BishopAccountability.org
	The Abuse Debate By Larry Gordon 5 Towns Jewish Times April 30, 2009 http://www.5tjt.com/news/read.asp?Id=4170 From The Editor's Desk It’s frightening that we’ve come to sorrowfully accept in a rather matter-of-fact way the notion of children being abused in various and sundry ways in our schools and yeshivas over the years. Stopping to contemplate what some of our young people have been subjected to, whether in the relatively recent past or even decades ago, has to strike one as beyond revolting and certainly intolerable. Granted that more than 99 percent of our yeshiva and summer camp experiences have been uneventful in this regard, as has that of our children, whether they attend the same yeshivas and camps that we’ve attended or others. Under the shadows and beneath the surface of those wonderful school and summer days, though, was lurking and in some areas still exists an evil and depraved darkness that hurt some of our youngest people and scarred them in a deep way, ruining lives and breaking apart families. Today, there seem to be conflicting approaches to dealing with the problems and consequences of pedophilia and sexual abuse in our frum communities. Clearly the objective that motivates just about everyone involved in this process is to protect our innocent and vulnerable from harm. At the same time, there is a need to set the record of the past straight, to exact justice where possible, and at least try to make things right for those who have been so wounded, emotionally and otherwise. There’s little doubt that predators with a disposition in this direction are drawn to the shielded nature that surrounds these types of offensive behavior. Our discomfort with the activity and the communal as well as familial reluctance to deal with its sordid details are probably what draws these types to conducting themselves this way in the first place. New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind of Brooklyn probably deserves a great deal of the credit for not just bringing these issues to the forefront but for keeping the issues alive and persisting to the point that action can be taken. Apparently the nature of these things is to burst into the news for a day or so, on the blogs for a few days longer, and then after a brief period of time retreat to wherever they came from in the first place. But that’s not the way it seems this time. Maybe it’s Hikind’s status as a veteran elected official or his well-listened-to radio show on Saturday nights on WMCA in New York that has allowed the subject of abuse in the Orthodox Jewish community to receive the attention it has these last few months. When I spoke with Hikind on Monday as he drove to Albany, he said that his involvement was motivated solely by his desire to help the victims. Hikind is in a unique position, functioning as a victims’ advocate and also a vital part of the New York State legislative process that can ultimately impact very dramatically on some leading New York-based institutions and yeshivas, many in the district he serves. There are two bills currently before the Assembly in Albany. One bill bears the name of Assemblywoman Margaret Markey of Queens and the other bill before the chamber is sponsored by Assemblyman Vito Lopez of Brooklyn. The difference between the content of the two bills is the matter that for now divides Assemblyman Hikind’s approach with that of leading organizations such as Agudath Israel of America and Ohel Children’s Home. The Markey bill—which is favored by many victims’ advocates—wants to give victims a chance to seek justice and compensation for damage inflicted over the years. It calls for a one-year window during which victims can bring a civil lawsuit seeking damages from individuals or institutions, regardless of how long ago the abuse occurred. The Lopez bill does not include that window of potential litigious opportunity. The statute of limitations for the offenses is now at most five years from when the child victim turns 18. After that period, there is no legal redress that can be afforded them under the current law. The Markey bill would extend the statute of limitations to five years from when the child victim turns 23 (or from when the offense is reported, whichever comes first). The Lopez bill would extend the statute of limitations only until five years from when the child victim turns 20 (or from when the offense is reported, whichever comes first). It’s important to note that at a recent meeting in New York hosted by the Jewish Board of Advocates for Children, a statement was read in the name of Rabbi Hershel Schachter, a rosh yeshiva at Yeshiva University, in which he said that in halachah (Jewish law) there is nothing comparable to a statute of limitations. Ohel, Agudath Israel, and Torah Umesorah oppose the one-year “window period” where suits can be brought dating back decades. Their feeling is that lawsuits would be brought that will throw the good work of