Parashat Bemidbar (5761)

With God's help, on the eve of the holy Sabbath of Parashat Bemidbar, 5761

In Praise of Sectoralism: Educational Pluralism versus Education for Pluralism

Parashat Bemidbar deals with dividing the people into their tribes, with the different locations of the tribes,

and with their functions. One may say that the portion's main theme is distinctions and separations. Separation between

the locations of the tribes (which recurs as well in the division of the land), or between different functions (for example,

among the Levites: 'A singer who served as a gatekeeper [=performed gatekeeping duties] is liable to death'), and above all the sharp distinction between

the sacred and the profane, whose violation in various ways incurs death ('the outsider who draws near shall be put to death' appears

three times in this portion). It is surprising to discover that immediately after the people were created as an organic unit

in the Exodus from Egypt, the Torah takes pains specifically to preserve these sectoral separations and distinctions

and is even very severe in punishing one who violates them.

This is a situation that today we might call 'multiculturalism,' that is, preserving the distinctive character

of the different groups. The point is not merely post factum recognition of their existence, but rather

an ab initio, somewhat zealous guarding of the distinctions among them. In Jewish law there are other places where

such a sectoral conception finds expression: the highest priority in giving charity is to a person's relatives

or to the members of his town. The division of inheritances by tribes and the preservation of communal customs are two

additional examples of this.

Set against all this is the feeling that nonetheless we must create a minimal layer of uniformity in the identity

of the various groups that compose society. Walking the tightrope between these two tendencies is

highly problematic. On the one hand, we want a minimal identity that will be shared by all segments of society,

while on the other hand we do not want to erase what is unique to each of them. This is the basic assumption that underlies

the centralized conception of education. The assumption is that there is a minimal educational foundation

that should be shared by all segments of the population, and whose implementation is supervised by the Ministry

of Education, while on the other hand there is greater openness to the idea that in each community the school will look somewhat different,

in accordance with the character of the population that studies and teaches in it.

At first glance, this minimum should be based on the common denominator among all the streams. Everything

beyond that should be left to the decision of the various schools. The problem is that there is disagreement even

about the question of what that minimum is. Must one study mathematics? Or English? In the

ultra-Orthodox public, they will say no. Must everyone study the Bible? Or the Oral Law? Or perhaps the history of

Zionism? Here too there are those who will say no. Even regarding the question of the manner in which these subjects are to be taught

there is an ongoing struggle, perhaps far sharper than the struggle over the very obligation to study them. This situation

creates an atmosphere in which every Minister of Education tries to bring with him a value system in which he believes,

and tries to change the curriculum and tilt it in the direction he desires. Of course, in doing so he arouses

the wrath of those who stand on the other side of the political barricade.

Once there is no agreement regarding that minimum, the very existence of a centralized system causes

coercion of minorities, at least indirectly. Out of the tax money that we all pay, only

or mainly, fields of study accepted by the majority are funded. When the minority tries to finance, by various means,

the forms of education in which it believes, it is immediately portrayed as resorting to extortion. By contrast, when the majority

takes the minority's money in order to fund its own curricula, this is a 'legitimate action'

consistent with the 'rule of law.' The central institutions fight against educational networks that are called

'sectoral,' while they themselves constitute one side in the struggle. Nevertheless, there is an illusion that the majority is not a

'sector'; it is the state (see the entry on Louis XIV).

It seems that we must move from a system of education that is politically controlled to a system of educational pluralism

(genuine pluralism, not what today is called 'pluralism,' which is nothing but a code word used by a certain sector

to impose its positions on all the others). A group that sees fit to establish an educational institution should itself

decide the form and fields of study that will be practiced in it. The state will become a system whose role

is to help the citizen, instead of being a party to a struggle with the power to impose its view. Even in such a situation it is possible

to support weaker populations. For example, every citizen would receive an educational funding voucher (on a differential basis) for each

of his children, and would give it to the school he wants.

Yeruham is a microcosm of many modes of thought and education, and therefore political 'education'

wars are also seething there. At the 'Kol Yaakov' school, a minor war is being waged that includes ugly

and unnecessary phenomena that threaten to dismantle the school over nothing. The 'Shuvu' school has suffered from

various forms of political harassment, and I have not yet mentioned the inequality between the state schools and the

ultra-Orthodox ones (in which direction?). Centralized budgets serve as a very powerful tool enabling

preferential treatment of different sectors, and force every educational institution to seek shelter in the shadow of a political patron

in order to survive. The price is paid by all the residents!

If there were no centralization in budgeting and in determining curricula, we would be spared the punishment of

most of these wars. Whoever wants may establish a 'Shuvu' school, or an 'El HaMaayan' school, or a religious-

Zionist, secular, traditional, or other school. When the organs of government concentrate on providing services to citizens

and not on artificially trying to impose positions or forms of education upon them, an atmosphere will be created

of calm, in which funding does not depend on opinions, and, surprisingly, unity too will increase. In such an atmosphere everyone

who wants to hear the other will be able to invite him, and will not need to suspect him of self-interest,

or feel threatened by him. The game will cease to be 'zero-sum.'

Have a peaceful Sabbath

This may be placed in a genizah at any synagogue or yeshiva. Comments and responses are welcome.

Biton89.doc