Presence

To me, one telling litmus test of how things will proceed from here on in, involves those abusers in the community who have previously been “dealt with” by having been “designated for re-assignment”. It could be that their acts may have been perpetrated in the past and they may indeed no longer be active predators. However, a more public adjudication is necessary not only to help their victims who are still haunted presently, but to instill a greater communal confidence in its leadership. And of course, it goes without saying that the identities of current abusers who have yet to be exposed, need to be dealt with in a forum that is more open that it has been in the past.

Although I have not yet seen the letter that will go out, it seems that based on Rabbi Gottlieb’s remarks that the Rabbinic leadership is finally coming to grips that in 2007, we (in Baltimore and the Orthodox community as a whole) are no longer living in Pollyanna-land. Plenty of people in the community know exactly what is going on now (and in the past), the identities of the perpetrators, who has been covering it up, and that the allegations are not merely part of some left-wing conspiracy theory to make certain people, institutions, and Torah Judaism look bad.

The problem with "designated for re-assignment" is that, essentially, it's not a punishment. "Don't do it again" is not a punishment. These acts deserve punishment of the harshest sort, the sort that our communal leaders can't hand out.

I am more cynical of you about the motivations for coming out (BJT story, anyone?) but if they can actually make progress on the issue, I'll be satisfied. But we really need more than just progress on this issue - Baltimore Jewish communal institutions need to fundamentally reform themselves in many ways to keep other such things from occurring.

DMZ-

That was precisely my point on the "designated for re-assignment". I was suggesting a more public adjudication which would include punihment and restitution. But, your point is well taken that it remains a question as to whether there is ability and willingness to mete out anything meaningful. That's probably where the law enforcement authorities need to be brought in.

And I also agree that the local institutions will need to reform themselves, which would involve a more decentralized model.

As far as I can see, this whole thing is a crock of S*^&. Just like the Catholic Church, they got busted and are now pretending like they care about fixing the issue.

If the Jewish Times would not have brought this up, it would never have been dealt with in this manner.

And just who exactly is on this great Vaad Harabonim of Baltimore?? The same guys who have been covering up multiple allegations.

I'm taking the attitude of "I'll believe it when I see it". Until then, this is just a smokescreen to push away some of the blame.

Rabbi Silber of Suburban Orthodox will be discussing this topic on Shabbos after davening.

What about Imus ?

R. Gottleib did not offer any solutions to the problem - he simply told the congregation that a problem exists. This is not something that is not already known. R. Gottleib did not discover this. What we need is for someone to get up there and tell us what they are doing about it. Not what they are going to do, what they are thinking about or what their neighbor thinks they should think about. How are they actually going to deal with allegations? How will they protect the accuser and the accused while the allegations are being investigated?
Not to be cynical, but anyone who peruses the internet is certainly aware of the allegations floating around Baltimore and the almost "infamous" article that has yet to be published. Why was it so important that R. Gottleib speak about this on the last day of Pesach - when most of his own congregation was not even there?
Community leaders would be wise to start living up to their title. That includes setting up strict guidelines, in coordination with experts in the field, on how to deal with abuse issues – whether they are sexual, verbal or physical. The protection of the accused should be no less important than the protection of the accusers. Allegations should be brought before a court of law, not of public opinion.
R. Gottleib is a smart man. But experienced he is not. The next time R. Gottleib (and the rest of the Vaad for that matter) speaks about this issue, he would be wise to offer a solution to a serious problem that exists in the Jewish community, not a knee-jerk reaction to an article that has yet to be published in an effort to protect his own interests

anon, I don't see you offering any solutions either.

anon,

R' Gottlieb hyped the speech with an ambiguous email to the congregation, and delivered it to a packed house. I think it's clear that he wanted the message to get out.

I agree that the actions to come will mean a great deal more than the words that have already been spoken. However, R' Gottlieb committed himself personally and the Va'ad as a group to creating a genuine, systematic, and open set of community protocols and to arranging for a major public education event. I think that these commitments are valuable, because they give the community some semi-specific goals to focus on and expect continued rabbinic accountability for.

It happens that Rabbi Gottlieb's predecessor was very involved with this, and probably that factored into picking him to run the OU. But you never heard his name, because sometimes you do address this quietly. Stop pretending that exposing is always good -- the threat of exposure is often better.

What the last anon forgot to mention is that anyone who peruses the Internet is also familiar with the false allegations floating around about Baltimore rabbis, thanks to the confessed baby-killer living there and her gang of cronies. Duke lacrosse players, anyone? We've got our very own Mike Nifong going after people without a shred of evidence, sliming their names across the Internet. I haven't seen anyone say a word about the damage being caused to them and their wives and their families. If you have someone who is a real child-molester, fine, get rid of the guy. But if you slander one innocent man, was it all worth it?

A trust has already been violated. The Rabbonim need to acknowledge this and IMHO do the following to be taken seriously:
1. Report the names of individual who were "let off" because of errors in judgment, so that they are clearly exposed in the community. There should be no amnesty here.

