Threading the Needle
Full disclosure: I went to all-male ultra-Orthodox Jewish schools until graduate school – as did my brother and son. My daughters went to all-female ultra-Orthodox Jewish schools until graduate school. The undergraduate school I went to only hired ordained rabbis for its philosophy department, and its biology syllabus did not include any discussion of dinosaurs (a taboo subject in most religious schools). Should they have been deprived of governmental assistance?
In the early 60’s I went an outing from Brooklyn, sponsored by an ultra-Orthodox youth movement, to tour Independence Hall in Philadelphia. To the mortification of our leaders, the Marshalls (at the time, they all wore Smokey Bear hats) on the site demanded that we remove all head coverings when visiting this site. The leader (no more than a few years older than his charges) explained to him that we boys never removed our head coverings (some even slept with one) and unless he was capricious, would he demand that nuns remove their habits? The Marshalls acquiesced. But no baseball caps were permitted.
Since then, I have turned away from all forms of religion -including the one I was raised in – but I remain convinced that the education we received (albeit warped in a certain way) was a good one. I believe it to be comparable, if not superior, to what we could have achieved in a secular and mixed-gender environment.
Yet I remain troubled as to why religious institutions are permitted to discriminate. Not only are LGBTQs prohibited from joining the student body and faculty of these venerable institutions, but anyone proposing - much less engaging - in a same-sex marriage is ridiculed and ostracized. Yet all of these institutions continue to participate in Federal programs, such as monetary grants and surplus food distribution. They are all granted special tax-exempt status.
Why are they allowed to disregard bigotry laws and other essential parts of our non-discriminatory guidelines? Can they have it both ways: flaunt civil-rights legislation and still demand diminished tax status? Aren’t they condemning all that don’t adhere to their policies and prejudices to second-class status, prohibited by law?
At what point does coercion of though become a curtailment of freedom? When do we allow for justice for all to become an injustice to the few? This is a conundrum that we must all think about, not just politicians, legislators, and judges. It may be too late to voice our opinion by the time such laws tickle down.
Perhaps the policy should be as follows: Carve out unique entities, such as education, religious practice (not too broad or too many categories) were discriminatory practices are permitted (though never sanctioned, officially). Theological schools, religiously identifiable schools, same-gender schools should be allowed to hire only those that buy into their philosophy. But if you attend a public or secular institution, no discrimination may occur on its site, ever.
My dentist is an Orthodox Jew (we established that we went to the same high school). A mezuzah adorns the doorposts of each of the exam rooms, and the thriving practice is closed on the Jewish Sabbath and all Biblical Jewish holidays, though he does not wear a yarmulke to work. He hires Spanish speaking professionals (his practice demands bi-lingual proficiency). His patients always have the option to seek other dentists in the area who are eager to sign them on as new clients. Is he flaunting the law? I don’t believe so. Unless he is caught practicing medicine in a substandard manner, there is no foul play.
Housing is a thorny question. On the one hand, it makes sense to allow everyone to bid fairly on a house or to rent, but certain groups like to stay within their own community. For Orthodox Jews, being within walking distance of a synagogue is a must. Should realtors not be sensitive to those issues? I believe they should, but red-lining and other secretive practices harm all those who may qualify. The choice should be an open one. All you can do is provide the facts.
When it comes to education, the approach should be the same: As long as there is no harm to others, such as teachings that may lead to contempt for others, and full-disclosure is made, there is no law that should prohibit them from seeking federal aid. When parents know the type of education that their child is receiving, and no harm occurs to others, there is no hypocrisy involved – as long as transparency rules. After all, your mind is your own.