A recent article about the changing American rabbinate highlighted that being a rabbi today requires a broad range of skills beyond scholarship. In response, rabbinic training now includes presentations by mental health, public speaking and business professionals. At the same time, recent events have highlighted that a similar upgrade is needed with respect to the internal disciplinary processes of rabbinical institutions.
Sadly, many recent scandals involve a recurring script. A rabbi is publicly accused of significant misconduct. In subsequent days we learn of earlier incidents that were ignored or quietly dismissed with a warning after a promise “not to do it again.” In many cases, the incidents were reported to national organizations who did not share the information with the impacted synagogues or schools.
To be clear, the overwhelming majority of rabbis are dedicated and exemplary leaders of our community. While any large group of individuals will have its bad actors, it is unfair to judge our institutions by the actions of a few bad actors. However, it is essential that we evaluate our institutions by the policies and procedures they have put in place to deter and discipline bad actors. To preserve their integrity, these institutions must have clear standards of conduct, a public process for addressing misconduct and clear and consistently applied consequences for verified misconduct.
The first question is what is the proper standard for rabbinic conduct? Clearly, Jewish law, as defined by the relevant rabbinic organization, is the starting point. However, I believe that a Jewish version of the “Wall Street Journal” test should also be applied. Many corporations employ this test to evaluate their activities. The test basically states “Do not engage in any conduct you would not want to see on the front page of the Journal.”
While fear of adverse publicity is not the ideal motivator of ethical conduct, the Rule is actually very powerful because it is easy to understand and explain and includes not only illegal behaviors but a host of other behaviors such as conflicts of interest, dishonesty, engaging in quid-pro-quos, intimidation and irresponsible speech. This standard also ignores the past. When the allegations hit the Journal, it does not matter that until that day you have been a model corporate citizen and done much good for others.
Admittedly, this is a very high standard of conduct. You can be a good Jew and still commit acts that you would prefer not to be on the cover of the Journal. Judaism, however, demands more of its leaders. You only have to look to the harsh punishments received by Moses and Miriam for relatively minor misdeeds to realize that Jewish leadership comes with awesome responsibility.
Rabbinical institutions should adopt rigorous disciplinary structures modeled after those of the legal profession and other professional organizations. Looking at the disciplinary system for attorneys in New Jersey, for example, there are at least six critical elements that lend it credibility. First, the system is universal–from junior associate to giants of the profession, all are subject to the same disciplinary process. Second, the various boards that handle complaints are standing bodies. Nothing about the process is ad hoc. Third, the boards are comprised of lawyers and non-lawyers. Forth, and perhaps most critically, once a board determines that there is sufficient evidence to believe an attorney may have acted improperly, the complaint becomes a matter of public record. Fifth, there are an established range of sanctions these boards can impose from censure to suspension to disbarment. Finally, there is a process by which rulings can be appealed. Obviously, if a matter involves potential criminal conduct it is promptly referred to the police.
There are those who will claim that a disciplinary system like the one outlined above violates the principle of Kvod Harav. For example, it allows the possibility for a rabbi to be shamed by a public accusation of misconduct only to be found innocent in a full proceeding. I believe this is unavoidable. The private nature of current rabbinic discipline has allowed problems to fester and have denied critical information to individuals and institutions threatened by a bad rabbinic actor. In addition, the knowledge that just a credible accusation of misconduct will be surfaced publicly will serve as a powerful deterrent to a potential bad actor.
Ultimately, the strongest reason to act quickly and forcefully to address this situation is Kvod Harabanut–the respect shown the Rabbinate. These scandals reduce faith in the integrity of our religious institutions. I believe that the strongest supporters of my proposals will be the overwhelming majority of rabbis whose conduct far exceeds the Wall Street Journal Test and must be devastated by the damage to their profession caused by a handful of bad rabbis undeterred by an ineffective disciplinary system.
To date, response to scandal has been reactive and narrow. Forming a committee to address the issue that caused yesterday’s problem is unlikely to address tomorrow’s new type of misconduct. Merely appointing an ombudsman is essentially meaningless unless there is a clear understanding of what will happen to complaints received by the ombudsman. The time for Band-Aid solutions is over; it is time to address the lack of transparency and disciplinary infrastructure in our religious institutions by creating disciplinary structures with the features outlined above.
Dror is a partner at the SorinRand law firm. He is a 1986 magna cum laude graduate of Princeton University and 1989 graduate of Columbia University School of Law. He also earned an Executive MBA in 1999 from the American Electronics Association Executive Institute of Stanford University.
By Dror Futter
