Singles Connection


Get on TheList!
STORIES IN THIS ISSUE
FEATURES
     Groups seek Jewish young adults
     Nautical museum in Sonoran Desert?
     Iraqi War veteran homecoming
COMMUNITY
     Funding education
SPECIAL SECTION
Fall Style

     Set a glorious table
NATION
     Agencies learn from Northeast blackout
     New Zealand cartoonist fired
WORLD
     Dachau residents seek to escape past
     Heat wave fills French morgues
ISRAEL
     AIPAC ups congressional Israel trips
     Cubans make first Birthright trip
     Firsthand account of bombing
     P.A. faces final test
OPINION
     Editorial - Consolidating connections
     Commentary - Honor killings
     Commentary - Reading is Jewishly fundamental
     Voices - Vouchers remain controversial
     In the Mail - Letters to the Editor
ARTS
     Hot notes in cool climes
BUSINESS
     Mind Your Own Business - Business Calendar
     People on the move
COMING UP
     This Week
MILESTONES
     Births
     B'nai Mitzvah
     Engagements
     Obituaries
SENIORS
     Events
SINGLES
     Datebook
TORAH STUDY
     Always maintain religious balance

Get on TheList!
HOME PAGE

August 22, 2003/Av 24 5763, Vol. 55, No. 52

Vouchers remain controversial

RICHARD M. SPIEGEL
I take issue with the response from Rabbi Zvi Holland ("Vouchers ensure Jewish continuity," Jewish News, Aug. 1) commenting on your editorial about school voucher programs. ("No quick fix," Jewish News, July 18). His criticism misses the mark, in part, because he mingles two very distinct issues together to support his position: (1) whether the concept of vouchers for private education is a good solution for the perceived poor quality of public education; and (2) if religious schools should be included in such a program.

One needs to distinguish between the original impetus for the voucher concept, namely to make an impact on the deplorable conditions in some inner- city school systems, from the concern that the quality of public education is not optimal.

The second issue is, to me, more clear, and touches upon how we perceive our Jewishness. Separation between church and state has been a mainstay of American Jewry for generations. This is perhaps a reflection of our communal history of legal subjugation over the millennia, but also speaks of our Jewish obligation to protect other minorities from suffering the degradation we have endured.

Holland's saying that the U.S. Supreme Court approved a specific voucher plan does not obviate our need to carefully examine any new plan for its justice. Besides, that argument is inconsequential, as the editorial pointed out that the Arizona Constitution has much more strict boundaries regarding church and state relations.

But he misses the point when he says no one is "forced to send their child to any nonpublic school." The issue is that everyone is forced to support religious schools with tax dollars.

Holland's primary interest seems to be to gain support for Jewish education to "ensure Jewish continuity," not in improving public education. I would point out that the American Jewish community has continued for more than 350 years without public support of its schools.

Richard M. Spiegel is a Phoenix resident.


Home