A Look at the Ministry of Non-Education: Grades, Values, and Learning (Column 89)
With God's help
A few days ago I read an article about the fact that the Ministry of Non-Education has adopted a new policy, under which the civics matriculation exam will include a mandatory question (in the area referred to there as AMR – value, involvement, relevance), in which students will be required to express positions on current issues and burning controversial topics, and the exam grade will take into account the content of the positions expressed there. Thus, for example, inciting or racist positions will lead to the answer being disqualified and the grade being lowered.
Civics teachers are protesting this and treating it as a kind of thought police. For example, one teacher quoted there:
defines the change as "a recipe for silencing people." According to him, questions of this kind have already existed for several years, but in no subject have conditions been imposed concerning the expression of an opinion. "They have never done such a thing," he said. "Even in the other subjects there are no such conditions regarding a permitted opinion and a forbidden opinion. If this instruction applies only to civics, it is puzzling to me why specifically this subject places greater limits on freedom of expression and in effect punishes students. This is the imposition of harsh punishment on students; it is a signal of thought police".
Other teachers whose words are cited in the article argued:
"How can one teach civics when a student is simply forbidden to say what he thinks? Obviously no one is in favor of racism or incitement, but this is muzzling Israel's students. You can comment to them and argue with them, but to deduct points for a position when you ask the student to say what he thinks—that is an uneducational move".
What Is a Grade?
These questions bring us back to the more fundamental question: what is a grade at all, and what does it reflect? It is common in schools to give grades for behavior, participation, good character traits, and the like. Fair enough. But even the internal assessment grade contains various components that do not necessarily reflect knowledge: components of behavior, homework preparation, class participation, and the like. That is already more problematic, since the internal assessment is part of the matriculation grade.
But all of these are intended to encourage learning, and therefore perhaps they can be justified even if one thinks that the grade is supposed to reflect only academic achievement. Sometimes one adopts a route that is not justified in itself in order to achieve important results. But grades for values and outlooks are something entirely different. This is not a "signal of thought police," as that teacher said, but actual thought police.
The Slippery Slope and the Main Point
At the next stage, grades will be lowered for anyone who expresses a religious, secular, left-wing, or right-wing position. After all, there are teachers who think that being a leftist is immoral and unpatriotic. Others think that being right-wing is fascistic, vicious, and racist. The same applies to secularity and religiosity. Where exactly is the line drawn? And in general, who will determine what counts as a legitimate position: the Minister of Education? the teacher? the principal? On what basis will this be determined? And when the Minister of Education is replaced and someone from Hadash is appointed, will Zionism be disqualified? Will someone who took matriculation exams under Bennett not be admitted to university under Haneen Zoabi or Zehava Galon, and vice versa? After this absurd proposal is accepted, the next stage will be that the universities will put questions on the psychometric exam intended to test whether the candidate votes for the right party (+10 points) or, God forbid, for the wrong ones (-30). It seems that we are dealing here with a bunch of witless lunatics, and whoever gave them control of the education system is a criminal (all his matriculation grades should be immediately taken away).
Incidentally, who will define what racism is for this purpose? Everyday reality shows us that most teachers (like most of the public in the country), and of course the overwhelming majority of ministers and politicians themselves, do not understand at all what racism is and do not know how to distinguish between racism and perfectly legitimate positions. So they will determine a student's grade according to the degree of his racism?!
But let us not get confused, as our revered Minister of Education likes to say. The questions of boundaries and of the personalities involved are not the important questions. That is mainly a technical matter. My main problem is not with the future—whether left-wing or right-wing positions may perhaps be disqualified, or who will determine what is right and what is not—but with the present. It is unacceptable not to allow a student to express his position, whatever it may be. It is unacceptable to make his grade depend on one value-position or another. The matriculation grade reflects abilities, and that is how it is understood everywhere. Universities are not supposed to accept students according to positions but according to abilities. But the matriculation grade is one of the important criteria for admission to university, or to a job, or to other places. As far as I am concerned, a neo-Nazi student who calls for murdering all the Jews in gas chambers should receive a grade of 100 if he argues the case properly. In fact, such questions should not be asked on a matriculation exam at all.