2. Any rabbi who was previously involved in such poor judgments should recuse himself publicly, and never be allowed to sit on any beis din that deals with the issue.

3. The rabbis should report to the police any abusers for whom they believe there is sufficient evidence to support a conviction.

Words without action are meaningless.

Now that "the article" has been published in the Baltimore Jewish Times I am even more confused over the intent of Rabbi Gottlieb's drusha on Pesach. Here we have an article about a dead man, no longer a threat to anyone and not punishable beyond the grave. Let us suspend all fair play rules-- ie, the right to defend oneself against one's accusers--and let us accept that this rabbi was an abuser. A pedophile. A horror. Okay. Now what? The Jewish Times offered up several weak excuses as to why it was warranted in publishing it's story, replete with graphic examples of the dead one's dastardly deeds. '"Maybe" it will stop another pervert from abusing a kid if he knows he could be outed.' Sorry guys. Never happened. Every criminology study in every field you look at has failed to show that punishement--right up to the death penalty--is any kind of deterrent. And if we are "kind" and call this form of deviancy a "disease" then certainly punishment is of no deterrant value whatsoever. Another self justification proferred by the BJT was it would 'aid in the healing process' of the victims. Really? Revenge may make one feel good for the moment but won't address the terrible suffering and damage done to the abused child/adult. Neither will a "you are not alone" declaration straighen out the twisted and bent lives of kids exposed to this type of abuse.

So just what will the BJT story accomplish? We need not guess. Public shame and disgrace to innocent family members. Remember here: No one is going after co-conspirators of silence of the rabbi. And if they did, do we now punish and ruin the lives of the children? The grand children? It is one thing to seek to protect the innocent present and future from further abuse--let us out these festering boils on the Jewish community and let their families join in cursing them --it is quite another to expose a long dead man for no justifiable --no definable-- positive benefit at the cost of irreparable pain again and again.
That's how I see it.

Chaim: It seems to me that the Vaad's intent, as well as R. Gottlieb, was to show that the rabbis are doing something about the problem of abuse. The article, which they knew would be released, paints a picture of the rabbonim of Baltimore not taking effective action to fight abusers. Their statements show that they are doing something positive. I don't know for sure (and am trying to ascertain) if the Vaad feels that this article was productive or not.

That being said, regarding the positive value of the article: I wouldn't discount the amount of healing that exposure can provide to the abused. It's not something those of us who haven't been abused can really understand, but I can imagine that seeing the man that was revered as a tzaddik for so many years publicly outed as a molester could provide tremendous psychological healing to a victim, not to mention restoring a victim's faith in the rabbinate and God. Also, for the broader community, to see that even someone well-respected could suffer from these urges is also an important point to drive home. And, if the Vaad does support the article, there is also a significant argument to them "coming clean" that others have mentioned as a means to showing how serious and committed the community is to fighting this problem. I don't mean to minimize the suffering of the family, it's certainly a significant factor, but I think there's a bit more to support the article.

I question whether the Vaad or Rabbi Gottlieb for that matter would have said anything if the article in the Jewish Times would not have come out?

I don't think the Rabbis would have said anything publicly if the article hadn't come out. But Chaim is still right.

Maybe the communal leaders had to say something, the same way the NC District Attorney had to take the case away from Mike Nifong.

We seem to have plenty of Mike Nifongs. Even those who can tell true from false aren't always able to tell when to publicize and when not to publicize. Phil Jacobs of the BJT is only the most recent.

The BJT publicized two names recently. One will be in jail for at least the next decade. The other has been dead for more than a decade. In both cases the only result was to heap shame and disgrace on innocent family members. The BJT is about as Jewish as the National Enquirer is credible.

All of you who are comparing this situation to Mike Nifong are missing a really basic point. Mike was dealing with a non-issue. He should have dropped the case and certainly not publicized it the way he did. Those people who are publicly accusing Rabbis are right on many of them, if not all.

Jack, I agree with you "on many of them." They are obviously not right on all. Many of them have less of a story than the Duke accuser did.

So in those cases, an innocent Rabbi, his wife, and his children, will be shamed and scarred for life because someone put something up anonymously on a blog.

Then you have both of the recent BJT cases, in which the criminal himself is in jail or dead. So in those cases, it is the innocent parents, siblings, children and grandchildren who will be shamed and scarred for life.

How many innocent lives are we allowed to destroy? How many innocents did they kill in Salem, anyway?

Bill,
You shouldn't blame the BJT for the crimes that SJ or ES did. Their families are shamed b/c of their relative's actions, not b/c of the BJT. If the BJT feels that little 8 year olds will be safer, and 60 year old victims will sleep better at night due to a story, then he has every right to publish it.

Who do you value more: innocent little children or the innocent family of a monster?

