Henry J. Stern
August 14, 2007
The flap over the Kahlil Gibran International Academy
- in fact a proposed New York City public school on Sixth Avenue in Brooklyn,
starting with 6th grade pupils - has taken a turn from an ideological dispute
to an issue of incongruity.
Khalil Gibran (1883-1931) was born in Lebanon into a
Maronite Christian family. He came to America in 1895, and was known
as a poet and artist. He studied art in France under Rodin. Gabrin
wrote about Christianity, and exposed corruption in the eastern churches.
His major work, "The Prophet", published in 1923, is comprised of 26 essays,
which describe various aspects of life in an uplifting manner.
His writing can be compared with that of Norman Vincent
Peale, both inspiring to believers and satisfying to infidels. Nonbelievers
are not threatened with decapitation or worse in his poetry or prose.
His early work expressed anti-feudal and anti-clerical sentiments.
Gibran died at the age of 48 of cirrhosis of the liver and tuberculosis.
He was buried in his native Lebanon by his sister, Mariana, and a devoted
supporter, Mary Elizabeth Haskell. He was not a Muslim.
The Department of Education's description of the school states
that its "mission is to prepare students of diverse backgrounds for
success in an increasingly global and interdependent society. Our focus
is on holistic student development and rigorous academics. Through
our multicultural curriculum and intensive Arabic language instruction,
students graduate with the skills they need to become empowered independent
thinkers who are able to work with cultures beyond their own. Students
graduate with a deep understanding of different cultural perspectives, a
love of learning, and a desire for excellence, with integrity preparing them
for leadership in today's constantly changing global world."
It would not take a Holden Caulfield
to recognize that language as completely phony. You could substitute any
language for the word Arabic, and use the same boilerplate to describe the
school. Whichever staffer or consultant at Tweed wrote it receives
our grudging credit. S/he should next try spinning straw into gold.
His/er writing is fantastic.
For better or worse, controversy struck the as yet unborn
school last week after the principal-designate, Debbie Almontaser, saw some
"Intifada NYC", T-shirts, which were being sold by an Arab women's group
with whom she shared office space downtown. When reached by the press, Ms.
Almontaser defended the use of the I-word. She said it was non-violent and
meant to inspire girls to shake off "oppression". Intifada is
the word used to describe the Arabs' terrorist campaign against Israel which
followed Yasser Arafat's rejection of the Oslo accords in 2003. It
carries the spirit of the word "blitzkrieg" or the phrase "Arbeit macht frei."
Under pressure from an international conspiracy,
Ms. Almontaser recanted her support for the T-shirt slogan the next day, but
her volte face was not enough to save her principalship, and she "resigned"
Friday, with a letter to the Department of Education that is so hot that
Tweed is keeping it secret. They should be reminded that the Freedom
of Information Law applies to the Department of Education as well, and that
they should release the letter promptly, before concocting another version.
It is assumed that the letter will give some indication as to her actual
sentiments.
.Monday, the Department of Education named a new principal
for the Gibran school. She is Danielle Salzberg, 35, a program officer at
a nonprofit which funds school programs. She is Jewish, and does not
speak Arabic. How a non-Arabic speaking principal can serve the school's
mission as defined in their mission statement is not clear to us.
She doesn't have to be an Arab, but at least she should be able to
talk to the kids' parents..
When I was a youngster attending P.S. 152 and J.H.S. 52 in
upper Manhattan, my parents thought that I too should learn about the language
and customs of my tribe, even though we were living in America.
So they sent me to a place where I could do that. It was called HEBREW SCHOOL.
It met at 3:30, after the public school day ended. Classes were held in
synagogues or community centers. The teachers were paid very modestly
by the schools, and there was a small monthly fee for the students, which
could be adjusted for children whose family income was low.
Most of the the Catholic kids also went for religious education.
They went to churches, as I recall, one afternoon a week (now Wednesday).
They left at 2 p.m. under what was called "released time". The Jewish
boys and girls usually stayed until 3 p.m. The released time program
was the subject of controversy, but all the Catholics got was
an hour off once a week to learn the catechism and various prayers.
