Updated below August 1 to include Yeramiel Lopins response
The recent scandal of sexual abuse/seduction by the head of 4 seminaries has produced two different responses in the two beis dins involved. The Chicago Beis Din (CBD) that initially investigated the claims declared the seminaries too dangerous at the present time for girls to attend. 1rst letter of CBD and IBD On the other hand the Israeli Beis Din (IBD) that is involved stated categorically - even before they actually conducted an investigation - that the schools were safe because Meisels had been removed from the seminaries. 2nd letter of IBD July 25
The recent scandal of sexual abuse/seduction by the head of 4 seminaries has produced two different responses in the two beis dins involved. The Chicago Beis Din (CBD) that initially investigated the claims declared the seminaries too dangerous at the present time for girls to attend. 1rst letter of CBD and IBD On the other hand the Israeli Beis Din (IBD) that is involved stated categorically - even before they actually conducted an investigation - that the schools were safe because Meisels had been removed from the seminaries. 2nd letter of IBD July 25
What is their point of disagreement? In both case we have very intelligent and learned men who care about the welfare of others. In order to understand this better I suggest you first read the following article that appeared in the New York Times about the sickening child abuse scandal in England and then continue reading here.
===============
The fundamental issues seems to be 1) is it better overall if we focus on saving the seminaries and their staffs from being destroyed by this scandal and accept that the scandal was entirely caused by one person who has since been removed or 2) do we focus on maximally protecting the girls even if it means destroying the seminaries and consider why this happened and what is the best way to ensure it doesn't happen in the future.
The IBD seems to accept 1) - that the saving of the seminaries is their priority. They thus view that the problem was caused entirely by Meisels' deviancy. By getting rid of Meisels there is no danger to the girls. However since the scandal has severely damaged the schools and the reputation of the girls who attended them. Therefore they have prohibited talking about the scandal and telling everyone to trust them to take care of any and all issues dealing with the schools. Thus they insist the problem has been properly taken care of and the seminaries should continue as in the past. This is clear from the two letters they have issued so far.
In contrast the CBD seems to accept 2). They were shocked by the testimony of degeneracy they heard. They are primarily concerned about the girls - the ones who have been molested/seduced and the girls who are planning on going there. They don't understand how even the slightest risk can be taken with the girls and therefore they have stated that the seminaries can not be considered safe places until it is guaranteed that this won't be able to happen again. They have heard that some of the staff was aware or at least had good reason to suspect what Meisels was doing wrong - and yet did nothing to stop it. (See letter of July 30, 2014). What protocols are in place now that will prevent even passive complicity? It is clear from the British and other sex abuse scandals that people tolerate horrible crimes - in order to protect their parnossa, careers or the reputation of their institutions or simply to avoid embarrassment. The CBD is well aware of this and knows that getting rid of Meisels is only the first step - not the final step to protect the girls. Until all safeguards are in place - girls should not leave the safety of their families and pay $25,000 for an unprotected year in Israel.
update August 1 - There is a significant problem of transparency in the conduct of both the CBD and IBD. I would suggest the following information be made public in order to regain the trust of parents and the Orthodox World.
1) It needs to be acknowledged publicy by both the IBD and CBD that they disagree regarding not only fact findings but that they have different goals which need to be stated. 2) CBD needs to provide more specific evidence concerning the extent and type of teacher collaboration or silence 3) What safeguards does the CBD require before they remove their caution and financial blockade 4) A clear statement that they have not authorized IBD to replace them 5) A clear statement of the role of Rav Feldman i.e., whose side is he on 6) Approximate number of victim - i.e., how serious was the problem. and did it involve only seduction? 7) Are criminal charges and/or civil lawsuits envisioned 8) It needs to be stated clearly that Meisels is guilty as charged by both IBD and CBD. It realy is not clear that the IBD agrees that he is guilty as charged 9) Is Meisels required to pay for therapy and admit guilt? 10) Why did the CBD apparently renege on their promise to withdraw their caution if this sale went through? 11) What program is in place to ensure it doesn't happen at any seminary? 12) Serious discussion needs to be done regarding the value of spending a year in Israel away from family and spending $25,000 to accomplish it 13) Serious discussion needs to be done regarding the problem of having males run a female school or even teaching there.
