשְׁפָּט וְאַהֲבַת חֶסֶד, וְהַצְנֵעַ לֶכֶת, עִם-אֱלֹהֶיךָ.
to turn back to the main topic:
ReplyDeletechaim, would you agree that your post, as written, is not 100% accurate? FKM wrote in the first comment, "Bull's eye.
This post should be made into a billboard poster on every rooftop in the tri-state area (outside Boro Park, Monsey, and Lakewood)"
Now, as is well known, FKM is a rebbe in Toras Moshe, a yeshiva in Israel for post-high-school students. There is some likelihood that he will present this post to students thinking of attending certain colleges. If this post, with its inaccuracies, is used as propaganda in this way, would you be happy with it?
fkm:
do you still maintain that this post is a bull's eye?
kt,
josh
returning to the digression, one can add Daas Zekeinim miBaalei haTosafot to those who believe it plausible that pasuk 13 is what is being asked:
ReplyDeletehttp://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14085&st=&pgnum=131
kt,
josh
>>>If this post, with its inaccuracies, is used as propaganda in this way,
ReplyDeleteJosh, please point to exact line in the post that you think is innaccurate and I will consider changing it. Your qualms with the study are irrelevant to any of the quotes I cite in my post, which you basically ignore. Nor do you make any effort to explain or justify ignoring the negative effect of peer pressure and authority figures as role models. Your description of those who attend college as being on some quest to discover great things about life simply does not accord with reality, as anyone who speaks with the average MO future investment banker, lawyer, or doctor can attest to. Nor have you explained to us how a period of talmud once a day in a coed environment prepares one adequetly for the immense challenges to one's belief that secular college, esp. away from home, can present. In short, you nitpick in a statistic while ignoring the major argument at hand. It's like someone who spends hours arguing about the exact % of people killed by smoking and then asks whether we should remove the surgeon general's warning label from the cigarette boxes, completly missing the point at hand -- whatever the statistic is, ignoring the danger can prove fatal.
This really is off on a tangent from the post, though it does stem from one of my comments, so what rbc said"Really? Have you considered that you are misreading? Can you point to a single source that reads it like you - counter to the Talmud, Midrashim etc. ? The second passuk is the consequence of the first one, not a sequential continuation. Otherwise the Gemara's discussion is absurd, and its answers ridiculous."
ReplyDeleteis a key point. Josh, I am sure that you would have read As a Driven Leaf, the fictionalized account of Elisha ben Avuya. (It's safe for you to read, as no one would consider it yeshivish propaganda.) Now I'm doing this from memory of a book I've read over 20 years ago, but I recall a climactic point was his realization that even geometry rests on axioms that have to be accepted because they cannot be proven. This is a crisis of faith for him, for he thought he was following the road of rationality where everything has a proof.
Likewise, those of us who believe in Torah min Shamayim also believe in the mesorah of Torah sheBa'al Peh. It follows that what is recorded in the Gemara (as well as Midrash) is meaningful. A failure on our part to recognize the meaning does not reflect on the actual truth but on a deficiency in our own understanding. I take that as axiomatic.
As I have commented on your own blog, there may be many versions of pshat, but that does still not negate the validity of drash (not to mention, remez and sod). Yes, there can be a diversity of opinions on pshat; after all, 70 panim laTorah -- and that is only the panim without the pnimiyus -- but without a respect for the mesorah, this religion becomes the farce that the Reform have made of it. I've read Torah interpretations from a Reform view, so I am speaking of something I have checked into.
"Josh, please point to exact line in the post that you think is innaccurate and I will consider changing it."
ReplyDeleteit is the overall post, which assumes that there is a 25% chance and danger of becoming Conservative when one sends an Orthodox kid to a secular college. indeed, the survey says none of this, and indeed does not even indicate a change in hashkafah and belief, but quite likely simply a different way of self-identifying.
but if you want a concrete example, how about:
"Better to take that 25% chance of his/her becoming an apikores than chas v'shalom risk him/her becoming a chareidi."
however, changing one or two lines would not be sufficient. the whole post is unfounded, and should be rewritten from scratch! unfortunately, perhaps through some deficiency in me, i am unable to make it clear to you *why* what you wrote is entirely unfounded.
"Your qualms with the study are irrelevant to any of the quotes I cite in my post, which you basically ignore."