If your parents wanted you to have a Catholic education,they
could send you full-time to CATHOLIC SCHOOL, which was run by the church
If one wanted a thoroughly Jewish education, there were private day schools
which one could attend. If one wanted a secular Jewish education,
there were Workmen's Circle schools which taught Yiddish. There were no
separate public schools for Jews or Christians in those bygone days. In
fact, we were at war with people who wanted to kill the Jews and enslave
the Christians.
Some Jewish and interfaith leaders originally endorsed the
Gibran Academy to demonstrate their fairness and lack of prejudice. After
all, Gibran was something like the Deepak Chopra of his day, a reassuring
figure. He was from a different culture but he liked us.
Supporters wanted to make the point that in a free country different
cultures could be taught, which is, of course, in striking contrast with
the Muslim world.
A few former allies have now backed off, saying that
Ms. Almontaser's remarks and the controversy surrounding them make it unlikely
that the school can succeed as a non-political cultural institution.
If the school educates Arab teenagers who have chosen to attend specifically
because of their Arab identity, it is quite likely that the school will be
swept along in the passions of the day.
The same would apply to a German-speaking school in the 1930's,
which students would specifically select because of their interest in the
Fatherland and its culture. The educrats would call this a cultural inclination,
but it would be most unlikely for the school would specialize in the
poetry of Heinrich Heine, although they might cover "Die Dreigroschenopera".
The school could become a Petri dish for whatever ideology was
part of German identity at the time. For the New York City school system
to pour millions of dollars into such an institution would be a serious
error, and it is likely that the great majority of taxpayers would feel
that way.
If you wanted a school specializing in Norwegian culture,
or in the islands of Polynesia, or someplace without political consequences,
that would remove some objections to ethnic segregation. But it
would be wiser for the schools to give Norwegian courses in a few selected
locations in late afternoons, rather than taking children out of their neighborhood
schools so that they can cluster with their parents' friends' children from
the old country.
The entire venture seems to us to be based on misapprehension
of what public schools are about. They are not intended to isolate New York
City students by ethnicity or national origin. Schools should help
bring people together. In the 19th century the public schools were
referred to as common schools. There must be variations in program
offerings in education since not every child has the same needs.
We need gifted education, special education and a variety of programs for
different abilities and conditions. But race, color, religion or national
origin should not be factors used to promote division and fractionalization
of the student body; not here, not anywhere.
The New York dailies have covered this situation quite well
and extensively. We give you links to a few of the principal stories on
the Gibran matter. You can link to them if you wish further informatio and
some fascinating detail. You will find one by Ms. Almontaser, who so far
has been the protagonist in the drama.
Here are some links from the first week of the story:.
The New York Post was the first to cover it on August 6 with
CITY PRINCIPAL IS 'REVOLTING' by Chuck
Bennett and Jana Winter;
The Sun on August 7 reported ARAB SCHOOL PRINCIPAL SAYS SHE
REGRETS INTIFADA REMARKS by Elizabeth Green,
An autobiographical article by Ms.
Almontaser appeared in the Gotham Gazette under the title: NOT ALWAYS
AS SWEET,
On Saturday, August 11, the New York Times carried Julie Bosman's
story, headlined: , HEAD OF CITY'S ARABIC SCHOOL STEPS DOWN UNDER PRESSURE
In today's Post (August 14) a strange headline TAKING A JEW
TURN, accompanies a large photograph of Ms. Salzberg, with glasses and wild
wavy hair, her fingers on a computer. An inset shows Ms. Almontaser, wearing
a hijab (a headcovering worn by devout Muslims), as she always does. Under
the Salzberg photo is the subheadline, "New principal 'Chosen'." The story,
by Chuck
Bennett, leads: "A Jewish educator who can't utter a phrase of Arabic
has been tapped to head the city's controversial Arabic-themed school, officials
announced yesterday. (Monday).
We have clearly not seen the last of this educational experiment.
#401 8.14.07 1555wds