The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Schism and Suspension from Religious School
From RB v. Bais Yaakov D'Chassedei Gur, decided last Monday by New York trial court judge Peter Sweeney:
… [Plaintiffs allege] that the defendant Bais Yaakov D'Chasidei Gur ("the School") improperly disciplined the infant plaintiff through alleged suspension because of her "family's allegiance to Rabbi Shaul Alter", who the defendants considered to be an illegitimate rival to the established Rabbi of Gur, Rabbi Y.A. Alter. The School is operated by the adherents of Rabbi Y.A. Alter. [UPDATE: Note that "infant" here is simply legalese for "minor"; the plaintiff was 12 years old when the Complaint was filed.]
The lawsuit claims the defendants' actions constituted statutorily prohibited religious discrimination and negligently inflicted emotional distress, but the court disagreed:
In support of the motion, the defendants submitted the affidavits of Abraham Schmidt and Yehuda Segal, both of whom sit on the educational board of Bais Yaakov, explaining the reasons for the infant plaintiff's suspension. They both state that Bais Yaakov is an educational institution of the Ger Community whose educational philosophy is premised upon the importance of teaching their students in the religious teachings and tenants of the Ger movement. They state that one of these tenants is respect and reverence for the one and only Ger Rabbi, Rabbi Y. A. Alter, who they claim is the one true spiritual leader of the Ger movement and who is recognized as such by all the Ger Chassidim worldwide.
They state that some of the parents of the students of Bais Yaakov, including the infant plaintiff's legal guardian, have decided to shift their allegiance and loyalties to Rabbi Shaul Alter, who leads a dissident group of the Ger community who have disparaged Rabbi Y. A. Alter in numerous ways. They maintain that this has caused enormous problems for the School because a vast majority of the parents of the girls who attend the school continue to support Rabbi Y. A. Alter.
They state that many of the parents have threatened to stop sending their daughters to Bais Yaakov if the girls from the families loyal to Rabbi Shaul Alter are permitted to remain at the school because these parents do not want their daughters exposed to the ideas espoused by Rabbi Shaul Alter. They maintain that these ideas undercut and mock the way they want their daughters educated. They maintain that allowing the dissident students to remain at school will make it impossible for Bais Yaakov to inculcate traditional Ger values to the other students, the very reason that the parents have enrolled them in Bais Yaakov.
Schmidt and Segal further stated that Rabb[i] Shaul Alter is propounding a fundamentally different religious philosophy than the one taught by the Rabbi Y. A. Alter and accepted by the school and the vast majority of the Ger Chassidim. They maintain that Rabbi Shaul Alter's views differ in critical areas, including the use of the Internet and technology, the nature of rabbinic authority and a person's religious obligation to submit to such authority and the matter of learning the Talmud. The defendants also point out that the families loyal to Rabbi Shaul Alter were warned that if they were their daughters associated with Rabbi Shaul Alter, their daughters would be suspended or expelled from the school.
In response, the plaintiff Isaac Bernhack submitted his own affidavit stating that the premise of defendants' argument for suspending the infant plaintiff, that there can merely one Grand Rabbi, is not true and that such belief is not a critical component of the Ger religious observance.
"The First Amendment forbids civil courts from interfering in or determining religious disputes, because there is substantial danger that the state will become entangled in essentially religious controversies or intervene on behalf of groups espousing particular doctrines or beliefs." However, "[c]ivil disputes involving religious parties or institutions may be adjudicated without offending the First Amendment as long as neutral principles of law are the basis for their resolution."
Here, the defendants[] demonstrated that the claims asserted by the plaintiff are nonjusticiable, as they cannot be resolved based on neutral principles of law. The pivotal issues issue raised in this action is whether there can be only one true Ger Rabbi, who the defendants claim is Rabbi Y.A. Alter, and whether the infant plaintiff's suspension from Bais Yaakov was justified considering her allegiance to Rabbi Shaul Alter and his teachings. Resolution of these issue would necessarily involve impermissible inquiries into religious doctrine or practice.
Congratulations to Stuart Blander (Heller, Horowitz & Feit), who represents defendants.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Can I get this with subtitles, please?
Or is it truly as petty as it appears to be? I mean, like, what can an infant really believe? Clean diapers good? And how are the moral beliefs of an infant going to corrupt *anyone*?
Question: Is Judiasm like Congregationalism where every Congregation votes to hire (and sometimes fire) its Minister and can pretty much believe in whatever it wants to?
In legal terminology, "infant" is generally interchangeable with "minor". The age of majority was traditionally 21, but is now 18 in every state except Alabama and Nebraska, where it is 19.