Update: August 1 - Response of Yerachmiel Lopin from FrumFollies See also Update on the Meisels Seminaries
1. Sources close to Chicago say they are adamant that they never authorized IBD to take over the case. But were hoping those rabbonim as individuals would assist in pressuring Meisels out and securing an honest sale to another. Moreover, I defy anyone to get R. Feldman or the IBD to produce a piece of paper showing otherwise. these are all professional and experienced dayanim who know enough to put such things in writing.
2. The IBD has never stated that the seminaries are under new ownership. Thus Chicago has every reason not to believe enough has changed to make the seminaries safe, especially since other staff knew about the abuse and rebuffed students who complained about it. This i also say on my own authority talking to talmidot from those sems.
3. Without proof of staff changes, you will forever have defensive staff who will want to claim Meisels left because of pressure, not because of his disgusting and abusive conduct. Others will not be committed to change things because advocating a tikkun means admitting a previous problem. The IBD has bolstered that mentality because they are claiming the seminaries were, are and will be wonderful, kosher places. With such a psak, naturally the attitude will be, "if it aint broke, don't fix it."
4. The most bizarre thing about IBD psak #2 is that they never heard both sides. They only talked to the administrators and select staff, not to any of the victims. Moreover, R. Feldman is listed as the representative of the other side. However, not one of the victims who went to the Chicago Beis Din ever authorized R. Feldman to act on their behalf with IBD. I say this on the basis of contact with some of the victims. They are all in touch with each other and are astounded that Rav Feldman claims they authorized him. It is true that R. Zev Cohen of the CBD shared the investigation to a whole group of senior rabbonim at a closed-door session at an annual meeting of rabbonim involved in Torah Umesorah. Rav Feldman offered to help because his 25 years living in EY made him familiar local rabbonim. Next thing they know he helped stage a seeming transfer to an IBD of the entire case.
5. Now, let us imagine that R. Feldman actually had authorization from victims. So what did he say in the sessions of IBD? NOTHING. The IBD does not even claim they interviewed him re the stories of the victims. Nor will Rav Feldman claim he spoke during the inquiry stage of the IBD. What ever happened to the idea that Beis Din listens to two sides.
6. The IBD psak is worthless on procedural grounds. They never conducted the kind of inquiry that justifies their conclusion.
7. They say nothing about Meisels innocence or guilt. Given how they addressed the conduct of other staff, they could practically have also given Meisels a mehadrin teudah. Yet they said nothing, neither that he is guilty or innocent.
8. The IBD psak has left the way open for Meisels to eventually return claiming he is a victim of a bilbul + Chicago kanois and again sexually exploit students.
9. Those defending IBD should obtain proof from R. Feldman that he has written proof of delegation by the victims or CBD and proof that he opened his mouth at IBD and actually represented the reports of the victims of abuse that spoke to CBD.
אלו דברים שאין להם שיעור חמרות לה"ר ורכילות ותירוצים בעד מוסדותיהם
ופרנסתם נגד הנזוקין. אלו דברים שאוכלים פירותיהם בעוה"ז ועונשם קימת
לעוה"ב
================================update August 1 - There is a significant problem of transparency in the conduct of both the CBD and IBD. I would suggest the following information be made public in order to regain the trust of parents and the Orthodox World.
1) It needs to be acknowledged publicy by both the IBD and CBD that they disagree regarding not only fact findings but that they have different goals which need to be stated. 2) CBD needs to provide more specific evidence concerning the extent and type of teacher collaboration or silence 3) What safeguards does the CBD require before they remove their caution and financial blockade 4) A clear statement that they have not authorized IBD to replace them 5) A clear statement of the role of Rav Feldman i.e., whose side is he on 6) Approximate number of victim - i.e., how serious was the problem. and did it involve only seduction? 7) Are criminal charges and/or civil lawsuits envisioned 8) It needs to be stated clearly that Meisels is guilty as charged by both IBD and CBD. It realy is not clear that the IBD agrees that he is guilty as charged 9) Is Meisels required to pay for therapy and admit guilt? 10) Why did the CBD apparently renege on their promise to withdraw their caution if this sale went through? 11) What program is in place to ensure it doesn't happen at any seminary? 12) Serious discussion needs to be done regarding the value of spending a year in Israel away from family and spending $25,000 to accomplish it 13) Serious discussion needs to be done regarding the problem of having males run a female school or even teaching there.
