Bernie Madoff has been sentenced, symbolically, to 150 years in prison for his fraudulent crimes. As someone who is not terribly financially literate (and who gets clammy-palmed telling even the whitest of lies), it continues to astound me that it was possible for one individual to single-handedly (well, perhaps) lose fifty billion dollars. And yet the extent of Madoff’s crimes are still unknown. Certainly, it’s impossible to measure the losses dealt to the numerous individuals, charities and non-profits who trusted Madoff with their money. But enough with the platitudes, there’s nothing new there. I have a question.

My question is not about Madoff’s Jewishness, and whether it is somehow made him more likely to do bad things with other people’s money. Don’t get all het-up, now. Any suggestion that Jews are more likely to screw you and your money around is just dangerous, old-fashioned anti-Semitism. (Although Madoff’s Jewishness did perhaps facilitate his access to various influential Jewish people and organisations.) Unfortunately, bad people of all religions and ethnic extractions do bad things to other people all the time.

My question is about the transparency of the communal organisations of that entrusted their funds and endowments to Madoff: quite simply, was there any?

What sort of responsibility did the Jewish Community Centre (JCC) of, say, a mid-size American city have to report their financial investments and policies to their community members, or an external auditing body?  I’m not suggesting any wrong-doing or complicity on the part of said communal organisations. Obviously, they are in no way to blame for Madoff’s transgressions. But how open were their financial policies to debate, even scrutiny?

And – this is a question that might be un-PC to ask, but anyway – to what extend did the JCCs et al of America trust Madoff because he was Jewish? Madoff’s reputation was stratospheric. It’s hard to argue – or indeed, even have doubts – when everyone else is telling you someone is trustworthy, one of the tribe, and apparently a worker of financial miracles. So did people just assume that because Madoff was Jewish, he was less likely to engage in any morally dubious activity? And, if so, isn’t that just as dangerous as assuming someone’s going to do something morally dubious because they’re Jewish?

Lastly, what do we in Australia have to learn from the experiences of our American counterparts? Could something similar happen here? Or are we, more (ahem), Sensible?

Lots of questions.

Answers?

One thing that gets our goat is when people in the Jewish community kvell over the over-representation of Jews in the BRW rich list.   Google BRW and AJN, and you will see that the AJN run a story on this every single year.  Here is the link to the most recent one.

It’s bad enough that they report the number of Jews who are extremely wealthy (which promotes a mildly negative stereotype – that all Jews are rich); but they have to report it in such a kveln manner, that it promotes a more pernicious stereotype – that Jews are obsessed with money!

In all seriousness, we are not just concerned that it looks bad to outsiders (although it does!); but really, is the fact that some people from your ethnic group have achieved extreme wealth something to take naches from? If so, then a serious values check is in order.

Let us be clear, there’s nothing wrong with being wealthy, and the success of many Jews in business is nothing to be ashamed of.  We also recognise that both the Jewish and wider community benefit from the philanthropic endeavours that many of these wealthy individuals undertake.

Stories about philanthropy would be appropriate. However, when the story is headlined “Wealthy Australian Jews score a rich list trifecta” it sounds like barracking sports journalism where Jews are the team, and wealth is the race.

With the Jewish education crisis looming larger than ever, (although some might say it loomed just as large 20 years ago and that this is nothing new), many individuals have been heard to ask the question “Do we really need 9 Jewish days schools in Melbourne?” and “If two or more of the schools were to merge, wouldn’t this free up more funds and resources for all schools?”

Let us consider for a moment the possibility of a merge.

It seems that one of the reasons it’s difficult for a merging to take place between any of the day schools is that there is a distinct difference in ideology within each school. For example, Beth Rivkah Ladies College, being both a Lubavitch and girl’s school, would be ideologically at odds to merge with the King David School, a coeducational Progressive Jewish day school.

However, Mt Scopus and Yavneh are ideologically similar and therefore if a merger had to take place, these two might be the ideal candidates.

Both schools identify as coeducational, modern orthodox Jewish day schools. Yavneh’s website calls itself “Zionist” and Mt Scopus’ website asserts its belief in the “centrality of Israel” as integral.

It’s probably important to note that the Yavneh and Scopus communities are socially and culturally similar too. Many families whose children attend the schools might be found sitting next to one another in the Mizrachi Synagogue or the Gandel Besen Congregation. On the other hand it would be a rare occurrence to observe a Bialik student in attendance at the Yeshiva Synagogue.

Are having two ideologically similar schools a case of “doubling up”? Could it be that merging the schools would mean that government and community funding could be directed towards 8 schools instead of 9?

Certainly Yavneh appears to be a less viable school, serving a much smaller 700 students, offering fewer subjects, fewer electives, fewer resources and facilities, and fewer interschool and tertiary programs.

It would seem that Yavneh students and families might benefit from a merge with Mt Scopus in that they might have access to more subjects, more electives, more resources and facilities and more interschool and tertiary programs.

The flip side of this would be that Mt Scopus, would stand to benefit from an injection of more orthodoxy. While Yavneh parents may be scared that the religious environment of their kids might be diluted, the flip side is that Scopus would be injected with a vibrant religious student base that could influence Scopus and the community in many unforseen positive ways.

However, in reality there is an additional consideration which may act as an obstacle to such a merger. As with most private schools, both Yavneh and Scopus are funded by individuals as well as by government. And although the contributions of private individuals can never ever be praised highly enough, it is these key individuals who would have to be the driving force behind any such merger. They would need to see a merger as the best outcome for both the community and the students.

Perhaps those with access to some facts and figures on enrolment and on funding, as well as those who work within the Jewish day school system, might be willing to offer their professional opinion on the viability of a Yavneh-Scopus merger.