JTA Is Wrong: Elimelech Meisels Was Not Sued for Sex Assault

newsboyJTA, which bills itself as “The Global Jewish News Source,” first neglected the Meisels story and then blew it. Their August headline, “Orthodox educator Rabbi Elimelech Meisels sued for sexual assault” is wrong. None of the plaintiffs is claiming they or their daughters were sexually assaulted by Meisels. Yet the JTA article starts: “Rabbi Elimelech Meisels, who runs four religious seminaries in Israel for young Orthodox women, is being sued for sexual assault.” The Forward piled on with a subhead, “Lured Teenage Girls to Late-Night Coffee Meetings”

This is a lawsuit by five American families who enrolled their daughters in the ultra-orthodox, post-HS, Jerusalem schools operated by Meisels for the upcoming 2014-1015 academic year. They want to withdraw their daughters and get their tuition payments back. They are acting on the July 10, 2014 ruling of the Chicago rabbinical court which wrote:

Elimelech Meisels

Elimelech Meisels

Students in these seminaries are at risk of harm and it does not recommend that students attend these seminaries at this time.

This is not an important story because a prominent rabbi preyed on young woman. Alas, such stories are a dime a dozen in every religious community.

The news is that groups of ultra-orthodox rabbis are taking the gloves off instead of using the old, ineffective, discrete methods. This is the second such case this year. Early in 2014, Rabbi Dovid Weinberger was publicly denounced from almost every orthodox pulpit in his area for similar misconduct. He was forced out of the rabbinate. Rabbi Yisroel Belsky tried to intervene on behalf of Weinberger. He was thrashed by the local rabbis who proceeded to block fundraising for his institution, Yeshiva Torah Vodaath. It is estimated this cost them $200,000. If Belsky doesn’t retract it will again cost them next year. This much-talked-about event was completely ignored by the Jewish media.

Rabbi Dovid Weinberger

Rabbi Dovid Weinberger

Weinberger was primarily a pulpit rabbi. Shaaray Tefilla, his synagogue in Lawrence, NY, got rid of him and he had no legal recourse. The synagogue completely disavowed him and that was that.

Meisels controlled the board of his schools and dislodging him was more difficult. A Chicago rabbinical court announced that following an investigation of allegations of ‘unwanted physical touch of a sexual nature’ they concluded that parents should not send their daughters to them. The seminaries under his control tried to obfuscate the issue by claiming he resigned because of long-term plans. An ad hoc Israeli rabbinical court was contrived which declared the schools were safe thus giving  implicit sanction to the seminaries to refuse to refund tuition payments to parents who wanted to follow the Chicago advisory to withdraw their students. The Chicago rabbinical court shot back with a public statement.

We… note, based on evidence including testimony by victims and staff and admissions by Elimelech Meisels, our conclusion that certain senior staff members failed in their responsibilities toward students.

The lawsuit is a byproduct of the larger dispute about whether to give primacy to student safety or the financial viability of the seminaries. Ultimately this is a story about a gradual shift in the ultra orthodox approach to sex abuse from cover-ups to exposure and institutional responsibility. The Chicago approach is still the exception but it is an important development which may foreshadow substantial change.

The Israeli court response is a story about a preference for protecting institutions from the fallout of abuse scandals. It is the Catholic Church mentality written in Hebrew and rationalized with halacha (Jewish religious law). It boils down to “trust us.” Trust us even though we are not transparent. Trust us even though we simultaneously say, everything is now hunky dory, but we will further investigate allegations of staff enabling. Trust us even though we will not disclose the names of the new officers of the controlling entities or the exact terms of the transfer of control.

Blogs played a very important part in this story. The ultra orthodox media almost always censor such stories and the secular press just ignores them. But for blogs, this story would only have gotten around the orthodox world by word of mouth and without most of the critical documents. My blog, Frum Follies, and several others including Tzedek-Tzedek (Israel), Failed Messiah (Minnesota), Emet Ve-Emunah (Chicago), Kol B’Isha Erva (Chicago), A Mother in Israel (Petah Tikva, Israel), and Rare View: Dus Iz Nies brought this scandal to public attention within the orthodox world through a mixture of articles, leaked documents and reports on developments. In the corner of the Israeli court, the Daas Torah blog of Rabbi Daniel Eidensohn (Jerusalem) also leaked documents from the Israeli Beis Din (IBD) and pumped out arguments supporting the IBD. Never before has such a dispute been publicized with so many leaks and documents from both sides.

