In response to Steven Burg’s opinion piece, “Don’t Make Summer Programs ‘Luxury Items’” (March 4), please don’t contribute to making yeshiva day school into a luxury we can no longer afford.
Scholarships to yeshiva day schools are paid for largely by increasing the tuition for full-paying parents, to the tune of several thousand dollars per student. Since this contribution to the scholarship fund is involuntary, it is made with after-tax money, like the rest of the tuition payments.
Regarding your article, “Wanna Buy A Historic Shul In Poland?” (March 4), almost 15 years ago I joined approximately 100 family members and friends — survivors of a shtetl in Galicia (now Ukraine), along with their children and grandchildren, from North America and Israel — on a journey to dedicate a monument in the killing field where their Jewish community was finally and completely liquidated. Or so the Nazis and their local henchmen thought.
I was very saddened to read the article about Ohel and the issue of mandated reporting (“Abuse Case Tests Ohel’s Adherence To Reporting Laws,” Feb. 25).
I ran the Ohel Sexual Abuse Program for almost two years, and this was never an issue then. Our esteemed lawyer, Harvey Jacobs, would always provide expert advice on what cases needed to be reported and the rabbinic posek [decisor] would concur and provide a heter [permission] if necessary. There was no contradiction, and each side worked together.
As an Orthodox mental health professional I was saddened to read the article, “Abuse Case Tests Ohel’s Adherence To Reporting Laws” (Feb. 25). After I graduated from the Silver School of Social Work at New York University nearly two years ago, I was fortunate to be offered employment at well-regarded agencies and hospitals throughout the metropolitan area. I intended, however, to seek work at a Jewish organization that served its community and people in need.
Thank you for your coverage of the recent gathering of Jewish and Muslim young leaders to discuss how our two communities can work together to further a more just and equitable immigration system (“Young Jewish, Muslim Leaders Join On Immigration Issues,” March 11).
Having returned from J Street’s annual conference in Washington, I find myself mystified by the terminology in your article (“J Street Copes With Its Left Flank At Conference,” JTA, March 4). I believe in individuals’ rights to representative government in a sovereign country, to own and enjoy their private property without fear of its seizure, to move around without hindrance and generally to engage in the pursuit of happiness. Such American — and Jewish — values are espoused across the political spectrum.
As one of the 2,400 participants at the recent J Street conference in Washington, I was distressed to see that your article on this inspiring conference (“J Street Copes With Its Left Flank At Conference,” JTA, March 4) was filled with highly selective and skewed quotes and overgeneralizations.
As someone who often finds himself identifying with a conservative point of view on both social and political issues, I want to support John Ruskay’s opinion piece, “Combating Delegitimization Requires a Big Tent” (Feb. 18). I have been living in Israel for several months each year, beginning six years ago, and I read “religiously” both the left-wing Haaretz and the centrist Jerusalem Post every day. I often find this a painful process, given the opposing positions one finds daily in each paper.
The editorial entitled, “A Good Veto At the UN” (Feb. 25) is misleading and disturbing. You encourage your readers to be thankful to President Barack Obama for vetoing a UN anti-Israel resolution that would have condemned Israeli “settlements” as illegal. Every American president has exercised the veto in the strongly anti-American and anti-Israel Security Council, where 14 members supported the PA resolution, presented by Lebanon. This is what one does for its only democratic ally in the Middle East.