Having demonstrated the allegedly very real danger of Modern Orthodoxy, Feldman then examines the underlying driver of this “line-drawing.” Here, he neatly shifts back to the “love and life” theme, addressing the question of marriage: Why do Modern Orthodox Jews reject intermarriage?
To me and to the members of our community, the answer seems patently obvious, but Feldman obfuscates. In a subordinate clause, he dispenses with the real reason (i.e., Jewish law and concern over the continuity of the Jewish people), then launches into an assessment of what he argues motivates this rejection: a) misogyny or, at least, medieval sexual taboos, and b) his broader theme of Modern Orthodoxy’s rejection of full integration with non-Jews – implying that we as Jews think less of non-Jews and therefore refuse to marry them, or eat with them, or carry on normal social discourse. While he is entitled to his opinion on this matter, I don’t think any scholar would take his narrow, self-interested view seriously.
Feldman’s article is a religious attack, couched as a personal story and historical analysis. And perhaps because of the personal interest angle, the Times missed the underlying arguments this lawyer is making; he does use stories quite effectively as weapons and his essay has a clear point of view. And it is made more – not less – vicious because of his former affiliation with the Modern Orthodox community. Here, in assessing the Times’s journalistic integrity, we must consider not just whether the story is factually correct, but also whether it’s appropriate to devote 5,000 words to this particular point of view.
Let us consider the initial human-interest story – Feldman’s “removal” from the alumni picture. Imagine making similar light of other religious communities: asking why, for instance, an abortion doctor’s new practice should not be announced in his local Catholic newspaper. Or imagine a former Muslim woman walking into the main sanctuary (i.e., men’s section) of a mosque during prayer, and wearing shoes. Do you believe her picture would be proudly displayed in the next mosque bulletin? Would the rejection felt by these former members of religious communities be appropriate fodder for a long article attacking their respective religions?
I should add that the initial story in Feldman’s article strongly suggests – without directly stating it – that his girlfriend’s picture was excised on account of her race from the alumni newsletter of the Maimonides School. A reader might reasonably assume that Korean-Americans are not allowed; her presence would be too conspicuous; and our community is racist.
That notion is contemptible, of course. She would be quite welcome in our community, if she chose to join. My synagogue and the Maimonides School both testify to the wide range of faces, races and ethnic groups integral to Modern Orthodoxy.
Professor Feldman clearly has an ax to grind – against the Maimonides School as an institution and against an entire culture and religious group. Yes, Modern Orthodox Jews reject inter-marriage, and the simchas that he insists on posting to the alumni journal do not bring simcha (joy) to the community.
Ironically, in condemning the intolerance of the Modern Orthodox community, he in fact seeks to impose his own standards on the community. As he well knows, our community is defined by our norms, and his rejection of those norms – not the community’s rejection of Feldman as a person – is what creates the gap he so laments.
Undoubtedly, his animus reflects some nagging sense of guilt and insecurity over his own choices. It is Professor Feldman who has failed to maintain the balance between tradition and engagement; I can point to scores of successes in our synagogue and wider community, stories that resonate with much greater human interest than his.
Feldman is free to associate with anyone he chooses – and he admits that his friends and even the rabbis from the school are civil to him personally. But he cannot insist that our institutions celebrate or, for that matter, even acknowledge his public renunciation of our beliefs.
Which returns me to the original question: What are the Times’s standards for publication? I don’t believe a newspaper has to be overly deferential to any institution, whether religious or secular. But here, a writer with a clear and deep bias has been allowed to attack an entire religious group in 5,000 words.