We have serious concerns with respect to the letter “United for Our Community’s Future: Endorsement of Stern and Hernandez Carroll for State Assembly” (May, 1 2025) in The Jewish Link signed by heads of school in support of candidates for political office. We understand that the letter stated that it was written in each such individual’s “personal capacity”; however, the fact that it was signed by the heads of school of the local yeshiva day schools as a group presents as a recommendation on behalf of the schools. Having heads of school sign a letter endorsing a political candidate is inappropriate for several reasons:
- It is divisive. Endorsement of any political candidate can be very divisive, particularly in the polarized times we live in. The schools have parent bodies that have a wide range of views and political beliefs, and if the schools get involved in political action, it risks alienating a large portion of their parent bodies and creates further divisiveness. Such activities could be viewed to conflict with the goals and values of the schools as communal organizations consisting of people who certainly will not always agree.
- It harms the reputation and brand of the schools. The schools, as communal organizations, are generally not viewed as political actors and are trusted by the community. By engaging in political activism, the schools risk losing credibility with those that do not agree and undermining their reputation and trustworthiness.
- It sets a horrible precedent. Once a person or organization has made a political endorsement, they have opened the door to pressure to make further political endorsements. One can certainly see how a school could be pressured in future elections to make endorsements on the basis that the difference between the candidates, whether local, state or national, could have a much greater relative impact to the Jewish community than the differential between the candidates in this election. There is great benefit to an institution staying out of politics as a general principle because it allows it to stay out of politics in all instances. Once you have entered the game of politics, it is difficult to leave. We would expect the leadership of the schools to be extremely careful not to open this Pandora’s box.
- It potentially creates serious risks. As 501(c)(3) organizations, the schools are prohibited from engaging in political endorsements. Our understanding is that the question of whether an individual in a leadership capacity of a nonprofit is acting in an individual capacity would be based on the facts and circumstances surrounding the statement, and that statements made by individuals can be attributed to an organization depending on the likely public response to those statements. A letter signed by the heads of school of the local yeshivas, whose names are recognizable to the public, as a “united” position when the only thing that unites the signatories are their roles would likely be seen by the general public as an endorsement by the institutions. Considering that the repercussions for engaging in political activities by the schools risks the revocation of the tax-exempt status, we would expect leadership of the schools to analyze the risks and relative benefits carefully and be extremely cautious with advice from competent counsel.
- It is misguided. Given the serious issues noted above, it would seem prudent for the schools to stay out of political advocacy even where the particular candidates have vastly different positions relating to the Jewish community, which creates a compelling rationale to get involved. In this case, the candidates being endorsed are challenging an Orthodox Jewish woman who is a respected member of the local community and is extremely engaged in and supportive of the Bergen County Jewish community (and had entered the race months before the candidates being endorsed). As a result, an endorsement effectively against this candidate is particularly likely to alienate not just those with strong political preferences, but more generally community members, friends and neighbors. It is particularly shocking that this would be the circumstance in which a school would be willing to disregard the risks noted above to engage in political advocacy.
In the leadup to the 2020 presidential election, Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, zt”l said in an interview, “Don’t mix religion and politics. You mix religion and politics, you get terrible politics and even worse religion” (and we would note, he went further to say, “I’m afraid I have absolutely not the slightest shred of sympathy for anyone who, as a rabbi, tells people how to vote”).
As an aside, we happen to personally know Tamar Warburg as one of the candidates and have known her for more than a decade. We have lived in the same community and one of us has worked with her, both at the same law firm and in connection with joint work for certain Jewish nonprofits. However, none of that or our positive view of her character forms the basis for the perspectives above, which would hold true irrespective of the relative quality of the candidates.
As fiduciaries for the school, we think the respective leadership of the schools have a responsibility to face these issues head-on and consider appropriate policies that should be followed with respect to engaging in political advocacy going forward. We believe strongly that this is something that should be discussed openly at a community-wide level given the seriousness of the implications.
