They argue that it excludes women, and therefore harms women’s rights, and liberalism cannot contain such a thing.

Mainly because of discrimination against women. Here are all kinds of situations that can arise, and some of them have already arisen in separate-track programs at universities that have already opened such programs:

– In the men’s track, only men teach. In the women’s track, both men and women teach. It is more worthwhile for the university to hire a man because there is no limitation on which classes he can teach. (This is happening today)

– Because of different demand for tracks, a computer science track opens for men but not for women. Instead, women get an occupational therapy track. (This too is happening today)

– Students in the separate master’s degree track have to participate in a seminar. Only male researchers are invited to lecture at the seminar. Therefore they will not become familiar with an article published by a woman, only with an article published by a man. (This will happen as soon as the master’s tracks approved by the Council for Higher Education open)

– A Haredi man or woman would like to study at the university in a regular track. Because separate tracks exist, they have no social legitimacy to go to the regular track. In the separate track they study at a lower level, and not necessarily the subject they would have studied if all the options were open to them. (This too is happening today)

– The norm of separation spreads to more places, and in private companies there are suddenly separate hallways for women / men.

There are several more reasons for my opposition. For example, research on the tracks that have already existed for several years showed that they failed: there is a crazy dropout rate, the level is low, and graduates find it very difficult to get work… That’s what an opponent answered. I’m interested in what the Rabbi thinks about this.

With God’s help, 25 Av 5777

To Nadav — greetings,

Indeed, it would be proper that in programs for women, the academic staff be exclusively women. This would lead to an increase in positions reserved for female lecturers, and thus the proportion of women among the lecturers would equal their proportion among the students.

That would also spare us the troubles involved in a situation of authority relations between a lecturer and a female student. This is how our ancestors acted: “Abraham converted the men and Sarah converted the women.” And in a permissive generation, has the generation somehow become fit for more?

And learning too succeeds better when the mind is focused on study! And thanks to separate study, both the women and the men will merit their doctorate more quickly — receiving the title of Dr. 🙂

Best regards, S.Z. Levinger

Nadav, hello.

I’ll address your points one by one:
1. I didn’t say the universities have to cooperate with this or fund it. The Haredim can open institutions of their own (that meet academic criteria, which usually does not happen today). Or the universities can charge higher tuition from whoever is interested in separate study.
2. What’s the problem? That’s what the Haredim want, so those are the tracks that will be opened for them. Whoever wants a different track should study at a mixed institution.
3. This mainly concerns advanced degrees. And even there it doesn’t seem critical to me. If a woman wants to lecture from behind a partition, good for her. And if she doesn’t agree, that is of course her right. Or they’ll find a man to present women’s work instead. There are quite a few fields in which you would lose almost nothing by not being familiar with women’s work. That is simply a fact, whether you like it or not. And if the Council for Higher Education decides that the institution does not meet the standards of knowledge, then let them close it. All these are technical questions, not substantive ones. One should remember that reaching the required level is possible even without knowing everything. It may be that the graduate will be at a lower level, but that will be his problem. This is about suitability for research, and the research institutions will decide whether they want him or not.
4. Their problem. Let them go without legitimacy or suffer the consequences. I’m not supposed to worry about anyone who doesn’t worry about himself.
5. There’s no problem at all if they also make separate cities for women and men — if that’s what they want. As long as they do it only for themselves.
6. You don’t need studies to know that Haredi academic studies are worth nothing. They are given unreasonable concessions, and that is exactly what I oppose. And if they don’t find work, that is their problem. This should be explained to them and they can decide what they want.

In short, I don’t see any substantive problem here.

3. Why should a woman have to lecture from behind a partition and not be able to lecture in a normal way equally to men who lecture? Why is this different from similar “separation” between whites and blacks, which everyone understands is discrimination and invalid? And why should she let a man present in her place? In the Middle Ages women used male pen names or hid behind men because if people knew a woman had written it they wouldn’t take it seriously… we are long past that, and I don’t think there is any reason to go back there. In addition, regarding the claim — “there are quite a few fields in which you would lose almost nothing by not being familiar with women’s work” (which, by the way, is really not a “fact”; I suggest you google women in science a bit), even if there are fewer publications by women in certain fields — maybe there is a reason for that? Namely that in academia in general there is discrimination against women and there are fewer and fewer women in more advanced degrees?
5. Same as 3, really… why is there no problem if they make separate cities for women and men? Again — why is this different from if I said there should be separate cities for whites and blacks? That is wrong and this is wrong.
6. If they don’t find work, that is also our problem and not only theirs. The goal of this program is to integrate them into the labor market, and that goal is very important for a certain reason. If they are missing the goal for which the program was established — why continue and promote them instead of thinking of a different program to advance this truly important goal?

