NYT on Lawrence School Board Conflict - UPDATED

I'm sure everyone who gets the Long Island section of the NY Times saw the front-page piece on the Lawrence school board conflict. I was certainly surprised to see it - almost as surprised as I was to see the mention of this blog on the second page of the article.

As far as my observations on the piece:
1. This line bothered me:

Schools may seem to be a peculiar battlefield in this power struggle, since most Orthodox families here send their children to private Orthodox day schools. But many of this district’s Orthodox residents object to paying school taxes that average about $6,000 per home for a system they do not use. Their leaders also complain that more public money should be channeled to the Orthodox day schools, which by law are limited to tax-financed busing, books and special education services.

Now, I personally have never heard a local community leader call for "more money to be channeled to the Orthodox day schools". As just about everyone here knows, and as the article makes sure to point out, public funds are only mandated for busing, books and special education. I have never heard anyone argue otherwise. What I have heard - and I agree wholeheartedly with that view - is that the private school community is simply not getting equitable treatment when it comes to these few services the state actually mandated dollars to be spent on. I posted here about apparent cuts to busing in recent months, and I have recently heard stories that made my blood boil of private school children who are in dire need of special education services that have been refused by the district.

The law makes the distinction that money cannot be, as the article puts it, "channeled to Orthodox day schools" or any other religious school. And I support that church/state divide. Tax dollars, however, are perfectly allowed to be spent on the children. And what is being objected to in this district is the method of denying children, based on their choice to attend a private school, the services they are as entitled to as any public school child.

2. This was just sick:

“We feel invaded,” said an Atlantic Beach delicatessen customer, a self-described non-Orthodox Jew and activist parent who declined to give her name. “We don’t mind them being here, but taking over and shutting down the school system is not the right thing.”

Um...what??? They "feel invaded"? They "don't mind us being here"???? Is she kidding? How charitable for her to "not mind" us exercising our right to buy a home in any neighborhood we want. Does anyone here entertain the notion, for even a second, that a comment like that would be tolerated about any other ethnic group? Ugh.

3. The notion is presented in the piece that this tension is somehow new, and related solely to the election of an Orthodox majority to the school board. This is the subtitle to the headline:

Tensions rise after Orthodox Jews take control of a school board on Long Island.

"Tensions rise"? I don't think so. As a mater of fact, in my opinion, things have been quite anticlimactically quiet since the new board took office. The rancor that permeated the community during the past few election cycles was palpably higher at school board meetings than it is now.

Another line, from a photo caption accompanying the piece, that I didn't like one bit:

On Long Island, the Orthodox Jewish majority on the school board in Lawrence, which is led by Asher Mansdorf, right, has been criticized as being unresponsive to the rest of the community.

Oh please. That is an absurd allegation to make. First of all, the Orthodox board members took office on July 1. I mean, come on. Unresponsive? In the short time since they've taken office? Not quite. If anything, that's been the private school community's line about the board's unresponsiveness to our needs up until now. It would also be nice if the NY TImes would back up their statement with some quotes. They allege that the board has been criticized of something that they don't present one quote to prove. Are we just supposed to take the Times' word for it that the criticism exists? Also, the Times states throughout the article that the board has an Orthodox majority. That's just untrue. David Sussman is not Orthodox, and his kids attended public school. He may tend to vote in a manner that more closely aligns with the private school agenda - but then the article should say just that. The Times should not try to wrap everything up into this tidy little Orthodox/non-Orthodox package so that their readers can have a more simplified view of what is going on here. This is a complex situation with many different sides to the story. When the Times implies otherwise they do a disservice to the community in discussion, as well as to every one of their readers they mislead. ***Update: Actually, a commenter points out that there is an Orthodox majority, even without David Sussman's vote. The Times is correct on that point, and even mentions Sussman's status. I stand corrected. (Teaches me not to dash off a post right ater Shabbos and while doing ten other things.) The rest of the point I've made stands.

4. Last but not least:

A number of Orthodox residents declined to comment when approached in public. But on the Orthomom blog, an anonymous Orthodox supporter complained of “having to pay twice” for taxes and tuition. An unidentified critic replied, “Maybe you should take advantage of public education or move back to Brooklyn.” The Orthodox supporter countered: “It seems a better solution is that you should move. After all, you’re the one who seems unhappy with how the neighborhood is changing.”

Listen, I'm not complaining about getting an NY Times mention. But I find it amusing that the Times is putting forth anonymous comments left on an anonymous blog as an indication of how people feel.

That's all for now - more later, after I clean the house up from a busy Shabbos.

Update: Krum has an incisive takedown of the article here. His post a must-read.

Previous posts on this issue:
September 2006: I, II
August 2006: I,
July 2006: I, II, III, IV, V,
June 2006: I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII
May 2006: I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII
April 2006: I, II, III, IV
March 2006: I, II
December 2005: I
November 2005: I
October 2005: I
August 2005: I
July 2005: I
June 2005: I, II
May 2005: I, II, III, IV, V