Beitar Illit Mayor Rabbi Yitzchok Pindrus submitted a request
on Monday through Attorney David Rotem to hold an additional
High Court hearing on the petition regarding Beitar's
exclusion from the hot lunch program after the previous
petition was rejected by Deputy High Court President Mishel
Cheshin.
Two weeks ago Judge Cheshin rejected Beitar Illit's petition
to require the Education Ministry to include all of the
children in the city in the government's hot lunch program.
He ruled that the State may provide free lunches only for the
government institutions, Chinuch Atzmai and Maayan Hachinuch
HaTorani. However 23 talmudei Torah and "recognized
but unofficial" and "exempt" institutions would be ineligible
for this funding because "they do not fulfill the aims of the
Government Education Law," the High Court said. Judge Cheshin
caused a political tempest by adding if parents want their
children to receive lunch, "let these children come to
government schools." (See editorial in this issue.)
After the appeal was rejected, Rabbi Pindrus set up a team of
jurists to thoroughly evaluate the High Court decision and
they recommended filing a request for an additional hearing.
In its request the City of Beitar Illit argues the
educational aims at the city's chareidi schools, without
exception, are consistent with the Government Education Law
and as such increasing the number of study hours and their
funding would help these institutions expand and deepen the
students' knowledge and education.
"The very existence of Chinuch Atzmai and exempt, chareidi
institutions does not indicate the educational aims at these
institutions contradict the Government Education Law. The
demand for the independence of chareidi education is based on
fears the powers in the hands of the mostly secular
government in the State of Israel would be taken advantage of
to bring about negative, compulsory interference in
curriculum at chareidi institutes of learning in a manner not
suited to the chareidi way of life."
In its petition the City claims if the court had reached the
conclusion chareidi education in Beitar Illit fulfills only
some of the aims of the Government Education Law that would
already be sufficient grounds not to exclude schools from the
hot lunch program "for even then switching to an extended
school day would deepen knowledge and education." Therefore,
the petition argues, the extended-day program should apply to
all of the educational institutions in the city, and
accordingly the hot lunch program should apply as well.
The City claims Judge Cheshin maligned the chareidi education
system by finding fault in the education provided at the
city's chareidi schools. "The court did not look into the
curriculum, holding no discussion on the body of the claim.
Neither did the State claim that the educational institutions
do not fulfill these aims. Determining that a given sector
does not educate [children] toward the goals of government
education—basic aims held in consensus in Israeli
society— without performing a proper inquiry is a
serious determination with broad implications."
In the petition Attorney Rotem attacks the court for this
sweeping determination, writing that the court cannot make
such a claim without stating what value it believes the
schools do not fulfill and towards which they do not educate
students. "Could it be that such a grave determination comes
forth from the High Court with the stroke of a pen without
providing the petitioner or the chareidi public in general
the opportunity to demonstrate this is not the case?" reads
the petition.
The City also demands an additional, expanded hearing be held
on the question of the distinction Judge Cheshin drew several
years ago between chareidi and government educational
institutions regarding budgeting and the issue of applying
the hot lunch program at chareidi institutions. "This
decision," the City claims, "creates distortion and
discrimination among citizens in the State of Israel in such
a basic, vital and elementary matter, which is actually a
matter in the realm of welfare and assistance no less than a
matter of education: providing food for children, including
hungry children. Beyond a doubt this justifies departing from
the past precedent and subjecting this issue to a
reassessment."
In the new petition, the City of Beitar confronts Judge
Cheshin's pronouncement two weeks ago that chareidi parents
who would like their children to receive a hot lunch should
send them to government schools. This remark, writes Attorney
Rotem, "ignores the reality in Israel and in the Jewish world
as a whole, and in a certain respect constitutes an act of
`mocking the poor.' For parents of children in Beitar Illit
placing children in government schools is tantamount to
educating their children in a manner that stands in
contradiction to their way of life and beliefs . . . This is
a sector to which sending their child to the government
education system and exposing him or her to the curriculum
there stands in contradiction to its beliefs and religious
worldview. The State or Israeli society cannot expect people
to send their children to receive education at educational
institutions liable to be in opposition to their way of life.
These parents do not have a real possibility of sending their
children to government schools as they exist today without
foregoing their beliefs and educational needs. Under such
circumstances denying their right to benefit from the hot
lunch program constitutes unacceptable discrimination in
light of the children's and parents' beliefs and way of
life."
In conclusion the City of Beitar stresses the High Court's
rejection of the possibility of funding the hot lunch program
for all of the city's institutions "as if schools in Beitar
Illit do not educate toward the aims of government education,
constitutes a serious affront to a whole segment of the
population . . . which has not been given the opportunity to
prove its claims, [and] justifies granting the request to
hold an additional hearing."