With God’s help, 25 Av 5777

The separation between whites and blacks was done out of contempt toward blacks. By contrast, the separation between women and men at a public event is explained in the Jerusalem Talmud (Sanhedrin 2:4): “Because of the honor of the daughters of Israel, so that they should not set their eyes on the women.” A man’s desirous gaze at a foreign woman is “objectification” than which there is nothing worse. Just as a woman would not want her husband looking at other women, so it is proper that she should not want a stranger looking at her.

All the more so in a situation where people study together on a regular basis, regarding which Meiri wrote (Kiddushin 81a) that one does not seat a young boy and girl together to learn a craft because of habituation to transgression. As for seating young people in their twenties together, when they are at the height of sexual drive, it would seem that Meiri did not dream of such a thing even in his darkest dreams 🙂
And Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook likewise wrote (Letter 392) about the educational corruption involved in the unnatural joining of boys and girls in educational institutions, both older and younger students *)

There is no problem whatsoever with a woman reading an article written by a man or a man reading an article written by a woman. The problem is the regular and prolonged presence together, because, what can you do, “the eye sees and the heart desires.” The bond between man and woman is wonderful and holy when it is within the framework of a covenant between them, bound up with married and family life, in which — and only in which — they merit true love.

Studying separately does not harm a high academic level, and the Jerusalem College of Technology and Tal Institute, the College in Jerusalem, and Orot College will prove it.

Best regards, S.Z. Levinger

*) For additional halakhic material, I referred to it in my comments on Shmuel Shetach’s article, “At Bottom This Is About Elitism,” on the Makor Rishon Sabbath Supplement website.

S.Z.L., what exactly are the Jerusalem College of Technology and Tal Institute, the College in Jerusalem, and Orot College supposed to prove? Add also Or Yehuda, Mivchar, and the rest of the splendid Haredi academic institutions. One can say that the low level common there is not because of the separation, but with all due respect, it’s hard for me to accept proofs of a high level from that list.

Why is separate cities for blacks and whites wrong?

To Moishbb — greetings,

We are careful that our clothing include a combination of black and white stripes, and you want separate cities? 🙂

Best regards, Shimshon Hershele Ostropoler, Batei Ungarin

S.Z., I’d be happy for a response from Rabbi Michi…

However, the principle of liberalism requires leaving the Levingers to settle the differences of opinion among themselves, and not to interfere in their affairs 🙂

Best regards, S.Z. Levinger, Levingrad, city of the Levingers

I wrote a response and for some reason I can’t find it. I’ll try to write it again.

Your words (Reich? I didn’t understand whether this is a man or a woman) seem really absurd to me, even though I share the principled approach. The argument is only about the proper attitude toward someone who thinks differently.

3. No woman will have to. Whoever agrees — good for her. If they can’t find anyone — that’s their problem.
In my opinion there is no problem at all with separate cities for blacks and whites, just as for women and men, as long as it is done with the consent of those concerned. The stigma attached to it (which is only loosely connected to the thesis of “different but equal,” which I also don’t fully agree with) is just fashionable left-wing propaganda.
I also don’t agree about the unforgivable loss involved in not being familiar with women’s work. In my opinion that is entirely a fact (especially since I wrote that there are fields like that). Nor do I agree with the analysis of the number of publications and the conclusion about discrimination against women. In my opinion this is usually empty propaganda.
I also don’t think it is desirable to go back there, and therefore I am not going back there (and I also expressed my opinion about the custom of Torah journals on this matter). But there are those who think differently — and that is their right as long as it is done by agreement.

5. Same as 3, really.

6. Contrary to your paternalistic discourse, in my opinion this is not a “program,” and therefore it has no “goal.” There is a legitimate desire here on the part of people to get higher education, and one must not prevent them from doing so. That’s all. If they do not succeed in integrating — that is their problem. I am not supposed to help them with that, but also not to interfere.
In general, I have no part or parcel in the Haredi mode of thought that advocates separation, but neither have I any part or parcel with the paternalists who want to impose on them their own absolute and universal truth. These are fools and those are self-righteous moralists.

Could you please help me — what is the halakhic reason for the demand that men not study with women? I can’t manage to find an explanation for this anywhere. Above you wrote that the reason for separation at public events is “because of the honor of the daughters of Israel.” Is that the only reason? Are there additional reasons?

Thank you.

You’re asking me? Ask those who think that way.

See my comment “There is no resemblance to separation…” (above), in the second paragraph, and in the place I referred to in the note, where I brought the words of the great authorities Rabbi Ovadia Yosef and Rabbi Moshe Feinstein.

Best regards, S.Z. Levinger