Category: Day Schools Grapple with Ethical Challenges (Winter 2015)

The recent Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in Australia raised a number of religious and ethical concerns, which require consideration by Jewish educators. Lior Misrachi focuses on the laws of tzeniut and lashon hara – both of which were created to guide ethical living but were so misused by Rabbis and educators that they created profoundly unethical outcomes.

Lior Misrachi is a passionate Jewish educator who teaches Hebrew and Judaics at Emanuel School, a community school in Sydney, Australia. She has a Bachelor of Arts and Master of Teaching from the University of Sydney.

In July 2011 an article was published in a prominent Australian newspaper that lifted the lid on child sexual abuse in the Jewish community. In the article, a Jewish communal leader named Manny Waks identified himself as a victim of child sexual abuse while a student at Yeshiva College, Melbourne (Topsfield, 2011). This article was the catalyst for a number of revelations, disclosures, arrests, extraditions, and incarcerations. Moreover, the article prompted countless conversations in the press, from synagogue pulpits and around Shabbat tables throughout Australia and worldwide.

In 2013, a Royal Commission, the highest level of public inquiry in Australia, was called to investigate Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Each institution that was investigated was considered a Case Study. Case Study 22, which was streamed live from the Royal Commission website in early February 2015, focused on the Yeshiva Centres and Schools in Melbourne and Sydney. It was the only case study to focus on the Jewish community. The Commissioners will continue to deliberate and will publish their findings in the coming months.

The evidence that was heard during Case Study 22 was shocking and tragic. That the abuse had occurred in the first place was, of course, the primary tragedy. The Royal Commission heard about the life-long, damaging consequences of abuse on survivors and their families (AVA, 2015; AVB, 2015; AVC, 2015; Waks, 2015). However, the aspect of the tragedy that will be explored in this article is how the interpretation of Jewish laws created conditions that not only allowed abuse to take place but to stay hidden, and thus continue for decades. Had the educators, administrators and leaders in Case Study 22 acted in a more ethical and responsible manner, children could have been saved from abuse. There were a number of Jewish laws and concepts with implications for allegations of child sexual abuse that deserve investigation. These include the laws of mesirah (handing a Jewish criminal over to secular authorities) and teshuvah (repentance). As the scope of this article is limited, it will focus generally on the laws of tzeniut (modesty) and lashon hara (damaging speech). Both sets of laws were created to guide ethical living but were so misused that they created profoundly unethical outcomes.

It would be easy, even tempting, to dismiss the evidence from Case Study 22 as something that could only happen within ultra- Orthodox communities. To do so would be to miss the point. There is a reason that the public hearings of the Royal Commission were called case studies – so that they would be studied. Child sexual abuse is an educational issue (Mitchell, 2010) and is relevant to all educational institutions. Moreover, it is precisely the attitude of “this could not happen in our community” that is so pervasive and dangerous when discussing child sexual abuse. This attitude is especially prevalent in the Jewish community where stereotypes of Jewish families as warm and caring, and of Jewish men as non-violent, perpetuate the myth (Guthartz, 2004). Case Study 22 highlighted problems that all Jewish educators and leaders must address.

Alongside the universality of issues around child sexual abuse, Case Study 22 illuminated specifically Jewish challenges, rooted in Jewish law. Religious orientation strongly influences the way people perceive child mistreatment (Shor, 1998). Jewish law is often difficult for outsiders to grasp because it can appear at odds with modern notions of equality and justice (Guthartz, 2004). Kennedy (2000), writing from a Christian perspective about child protection workers, lamented that they were often so secular in thinking that they could not understand issues to do with spirituality, religion, and faith. But we are on the inside and thus must grapple with these apparent tensions in our tradition, not in order to air dirty laundry, nor to judge, but to think about our own practices and to improve for the sake of the children we are entrusted to protect.

Tzeniut

A major principle in Judaism is tzeniut, and Case Study 22 showed how a singleminded adherence to this principle hindered the protection of children. Though commonly understood to refer to dress, especially for women, the laws of modesty aim to maintain holiness and spiritual purity and demand highly ethical behavior in thought and deed. These laws were never meant as an impediment to knowledge but do suggest that certain issues should be discussed sensitively. Jewish liturgy and exegesis contain many discussions of bodily functions, bodily fluids and – yes – sex. In Ketubot 18a, for example, the Rabbis discuss a biblical passage and what it might mean for the practicalities of conjugal relations. Rabbi Joseph concludes that sex should involve close, naked bodily contact, unlike the Persians who, he says, perform their conjugal duties while clothed (Epstein, (Ed.) 1936 p. 274). This is but one example of the way our sages talked candidly about sex, and not just about sex within the Jewish community, but the sexual practices of other nations as well.

