Q&A: Yeshivas and Universities
Yeshivas and Universities
Question
A question that may already have been asked here, but things still aren’t clear to me, and I also didn’t find a similar discussion, so with the Rabbi’s permission I’ll ask again.
Is a university entitled to prevent Haredim from studying in gender-separated settings within its walls? I thought that since the university receives funding that also comes out of Haredi taxpayers’ pockets, they have the right to receive such conditions. But on the other hand, yeshivas also receive funding from secular taxpayers’ pockets, and therefore they too would have the right to study inside the yeshiva in mixed classes. What does the Rabbi think? Are there additional aspects to the discussion?
Answer
For some reason I overlooked this question.
I also think that in principle it has no such right, and it would be proper to open suitable separated classes. However, the university does have legitimate efficiency considerations. If there is sufficient demand for separate universities, then suitable universities should be built for them.
Yeshivas are not public institutions; they merely benefit from public funding. There is a difference. If there were a major need among secular people for yeshivas, one should fund a yeshiva for them according to their own outlook.
Discussion on Answer
I don’t think that matters. If there is a public that needs more lecturers, then that is the demand. It isn’t reasonable to require them to give up their principles, or to prevent them from getting an academic education because of a problem for female lecturers.
(For my part, of course, I do not identify with the prohibition against female lecturers teaching men.)
It seems to me that you didn’t understand what I asked.
I said that in the women’s classes, the female students would agree to have both male lecturers and female lecturers.
In the men’s classes, the male students would agree to have only male lecturers.
The result would be that, generally speaking, the male lecturers would have more employment opportunities; there would be more open positions for them. By contrast, the female lecturers would have to compete over fewer jobs.
It really wasn’t that complicated. I understood perfectly well, and I wrote what I think about it.
What is the difference between a public institution and one that receives public funding?
What is the basis for that distinction?
A public institution is supposed to provide equal service to the general public and operate without a specific agenda. A private institution, even if it receives public assistance (for part of its budget), is not subject to all those rules, though it is subject to some of them.
Is there not a legal problem of discrimination when a woman applies for a university lecturer position and is rejected because she is a woman who cannot lecture to male students? How can the interviewer reject her legally?
Exactly the same way they would not hire a man to model women’s clothing, or a religious person for a job that requires driving on the Sabbath. He is not suitable for it. A lecturer for a Haredi men’s course cannot be a woman. That’s all.
What about the lecturers?
In principle there is an equality problem with separate study tracks, vis-à-vis the lecturers.
Male lecturers can teach in women’s classes as well, whereas female lecturers can teach women only.