Okay, since you asked, and Dan linked to the formatted article, here's what I say:
Had he written "The New York Times has assigned two reporters to dig up dirt on investigate chasidic yeshivas", I would have continued to read with an open mind, but I know now from the start that he's coming with a bias and derogatory opinion of the article.
Yes, because the article was utter trash. Just because he speaks negatively towards something he (and I) believe was riddled with one-sided nonsense doesn’t mean you shouldn’t hear him out. This is hardly worthy of discussion, yet you chose this to address.
This is probably true, though it may also be timed to coincide with the first day of school, since the BoR meeting agenda was announced just a few days ago. So what? Timing is important in media - They publish honey cake recipes to coincide with Rosh Hashana.
His point was that the piece was likely intended to influence opinion on the eve of a major decision, but is unfair and one-sided. Again, not the point of his article.
I don't think the writer realizes how offensive this attitude sounds to others. Most non-frum areas of NY State aren't riddled with crime, and this doesn't seem relevant to issue at hand.
It’s not offensive, it’s true. Also, the author is a member of the NYC Assembly. As he’s well aware, many (most?) areas of NYC are riddled with crime and Chasidishe neighborhoods are a glaring exception. If the insinuation is that the poor education leads to a life of squalor and lack contribution to society, the character of the communities produced by Yeshivos vs. PS should definitely be factored in.
This has been true of religious parents for a long time, including the decades before Holocaust, yet those parents send their children to yeshivas that teach English and other secular studies.
Objection: Relevance? The point is to rebut the insidious conjecture of the Times; it’s quite the stretch to say we’re stealing from other taxpayers to fund our extravagant private school lifestyle.
I'd much rather hear what he has to say after he's read the article, rather than based on what he speculates it will say.
Fortunately you got to read the article before commenting so why don’t you point out how he was mistaken in his assumptions? I think you’ll find he was spot on.
Yes, it's not a good look to read that "Secular textbooks are censored with black marker to blot out images of girls and pigs..." In America, this is reminiscent of the time when hotels posted no admission to "Jews and dogs".
Correct, it’s not a good look, and adds to his point precisely because *The NY Times was the party to conjoin girls and pigs*. Looked at with no bias one should certainly be able to understand why a school should have the latitude to determine that their adolescent male students not be required to see pictures of females in various states of undress, no matter how society at large feels about this. The low hanging fruit for the purpose of the article was to show a picture of a crossed out illustration to present their position as exaggerated but surely you’re aware there are pictures in science books which conscientious religious folks may find objectionable. That doesn’t mean women are pigs, it means there may be a variable applicable to both. *
What it said is that parents were told that their kids could get a free trip to Coney Island if the parents vote and turn in the I Voted sticker. Providing an incentive like this to vote in a federal election is illegal, although it's not generally prosecuted. But still, why boast about it?
Again, you’re focusing on an unimportant detail but not the crux of what he’s saying. They are portraying the act of voter registration in a pejorative fashion instead of as the virtue it is, feeding the classic anti-Semitic trope of Jewish manipulation and undue political influence. They didn’t appear to allege a crime, that was totally your doing.
From google, this appears to be a Yeshiva University professor, and it's not clear that when he refers to "yeshiva" he's including kindergarten.
Well, interviewing him could have cleared that up. Did they try? Were they even *pretending* to present a balanced view?
It paints some yeshivas as lacking.
Nope, it paints *all* Yeshivos as lacking while cherry picking specific Yeshivos to highlight.
The NYT has written on those topics in the past. A newspaper article aims to concentrate on a particular topic, and this one is yeshivas, not public schools.
No, the topic is *problems, manufactured and real* in Yeshivos, not a general article about Yeshivos. If you want to allege they are doing something wrong you sure have to present the alternative you are requesting they aspire to, and should include the potential cons as well.
Really, now. Try to keep the focus on education.
Because that’s all it was about. Voter registration and religious attitudes towards pigs, it was ultimately all about the education. /s
*Amusing story. There is a Sefer which poses the following question: תלמיד חכם כצואה או כערוה? (Translation: is a Torah scholar more similar to feces or to nudity?) The question dealt with the requirement to stand for a Talmud Chochom when viewed behind a glass, as one is required to refrain from praying when nudity is visible behind glass but may pray when in the room with fecal matter behind glass.