ReplyDeleteyes, and i will continue to ignore them, until you rewrite the post from scratch.
but some of the quotes that you cite, and snipe at, are taken out of context, in that you don't grant the assumptions of the writer. suggesting that Rabbi Willig is saying that it is better to risk 25% of becoming an apikores that being brainwashed to be more shomer mitzvos not only misrepresents his point (how about the concern that one will come out thinking that it is assur to learn philosophy, or that a white shirt is fundamental jewish practice?), but is a snipe based on the idea that there is indeed, and that he admits that there is indeed, a 25% chance of becoming an apikores.
however, you have made this error in the past, of attributing to me positions that i never maintained. i don't necessarily agree with all of the letter writers there. so?
"Nor have you explained to us how a period of talmud once a day in a coed environment prepares one adequetly for the immense challenges to one's belief that secular college, esp. away from home, can present."
here you are, making it about the broad issues. not only do i not necessarily maintain this, i don't feel like engaging the broader issues.
you want an idea of how one could maintain this? how about that there is a very strong Jewish community in a place such as Brandeis, Columbia, and NYU (recall, you were making insinuations about Brandeis). IIUC, there is a Jewish majority at Brandeis. And I know many frum people who went to these institutions and did not all of a sudden become Conservative, or for that matter, any less frum. can one imagine a scenario in which it could happen? sure, but that does not mean that it does happen, or happen with any regularity.
and insisting that it does happen is really being motzi laaz on a whole group of people. don't think you are so frum, just because you are taking the "frum" position.
kol tuv,
josh
"Likewise, those of us who believe in Torah min Shamayim also believe in the mesorah of Torah sheBa'al Peh. It follows that what is recorded in the Gemara (as well as Midrash) is meaningful."
ReplyDeletecareful, because you may be insinuating that i (or ibn ezra in the general case, or ibn caspi) do not believe in Torah min hashamayim.
meaningful, sure. but that does not mean that one must come away from the gemara and the pasuk thinking that this is the *only* thing Hashem requires of us. it is used in a derasha cited by rashi to show that since Hashem wants this from US, it is something Hashem cannot provide, such that yiras shamayim is in our hands. and it is used in similar narrow scope to make an important homiletic point about relative difficulty.
that does not mean that the meaning that YOU happen to choose to derive from it is the ONLY possible meaning to derive, such that this is exclusively what Hashem wants of us.
Ibn Caspi, and Ramchal, and Rashi, and Daat Zekeinim don't assert that Hashem only wants yiras shamayim from us, to the exclusion of all else. and they all believed in Torah min hashamayim.
also, as i noted in a comment about, see Shmuel Hanagid's position that one is permitted to argue on the aggada found in the gemara, because it is NOT mipi hagvurah, but was the personal opinion and innovation of the author of the statement.
"but without a respect for the mesorah, this religion becomes the farce that the Reform have made of it. I've read Torah interpretations from a Reform view, so I am speaking of something I have checked into."
this may be so. however, you would be surprised at how many things you can find in the frum medieval meforshim which certain chareidim would assert is only a Reform view, rather than something which is part of our tradition. this is remaking the past in our own image, and asserting that whatever we deem out of bounds is "Reform."
kol tuv,
josh
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"that does not mean that the meaning that YOU happen to choose to derive from it is the ONLY possible meaning to derive, such that this is exclusively what Hashem wants of us."
ReplyDeleteI believe you have begun to resorting to ad hominem attacks here, Josh, a clear sign that you have no real logical leg to stand on. This smacks of desperation: "It all boils down to who is the "YOU" in question. Certainly, it seems that you, Josh, have the ability to say that your view is correct and Chazal's was wrong. You were bold enough to venture on saying that Hashem wants us to learn philosophy by projecting such into the Rambam as an injunction for all.
As to Ibn Ezra, let me tell you this, Josh. I have no doubt that the Ibn Ezra was a ma'amin. He simply felt that the drashos of chazal can be separated from the pshat. I happen to study pshat, which includes the commentaries by Ibn Ezra, Ralbag, Radak, and Rashbam. They are all far greater than I,and I happily concede that. Yet, if I wish to be cholek on Ibn Ezra, I can rely on greats such as the Ramban and the Maharal. They, too, were far greater than I, and far great than you.
