NY Times vs. Chassidim

[S209]

Let's look at some hypothetical situations.
1 - Catholic parents take over a local school board. They provide busing for their kids while cutting funding and taxes overall. Nefarious?
2 - Catholic parents take over a local school board. They close a public school for lack of funding (that they cut) and then sell it to other Catholics at below market value. Nefarious?

In your hypothetical 1, did they cut the total tax revenue or just per-person taxes? Did (or should) costs go down or did they simply distribute fewer funds for the same amount of children? Did they initiate busing for the children or was it already a requirement if theirs under state law?
In your hypothetical 2, did enrollment in public schools dramatically decrease (and corresponding attendance at private schools dramatically increase) to the point where it was perfectly logical to close a redundant school with ridiculously small class sizes and sky-high education prices that was no longer serving the needs of the public school attending public efficiently?

Just trying to understand your hypothetical situations to see if indeed it was nefarious or just a misleading painting.

[CountValentine]

In your hypothetical, did enrollment in public schools dramatically decrease (and corresponding attendance at private schools dramatically increase) to the point where it was perfectly logical to close a redundant school with ridiculously small class sizes and sky-high education prices that was no longer serving the needs of the public school attending public efficiently? Just trying to understand the hypothetical situation.

Let's say for this hypothetical, yes. Would it be nefarious to sell the closed school to your own at below market price?

What about hypothetical number 1?

[S209]

Let's say for this hypothetical, yes. Would it be nefarious to sell the closed school to your own at below market price?

What about hypothetical number 1?

What is “your own”? Was it objectively below market price conducted in a back room deal or was it at public auction where the price was reached after bidding? (I’m close to providing an answer).

See my edit.

[CountValentine]

What is “your own”?

Catholic board members approving the sale to other Catholics.

Was it objectively below market price conducted in a back room deal or was it at public auction where the price was reached after bidding? (I’m close to providing an answer).

For the hypothetical it was below market value.

[S209]

Let's say for this hypothetical, yes.

Then the question of whether it was ok to close the school appears to be yes. This does not resolve your second issue, for which I need more information to make my decision.

[S209]

Catholic board members approving the sale to other Catholics. For the hypothetical it was below market value.

I don’t know why religion should play a role in their decision (unless you are insinuating Catholics would give other Catholics special treatment at the expense of others) but if it was objectively below market not conducted through an auction then it’s wrong.

The board should be looking out for the interests of the board which in this case would be to raise the highest amount possible in the market. The only reason this could be ok were if the board somehow has a vested interest in the establishment of the school that purchased the building.

[CountValentine]

I don’t know why religion should play a role in their decision...

I should clarify that it has nothing to with religion. It is about any group taking over a school board to benefit their own.
Whites taking over to benefit whites.
Blacks taking over to benefit blacks.
Hispanics taking over to benefit Hispanics.
...and the list goes on and on.
There will be resentment when this happens that will fester into hate.

[jj1000]

I should clarify that it has nothing to with religion. It is about any group taking over a school board to benefit their own.
Whites taking over to benefit whites.
Blacks taking over to benefit blacks.
Hispanics taking over to benefit Hispanics.
...and the list goes on and on.
There will be resentment when this happens that will fester into hate.

Perhaps clarify if you think the hate is justified or you are simply stating facts of human nature.

[CountValentine]

Perhaps clarify if you think the hate is justified or you are simply stating facts of human nature.

It is hard to justify hate. Hate is this hypothetical is uncalled for.
If you want to solve a problem, you first need to understand the problem.

[EliJelly]

I really don't know much about the Rockland school situation but I do know that Rockland has among the highest property taxes which a large portion of it goes to the school system. It makes prefect sense that the ones who are contributing 80% of that money should have a say on where the money goes, and if they are entitled themselves to a fraction of it legally then they should definitely pursue it all the way.

[EliJelly]

Yeshiva students can't write their own names

 

[biobook]

Yeshiva students can't write their own names

 

They use an alias? Whose names do they write?

Also: " students often cannot go to the bathroom during lectures" 
True?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/15/nyregion/a-closer-look-at-the-times-report-on-hasidic-schools.html

[Kryptonite]

Yeshiva students can't write their own names

 

I'm assuming that because it's an editorial there's less the Jewish community can do about it vs. a news article where we can sue for libel or something (if it's not true)

[EliJelly]

They use an alias? Whose names do they write?

Also: " students often cannot go to the bathroom during lectures" 
True?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/15/nyregion/a-closer-look-at-the-times-report-on-hasidic-schools.html

Laughable since chassidic boys wear diapers anyway since they lack proper training as part of the broader neglect in preparing them to function in society.

[moko]

Times Of Israels take on the NYT article and how they connect the dots. According to their take, it clearly has nothing to do with Satmar not teaching secular studies and has more to do with the word "yeshiva" in your school name

The controversy comes as New York yeshivas are already under fire for a perceived lack of secular education, and LGBTQ rights in the community are under the spotlight as New York’s Yeshiva University attempts to block a Pride club from recognition on campus. (Avrahami said her life and her husband’s life had revolved around Yeshiva University in recent years, and said the university “has been great to us.”)

Last week, New York State officials issued final approval to rules that will regulate secular education in non-public schools, after a years-long battle over curriculum that is a major point of contention for Haredi communities in New York.

The new regulations were approved after a New York Times investigation indicated yeshivas receive hundreds of millions in public funding, provide dismal secular education, and some mete out physical punishments against students.

The investigation roiled the religious community in New York, with community representatives, politicians, and other defenders of yeshivas accusing the newspaper of unfairly targeting Jewish schools.

Also last week, Yeshiva University, New York’s flagship Modern Orthodox university, banned all student clubs, as it seeks to avoid recognizing an LGBTQ group. The university has appealed to the US Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case, but conservative justices said the college can try again after it exhausts other appeals and would “likely win” before the nation’s highest court.

[WayBackMachine]

https://twitter.com/DYShor/status/1571718478368833536

[Dan]

https://twitter.com/DYShor/status/1571718478368833536

Welcome to DDF!

Full video:

[biobook]

Times Of Israels take on the NYT article and how they connect the dots. According to their take, it clearly has nothing to do with Satmar not teaching secular studies and has more to do with the word "yeshiva" in your school name

This sentence really bothers me:
"The new regulations were approved after a New York Times investigation indicated yeshivas...."

This is derived from the way NYT has phrased it, but it's misleading in that it seems to imply that it was the NYT article that sparked the new regulations.  Obviously, the article had nothing to do with it.  NYSED came out with the new guidelines and responses to the letters on Sept 1, and the NYT article appeared on Sept 11.  NYSED voted on the 12th, but it's clear they had already discussed and decided before that.
https://www.regents.nysed.gov/common/regents/files/922p12a7.pdf

NYT may have wanted to take credit for influencing NYSED's vote, but if so, they flubbed it.  Should have published this earlier if they wanted to make that claim.

[WAM]

Laughable since chassidic boys wear diapers anyway since they lack proper training as part of the broader neglect in preparing them to function in society.

Watch this show up in next week's well researched article in the NYT.

[WAM]

Welcome to DDF!

I think this is really CV's alias. He just doesn't want us to realize that he sees the light...