Judaism understands sex to be something with potential for great holiness, in the right circumstances. Nevertheless, during the last few centuries, discussion about sex in Orthodoxy became, and continues to be, largely taboo. So that while according to Jewish text discussion of sex can be appropriate in the right manner and with the right intention, the leaders of the Yeshiva schools seemed to interpret tzeniut in such a way that they failed to provide any form of sex education to their children (AVA, 2015; Glick, 2015). This is a serious error with ethical and practical implications. In the words of AVA (2015):

If I had not felt like I was in trouble because of my sexual abuse and if someone had talked to me and given me some sort of sex education and explained what was right and what was wrong, things might have turned out differently. (p. C5596)

Fontes & Plummer (2010) discuss how difficult it is for children to talk about, let alone disclose, instances of sexual abuse in an environment that suppresses discussions of sex. They, and others such as Paine & Hansen (2002), identify open discussions of sex as a factor that might protect children from sexual abuse. Crisma et al., (2004) urgently demand that students receive proper information about the risks of being assaulted and are able to define what an abusive situation is. This is even more crucial because we know that victims generally know and trust their abusers, who will often groom them before the abuse begins (Elliot, et al., 1995). If students know and feel comfortable to articulate feelings of discomfort at the grooming stage, then abuse may be avoided. In a perpetrator’s own words, “kids are easy to trick when they don’t have a clue about what I’m trying to do” (Elliot, et al., 1995, p. 588).

Judaism is a pragmatic religion when it comes to the preservation of life and emphasizes life over a strict adherence to the letter of the law. There need not be tension between the principles and laws of modesty and sex education. Case Study 22 showed that religious educators had lost sight of the intent of tzeniut, namely that we should be holy, and instead focused on a dangerously strict adherence to the minutia of the laws of modesty. Feit (2013) identifies this as a disturbing and growing trend. Surely, the prevention of sexual abuse demands that all students in all Jewish schools are educated about sex. As Mitchell (2010) states, “it takes courage to tackle such a sensitive subject, but our children are definitely worth the effort” (p.104).

Lashon hara

Another tenet of Jewish law that impeded the protection of children is lashon hara. Speech is a powerful device in Jewish thought. According to the narrative of Creation, God created the world through a series of utterances, through speech. This is central to understanding why so many Jewish laws focus on actions associated with the spoken word. If words can create worlds, then they must be treated with respect and are subject to comprehensive laws regarding their use (Falk, 1999). Jewish folklore contains countless anecdotes and examples where looseness of the tongue results in tragedies for the Jewish people, including the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and the subsequent exile of Jews from the Promised Land. These tales are treated seriously, albeit not always literally, as cautionary tales across most of the denominations of Judaism. Modern secular values can pose serious challenges to those who are committed to a life of Orthodox Jewish observance. Contextually, it is clear that the laws of speech, like the laws of modesty, were designed to assist Jewish people to uphold a high level of ethical behavior. In fact, when it comes to lashon hara, Jewish law was more progressive than civil law, as it deemed, already centuries ago, that damage done through speech is equivalent to, and sometimes greater than, damage done through physical harm (Falk, 1999). For Jewish educators who work within their own communities, it is often necessary to control what they say and to whom, given their access to personal information about students and their families. In these instances, Jewish law supports the need for silence, professionally and ethically, to preserve the trust and privacy of students and families. Further, given the excesses of speech and disclosure in the modern world, for example in social media and tabloids, it is understandable that some Jewish communities consciously choose to distance themselves from secular culture (Lightman & Shor, 2002). Thus, the problem lies in the misapplication of the laws of lashon hara and not in the laws themselves.