Interesting.
Infant comes from the Latin word infans, meaning 'unable to speak' -- and in Educational terminology, that's what it means -- often with legal obligations (e.g. much higher staff ratios for day care).
"In legal terminology, “infant” is generally interchangeable with “minor”."
Why?
What's it in Latin?
I don't speak Latin, but I check several on-line Latin->English translators. The consensus is it translates to "baby", not something that would be an obvious synonym for minor.
Well, I can't answer the "why," except to say that the Oxford English Dictionary notes, as definition 1a,
And I can answer the "when": According to the OED, the legal sense dates back at least to 1376.
Curiously, "minor," "child," and "infant" all have multiple meanings; the only term that unambiguously refers to someone below the age of majority is "underage," though in English that's an adjective. In Russian, I believe one can use "несовершеннолетний" as a noun, and I think that solely means someone who is underage (basically, it would literally translate as "not of complete age").
This isn't about any general "Judaism". No, the Jews don't have any one Pope, or several. There are religious authorities to determine whether you are entitled to a Right of Return to Israel, but their authority is limited. Some of this is new to you?
The decision seems right. Freedom of association for a sect includes the right to segregate from others.
Indeed -- hence the "two Jews, three opinions" line, to which the subtitle of the post refers.
"Subtitle of the immediately previous post" is meant, I believe.
Whoops, I'm sorry, yes, the subtitle of the preceding post.
It seems so right, I'm wondering why the plaintiffs thought they could win.
“They state that one of these tenants[sic] is respect and reverence for the one and only Ger Rabbi, Rabbi Y. A. Alter, who they claim is the one true spiritual leader of the Ger movement and who is recognized as such by all the Ger Chassidim worldwide.”
Obviously they dispute this, and I guess claim an equity interest in the school based on their previous support for it.
This is the Biden strategy : You send out a load of wrong, immoral, stupid but popular federal actions. What passes gets you votes, and what is struck down wins you moral victory and the chance to blame the other guy.
Tenants?
Did the judge mean tenets, or are "tenants" some terminology specific to this sect?
Editing fail. Also "...the families loyal to Rabbi Shaul Alter were warned that if they were their daughters associated with Rabbi Shaul Alter, their daughters would be suspended or expelled..."
This is starting to make more sense now -- IMHO still petty, but it makes more sense. And I presume that "Rabbi" can have multiple meanings, e.g. "Ger Rabbi, Rabbi Y. A. Alter."
The Baptists split off from the Puritans because they didn't think we were strict enough, there were multiple issues but one was that of immersion baptism -- i.e. dunking underwater. Their churches are built with (usually hidden) dunk tanks while we just have a Minster draw a cross on the forehead with a wet finger.
But we aren't going to kick each other's kids out of school over this.
But 250 years ago, it might have been a different story.
If the point of sending students to the school is to get them taught that the Baptism variant is right why would it want the wet finger schismatics around?
As they say in the Yiddish film Hochlander, "es ken zeyn bloyz eyn".
Or perhaps Neustadt's Law: for each meshugaas there is an equal and opposite meshugaas.
While I agree that the school is entitled to decline to enroll a child whose parents do not subscribe to the school's religious views, I am disturbed by the use of a disciplinary suspension as the mechanism, for two reasons. First, the suspension presumably took effect immediately. This could have a negative impact on the girl's education, whereas advance notice, say that she would have to leave at the end of the semester, would allow the girl's family to arrange a much less disruptive transfer to another school. Second, characterizing the action as "discipline" falsely implies that the girl was at fault, which is defamatory. It potentially harms the girl's reputation among family and friends and if in her school records will follow her to subsequent schools. It is also psychologically harmful to the girl. I wonder whether there is a cause of action over the use of disciplinary suspension as the means to terminate the girl's enrollment?
YES... This is what was troubling me (as an educator) with all of this.
I'll go further, with the caveats that I am speaking in general and am not an attorney (let alone a NY attorney).
Parochial schools, which this is, are exempt from the truancy laws because they are providing the subject matter instruction and they agree to certain things, and this is where a "disciplinary" expulsion becomes problematic, for all the reasons mentioned above.
It also, arguably, constitutes child abuse (emotional abuse) and while I don't know what Child Protective would do, I'd file a 51A on it.
The other thing that comes to mind here is contract and fiduciary duty -- something which courts try to shy away from but which *does* exist in academic relationships. Unless the school explicitly stated that associating with Rabbi Bravo was grounds for expulsion at the start of the year, they are breaching a contract, and if college catalogues are considered contracts, I don't see why that wouldn't be true here.