A Reminder of an Urban Legend
I am now reminded of an urban legend (about Prof. Haim Hanani, a mathematician from the Technion)[1] which tells that on an exam on flow in the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering at the Technion, students were asked to design a pipe that would carry blood from Eilat to Metula. What material should it be made of, what should its diameter and thickness be, what depth in the ground, and so on. The tellers of the story (and I personally heard several people who were morally shocked by the matter) complain about how the Technion's technocratic students had lost all human feeling, and all solved the exam and submitted it without batting an eyelid and without asking why such a blood pipe was needed. They say that such an exam was what led to the introduction of humanistic studies into the Technion curriculum. What folly (not the introduction, the argument).
Beyond the question of the exam writer's taste and sense of humor, which can be debated, the stupidity of these fashionable critics certainly cannot be debated. What exactly is the problem with such a question?! Does anyone imagine that the lecturer intended to plan a concentration camp and was using students to solve the problem of transporting the blood? Who is the fool who thinks there is a moral problem in such a question? Only especially meager intellectual ability could invent such criticism. Those who examine their students according to their positions and values instead of their abilities, skills, and knowledge do not manage to separate values and emotions from skill and knowledge. So, for your information, friends: there are a few places in the world where people actually study something; there students acquire knowledge and skill. They learn to solve problems and receive important analytical tools that will help them do so. Not every faculty is a propaganda hub for "politically correct" values. Thank God, there are still in our world a few faculties besides gender, forecasting, and the like.
The Technion story is nonsense for two reasons: 1. Normatively—the students' grade is not supposed to depend on their outlook or morality. Even a Nazi student should receive a grade according to his abilities (and afterward perhaps go to prison). 2. Factually—such an exam does not in any way reflect immorality or any outlook whatsoever, or even the level of moral sensitivity.[2] Incidentally, the criticism also does not reflect the level of moral sensitivity or morality. It does, however, reflect a troubling limitation of intellectual ability.[3]
The Tactical Question
Let us now return to the policy of the Ministry of Non-Education. Beyond the scandalous injustice, what exactly do these fools want to achieve? Do they think this will lead to better education of the youth? Will it really uproot racism and prevent incitement? In my assessment, political correctness merely suppresses people who think differently and fans their sense of victimhood. Very often it strengthens the silenced positions. What is a student who thinks like the racist Bentzi Gopstein supposed to do? He feels that the wicked are silencing him, lowering his grade, and persecuting him. He becomes even more filled with hatred toward them, and this further strengthens his problematic views (just look at the strengthening of support for the right and for Bibi in the face of the media's leftward preaching, and especially against Bibi). Precisely airing different positions can make discussion of them possible, and the clarification may perhaps also lead the student to reconsider them. I cannot refrain from giving an unsolicited plug here to my Column 6 on you shall not follow after.
A Note on Ideology and Conduct
Of course, in all these arguments, the position expressed regarding the conduct of the Ministry of Non-Education is clearly correlated with the speaker's own position. When the ministry displays conduct biased to the right, those who will criticize it are people on the left, and vice versa. All the critics will always demand objectivity and lack of bias, but these demands will appear only when the bias is in the "wrong" direction. This is (another) disease of our public discourse.
The matter reminds me of Ariel Sharon's period during the Lebanon War and afterward as Minister of Housing. He conducted himself, as was his way, with bulldozing force and with no regard for procedures and proper administration. This was, of course, very convenient for the right side of the political map, and therefore criticism of him appeared only from the left. As long as he acted on behalf of the settlements, it was very convenient that he bypassed procedures and did whatever he wanted. Already at that time a good friend of mine, who is deeply on the left of the political map, told me: "You will yet regret this, when that same bulldozer turns its force in a direction you like less. Then you will understand why one must oppose him regardless of the ideological direction in which he acts." In time it became clear that this was truly a prophecy (whoever wants blessings, children, life, and sustenance (children, life, and sustenance), should send a symbolic sum. Unfortunately there is not yet a grave to visit, but the name is on file).
