In the current discussion of financial parity, the point of parsonage was raised and that is important, but there is another wrinkle. Way back when I started teaching, my children were in a yeshiva which offered a "rabbinic discount" to rabbis who were educators. It was explained that this was a holdover from the time that rabbis taught part-time while pursuing their communal duties and the discount helped buttress a part-time salary and "reward" the rabbis for going in to education. And though that fact pattern no longer held true (the rabbis were not all pulpit rabbis also, or community figures, and their salary was computed as a full-time employee), the model still existed to enrich them and no one else. While I earned the same as the rabbis in the school in which I taught (and taught for more of the day), I was not eligible simply because I lacked ordination and the title. The issue, by the way, wasn't even about what subjects anyone taught -- it was about the title alone. A rabbi teaching math or science qualified. A non-rabbi (male or female) didn't. At last I had the option of earning smicha.
If there is going to be a financial inducement (a chunk of tuition reduced) for sporting a particular title, then it is unfair that the title recognized to qualify is denied to certain people who otherwise are the educational equivalent. I am not advocating (or denouncing) smicha for women, or applauding or condemning other titles. I am simply saying that there is a monetary implication which cannot be ignored.
Rabbi Daniel Rosen
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/2015 02:31PM by mlb.
