Jewish Post, Indianapolis, Marion County, 26 February 1997 — Page 8

HIH

a&Ld FGbm(xJ.&J2%Z Jewish groups divided on school vouchers

WASHINGTON (JTA) — The pledge by Republican leaders to make school voucher legislation a top priority in the 105th Congress comes as the organized Jewish community is re-examin-ing its approach to the controversial issue. At its annual conference here this month, the National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council, an umbrella organization of local and national Jewish groups, debated the notion of providing federally funded tuition vouchers for use at private and parochial schools. NJCRAC has long opposed voucher initiatives — also known as "school choice" — on both constitutional and policy grounds. But increasing disillusionment with the state of public education, coupled with concerns about the often prohibitive cost of Jewish day school education, has prompted many in the community to take a new look at the issue. Jews on both sides of the debate see a pressing need to bolster Jewish education, particularly in light of the 'continuity" crisis. Sharp differences, however, persist over how to balance that imperative against church-state concerns. Most in the organized Jewish community steadfastly assert that the idea of handing out federal funds to pay for education at a religious school runs headlong in to the wall separating church and state. For their part, voucher advocates, led by the Orthodox community, remain confident of their constitutional footing. They argue that because vouchers would go directly to families, which can then decide how to use them, the practice does not translate into government endorsement of religion. They also point to school choice as the best bet for improving access to a quality Jewish education. "The Jewish community should be looking at the issue in terms of its long-range interests of Jewish survival in the United States, which argues in favor of programs that would support secular education in Jewish schools," said Nathan Lewin, a Washington attorney specializing in First Amendment law who has argued dozens of cases for the Orthodox community. Voucher opponents agree that Jewish education needs a boost, but they do not see federally funded vouchers as an

appropriate response. Robert Rifkind, president of the American Jewish Committee, believes that ensuring access to a quality Jewish education is a task best taken up by the Jewish community, not government. "I don't understand why it is that the most affluent, the most successful, best-edu-cated Jewish community in the history of the world" cannot continue the tradition of Jews looking "after the Jewish education of their own kids," he said. In addition to constitutional concerns, opponents also assert that school choice initiatives threaten to undermine the public education system by tapping an already inadequate pool of resources. "School choice gets packaged in a way that on the surface appeals to inner city people and suggests innovation in education, but unfortunately results in a diversion of limited federal resources from public education to the private and religious school sector," said Jess Hordes, director of the Anti-Defamation League's Washington office. Proponents counter that voucher programs would actually improve public schools by forcing them to become more competitive with private institutions. Some voucher advocates in the Jewish community concede, however, that the voucher system's impact on the public school system is not their principal concern. David Zwiebel, general counsel and director of government affairs for the fervently Orthodox Agudath Israel of America, said his organization supports voucher initiatives partly out of its own "parochial concern" of making Jewish education more affordable. But, he added, "it's a smart idea generally to allow parents maximal choice in an issue as important as the education of their children." Some of those in the field of Jewish education, meanwhile, doubt that vouchers will amount to a panacea. Rabbi Philip Field, head of the Akiba Hebrew Academy in Philadelphia, does not believe that voucher plans are "aggressive enough" to make much of a dent in day school tuition costs, which at his school stands at just over $10,000 per year. "Plus you deal with the other issue of crossing the church-state line," said Field.

In taking up what has proved to be one of the nation's most contentious education issues — and one of the most divisive among Jews — NJCRAC said it wants the Jewish community to become actively involved not just in the debate over vouchers, but in the larger national d ialogue about fixing the education system. "Our decision to revisit this issue this year is an attempt to make our policies as relevant as possible and to confirm that the community still feels as strongly" opposed to vouchers "as it has in the past," said Craig Sumberg, the organization's director of public information and legal affairs. For his part, Lewin said he hopes NJCRAC's decision to re-examine the issue "reflects some willingness to modify positions." But Hordes of ADL said Jews need to be careful "in ensuring that the solutions we come up with for the real problems that are there don't undermine our commitment to the principles upon which our religious liberty has been built." NJCRAC isn't the only Jewish organization that plans to weigh in on the issue. The Jewish Policy Center, a think tank affiliated with the Republican-aligned National Jewish Coalition, is launching a campaign to promote school vouchers. Republicans in Congress, meanwhile, are gearing up for what promises to be the most concerted push ever mounted for voucher legislation. Sponsored by Sen. Paul Coverdell, R-Ga., the bill would create a $50 million five-year pilot program offering vouchers to low-income parents whose children attend an "unsafe school." The outlook for passage of the bill remains unclear. In the last Congress, debate over a school voucher plan for the District of Columbia died in the Senate when Republicans were unable to override a Democrat-led filibuster. The Senate has since taken on a more conservative face, but enacting voucher legislation remains a particularly daunting task given President Clinton's stated opposition to the idea. As Washington mulls the issue, debate over school choice continues in many states. In Ohio and Wisconsin — the only two states that have implemented voucher

