JTA Is Wrong: Elimelech Meisels Was Not Sued for Sex Assault, But… (from the archives)

newsboy

A year ago, today, I posted this story. You may want to go back to that original posting for the comments. 

JTA, 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” Continue reading

The Grey Area of Rape Culture in the Black and White World of Jewish Orthodoxy

by Esther Tova Stanley*

Esther Tova Stanley

Esther Tova Stanley

“Yeah, but he’s a man.”

That was the actual reason I was given as to why a rabbi’s sexual predatory behavior was OK. Well not , “OK,” but y’know, understandable.

In the wake of sexual assault allegations brought against Elimelech Meisels, a “rabbi” who controlled and operated numerous seminaries for post high school girls, a very unseemly side of our Jewish orthodox culture is raring its ugly head, yet again. The side that excuses men for being unable to control their sexual urges and, on occasion, even has the audacity to blame the victim for it.

“Well, what was she thinking getting into the car with him?”
“She’s troubled; she misunderstood what really happened.”
“She’s a crazy, manipulative liar.”

Yes, these are actual responses I got when I asked community members why they continued to support this sexual predator/rabbi. Was I surprised? Unfortunately, I was not. Continue reading

Update on the Meisels Seminaries Scandals

I will be posting more about the latest developments in the Meisels seminaries scandal. But before heading into Passover I want to quickly note JBlog Review’s observation about the latest post on Daniel Eidensohn’s Daas Torah Blog, which has always been the voice of Meisels and guilty seminary staff as argued by Rabbi Chaim Malinowitz. Their agenda has always been to minimize acknowledging Meisels’ sexual abuse (even though he faces civil court charges of rape and attempted rape by two of his alumni). Continue reading

Who Are You Going to Believe About Mrs. Ullman?

When I was in mesivta (high school) several of us loved reciting this nonsense verse:

One bright day in the middle of the night
Two dead boys got up to fight.
Back to back they faced each Hindy Ullman
Took out their knives and shot each other.
One deaf policeman heard the noise…

Being clever yeshiva boys we went to work resolving the inconsistencies. It could be bright during midnight at the North Pole during the longest day in the summer. The dead can get up if resurrected. If resurrected with their heads in the wrong direction, they can face each other, back to back. Guns disguised as knives can shoot. The deaf can “hear” shootings by feeling the vibrations.

But we knew it was a game and the poem was truly full of contradictions. That’s what made it funny. A rabbinic court ruling (psak), laced with contradictions is no laughing matter. Yet that is what we have.

The joint Beis Din ruling on Mrs. Hindy Ullman, principal of the Binas Beis Yaakov Seminary addressed her culpability in Meisels sexual abuse of students. It states:

We are talking about incidents that… occurred 5772 [2011-2012] (the year Binas Beis Yaakov opened) and on… We are talking about a handful of incidents each year

After going through the material before us, it is difficult to shake the feeling that there were red flags and troubling signs, and the administration should have known and sensed what was going on under its own nose… It is difficult to establish that with certainty, and even if you say it is true, how can we know and decide if it was at the level of negligence or near negligence or less than that – but to leave it at nothing is impossible.

Therefore it seems that we must make do with the continuation of the arrangements that were agreed upon by the administration in Kislev of this year. According to [these arrangements], some of the positions and responsibility will be transferred temporarily to another party. As well, supervision and guidance by Mrs. Birnbaum will be increased. These arrangements will be in effect until the start of the school year of 5777 [Fall 2016]. [bolding in the original]

The judges acknowledge multiple episodes of abuse complete with “red flags and troubling signs” that Mrs. Ullman “should have known and sensed” was “going on under” her “own nose.” Yet they dispute that this was negligence. Well actually they kvetch, “how can we know and decide.” I thought deciding was their job.

In the end, they settle on a vague set of sanctions with two parts to last until fall, 2016. Some of Ullman’s “positions and responsibility will be transferred… to another party” and “supervision and guidance by Mrs. Birnbaum will be increased.”

I don’t know about you. I could not certify the safety of a school whose administrator has to be on probation because they were either too stupid or too indifferent to discern, detect and stop multiple episodes of sexual abuse of students by staff. Yet that is what they did when the released the first part of this ruling in December when they wrote, “There is no danger or problem in sending students to study in these seminaries.”

The members of the Chicago Beis Din believe she is under tight control and will eventually be forced out. But is that true? Rabbi Daniel Eidensohn posted a letter on his Daas Torah blog from a mother of student now attending Ullman’s seminary, Binas. She writes:

I periodically ask my daughter if anything has come up this year and she says no.  I ask if Mrs. Ullman is in charge and she says yes.  What that tells me is that if there was a “punishment” it is sure not one that anyone sees and thus would not be effective as such.”

We have students and parents who cannot discern any transfer of Mrs. Ullman’s positions and responsibility.

So who are you going to believe, a Beis Din that promised some sanctions against Mrs. Ullman or parents and students who are convinced that Ullman is faultless and retains full authority?

Deciphering the Latest Joint Rabbinical Court Ruling on the Meisels Seminaries Scandal

Elimelech Meisels speaking poster brooklyn Jan 11 2014 cropped andwatermarked and captionedThe enlarged joint beis din issued a ruling on the Meisels seminaries which was posted on the Daas Torah blog on 3/11/15 with the misleading title, “Joint Beis Din – Israeli and Chicago – issues psak regarding former Meisels seminaries that all is well and that no one needed to be fired!

I ask my readers to forgive me for taking six days to respond. But a travesty of this magnitude deserves a full fledged report and rejoinder, not just a nasty swipe.

Further below is a full translation of the entire document posted on Daas Torah. But, first some observations and cautions.

Eidensohn’s claims notwithstanding, the ruling criticizes some staff and did some fancy footwork to exonerate others. Mrs. Hindy Ullman was a tough one to exonerate because the Beis Din received evidence she was directly told of an abused student and she dismissed it out of hand characterizing the student as not credible.

Hindy Ullman

Hindy Ullman

Ullman also offered up the absurd defense that she, the employee, forced Meisels to leave the seminaries. The Beis Din wrote:

It is clear that once it became known, the administration acted quickly, with determination, and with great efficiency to investigate what occurred. This led to the removal of the offender/abuser from the physical environment (by immediately sending him abroad) and from continuing in the field of education).

We are led to believe that the employee, Mrs. Ullman, had this much power over her boss, Meisels.

Ullman was stripped by the Beis Din of some of her roles and put under supervision for a year and half. It is possible that the intent is to have her resign while not declaring that she was fired. Continue reading