As I said, I spoke out of what I know of Reform interpretation. I reviewed a book for JPS by a "rabbi" who pointed out at every turn where the Jews were clever enough to construct a history that has some correlation to archeology, though, he takes it as a given that Torah is no more divine than Homer's history of the Trojan wars. That is what I mean when I say Reform. Bringing up what some may have fallen out from study from the Middle Ages is irrelevant.
"I believe you have begun to resorting to ad hominem attacks here, Josh"
ReplyDeletei have not. rather, i am pointing out that in your insinuations, YOU are resorting to ad hominem attacks, or coming close to it. perhaps you are projecting.
is this what you taught in your class in rhetoric? :)
my POINT was that there are multiple interpretations of the gemara. you took your own interpretation of the gemara, and think that that defines Jewish belief. but that interpretation is your own. that ibn caspi, daat zekeinim, ramchal and rashi (in my reading) all say otherwise should indicate that they did not take the gemara in that way. such that the one interpretation you put forth should not be considered binding and exclusive.
please explain to me how that is ad hominem.
thanks,
josh
"Certainly, it seems that you, Josh, have the ability to say that your view is correct and Chazal's was wrong. You were bold enough to venture on saying that Hashem wants us to learn philosophy by projecting such into the Rambam as an injunction for all."
ReplyDeletecertainly, i believe that i have the ability, and perhaps obligation to say so. such is talmud torah. (and indeed, there were Geonim and Rishonim who maintained this as well. though again, i also maintain that in this instance, it is not contradicting Chazal, but rather contradicting your interpretation of Chazal. to expand on the point in the comment above, it is not Josh vs. Chazal. It is Josh's interpretation of Chazal vs. Ariella's interpretation of Chazal.)
at the same time, i recognize that there are other hashkafot out there, and that people who maintain those hashkafot have the ability and perhaps obligation to put forth their own.
you call it projecting onto rambam. so be it. i don't think it is, but i am not going to get into an orthogonal debate.
"As to Ibn Ezra, let me tell you this, Josh. I have no doubt that the Ibn Ezra was a ma'amin."
nice insinuation.
"He simply felt that the drashos of chazal can be separated from the pshat."
not only that. though that is a safe and frum interpretation of what ibn ezra does.
"Yet, if I wish to be cholek on Ibn Ezra, I can rely on greats such as the Ramban and the Maharal."
yes, that is a very frum approach, that you can only be cholek on Ibn Ezra if you have upon whom to rely. ibn ezra would almost certainly frown on this approach, and would not think that it makes you a more religious individual. but this is again different hashkafot, and approaches to learning.
R' Chaim and I have argued about this approach in the past, in terms of other areas of learning, including as it pertains to psak.
kol tuv,
josh
"He simply felt that the drashos of chazal can be separated from the pshat."
ReplyDeletelet us take a concrete example. chazal say that pinchas speared kosbi and zimri with one blow. ibn ezra says that kubata means her tent, such that he first speared zimri, then went into kozbi's tent and speared kosbi.
both cannot simultaneously be true. even if one is peshat and the other derash, they could not have historically both happened.
so say that ibn ezra ascribes a homiletic meaning to that midrash, even though he does not explicitly say this, and there is no reason to say that he intends this rather than agreeing with Shmuel Hanagid and that that might well be injecting your own hashkafot into the text of Ibn Ezra. fine, say this.
where did i say different, in terms of this gemara of "mah shoel". i suggested that even Chazal did not mean this, but that they are using it to make a homiletic point.
so why get upset at me, and consider me quasi-reform, but not get upset at ibn ezra?
this, by the way, was one example of many.
kol tuv,
josh
>>>yes, and i will continue to ignore them, until you rewrite the post from scratch.
ReplyDeleteUnless you can point to the innacuracy you claim I made, I see no reason to. So far you have not.
>>> not only do i not necessarily maintain this,
Quote from you above -- "a large part of this came from being ideologically prepared;" If ideological preparation is a necessary ingredient, is it not fair game to ask whether the typical Hebrew Academy MO education provides that ideological preparation?
>>>but some of the quotes that you cite, and snipe at, are taken out of context, in that you don't grant the assumptions of the writer.