Just for the sake of completeness I must note that, in the midst of Olmert's antics, such as the Second Lebanon War and his other exploits, I approached that same friend with a request to act publicly together, left and right, to remove the scoundrel from office. For some reason he forgot his doctrine then, and answered me that he would not do so because the alternative was Bibi. And and the rest—go and learn (the rest you can work out)…
What Should Be Taught in Civics? Between Teaching and Education, and Grades and Exams
The subject of civics arouses polemics almost every year. Every minister and every inspector brings with him his doctrine, orderly or disorderly, and absorbs criticism (usually justified) from those who hold other conceptions. Ostensibly, the required conclusion is that worldviews should not be introduced into the curriculum.
Yet on second thought, this is a hasty conclusion. We are all human beings, and students certainly should engage with positions and values. Therefore it is indeed important to discuss worldviews in class, and the teacher certainly can and should express his views and perhaps also persuade his students regarding them. Of course, he must allow them to express their positions and also accept those who are not persuaded and hold different positions. I am of course aware of the concerns and the risk that the teacher will be unable or unwilling to do this, and that sometimes he will be biased even unconsciously, and still, in my assessment, the price of the opposite path (avoiding discussion of such topics) is higher. Therefore discussion in class should indeed allow for and draw upon different positions and values. If one wants to preserve objectivity, one can try to formulate organized materials that will present students with the full range of positions on the topic under discussion, and the teacher can stimulate discussion and debate and also express his own position after going through the whole range. There are other ways to do this as well.
But all this pertains to classroom learning. The exam, and certainly the grade, are not supposed to deal with values or depend on them. One can ask informational questions such as what racism is (on condition that first the teachers are taught what the correct answer is, because most of them do not know), what this or that worldview is and what it says, what those who hold that worldview think on this or that issue, and so on. But under no circumstances is it right to judge, in the exam and in the grade, the positions themselves. In exams and in grading there must be a complete separation between positions and values, on the one hand, and information and skill, on the other. One may of course assign a value-laden topic for a paper or as an exam question, both in civics and in composition, but the grade must be given according to the quality of the writing and argumentation and according to the knowledge expressed in the essay, not according to its evaluative content and the positions expressed in it.
Summary: The Role of the Minister of Education and His Ministry
Insistence on an education that engages these questions (critically and fairly), and on an exam and a grade that bluntly ignore them, is precisely the difference between education and muzzling.
Such a policy would also bring the Ministry of Education and the Minister of Education somewhat closer to their proper place. The Minister of Education should be a technocrat, and no influence whatsoever should be given to him over the contents. Certainly not over the values that find expression in the content of study. In general, the very existence of a Ministry of Education and a Minister of Education in their current form is an injury to democracy and to common sense, and indeed an insult to intelligence, but that is already another subject.
[2] It is worth seeing here Gadi Alexandrowicz's comment on this issue.
[3] Incidentally, I must say that the subject of the story in Galili's piece was the late Prof. Franz Ollendorff, an unquestionable genius (my father knew him well at the Technion). It is not clear from the article whether he himself identified with the story, but if so, the conclusion is that a person can be a scientific genius and a moral idiot. At least regarding Gideon Levy I have no dilemma.
Discussion
Indeed, words of steel!
But allow me to try to play the devil’s advocate.
It may be that the thinkers behind this brilliant idea believe there is a Kantian-style objective morality based on rational grounds.
Accordingly, anyone who incites to violence and racism would have his answer disqualified—not for moral reasons, but because that would be conclusive proof that he did not understand the material. A student who thinks racism is moral is like a student who thinks the sum of the angles of a triangle is not 180 degrees.
True, the idea that in the moral realm there are clear truths as in geometry is naive. But even so, great men like Spinoza and Kant fell into that illusion. If only that were the Education Ministry people’s only sin.