Victims of child sexual abuse face many obstacles to the disclosure of their abuse (Fontes & Plummer, 2010; Staller & Nelson- Gardell, 2005; Paine & Hansen, 2000; Lawson & Chaffin, 1992, Crisma et al., 2002, Alagia, 2004). Children grapple with “whether to tell, whom to tell, what to tell and when” (Fontes & Plummer, 2010, p. 494). An environment with a punitive focus on the laws of lashon hara make disclosure more difficult for children (Guthartz, 2004; Falk, 1999) and can intimidate victims, and their advocates, into silence. Perpetrators of sexual abuse commonly employ a number of strategies, many of which are covert and insidious, to gain and maintain the victim’s silence (Paine & Hansen, 2000). The use of the laws of lashon hara to suppress all negative speech, rather than to encourage careful speech, enables perpetrators to get away with, and continue their abuse. Elliot, et al., (1995) quote a child sexual offender stating: “secrecy and blame were my best weapons.

Most kids worry that they are to blame for the abuse and that they should keep it a secret” (p. 590). How we respond to disclosures of child sexual abuse is perhaps the only tool we have to stop prolonged victimization, the abuse in general and to prevent a negative, long-term outcome for victims (Alagia, 2004, Paine & Hansen, 2002). At the Royal Commission, AVA (2015) testified that there were educators in positions of authority who knew of his abuse but said nothing, conceivably out of concern for the laws of lashon hara. The perpetrator he testified against was eventually convicted of sexual crimes against twelve victims, the youngest a seven-year old. AVA was the first known victim. The laws of lashon hara are many and complex. Jewish texts suggest that the worst form of lashon hara is the kind that results in the public shaming of an individual, which is likened to murder. This has many ramifications for dealing with issues and disclosures of child sexual abuse. However, the sad irony of the testimony given at the Royal Commission in relation to lashon hara is that it was the victims of abuse – and not the perpetrators – who were vilified, intimidated and ostracized by the school and community leadership because they spoke out. As Feit (2013) explains, the focus of attention was not on helping the victim or on keeping other children safe but, rather, on keeping scandals quiet so that such a shameful thing did not become known to others. Further, it was deemed by one Rabbi to be acceptable to send an e-mail labelling one of the victims a “phoney attention seeker” but a transgression for the victim to come out publicly with his abuse (Feldman, 2015b p. C6619). This indicates a warped and hypocritical approach to the laws of lashon hara.

One rabbi who testified at the Royal Commission said that, in his opinion, the publicity and hype around the issue of child sexual abuse could encourage “fake” victims or those with personal vendettas against an alleged perpetrator to make spurious, exaggerated or false disclosures (Feldman, 2015b, p. C6529-C6530, C6534, C6599). This same rabbi, a senior administrator in a school, testified that he was not 100% certain that touching a child’s genitals was against the law (Feldman, 2015a p. C6432). He advocated, in an e-mail to other senior rabbinical figures in Australia, that a rabbi should investigate the veracity of sexual abuse claims first (Feldman, 2015c, KAA.001.001.0086_R). He based his opinion not on any research but on his personal beliefs and interpretation of Jewish law, again, conceivably, out of concern for the laws of lashon hara. Yet Oates et al., (2000), in a review of 551 cases of reported child sexual abuse, found that only 1.5% of disclosures were deliberately fabricated. In fact, they estimate that false testimonies account for between 2%-8% of disclosures. Thus it is clear that, as educators, we must ensure that students know they are allowed, nay encouraged, to disclose matters of abuse. Further, that Jewish law supports their disclosure in order to save them from further abuse and to prevent future abuse. The safety of children trumps the concern for lashon hara. We must ensure that students know that if and when they do disclose to any member of staff, they will be heard and their allegations treated seriously and acted upon in accordance with the law.

Fear of mistrust

Another impediment to disclosure of child sexual abuse is the fear of not being believed (AVA, 2015; Waks, 2015) and the knowledge that allegations have to be proved, generally through criminal proceedings. This necessitates public disclosure of abuse several times. The nature of sexual abuse is that it is shrouded in secrecy and that there are rarely witnesses (Jensen et al., 2005; Fontes & Plummer 2010) and trends still indicate that disclosure of child sexual abuse at any age is viewed skeptically (Alagia, 2004). This is conflated by the fact that disclosure of child sexual abuse is rarely simple and often children will disclose in parts, over time and sometimes even recant on part or all of their statements (Staller & Nelson-Gardell, 2005; Nelson-Gardell, 2001; Jensen, et al., 2005). Lawson & Chaffin even discuss cases where children deny that they have been abused despite incontrovertible physical evidence in the form of sexually transmitted infections (1992). Children and adolescents feel powerless relative to adults in the process of disclosure in reaction to an uncertain environment (Staller & Nelson-Gardell, 2005). How much more so in an environment that actively seeks to quash negative speech – whether it be true or false. In fact, Case Study 22 heard evidence from a number of senior Rabbis that there was no issue of lashon hara when it came to the suspicion or disclosure of abuse (Gutnick, M.D, 2015; Gutnick, M., 2015). This must be internalized and practiced by all.