That is the big innacuracy? The fact that I don't grant assumptions which I disagree with? Please. Of course I don't grant their assumptions and question them, but that's not an error, that's a statement of my opinion. If your opinion is that the typical 17 year old at U of Penn can do what R' Soloveitchik did (as one letter indicated), then I have the right to point out just how absurd and silly that argument is.
>>>don't think you are so frum, just because you are taking the "frum" position.
I never claimed to be frum. I do claim that my position is far more reasonable than any of the quotes I cited.
"Better to take that 25% chance of his/her becoming an apikores than chas v'shalom risk him/her becoming a chareidi."
ReplyDeleteIt is the writer's contention that he would rather the risk, again, whatever the statistical liklihood, of his child being exposed to and influenced by secular ideals than what he calls fundamentalsim. I simply rephrased the same argument in starker terms to illustrate just how ridiculous it is, but the substantive point remains the same: The writer thinks YU/Touro are fundamentalist, and prefers the dangers of a secular environment to those institutions.
"Unless you can point to the innacuracy you claim I made, I see no reason to. So far you have not."
ReplyDeletei have, already. lo davar reh hu, mikem. this is perhaps a very good argument in favor of a strong secular education.
you falsely state that there is a 25% chance that Rabbi Willig's son will become conservative. and you falsely imply that Rabbi Willig admits that a 25% chance exists, and yet is willing to risk it anyway. (and it was not merely not granting the assumption, but leaving the fact that you differ on this entirely that lets you falsely mischaracterize Rabbi Willig's position, and malign his son; i think you owe Rabbi Willig and his son an apology.)
"not only do i not necessarily maintain this,", followed by your assertion that i do maintain this:
you summarize my position in your own words, injecting various of your own assumptions of what i am saying and what constituted ideological preparation, and then assert that what you said and what i said are the same. admittedly not as bad as what you did with Rabbi Willig's statement, but pretty bad.
for example, i gave an article by Rabbi Pinchas Rosenthal about midrashic literalism as an example of ideological preparation. he is the principal of an all-girls school. so from there, you get "co-ed environment" and "once a day Talmud class"?!
an understanding of different approaches to science and Torah, and sophisticated ways of addressing apparent contradictions, is ONE way that a school can ideologically prepare one for the challenge. having frum role-models of teachers who have gone through this experience is another form of preparation. getting drilled into you that one CAN exist in the secular world, and that it is our religious obligation to integrate Torah and science, or Torah and being an American citizen, can feed directly into the choices one makes in college, such that it is not an either-or proposition. Meanwhile, if one feels that one is already going off the derech by going to college, what is a bit more garlic?
(*theoretically*, knowing how to deal with members of the opposite sex, and how to maintain a platonic relationship with one, and having pas besalo in the form of a MO girlfriend or boyfriend, might be an effective counter to the *sudden availability* and draw of the same from Conservative girls on campus. just some-on-the-spot musings.)
The preceding was all off the cuff. I don't want to really argue this in this comment section, as I have already asserted.
kol tuv,
josh
"It is the writer's contention that he would rather the risk, again, whatever the statistical liklihood, of his child being exposed to and influenced by secular ideals than what he calls fundamentalsim."
ReplyDeletebull. and you should know better. he pretty clearly does not think that the risk amounts to anything in the case of his son, and that people who are ideologically prepared can thrive in such an environment and come out better for it.
kt,
josh
you also assert in the body of the post that it is either the case that 25% of college students go off the derech, or that 25% of graduates of HALB, HAFTR, HANC go off the derech, and that either is a condemnation of MO elementary and secondary education.
ReplyDelete"First of all, who cares what the cause is -- bottom line is that a 25% attrition rate is unacceptable. But let's grant the letter writer's assumption -- Dear principals of HALB, HAFTR, HANC, etc., what does a 25% attrition rate tell us about the state of modern orthodox elementary and secondary education which encourages and condones choices that lead to these abysmal statistics?"
in this instance, you and the letter writer shared the same assumptions. but the assumption is *flawed*. and by presenting it as either / or, you are motzi laaz on these MO institutions.
*if* Rabbi Willig is correct, that this reflects a selection bias, then it does not say anything of the sort about either the impact of college or about the impact of MO education.
kol tuv,
josh
>>>you falsely state that there is a 25% chance that Rabbi Willig's son will become conservative
ReplyDeleteReally? And I thought my post was discussing the general issue of whether Jews should attend secular university. In fact, I can't find Rabbi Willig or his son mentioned at all.