Update: August 1 - Response of Yerachmiel Lopin from FrumFollies See also Update on the Meisels Seminaries
1. Sources close to Chicago say they are adamant that they never authorized IBD to take over the case. But were hoping those rabbonim as individuals would assist in pressuring Meisels out and securing an honest sale to another. Moreover, I defy anyone to get R. Feldman or the IBD to produce a piece of paper showing otherwise. these are all professional and experienced dayanim who know enough to put such things in writing.
2. The IBD has never stated that the seminaries are under new ownership. Thus Chicago has every reason not to believe enough has changed to make the seminaries safe, especially since other staff knew about the abuse and rebuffed students who complained about it. This i also say on my own authority talking to talmidot from those sems.
3. Without proof of staff changes, you will forever have defensive staff who will want to claim Meisels left because of pressure, not because of his disgusting and abusive conduct. Others will not be committed to change things because advocating a tikkun means admitting a previous problem. The IBD has bolstered that mentality because they are claiming the seminaries were, are and will be wonderful, kosher places. With such a psak, naturally the attitude will be, "if it aint broke, don't fix it."
4. The most bizarre thing about IBD psak #2 is that they never heard both sides. They only talked to the administrators and select staff, not to any of the victims. Moreover, R. Feldman is listed as the representative of the other side. However, not one of the victims who went to the Chicago Beis Din ever authorized R. Feldman to act on their behalf with IBD. I say this on the basis of contact with some of the victims. They are all in touch with each other and are astounded that Rav Feldman claims they authorized him. It is true that R. Zev Cohen of the CBD shared the investigation to a whole group of senior rabbonim at a closed-door session at an annual meeting of rabbonim involved in Torah Umesorah. Rav Feldman offered to help because his 25 years living in EY made him familiar local rabbonim. Next thing they know he helped stage a seeming transfer to an IBD of the entire case.
5. Now, let us imagine that R. Feldman actually had authorization from victims. So what did he say in the sessions of IBD? NOTHING. The IBD does not even claim they interviewed him re the stories of the victims. Nor will Rav Feldman claim he spoke during the inquiry stage of the IBD. What ever happened to the idea that Beis Din listens to two sides.
6. The IBD psak is worthless on procedural grounds. They never conducted the kind of inquiry that justifies their conclusion.
7. They say nothing about Meisels innocence or guilt. Given how they addressed the conduct of other staff, they could practically have also given Meisels a mehadrin teudah. Yet they said nothing, neither that he is guilty or innocent.
8. The IBD psak has left the way open for Meisels to eventually return claiming he is a victim of a bilbul + Chicago kanois and again sexually exploit students.
9. Those defending IBD should obtain proof from R. Feldman that he has written proof of delegation by the victims or CBD and proof that he opened his mouth at IBD and actually represented the reports of the victims of abuse that spoke to CBD.
אלו דברים שאין להם שיעור חמרות לה"ר ורכילות ותירוצים בעד מוסדותיהם
ופרנסתם נגד הנזוקין. אלו דברים שאוכלים פירותיהם בעוה"ז ועונשם קימת
לעוה"ב
================================
NY Times The Westminster inquiry will investigate not just the rape and assault of children at group homes going back decades but also accusations that child abuse by politicians and other public figures was deliberately covered up or even facilitated by members of the elite. The same Parliament has, it seems, spent 30 years failing to catch the pedophiles in its own house. Before the inquiry was even announced, it emerged that 114 files concerning allegations of abuse against children involving senior political figures had mysteriously disappeared.
The tradition of the British establishment’s looking after its own is only now understood to its full and chilling extent.
In Britain in 2014, it is no longer a shock to see the face of a once beloved celebrity or well-known politician on the news in connection with pedophilia. During the past two years, the press has been peppered with reports of allegations and prosecutions of all manner of public figures, from politicians and pop stars to television hosts and senior staff members at exclusive private schools.
The saga began in 2012 when it was revealed that Jimmy Savile, a former children’s television host and charity campaigner who died in 2011, had raped and sexually assaulted hundreds of children. This was a seismic event: A BBC staple, Mr. Savile was an entertainer with the household currency and cultural centrality of Johnny Carson or Oprah Winfrey.
Worse, it became clear that a large number of people in show business knew about this abuse and did nothing because of Mr. Savile’s power and prestige. The entertainer, who was a friend of Margaret Thatcher, used his status to gain access to vulnerable young people in schools and even hospitals.[...]