On second thought, every humanities matriculation exam contains an educational element. Who gets to decide what literary canon every student should know? Who gets to decide which topics to study in history? I fully agree that the Ministry of Education should not be allowed to determine what counts as racism and incitement, but by the same token one could criticize any humanities matriculation exam.
Then let them teach it without putting it on the matriculation exam. Beyond that, I’m in favor of dealing with these issues, but not of grading people on their positions.
There is a difference between the syllabus (which works are studied) and value judgment. Obviously, a total separation is impossible, but here there is a clear difference.
A very correct remark, and in truth I hesitated about this when I wrote the post. Formally, you may be right (as a moral realist I cannot dismiss it out of hand). But practically, it is important to make a distinction. Beyond that, there are factual questions (are Arabs less intelligent, or are blacks more athletic) with regard to which there is room to reflect them in a grade as well, because these are factual matters (even though they fall under the umbrella of political correctness).
A few things
A. The person responsible for the MOR questions is Dr. Moishi Weinstock, chairman of the Pedagogical Secretariat. He is a somewhat naive person who is trying to bring these questions into the entire education system.
B. These questions can be good questions and withstand criticism (including an appropriate rubric) if they test the ability to formulate a position, justify it, and base it on the material studied.
The Henrietta Szold Institute, which is charged with writing the matriculation exams, is not precise enough, and the questions that come out of its hands are not perfect—how much more so when it comes to questions formulated by teachers during the year.
That is why, for example, NITE (which is in charge of the psychometric exam and other tests) does not like questions of this type, also for reasons of bias.
Nevertheless, it is proper to encourage questions of this type, on the assumption that teachers and question writers understand how they should be asked and how they should be answered.
C. Indeed, for example, in teaching Hebrew language for the matriculation exam, an entire year is devoted to teaching students how to write an argumentative essay. When opening such classes, I tell the students that I do not identify with the instruction to write an argument, because in my opinion a youth is not supposed to express positions, but mainly to absorb positions and examine whether the arguments hold water. Only afterward should he formulate arguments of his own.
In this sense, Weinstock’s choice to go with MOR expresses a desire for a debate culture and for values that take precedence over knowledge, and that is more of a problem than an achievement.
D. The problem is not only the minister. The education system is full of youth counselors and babysitters, and has very few people of learning and spirit.
In my opinion there is room for such a question, provided the question is not “Express your opinion” but rather “Express a politically correct opinion.” It is permissible to teach political correctness, and it is permissible to require a student to be able to formulate a politically correct answer. Just as in the study of law the examinee is required to present the arguments of both sides, even if he is fully convinced that one side is right morally or legally.
There is another principled problem with this form of examination: is it forbidden to think that my race is superior to the Afro-black race? At most, there is a problem with expressing such views because of the harm they cause others, but since when are other people’s thoughts under our jurisdiction, such that we can protest those thoughts? (Especially since “The Holy One, blessed be He, does not count an evil thought as a deed.”)
At most, there is room to investigate other people’s thoughts when there is a reasonable suspicion that they may harm society in the future. Obviously that is not the case here.
It seems that in the article you tried to cram in as many times as possible the terms “idiot,” “fool,” “intellectual disability,” “simpletons,” etc.
I have to say that it grates a bit.
With God’s help, 13 Elul 5777
The very proposal that examinees write essays in which they express positions on current issues is important both for developing alertness to public and value-laden questions, and for cultivating the ability to formulate a position on questions that are on the agenda and to articulate it—skills needed by a citizen who is supposed to be a partner in determining the public position.
One important thing is missing here. The ability to formulate and express the writer’s own view develops in such an essay. By contrast, the capacity to listen to another person’s opinion, understand his system of considerations, and disagree with him in a respectful and honoring way—still does not find expression in such an essay.
I would suggest an improvement: the student should receive two position papers from the two sides of the divide, and be required to explain both sides of the debate—what A’s reasoning is and what B’s reasoning is, and how each deals with the arguments of his counterpart. Finally, the examinee would define who seems more justified to him.
