It's important this kind of opinion piece exists

[removed]

I really wish they stopped both-sidesing the issue. They do the same to crimes against the Asian community.

I wonder if the people irked by this are just hasidim? Non Hasidic Jews are frequently at odds with them and rarely agree. I wouldn’t be surprised if the latter would agree with the Times.

The author is trying to paint a picture that the Times has it out for Hasidim, pointing to their articles related to Hasidic education (he just refers to “Jewish education”, but in reality it’s just Hasidic), but it’s not like those articles are incorrect. There’s plenty of evidence supporting how Hasidic education is failing kids.

I don’t think misrepresenting the crown heights riots has anything to do with Hasidic education.

You’re right which is why it was odd that the author of your article brought it up as some way to paint the Times

There’s a clear bias here concerning the way the times covers Hasidic education, but that doesn’t mean the article is without merit.

Can you find some sources of bias that aren’t coming from someone who is already biased?

The NYtimes frequently does exposes about corruption in the local education system and municipal government, how is doing the same about hasidism bias?

hasidim but i don't believe 'em!

This article made no sense, I didn’t learn a thing. So it’s essentially just to point out, it’s the other side who is bad with no context only excuses.

I think they were saying the article has a bias against the Times, but the article still has merit.

This. The vast majority of even conservative and orthodox Jews place huge value on education and it's role in the success of their children. I have many friends who grew up orthodox and many went to private and even Catholic schools if they were the best in the area.

Non-secular education is specific to certain branches of Hasidism and Haredi Judiasm. It's objectively terrible and gives no kids no choice about their role in the community later in life as they end up extremely dependent.

1. I think “misrepresenting” is too strong of a word when it comes to the riots.

2. The author is clearly upset about the recent very accurate coverage of the corruption in many Hasidic schools receiving state, city, and federal funds.

That’s correct I could’ve phrased it better.

Like the Times?

Wow gottem lol 😂 😂

[deleted]

Apparently not. People don’t like having their biases challenged.

Did you read the article? This isn't about education. This is about how the Al Sharpton supported anti-Semitic riot which killed three people in 1991 is being portrayed as a gang war between blacks and Hasidim.

The Times has had it out for Hasidim for far longer than the education controversy has been around. About five years ago, NYT made a big deal that they will start an effort to have their hiring practices reflect the diversity of New York City. When Jewish Twitter pointed out that this would mean they would have to hire 20-30 Hasidim and many more religious Jews, they simply stopped talking about it.

I don’t think it is. It was definitely more one sided in terms of Black people assaulting Jewish people.

Hasidim don’t meet the diversity criteria the times is interested in.

You’re right, it doesn’t, which is why it was weird for this articles author to bring it up.

Yeah ok….

It's in the context of the general anti-religious Jew trend that the Grey Lady has had since forever. But your comment about how "just hasidim are irked by this" is flat out wrong. For one, Algemeiner is a secular Jewish paper that frequently publishes anti-Hasidic content itself.

In 1991 the black community in Crown Heights rioted and attacked Jewish people and businesses. The NYT is misreporting it as fights between Jews and blacks.

Yes. Sometimes "the other side" is just bad and there are no good people on both sides. The context is that a kid was killed in a car accident and people like Al Sharpton built up a career telling black Americans that racism is all the Jews fault.

[deleted]

Why is the article quoting from a heritage foundation sponsored opinion site?

Because it's not a news article. It's an opinion piece by a right-wing pundit

Yeah ok. Show me facts to the contrary.

User name checks out .

I hope you can do better than that.

SMD

Better??

Well at least you’re consistent. Enjoy your weekend.

Isn't that simply a matter of the process by which racial categories were constructed by the government in the 1970's? David Bernstein has an extremely interesting book about this: Classified: The Untold Story of Racial Classification in America. South Asians and East Asians, who have little in common, were conflated as "Asian American." Jews specifically did not want to be in a category of their own: imagine the anti-Semitism that would result from accurate counts of Jews in academia, medicine, law, etc. Thus for purposes of government statistics, Jews are "white," along with other peoples with origins in the Middle East. If you're going to have diversity requirements for Hasidim, you would need to have such requirements for, say, the Welsh and Catalonians too.

You kinda skip over everything he said about their reporting of the riot...

I'm not a hasidic jew, but I certainly see the point he's making about the language the Times used and their characterization of the riot. Did you know that the Times tried to cover up the holocaust?

Bernstein is an insidious moron and a joke in the legal community and I promise you that has nothing to do with whatever he's saying about the Times. You probably didn't realize this, being a Bernstein fan, but it's clear the Times recognizes Jews as a racial category. The point was they don't recognize Hasidim.

They'd rather argue about whether or not the Times is biased because of their education reporting, and ignore the entire point of the article, which is that the NYTimes continues to facially misrepresent the riots and the roles Jews played in them.

[deleted]