these institutions into a tizzy. They anticipate very large legal fees and settlements or judgments found for plaintiffs in the millions of dollars. Assemblyman Hikind says that he understands the problem and is hoping that some kind of compromise formula can be reached that will allow the legislation to pass the Assembly and the State Senate and become law. Some of those points of compromise are enumerated in the statement issued by David Mandel, CEO of Ohel, that is printed here. Mr. Elliot Pasik, of counsel to the firm of Gerald P. Gross in Cedarhurst and a founding member of the Jewish Board of Advocates for Children, says that he is outraged by the Agudah, Torah Umesorah, and Ohel positions. He says that as far as he is concerned, the Agudath Israel/Torah Umesorah statement says, in effect, “We’re guilty, but we just don’t want to pay.” He says that no one should have to apologize for supporting the extension of the statute of limitations for child sex abuse. On the issue suggested in Mr. Mandel’s piece that court awards be capped at $500,000 and lawyers’ fees be limited to 10 percent, on a contingency basis, he says of Mr. Mandel, “It seems he does not understand how some of these victims have suffered, how tens of thousands of dollars have been spent on counseling and is still being spent in an effort to recover from being so victimized and traumatized.” Pasik says that in the case of victims that sued the California archdiocese, the courts awarded the plaintiffs over $600 million. He feels that it’s unconscionable that anyone or any organization should oppose the ability of victims who, in many cases, have had their lives ruined, to pursue a maximum financial award for their suffering. Mr. Pasik additionally points out that while these organizations oppose the Markey bill as it stands, the Rabbinical Council of America, representing more than a thousand American Orthodox rabbis, favors the bill and creating whatever opportunities possible for victims to seek redress. While money seems to be at the center of the current debate on this issue, Mr. Hikind apparently feels that while it is indeed a concern for those that may have some potential liability, “it’s really less about money and more about seeking justice.” Additionally, at the core of the different positions on this issue is whether the emphasis should be on identifying predators and abusers so that they cannot do any more damage in the future, or looking back and allowing those who have been hurt to have their day in court. Mr. Pasik feels that without a price tag being assigned to these offenses, there will not be the needed compensation nor the appropriate obstacles in place to prevent predators from repeatedly striking. The Ohel position, as enunciated in the Mandel statement, calls for an amnesty of sorts on prosecution or civil lawsuits provided offenders come forward on their own, admit their guilt, and seek professional help. Pasik said that he was astounded by such a suggestion, saying, “How can there even be a mention of any kind of amnesty for the type of damage wrought here for so long without anyone stepping forward and speaking out?” Mr. Pasik, who is lobbying Albany to pass legislation on these matters, is astounded that now that we’ve finally begun, after all these decades, to seriously address abuse issues, we are talking about amnesties and reducing the ability of a victim to seek redress. For his part, Assemblyman Hikind says that we as a community tend to feel that while there’s a disturbing problem out there, it’s rather distant from our lives, small in scope and contained. “Don’t underestimate what is going on,” he says; “The problem of sexual abuse is huge in our community.” And so the debate rages over what the issues are and in what sequence they should be addressed. Is it about publicly identifying and putting predators out of business, or is it about trying to bring some measure of satisfaction and a formula by which some of the pain of the past can be effectively dealt with and assuaged? We don’t want to see some of our educational institutions and organizations brought to the brink of destruction over offenses that were committed by people who in some cases are long gone from the scene and certainly not inflicting any more damage. At the same time, it’s very difficult to assign a limited dollar amount that we can say is enough to compensate a young man or woman for a life that has been derailed or largely ruined. The advocates on each side of this issue are just beginning to communicate in earnest. Let’s hope that sometime very soon there will be a meeting of the minds, an effective balance will be struck, and we will be able to move forward for the betterment of all the children—those in our schools and camps today, as well as the many children of the past who have suffered in silence for way too long. Comments for Larry Gordon are welcome at editor@5tjt.com.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.