AYA Group Response - Aaron Sarfati

Please enable JavaScript to view the full PDF

January 12, 2022 To the Board of AYA, Thank you for taking the time discuss our letter and for providing a response. Our goal was never to “dictate [] policy for the entirety of the families in our community,” as your letter suggests. Instead, it was to make the Board aware that a large number of families have concerns about AYA’s new COVID policies and to discuss them with you. We did not feel heard, especially when we individually wrote and met with school administrators, and so we believed it most productive to elevate the issue to you in a respectful and empathetic manner. If you took our letter any other way, then the fault is our own for failing to communicate that. But it is nearly impossible to engage in the serious discussions this issue merits through written communications, and so we are heartened that you have agreed to a meeting. And because letters are never the best way to engage in civil discourse, your response unsurprisingly provides little clarity or direction on how the school plans to move forward while addressing parental concerns. Although our original letter focused on COVID, many parents— including some who did not even sign that letter have since raised a slew of other issues with AYA, including the Maalot program, tuition assistance, lack of longevity among teaching staff, and several open senior positions. The fundamental problem appears to be a lack of transparency and communication with parents, who are often left in the dark and feel like their concerns fall on deaf ears. The reason so many of us are frustrated is not necessarily because of the implementation of specific policies with which we disagree, but with how those policies are communicated and enforced. We feel excluded, minimized, divided, embarrassed, and lost with where the school is headed. Our children feel these same pressures and more, especially when they are harshly scolded by teachers for not wearing masks perfectly or ostracized for not being vaccinated. There is an enormous impact to the mental health of our children that is being ignored. Rightly or wrongly, from what we have seen, we believe the school and our children are in trouble and we want to be part of the solution. We look forward to scheduling the meeting which you proposed with 2-3 representatives from our group and executive members of the Board to discuss our concerns in more detail, but we want to reiterate our hope that you will take the opportunity to hold public meetings where parents can learn about the school’s governance, strategy, and priorities and also voice their opinions on a variety of issues, not just to address COVID. We appreciate your trepidations about a townhall considering recent problems throughout the country, but we are saddened that you believe that our small, Jewish community would engage in such disrespect. We are also perplexed that you would suggest that “public debate of policy is not conducive to orderly and civil discourse.” In 1919, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. argued the very opposite in his impassioned dissent in Abrams v. United States, where the majority opinion unfairly held that the Jewish writers of a Yiddish leaflet protesting U.S. involvement in Russian military affairs were guilty of espionage and sedition: If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. . . . But . . . the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas . . . . The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. Public debate and the triumph of the marketplace of ideas have been at the heart of orderly and civil discourse for centuries, going back all the way to the Roman Forum and enshrined in the works of notable philosophers such as John Milton and John Stuart Mill. Public debate allows a populace to feel heard such that even if they disagree with those governing them, they have acquiesced to the legitimacy of the institution through their involvement, and dissent, discord, and division are thereby lessened. And the protection of public debate is even more critical for a marginalized minority such as ours. Oliver Wendell Holmes reminded us of this in his dissent in Abrams, and we hope you may eventually agree. Finally, your response asked our group to maintain “decorum and respect” and to avoid “personal and unkind attacks.” We are sincerely confused. The only communication our group made was through our January 2 letter, and it did not identify any individual other than Mr. Gorycki (and even then, we stressed that we believed that he had the best interest of our children at heart, even if we disagreed with him). We have no idea what you are referring to, but any such “attacks”— whatever they may be—are not representative of what our group communicated to you on January 2. Just as individual members of the Board may have views that differ from official Board communications, we ask the Board to confine its assessment of our position to these communications and no others. The school has lost the confidence of many parents, not just because of the new COVID policies, but also because of the lack of clear direction and lack of Derech Eretz. Re-enrollment began yesterday and a significant number of families are unwilling to commit to another year at AYA without having these concerns heard and addressed. We have the utmost faith in you and in our community, and we are committing to a respectful and open dialogue to help resolve these issues in any way we can. We look forward to working together for the betterment of our school and our community. Sincerely, Concerned AYA Parents