>>>and you falsely imply that Rabbi Willig admits that a 25% chance exists,
Wrong again, please see comment before this one. And again, you ignore the substantive point -- no matter what the risk, R' Willig prefers it to the danger of "fundamentalism". Read. his. words.
>>>you summarize my position in your own words
Wrong. Those quote marks were there for a reason -- it's not a summary, it's exzctly what you
wrote.
>>>that it is our religious obligation to integrate Torah and science,
Really? A chiyuv? I won't even ask where this comes from. You mean R' Chaim spent his time studying science?
>>>having frum role-models of teachers who have gone through this experience
Most HS's do not have a policy of hiring only frum teachers and those teachers in secular classes make no effort to discuss or explain how their subjects can be integrated into Torah. Again, your assumptions are undermined by reality.
>>>getting drilled into you that one CAN exist in the secular world
Keep drilling into a kid that he can fly and don't be surprised when he jumps out the window.
"In fact, I can't find Rabbi Willig or his son mentioned at all."
ReplyDelete"And your child is the next R' Soloveitchik? And U. of Penn is just like Berlin before the war?"
"Indeed, your child may go to yeshiva and be brainwashed to learn Torah"
this, in response to Rabbi Willig's letter. if you meant "your child" in the general sense, then this is yet another thing that could be fixed.
that you did not provide a direct link to the Letters section, but instead just to the paper, is not such a barrier.
"And again, you ignore the substantive point -- no matter what the risk, R' Willig prefers it to the danger of "fundamentalism". Read. his. words."
this is something you are *able* to read INTO his words. one could also read it as why, given the choice between YU and Brandeis, a particular individual might consider it more optimal to attend Brandeis. the hashkafic climate is more likely to result in the finished product he would like to see in his son.
"Really? A chiyuv? "
yes. if not a chiyuv, then at least a mitzvah.
"You mean R' Chaim spent his time studying science?"
who says that i am basing this on Rav Chaim?
I wrote:
"having frum role-models of teachers who have gone through this experience"
because Rabbi Willig mentioned how his son's Rosh Yeshiva also went to Brandeis.
in responding to this, you wrote:
"Most HS's do not have a policy of hiring only frum teachers and those teachers in secular classes make no effort to discuss or explain how their subjects can be integrated into Torah."
which implies that I was saying that ALL the teachers were frum people who attended university. do you see the disconnect?
"and those teachers in secular classes make no effort to discuss or explain how their subjects can be integrated into Torah"
but maybe in the limudei kodesh, they do make an effort to discuss it.
"Again, your assumptions are undermined by reality."
in my school, our secular studies classes were not taught by frum people. but we could talk to our rabbeim about these issues. and when introducing evolution, our science teacher made an announcement about how it was one *theory* that we would learn, though the Jewish perspective might be different. and the hanhalah did have a say in terms of what was taught in the English classes.
regardless, that is not what i said.
this is getting silly, and i think i am going to restrict myself to a total of one more reply.
kol tuv,
josh
"Wrong. Those quote marks were there for a reason"
ReplyDeleteyou quoted, but one of those quotes was a statement that "not only do i not necessarily maintain this".
the question is WHAT do I not necessarily maintain. i do not necessarily maintain what you SUMMARIZED my position as, namely that:
"Nor have you explained to us how a period of talmud once a day in a coed environment prepares one adequetly for the immense challenges to one's belief that secular college, esp. away from home, can present."
THAT was the summary in your own words. you then juxtaposed my assertion that i don't maintain your summary, with the words that you summarized, that "a large part of this came from being ideologically prepared;"
but if YOUR SUMMARY of the latter quote is not the same as the intent of the latter quote, then the juxtaposition of quotes from me shows absolutely nothing.
this doesn't count as my final reply.
kt,
josh
This article, blog post and the comments they have engendered have been quite an eye-opening experience.
ReplyDeleteSpecifically, I have learned that a surprising number of people will make incredibly broad statements about statistics contained in a study, when they have obviously not read the study and apparently know little or nothing about statistics.