Thus the student would become aware of the complexity of public and value questions. He would learn to listen to and respect even a dissenting opinion, and at the same time to stand by his own view.
Regards, S.Z. Levinger
As people have noted here, there is a problem of how to grade such an essay without the examiner’s own position influencing his assessment. And likewise the problem of determining which opinion is plainly beyond the pale.
Perhaps one could suggest that all writers receive a fixed grade for the essay, since in a democratic state everyone has an equal right to express his opinion. The comments of the examiner—or better, the examiners—from both sides of the divide would be given to the examinee. They would not affect his grade, but would help him in his future path.
Paragraph 2, line 2:
…and to disagree with it in a respectful way…
Paragraph 3, line 2:
… … who seems more justified to him.
The more substantive question is
Did the author of the post bother to seek clarification from the Ministry of Education before hurling harsh words of abuse at them? The ABCs of civics: “Hear between your brothers,” and only then: “Judge righteously”!
Regards, S.Z. Levinger
On the eve of Tuesday, 14 Elul 5777,
for the portion “and you shall eat the flesh of your sons.”
It seems to me that your proposal is not relevant, because in practice the comments of examiners supposedly known as “neutral” on issues on the national agenda will be biased, and I doubt very much whether they will serve the purpose of developing the young generation’s expressive ability that you seek to create.
As someone who took matriculation exams in the not-so-distant past, I got the impression that these questions are intended to steer the youth toward a very specific opinion, even when ostensibly there are arguments from both sides and supposed “neutrality.”
In addition, regarding our conversation about column 86 🙂
I feel that youth cannot draw their conclusions directly and unmediatedly from the books of our early sages, whose teaching you claim merely to transmit as a conduit, as the Rabbi of blessed memory said: “All the secular literature that has arisen in recent times, which contains much of ‘the wisdom of scribes shall become foul,’ and many sparks of light and impressions of redemption, all comes from the conduit of the conversation of the servants of the Patriarchs,” which of course creates confusion and discomfort among many young people.
My friends and I maintain our recommendation that you serve as a sort of prayer leader, shatz :), and convey directly the words of our rabbis to the youth in clear language on an organized website.
Regards,
Y.H. HaKohen.
With God’s help, 14 Elul, for the portion “The Lord will open for you His good treasure,” 5777
To Y.H. Cohen — greetings,
I will try to summarize the common denominator of your two arguments. In the first two paragraphs you argued that the words of examiners whose position does not suit the views of the youth will not be able to help them; and in the last two paragraphs you argued that youth are incapable of absorbing Torah statements.
The common side of both arguments is that youth cannot be exposed to positions they are unaccustomed to, and therefore anyone who voices positions that are uncomfortable for them must be shown the way out, lest the innocent youth come to embarrassment and confusion 🙂
I am a bit more optimistic regarding the ability of youth to grasp complexities and understand diverse positions, whether the positions of our early and later sages, or the positions of people holding political and moral opinions different from ours. Seeing the complexity and the logic that exists in opinions that disagree with one another develops and enriches independent thinking.
Regards, S.Z. Levinger
That is exactly what I said. One can certainly ask such questions, but assess them on the basis of abilities (formulation and presentation of an argument), not on the basis of worldviews and values.
Well, that is true but trivial. One can study political correctness just as one studies communism. As long as one is examined and graded on abilities and not on values.
Some would say that it is not forbidden but mistaken. Beyond that, in an exam one expresses those positions, not merely thinks them.
On the contrary, I tried to delete them. What came out was after the censorship I imposed. But they earned it, and keep earning it, fair and square.
It reminds me of the story about the Ketzot HaChoshen. An author whose book had not succeeded like his came to him and asked: How is it that your books are so successful, whereas my book, which is no less good, is not nearly as successful among learners? The Ketzot HaChoshen asked him: When do you write the book? The man replied: In the morning, when I’m fresh and clear-headed. The Ketzot HaChoshen said to him: I write at night; in the morning I delete. Mark this well.