At Jewish Medical Ethics meet Physicians, scientists told Sabbath’s lesson By MIRIAM L. ZIMMERMAN SAN FRANCISCO — Physicians and other scientists should take a lesson from G-d's creation of the Sabbath, by learning when to stop, Lord Immanuel Jakobovits told the 8th Annual International Conference on Jewish Medical Ethics. Jakobovits, former chief rabbi of the British Commonwealth, noted that G-d is praised for creating the Shabbat, the most glorious of days, when He rested and created nothing. The rabbi said the ethical problems wrought by pushing the boundaries of medical research and science, creating technologies that can destroy creation and create artificial life, raise the possibility that man needs to learn when to stop. This dialectic between G-d as the creator and G-d who knew when to stop, is reflected in two names for G-d, the "Almighty” and "El Shaddai." The latter name for G-d is printed on every mezuzah. These concerns should frame the ethical debate between scientists and ethicists Jakobovits told the gathering of physicians and scientists from around the world. The group gave him a standing ovation. The discussions occupied the researchers and ethicists for three days during the Washington-Lincoln Day weekend in the • Park Plaza Hotel at Burlingame, just south of San Francisco. The Conference was presented by the Institute for Jewish Medical Ethics of the Hebrew Academy of San Francisco and jointly sponsored by the Stanford University School of Medicine and the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine. Dr. Barry Oberstein, conference chair, said about 450 persons attended, representing groups in Australia, Canada, England, Israel and the United States. ’This conference is based on ethics that are outlined in the Torah, that show us a path to follow," Oberstein said. "The ethics that we discuss are based on the word of G-d. Basic principles don’t change with the situations....ethics that are not based on Torah are just what one person thinks or writes, changing; it may be dangerous for doctors, patients, and society to follow. But [these principles are] grounded in the Torah and the oral law given at Sinai.” Unlike many of the conference presenters, Oberstein is a Reform Jew. Rabbi Maurice Lamm, who survived a medical crisis that incapacitated him for months, urged the doctors to infuse their patients with hope as well as pain killers. Doctors already are good at alleviating pain, Lamm said. They must go further, he said, and seek to reduce suffering by restoring to their practice the mind-body-spirit continuum that has eroded since the Renaissance. This mind-body split began, Lamm said, with Descartes, who made an agreement with the Church in order to end a Church ban on medical research. He said Descartes proposed that the Church take responsibility for spiritual matters and allow scientists to concentrate on the physical.This agreement advanced science at the expense of matters of the spirit, Lamm said. He called for a restoration of emotions, especially hope, into the equation. Lamm is founder and president of the National Institute for Jewish Hospice and is chair of professional rabbinics at Yeshiva University in New York City. Among his many works are The Jewish Way in Death and Mourning. Other sponsors associated with the conference included Stanford University Center for Biomedical Ethics, the Department for Leadership Development and Dor Hemshech, World Zionist Organization, Jerusalem, and the National Council of Young Israel. The Conference ended Tuesday, Feb. 18. The Web site can be accessed at: www.hia.com/medethic.

plans — court decisions have so far produced mixed results. Voucher advocates were dealt a legal setback last month when a Wisconsin state judge struck down a Milwaukee plan to use taxpayer money to send poor children to religious schools. A similar plan in Cleveland was upheld

in an Ohio state court last year. Both decisions are being appealed. The two plans have been advanced as possible national models. Legal observers say either case could reach the Supreme Court within the next year or two.