The following are a few highlights of the myriad problems with many, many of the statements made (including, incidentally, the original article):
1) What is the sample size? If the study (of over 4000 students, over 2000 Jewish students) contained responses from 8 Orthodox students, 2 of whom stopped being Orthodox, the sample size is too small to make any determination at all. If anyone had read the survey, they would see that, at most, 8% of the respondents were shomer basic hilchot shabbat. I took the liberty of contacting Drs. Sales and Saxe, and they informed me the true number of Orthodox students was likely far less than that. If we are talking about 1 or 2% of the population of the survey (and again -we have no data) this broad indictment of all secular colleges may be based on the actions of five or ten students (out of 4000 surveyed) who may or may not have been shomer halacha in the first place.
2) 25% compared to what? The original article (and many of the posts in this thread) have not been comparing apples to oranges, they have been comparing apples to nothing! We have no data as to the 'attrition rate' (however one would wish to define the term) from YU or any other institution, however religious the reputation. I'm sure people would love to think whatever they want about the identities and practices of students who attended Yeshiva X or Y, but absent hard data - and there are none - any such comparisons are useless and invalid - and intellectually dishonest. This also shows the flaw in the approach taken in the above post, since nearly all institutions have some people go 'off the derech.' Let's say at frum yeshiva X, 1% of talmidim go off the derech. Shall we tell everyone not to go there since it's like playing roulette with a 1% chance of catching a bullet? (CTD.)
(CTD)
ReplyDelete3) What percentage of the self-identified 'Orthodox' were shomer halacha? This comment has been touched upon by R' Willig and others, but the data provide a clue. According to the survey, over 50% of students involved in Jewish life (such as attending services and eating kosher food) became MORE observant over their college career, and only 21% became less observant (33%of those 'engaged' in Jewish life became less religious, 31% more religious). By definition, anyone who is shomer halacha must be considered at least engaged, and probably a leader, under the terms of the study. However, if 25% of Orthodox Jews changed denominations (half became Conservative, the other half something else, see point 4), that would mean close to 100% overlap between denomination change and lessening observance! In other words, under that interpretation of the data, Orthodox Jews who go to secular college either become more observant or stop being Orthodox, and almost never become somewhat less observant but still consider themselves Orthodox. This is technically possible, but seems counterintuitive. A far more logical explanation is that a certain percentage of students who self-identify as Orthodox do so because of family background or because they attended an orthodox shul 3 days a year or had an Orthodox bar/bat mitzvah, but were not engaged in Jewish life or shomer halacha. Is it any surprise that after a few years at college spending time with Conservative and Reform Jews, they would feel more comfortable with that identification? And yet, their practices may well not have changed at all.
4) What does 'denomination change' mean? It is important to note that the survey never says what the change in denomination means. Half the students became Conservative - what of the rest? Did they become Reform? Reconstructionist? Buddhist? Haredi/Ultra-Orthodox? Did they retain their practices but simply reject the denominational system? I certainly agree that the most likely result is that the students became identified with a less observant denomination, but there are no data to prove this, and when we may well be dealing with a very small sample size (see point 1), the actions of just 1 or 2 students could have a huge impact.
In conclusion - read the study, learn some stats, then reach you own conclusions. But doggone it if many of the statements made in the article and these posts haven't been made without regard to the data.
I don't understand this derision of anecdotal evidence. That's what we rely on when we get married, when we hire an employee, when we make investments, when we make most life decisions. True, anecdotal evidence often hides counter intuitive truths; but just because some planes crash doesn't mean that we should never fly.
ReplyDeleteIn this case, because anyone with enough experience can cite anecdotes pointing both ways.
By the way, your "seifa" is against your "reisha", in that you encourage flying despite the anecdotal evidence of occasional crashes.
One additional point about the misuse of stats in the article and this blog post:
ReplyDeleteThe assumption (again, with no data) of uniform distribution. This would be remarkably unlikely.
In other words, even if the sample of Orthodox students were large enough to be significant (and there's no data supporting that) AND assuming those who self-identified as Orthodox actually practiced halacha (again, no data) AND assuming their change in denominational identity meant becoming less observant (intuitive, but again no data), in that case... we would STILL not be able to say anything about 'the effect of secular college on Orthodox Jews.'
The reason is simple - distribution was not accounted for. What if substantially all those who lost their Orthodox identity went to small liberal arts colleges in cities with small or no Orthodox populations? What if they all came from single-gender schools and were suddenly thrust into a co-ed environment, or went to a school with strict doctrines and were suddenly confronted by seminars filled with people and professors who found their opinions about dinosaurs or sacred text downright comical?