A response to the rabbi’s comments above:
“In an exam one expresses the position and does not only think it.”
That is exactly the issue: you cannot force someone to express his position and then protest it; if you have a problem with the position, let him keep it to himself.
(Whether it is mistaken or not is part of the issue; a person has the right to think differently. The prohibition is of course only because of the harm to others.)
And from the story about the Ketzot HaChoshen, another recommendation emerges for the exam system: that the students be summoned the day after the exam and allowed to delete and correct what they wrote the previous day, so that their words will make a better impression on the examiner and they will receive a higher grade 🙂
Regards, S.Z. Levinger
And on the substance of the matter —
Self-censorship of one’s words is a very good thing, but it cannot substitute for giving the object of criticism the right to be heard before one goes out against him in public. With all due respect to journalists—even when the facts they report are correct—it happens that they occasionally omit details whose knowledge completely changes the picture, and it is quite possible that here too, turning to the people in the Ministry of Education would have added new data and new insights for you. “Slowly, slowly—four hundred zuz is worth it.”
S.Z.L.,
Sorry for responding twice in a row, but in case you haven’t noticed, the owner of this site is not a journalist. Let me also let you in on the fact that his turning to the Ministry of Education probably would not elicit a meaningful answer from the ministry.
With God’s help, 14 Elul 5777
Even journalists, whom even their devoted readers treat from the outset with “limited warranty,” are bound by a code of ethics obligating them (in section 5) to verify, insofar as possible, every item of information they publish, even if it has already been published elsewhere, and even if the verification causes a delay in publication.
How much more so, then, should a scholar and a man of Torah, whose words carry weight and authority for his students and are respected even by those who are not his devoted students, thoroughly verify the facts before accepting them as absolute truth. Certainly it is not proper to call people fools and simpletons in public before the matter has been clarified beyond all reasonable doubt.
In the present case, nothing would have harmed the discussion had the rabbi asked the Ministry of Education for clarification before publishing his words. What would we have lost if this discussion had gone up another week or two later as “Column 93” instead of being “Column 89”?
Regards, S.Z. Levinger
If no substantive answer had been received from the Ministry of Education (which is obligated to respond within two weeks), then one could say: “The response of the Ministry of Education was not received,” and that would have intensified the criticism of them.
Where do you get these stupid ideas from?
People are allowed to criticize institutions without first asking them for a response (which in any case will not be received; I do not know where you got the two weeks from, and would be glad to hear).
Journalistic ethics likewise do not prevent journalists from expressing an opinion without requesting a response when the facts are agreed upon. Here there is a principled discussion about the proper questions on matriculation exams, and it makes no difference whatsoever whether this is a practice used in Israel, North Korea, or nowhere at all. The Ministry of Education’s opinion is completely irrelevant to the discussion because this is a principled discussion, and “Hear between your brothers” does not mean that the judge has to hear the talmudic pilpulim of the litigants.
And in general, why didn’t you first turn to the object of your own criticism? Instead, you write about him publicly without hearing his claims. Perhaps he did approach the Ministry of Education and, out of respect for them, did not want to quote their response? Perhaps he has some other explanation? Adorn yourself first!
Indeed, if the discussion had focused on the principled level, without giving personal “grades” like “the Ministry of Non-Education” and the like, it could have been conducted as a principled discussion while noting that if the reports are true, then such conduct is improper, etc.
Regards, S.Z. Levinger
Indeed, one should approach the person criticized privately before rebuking him in public, but in the present case, in light of past experience where RMDA wondered why I had approached him privately and not responded on the site, I got the impression that he prefers this channel from the outset.
And to your question —
In the Civil Service Regulations it is explicitly stated that a public servant must give a substantive response to an inquirer within 14 days (and if he is unable to give a substantive response within that period, he must inform the inquirer within that time when he expects to be able to provide a full substantive response). That is the law, and for failure to comply with it a disciplinary complaint may be filed against the employee. See the article by attorney Avinoam Magen, “The state does not answer—what do you do?”, on the ynet website.