Rabbi Eidensohn declared the lawsuit a blood libel because its language and the reporting about it could lead the inattentive reader to conclude that Meisels’ co-defendants, Mrs. Slanger, Mr Yarmush, and Rabbi Gartner were involved in trying to feed Meisel’s lust.  As I pointed out in rejoinder, the controversial RICO claim in the lawsuit does not allege sexual misconduct by Meisels’ co-defendants. There is no claim that the daughters of the plaintiffs were so much as touched by Meisels. The crime alleged is fraud in selling the seminaries as safe and orthodox while Meisels was inappropriately sexual with students. Only Meisels himself is accused of deliberately misleading marketing. However, the other three are accused of assisting in rebuffing requests for tuition deposits. You can become a RICO co-defendant for helping to handle or retain the proceeds of fraud.

That’s it for my accounts of the bad press coverage. I expect mainstream media to start reporting on this story and I am optimistic that they will do a better job at seeing the  big picture.

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “JTA Is Wrong: Elimelech Meisels Was Not Sued for Sex Assault

  1. I believe you meant “ineffective, discreet methods.” I would like to think this and other blogs are having an impact, but it appears that even the Jewish media is not paying much attention to them. It took the lurid RICO lawsuit to draw the attention of the Forward, and I was surprised when I searched the Jewish Week website today under “Meisels” and found nothing about the scandal had appeared.

  2. Appalling, the super sloppy journalism. (not talking about non-reporting, ignoring the subject) but totally false recording, these guys/gals get paid, to wing it? They never even read the RICO charges, Amazing, if I were the editor of any newspaper, of whatever size, those who blew this accounting with inaccurate reporting would be OUT. For, who would trust any future news-reporting? A veritable busha, cherpa and shonda, shameful, truly.
    I can only pray that their premature incorrect news reports, become facts some day soon, i.e. M. is accused criminally of sexual abuse in E”Y where his actions were illegal, as a rabbi/teacher having sexual relations of some sort with his own students, or civil cases in US, bim’hera b’yameinu.

  3. What’s your interpretation, then, of paragraphs 44 through 49 of the “RICO” suit, starting from the italicized heading “THE SEXUAL ASSAULTS” and continuing through “THE SEXUAL ASSAULTS ARE REVEALED” (which is also an italicized heading)? Are you saying these paragraphs do not allege sexual assault? Or are you saying that no damages or compensation are being sought by plaintiffs for said alleged assaults, which is also incorrect, it seems to me, from reading other parts of the federal court suit such as paragraphs 114 through 116, as posted at http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2014/08/seminary-scandal-blood-libel-of-absurd.html#disqus_thread

    • Show me a single line in the suit alleging that defendant’s assaulted the named plaintiffs. It is clear in the suit that the plaintiff’s daughters have not yet attended the seminaries. They want their money back because Meisels assaulted other girls. They claim they were defrauded when promised a safe school (which of course implies one where staff do not assault students and other staff do not cover up.) Because they were suckered when they paid their advance tuition they want it back.

      Kindly do all of us the courtesy of carefully reading the article before commenting. I will delete future comments that show you have either not bothered to read the article or are attacking it without acknowledging its core points.

      Your quotes are irrelevant to the argument. The parents are citing previous assaults to justify their claim that they were suckered when they paid up-front. THEY ARE NOT SUING FOR DAMAGES BASED ON ANY CLAIM THAT THEIR DAUGHTERS WERE ASSAULTED. Capiche!

        • You wrote in your post above, “The crime alleged is fraud in selling the seminaries as safe and orthodox while Meisels was inappropriately sexual with students.”
          In view of the fact that this is a civil lawsuit, I believe you mean *tort* alleged (a tort is a civil wrong) rather than “crime.”

          • Actually, a RICO civil suit requires the allegation of a criminal act, in this case fraud, which has a conspiracy element. So you have to allege a crime to justify the tort action.

  4. This might seem cynical but I wonder if the secular media has not covered either the Weinberger story or the Meisels case because both reflect positively on the American orthodox rabbis who are in the midst of — and in some ways leading — a major change in our community’s approach to sexual abuse cases.

    Orthodox Jewry is the whipping boy of much of non-Orthodox Jewry. These stories simply do not fit the mold. They go against the trend. Therefore, the secular media decision-makers don’t publicize them.

    I was once approached by a journalist (who knew me decades ago, in college) for one of the major secular newspapers, and I provided that person with a positive story about Orthodox Jews. I never heard from him again and the story did not get published.

    Another possibility, of course, is that their journalists / reporters are incompetent, just plain lazy, or a combination of both.

  5. Is the suit seeking class action? I think many reasonable people would then deduce that others were molested if not the hereunto named plaintiffs.

See Commenting policy ( http://wp.me/pFbfD-Kk )

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s