The duty to bear witness

The evidence presented in Case Study 22 was both painful and shameful for the Australian Jewish community as a whole. However, Jewish tradition and texts have never shied away from difficult subjects or flawed characters, which exist purposefully to teach us right from wrong. It is therefore essential that we use the Royal Commission as an opportunity to reflect on the connection between the interpretation and practice of Jewish law, and inadequate responses to child sexual abuse. Thus, if we are ever called to testify, in an earthly court or a heavenly court, we can say with utmost sincerity that we did everything in our power to protect the children in our care. When it comes to the sanctity of life, Jewish law is unequivocal; almost any law can be set aside in order to protect life. Protecting children from child sexual abuse and responding adequately is our duty. To neglect this duty is ethically and religiously repugnant. The Jewish people have a biblical imperative to be holy. We must not contaminate the ethical objectives of Jewish laws with the unethical outcomes witnessed in Case Study 22.

References

Alagia, R., (2004). Many ways of telling: Expanding conceptualizations of child sexual abuse disclosure. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28(11). 1213-1227.

AVA. (2015). Transcript (Day C060): 2 February. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. C5988-C5997. Retrieved from http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/downloadfile. ashx?guid=98986c4d-072c-4e65-81e9-c8be519298ad&type=transcript pdf&filename=Transcript-(Day-C060)&fileextension=pdf

AVB. (2015). Transcript (Day C062): 4 February. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. C6200-C6253. Retrieved from http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/downloadfile. ashx?guid=a6d1891b-ebbd-4d6d-ab8b-09f2529dd15d&type=transcrip tpdf&filename=Transcript-(Day-C062)&fileextension=pdf

AVB. (2015). Transcript (Day C066): 10 February. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. C6663-C6720. Retrieved from http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/downloadfile. ashx?guid=461520e9-ccd7-47eb-a963-39372e9fbb11&type=transcript pdf&filename=Transcript-(Day-C066)&fileextension=pdf

AVC. (2015). Transcript (Day C061): 3 February. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. C6173-C6179. Retrieved from http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/downloadfile. ashx?guid=1c184869-cf76-48c0-bdfb-bc9a2bc76da5&type=transcript pdf&filename=Transcript-(Day-C061)&fileextension=pdf

Crisma, M., Bascelli, E., Paci, D., Romito, P. (2004). Adolescents who experienced sexual abuse: fears, needs and impediments to disclosure. Child Abuse & Neglect, (28), 1035-1048.

Epstein, I. (Ed.) (1936). Seder Nashim (The Babylonian Talmud). London: Soncino Press.

Elliot, M., Browne, K., Kilcoyne, J. (1995). Child sexual abuse prevention: What offenders tell us. Child Abuse & Neglect, 19(5). 579-594.

Falk, E. (1999). Jewish Laws of Speech: Toward Multicultural Rhetoric. Howard Journal Of Communications, 10(1), 15-28.

Feit, A. (2013). Modesty From Cats, Sexual Morality From Doves: Orthodox Jewry’s Silence in the Face of Sexual Misconduct. International Journal of Psychoanalytic Self Psychology, 8(2), 154-172. doi:10.1080/15551024.2013.766 950

Feldman, Y. (2015a) Transcript (Day C064): 6 February. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. C6396-C6484. Retrieved from http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/downloadfile. ashx?guid=385d78a5-2c4f-4b04-bbf4-8de6bb425abf&type=transcript pdf&filename=Transcript-(Day-C064)&fileextension=pdf

Feldman, Y. (2015b) Transcript (Day C065): 9 February. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. C6502-C6653. Retrieved from http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/downloadfile. ashx?guid=85994c7f-19c3-4062-949d-7627fa3626a6&type=transcript pdf&filename=Transcript-(Day-C065)&fileextension=pdf