Regards, S.Z. Levinger
You are reading something selectively. The article there actually explains that this is an entirely theoretical matter that does not happen in practice. Maybe you think one should make such a formal request just to check a box, and that fits with your being a Yekke fussbudget, but anyone with a bit of sense can understand that it is a stupid idea. There is absolutely no need to do something just to check a box when the result is known in advance. I can certainly understand that some people find it emotionally difficult to deviate from the rules (for example, Yekke fussbudgets), but even they are supposed to understand that rationally it has neither rhyme nor reason.
But if everyone insisted that the state authorities fulfill their duty—then it would not remain theoretical… that is citizenship.
Regards, S.Z. Levinger
What does that have to do with anything?
You say it is worthwhile to insist that the authorities fulfill their duty. You can suggest that everyone act toward that end, that everyone send questions to government ministries and after 14 days appeal to the complaints commissioner with a complaint that no response was received (and who would they complain about?).
Good for you! But how does that relate to the need to approach the Ministry of Education for a response before criticizing it? You presented this as though it were somehow connected to “Hear between your brothers,” but when I know in advance that I will not receive a response anyway, there is no point in it (and as stated, in any case there is no connection, because here we are dealing with a theoretical discussion; to ask the ministry for a response to a barrage of insults is simply stupid).
With God’s help, 15 Elul 5777
To Yishai — greetings,
And if most state officials do not behave properly and do not answer inquiries—does that mean that a particular official too is certainly “like everyone else,” and that there is no point in approaching him, and that one is morally permitted to judge him unfavorably and disgrace him publicly without checking?
The Torah commanded, “Hear between your brothers, and judge righteously,” not in order to check a box, but out of a real concern lest judgment be distorted because we do not have the complete picture of the story. You would do well to read Yehuda Samet’s book, The Other Side of the Story, which describes many cases in which partial knowledge of the facts led to incorrect judgment.
There is a well-known story about Rabbi Aryeh Levin, of blessed memory, who was appalled when he saw his friend in the midst of the funeral of a close friend stop to buy a flowerpot. He thought to himself: “That is what he is thinking about while his dead friend lies before him?” But Rabbi Aryeh, as a man of halakhah, “worked by the rules” and asked his friend, “What is this and why?” His friend told him that on that day a Jew hospitalized in the lepers’ ward had died, and the doctors had stated emphatically that if by noon a flowerpot was not brought in order to bury the tefillin, they would be burned.
Now, after the inquiry and after learning the full picture, the impression was completely reversed. The very person suspected of callousness was revealed as a man of kindness who had cared for a miserable and lonely Jew in his lifetime, and after his death made sure his tefillin would be buried and not burned.
In any event, if we made a minimal effort, approached the person, and he did not fulfill his legal duty to provide a substantive response—there is room to ask a sage expert in the laws of harmful speech whether his silence may be regarded as an admission.
And in general, beautiful is the saying of the employer to his worker: “You judged me favorably—may the Omnipresent judge you favorably.”
With blessings for writing and sealing for a good year of peace and blessing, life, grace and kindness and mercy, with all the House of Israel, S.Z. Levinger.
In the article by attorney Magen that I cited above, he writes that an inquiry to the ministry spokesman or to the office of the minister or the director-general receives a quicker response (and presumably, to a prominent man well known by name like RMDA, all the more so they would answer quickly).
Also from the standpoint of the issue, which concerns ministry policy, it seems to me that the senior policy-setting ranks are the appropriate address for clarifying the matter.
Regards, S.Z. Levinger
As for my position regarding the substance of the program—support in principle for the very idea of writing essays, while reserving objections to its problems and proposing a solution to those problems—I set it out in the comment “An excellent proposal—and its problematic aspect, with a suggested direction for a solution,” which is earlier in time and later in place.
Apparently this really isn’t the wisest decision. But in a libertarian state like the one you long for, why would there even be civics classes? Aren’t civics classes meant to make the students better citizens?