While newspapers and other media outlets are forums for discussion and debate, one would like to think that these forums could possibly, as time goes by, effectuate some change and improvement.
Consider the ongoing situation at the Rubashkin family’s Agriprocessors company in Postville, Iowa, and the labor practices the authorities have taken issue with in the production plant over the last few months. Even though a great deal of what happened there has not been thoroughly adjudicated, that does not seem to stand in the way of observers from a distance chiming in with their opinions about what happened and what should or should not be done.
At this point, after the general media has roundly condemned employment and other practices at the plant and a great deal of damage has been done to their ability to fulfill the kosher meat and poultry needs of the observant community in the United States, the government is now taking a second look at what took place there.
The authorities reviewing the case seem to feel that the coordination between immigration officials, prosecutors, and the judicial system in Iowa did not lend itself to a fair or unbiased process in the roundup and quick trials and convictions of those accused of working illegally at the plant. Somehow, any journalistic reports that cast aspersion on or condemned Agriprocessors and their owners quickly made it into print, while those seeking to defend the company and the family were quickly marginalized—with a great deal of the doubt coming from within our own community.
In fact, the Op-Ed piece by Washington, DC–based Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld made it in to the New York Times, of all places—not surprisingly, because it declared that some of the suspected labor practices themselves are sufficient to render the product produced by Agriprocessors as less kosher or perhaps not at all meeting minimal kashrus standards for the customers they serve.
Nathan Lewin, an Agriprocessors attorney and an Orthodox Jew, picked apart Rabbi Herzfeld’s damaging declarations, in fact calling into serious question some of the rabbi’s assertions as being wholly unfounded (see sidebar). It just may be that more than anything else here we have this seemingly innate desire to jump into the fray—or, as it is called in football, piling on.
What is it about so many of us who relish the fall of a giant and seem to naturally flow along with the negative momentum of the process of picking someone apart? Why is it that condemnation and criticism creates so much of an echo, while words of defense or even a call for equanimity are shunned or quietly set aside for consideration at some later time?
Do you think that it’s about the attention that being negative or critical garners, while the opposite seems not stimulating and u.ninteresting to the public at large? That brings us to another topic discussed in these pages over the last few weeks, dealing with what has become known as our “at risk” population and the way some young people act up, or “act out,” in a number of different or aberrant ways.
This debate revolves around who it is that bears responsibility for the growth of this population in the Orthodox community over the last decade or so—the families they were raised in, or the yeshivas they spend most of their days attending during these vital formative years? And the debate rages and has been doing so for years.
For many families at a loss to describe how their son or daughter became a chain smoker or a drinker, there is often no choice for them but to assign blame to the yeshivas. They might say that the education was not good enough, or there were not effective or sufficient role models for their child, or the institution lacked ample discipline. The yeshivas and those advocating for yeshivas maintain the exact opposite position. The yeshiva, they claim, is only a temporary, part-time custodian of the young person’s life, and most of their habits are learned at home or are things they picked up from a parent or older sibling or some other relative.
There may not be any definitive right or wrong on this issue, but that won’t stop those who harbor differing opinions from seeing to it that their position prevails. It is indeed quite possible that some kids are more prone to pick up the negative aspects of what they observe, with some being more sensitive to what they see at home while others are influenced more deeply by their experiences in school.
Is it the outside secular influences that impact so negatively on kids today, and is it our personal as well as professional duty to protect them from being exposed to those things? Or should we be teaching them how to coexist with these outside influences, how to interface with them and how to subdue and conquer them?
We’ve also featured some stories and letters lately about shidduchim, dating, and the growing number of young people who are now older and still single. The debate has raged for years now: Should we encourage greater openness and socialization between men and women, and is the movement in the direction of separate everything the culprit that has dramatically worsened the singles situation? Many say that it’s time to bring down the walls that separate the men from the women on certain occasions. Others insist that Jewish law dictates that wherever possible—and even beyond—there be a separation.
Should our single men and women be seated together at weddings or should we stick exclusively to separate seating at these functions, with many peering around walls to see who is present at the simcha, what they look like, and the initial impression they may make?
In all of the above situations, there are convincing arguments on each side. Perhaps the most apt truism is the one that resonates and is commonly heard on the lips of those working with the “at risk” kids—that one size does not fit all. And that’s true of both sides in the Agriprocessors debate, in the at-risk youth area, as well as in our current shidduch situation.
I wonder if instead of making definitive declarations that either this or that is the only way to go on an issue, we might try a different approach. We might all be better off if instead of closing ourselves off to the other side, we try to open our minds a little more to something we reflexively do not agree with. Now that would be progress.
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
One Response
2 WORDS “LOSHON HORAH”
If the NY TIMES (aka. SLIMES) Reports it then u know it is dirty, and all those so called rabbis who’s comments were printed in the NYT should know that they are the proverbial Loshon Horah’dika person and there name is associated with Chillul Hashem.
If they had questions regarding the Kashrus, they should have gone down there to check it out and then speak with the Baal HaMachshir. You cannot be Motzei shem ra using your gut feeling, especially in public were it will be picked up by the Malach Hamov’es him self (the NYT) it is Retzicha/Murdering…
Enough said!