Why are you bringing up Salem? In Salem nobody was guilty, it was all a fabrication. Here, there are quite a few guilty parties and that includes the community leader enablers. The problem runs so deep and so long that there are 65 year old victims and perpetrators from the next generation. There is a problem and it needs to be fixed. How is it at all comparable to Salem.

If somebody would mention Mcarthyism I would still not be happy, but I wouldn't waste my time arguing with them.

Jack, I don't know where you get your reasoning, but it's not from Jewish values. "Shaming" people is Catholic. No 8 year old will be safer because of mentioning names in either article. Not one.

As for the 60 year olds, sorry. At the most they could have hinted to the person's identity such that any victim would know and contact a responsible party. I do not respect anyone who feels that for their own "closure" they must embarrass the children and grandchildren of someone who died 20 years ago.

I was picked on by a bully 20 years ago. That doesn't mean I can go punch out his daughter today and blame him when I do it.

Chaim Haber: So just what will the BJT story accomplish?

Me: What the article accomplishes is that it helps moves rabbinical sexual abuse from the list of things not discussed in public to the list of things that are. That may not act as a deterrent, but it could make it easier for other victims to speak up, and that could minimize future acts.

I'm not trying to minimize the significant and unfair discomfort that the article must be causing, and I'm also not pretending that I myself have the ability to evaluate the benefits against their costs, but Dr. Haber questioned whether there were any benefits at all - I think there are.

-------------------------------

Bill: I do not respect anyone who feels that for their own "closure" they must embarrass the children and grandchildren of someone who died 20 years ago.

Me: That's fair, but Bill's lack of respect does not imply that there is no comfort for the victims in question.

Some of you have voiced the opinion that the families are innocent. To some extent, particularly in the case of the individual who is now deceased that is true.
However, in some of the instances that have blown open during the past decade and a half the parents knew the allegations floating around their offspring and did the avleh to both their respective children and the wider community of shipping them off to prey on the innocent children of another environment.
You may ask how we could expect a parent to confront such a thing head on. The responsible parent understands that it may be necessary to exhibit tough love and have their child committed to some facility to deal with the issue rather to expose their child to further temptation and the innocents they victimize to peril.
I have had personal experience in dealing with people in the frum community who have been victims of abuse. I can tell you that our present leadership has shown itself to be clueless in regard to many of these and other issues concerning mental health. The insensitivity and arrogance from the boomer generation of Rabbonim does not bode well for our generation. We should cherish the few Zekainim we have left while we have them.

The outing of boro park certainly embarassed his family and friends as well as ger chasidus as a whole. However it certainly stopped the molestations that were accuring up until last year this time.

To Greg and Moishe:

Your points are well taken, as are all the comments I seem to have generated (in part). Still my emphasis is meant to be on a choice of innocents to protect. Let's say that the outing of a 20 year dead abuser would allow for healing in some, even closure in others (I am not at all convinced it will). Does anyone think it will prevent another child from being abused? Even one? Will it stop a current abuser in his tracks? Will it forestall indefinitely a man struggling with horrific desires and yearnings? Will it prevent future abuse, even if you want to say it may give a diseased mind a moment to pause? In my heart of hearts I daresay it will not. But it will permanently damage an entire new generation of innocents. It will irrevocably alter the lives of one or two generations who may not have even been alive at the man's death,yet alone when he was committing his acts of outrage. Do we not now add suffering by this particular article? At what expense? Even if you are convinced that one abused child/adult, no longer in the clutches of the man, will find peace knowing that the Truth has been outed at last--even if this victim, in an epiphanic catharsis of victimhood is suddenly freed of a lifetime of pain and all that such victims must feel--even so: isn't the cost one of vengence? Will we pity the tortured soul the more who cries "To Hell with the innocent--my pain comes first!" Are we entirely comfortable with a healing that comes by transferring pain to others not the cause of our own?

I would imagine that the number of live abusers are greater than the number of dead ones. Go after them and stop that pain. And if someone gets away with it alive and dies with his "reputation" intact? Unless he left no innocent heirs I say leave the rest to G-d.
That's how I see it.

Chaim Haber: Let's say that the outing of a 20 year dead abuser would allow for healing in some, even closure in others (I am not at all convinced it will). Does anyone think it will prevent another child from being abused?

Me: I think this is the point on which we disagree - I think that if we change the perception of sexual abuse from its being an unmentionable stigmatizing taboo to its being a crime - that societal change could cut down the incidence of abuse. It seems apparent that molesters take precautions to avoid being discovered, and the likelihood of discovery should increase if victims are more comfortable speaking up.

That's a theory that resonates with me, but I claim no expertise in the area, and I could well be wrong. I share your concern over the unfair embarrassment that several families must be going through now, and again, I don't pretend to know whether the benefits are worth the cost.

It is understandable, Moishe, that you don't know how to weigh the costs vs. the benefits. However the Torah does, the Halacha is clear, and what the BJT did made Rav Heinemann's "Baltimore Jewish (?) Times" well-deserved.