The data would still tell us nothing about the effect of 'secular college' on 'Orthodox students', but we might learn something valuable about the effect of certain specific environments on certain types of students.
It's kind of sad that this survey, which could have served as the basis for a call to study the effects of all those factors on different types of students was instead perverted into an unsupported, blunderbuss attack on all 'secular colleges. Sigh.
One final (I think), intriguing thought.
ReplyDeleteWhat's the 'net loss' (or gain) in terms of Orthodox Jewry on campus?
Remember, according to the survey, some 30% of students change denomination, and Reform and Conservative and Reconstructionist Jews made up at least 92%, and probably more, of the >2000 students surveyed. If even a paltry 10% changed their identity to Orthodox (and remember that over 50% of leaders and over 30% of Jewish-ly engaged students became more observant over their college careers), then a total of some 60 students became Orthodox, while substantially fewer Orthodox students lost their denomination. (The exact number depends on the unknown number of Orthodox students, which in practice could not exceed 8%)
So, a system which loses some Orthodox students and gains many more - good thing or bad?
No doubt it's a complex question, but before deciding, remember this - we already have such a system, it's called kiruv. Every year an unknown number of non-Orthodox become observant thanks to kiruv work and an unknown (but non-zero) number of Orthodox kiruv workers go off the derech. To my knowledge there is no hard data on this subject and I am quite skeptical that there ever will be. Indeed, some authorities are opposed to the kiruv system for this very reason, but many other support it. I see no reason why secular college, which appears to have a similar effect, should be treated any differently.
I just read the 80 plus comments. I would frame the issue differently...given that many Orthodox Jews want their children to go to good colleges, and would chalish for a frum boy graduating Harvard Medical School as an eidem, what are the implications for Orthodoxy?
ReplyDeleteExcept for a small minority, most every Orthodox Jew at universities comes into close contact with other Jews raised differently. Wouldn't this have some effect at the attempt to demonize non -Orthodox Jews? After hanging out at Hilel, understanding oneself as Orthodox by choice might seem a better description than Orthodox or 'sheigitz', as the charedim would have people believe. Such changes in perception should make a difference over time. It might make some people even more frum, but I think on the whole it will lead to more post-denominational attitudes.
I just saw a letter to the editor on the Jewish Star's site. I agree with the view it presents, though, undoubtedly, there are those who would declare it "offensive." The link is: http://thejewishstar.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/letter-to-the-editor-3/
ReplyDeleteand the text is as follows:
Issue of November 6, 2009/ 19 Cheshvan 5770
More on secular college
To the Editor:
I was quite surprised to see the vehemence of the reaction to Rabbi Reuven Spolter’s article criticizing those who send their kids to out of town residential campuses (The elephant in the room; In My View; Oct 16, 2009). I do understand much of what they feel in defense of the practice, but at the same time, Rabbi Spolter’s concerns are not to be shrugged off lightly.
If it is true that one quarter of our Orthodox youth are wooed away from Orthodoxy on the secular college campus, then I pose the following question: If you found a piece of meat that was “kosher by three-quarters”, would you eat it? I would assume not. I chose my metaphor with care. For too many parents in the Orthodox community, the only real concern is the availability of kosher food. The kashrus of the environment doesn’t quite seem to be a priority. Columbia, U of P and, perhaps, Brandeis, are exceptional in the quality of Jewish life on campus. I had occasion a few years back to speak at SUNY Binghamton. Clearly there is a fine kosher eating facility and a dedicated Chabad shaliach. But it is a spiritual “midbar” for a child with 13 years of yeshiva education. Although this is anecdotal evidence, I suspect that it is reflective of most college environments.
I agree that Yeshiva University is not for everyone, but of my two Queens College graduates, one is a Fordham Law grad and the other is finishing Columbia Dental School. They will tell you that the education was excellent, and I was able to rest comfortably with their living in a healthier environment, off-campus. Perhaps there are aspects of the college experience that they did miss, but I believe that Torah u’Madda or Torah im Derech Eretz assumes at least a minimal measure of sacrifice in order to place Torah first.
Rabbi David M. Friedman
Oceanside