Feldman, Y. (2015c) Email chain between Rabbi Yosef Feldman and various rabbinical leaders, Subject: “Re: LAIBL WOLF RE: Din Toiroh”. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. KAA.001.001.0086_R. Retrieved from http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/ downloadfile.ashx?guid=8caa5ab7-fe51-49ee-8262-2c050335124c&ty pe=exhibit&filename=KAA.0001.001.0091_R&fileextension=pdf Fontes, L. A., & Plummer, C. (2010). Cultural Issues in Disclosures of Child Sexual Abuse. Journal Of Child Sexual Abuse, 19(5), 491-518. doi:10.1080/1053 8712.2010.512520

Glick, A. (2015) Transcript (Day C068): 12 February. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. C6985-C7070. Retrieved from http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/downloadfile. ashx?guid=e7cce01b-78d5-4968-bda8-ac8dad2efffc&type=transcriptp df&filename=Transcript-(Day-C068)&fileextension=pdf

Guthartz, S. A., & Mich. J. (2004-2005). Domestic violence and the Jewish community, Michigan Journal of Gender and Law (11), 27-60.

Gutnick, M., (2015) Transcript (Day C068): 12 February. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. C6926-C6985. Retrieved from http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/downloadfile. ashx?guid=e7cce01b-78d5-4968-bda8-ac8dad2efffc&type=transcriptp df&filename=Transcript-(Day-C068)&fileextension=pdf

Gutnick, M.D., (2015) Transcript (Day C062): 4 February. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. C6253-C6312. Retrieved from http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/downloadfile. ashx?guid=a6d1891b-ebbd-4d6d-ab8b-09f2529dd15d&type=transcrip tpdf&filename=Transcript-(Day-C062)&fileextension=pdf

Jensen, T.K., Gulbrandsen, W., Mossige, S., Reichelt, S., Tjersland, O.A. (2005). Reporting possible sexual abuse: A qualitative study on children’s perspectives and the context for disclosure. Child Abuse & Neglect 29(12), 1395-1413.

Kennedy, M., (2000). Christianity and child sexual abuse – the survivor’s voice leading to change. Child Abuse Review, 9 124-141.

Lawson, L., & Chaffin, M. (1992). False Negatives in Sexual Abuse Disclosure Interviews Incidence and Influence of Caretaker's Belief in Abuse in Cases of Accidental Abuse Discovery by Diagnosis of STD. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7(4), 532-542.

Lightman, E. S. & Shor, R. (2002). Askanim: Informal helpers and cultural brokers as a bridge to secular helpers for the ultra-orthodox Jewish communities of israel and canada. Families in Society, 83(3), 315-324. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.lib.uts.edu.au/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/230160798?accountid=17095

Mitchell, M. W. (2010). Child Sexual Abuse: A School Leadership Issue. Clearing House, 83(3), 101-104. doi:10.1080/00098651003655936 Nelson-Gardell, D. (2001). The Voices of Victims: Surviving Child Sexual Abuse. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal, 18(6), 401-416.

Oates, R.Kim, Jones, D. P.H., Denson, D., Sirotnak, A., Gary, N., & Krugman, R.D. (2000). Erroneous concerns about child sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect 24(1), 149-157.

Paine, M. L., & Hansen, D. J. (2002). Factors influencing children to selfdisclose sexual abuse. Clinical Psychological Review, (22), 271-295.

Shor, R. (1998). The significance of religion in advancing a culturally sensitive approach towards child maltreatment. Families in Society, 79(4), 400-409. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.lib.uts.edu.au/login?url=http://search. proquest.com/docview/230169079?accountid=17095

Staller, K.M. & Nelson-Gardell, D. (2005). “A burden in your heart”: Lessons of disclosure from female preadolescent and adolescent survivors of sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29(12), 1415-1432.

Topsfield, J. (2011, July 8). Jewish community leader tells of sex abuse. The Age (Melbourne). p. 1.

Waks, M., (2015). Transcript (Day C060): 2 February. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. C6001-C6067. Retrieved from http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/downloadfile. ashx?guid=98986c4d-072c-4e65-81e9-c8be519298ad&type=transcript pdf&filename=Transcript-(Day-C060)&fileextension=pdf