There is one other little landmine here -- most of these parochial schools are accredited by an outside accreditor -- that's part of the deal that keeps the State Dept of Education out of their hair. And the accreditors are likely to be folks from a mixture of religious schools, including Catholic and Protestant. And they're going to say "you WHAT?!? You expelled students for listening to the "wrong" Rabbi?!?"
My guess is that this was a threat that they didn't expect to have to enforce, they thought that the girls and parents would back down.
And one word of prediction: This will tear the school apart -- it ain't gonna be there a decade from now. Now tell me again what it is that Rabbi Alpha and Rabbi Bravo really disagree about?
AGAIN, “The defendants also point out that the families loyal to Rabbi Shaul Alter were warned that if they were their daughters associated with Rabbi Shaul Alter, their daughters would be suspended or expelled from the school.” That the ignorant might imagine that they were expelled for a different reason has no bearing on anything.
And it’s not “Rabbi A” vs “Rabbi B”. AGAIN, “…Bais Yaakov is an educational institution of the Ger Community whose educational philosophy is premised upon the importance of teaching their students in the religious teachings and tenants[sic] of the Ger movement. They state that one of these tenants[sic] is respect and reverence for the one and only Ger Rabbi, Rabbi Y. A. Alter, who they claim is the one true spiritual leader of the Ger movement and who is recognized as such by all the Ger Chassidim worldwide.” In other words, he’s the Pope, not some rando Rabbi. And the other guy is an anti-Pope, in their view. And the schismatic parents know this and have known this. This really ought not be so hard for you to get your head around.
An ":accrediting": body has no more right to get involved in this than a court, and I certainly hope it would be told so if it stuck its nose in.
The "anti-Pope" has been schismatic since 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ger_(Hasidic_dynasty)
Yeah, you really should've stopped there. Reading the rest of your uninformed and unintelligent musings was actually physically painful.
Why doesn’t doing as much as possible to prevent her from associating with evil-doers who will onky be teaching her lies benefit her educationally?
Your comment implies there is such a thing as education outside the One True School.
And why would it tear the school apart? Why does this defer from countless other dynastic disputes?
"Dynastic disputes" have torn other schools, and countries, apart, so your question assumes a falsehood.
Educational benefit for a schismatic's spawn is no concern of the school.
Any more questions?
More basic and logical is the obvious fact about yourself that you miss. You are arguing unknowingly that no school or country deserves to be torn apart, the classic Nazi justification for sticking together. But now that that has all gone to Hell what great quote comes to mind for most people when they think of those times :
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
—Martin Niemöller
More sanguinely, schools of this nature generally teach only religious subjects, in Yiddish, to children who are native Yiddish speakers. To the extent that they teach any English at all, it is as a second language in roughly the way a mediocre public school would teach Spanish or French, by teachers who are not themselves fluent. Children learn very early on that the purpose of having classes in English is to go through motions and it would be best if they didn’t learn very much about them. A life involving college or a professional career, would represent going native, a complete failure on the school’s part to impart the school’s cibilized values and achieve its educational goals. Successfully imparting a complete inability to communicate with the outside world, on the other hand, except for the most rudimentary communication with the natives necessary, is a likely predictor of educational success and retains the child’s ability to be a contributing member of civilized society.
New York hassidic schools recently won a court ruling that the state has no authority to close them for not teaching secular subjects. According to the article, a state judge ruled that state law requiring the teaching of certain subject-matter imposes an obligation only on parents, not on religious schools.
This ruling, if upheld on appeal, may result in these schools stopping going through any motions at all to pretend to teach non-religious subjects or to pretend to use English as a language of instruction.
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/nys-power-to-regulate-religious-schools-trimmed-by-judge/4179361/?amp=1
No, the state will prosecute the parents for truancy and/or send child protective in to take custody of the children.
Maine was fighting this battle with Christian Fundamentalists 40-50 years ago.
They will?
There is a reason why, in New York, candidates for elected offices like district attorney regularly seek out the endorsement of hassidic groups, whose goal is precisely to ensure that something like this doesn’t happen.
Yet Jews are the most literate social group in history.
I know a school run independently that tells the parents to say they are homeschooling, but they send their kids to this excellent place and they learn. All paperwork avoided, children educated, and despicable public education rumbles on.
If being a herotoc hasn’t traditionally been considered a disciplinary problem, why did people traditionally get burned at the atake ovef it?
Suppose ahe had found Jesus and tried to convince her classmates that Jesus was the one true Gur Rabbi. Or the Buddah. The school would have to wait to the end of the semester to kick her out? Really?
What’s the difference?
But who is defining heretic. You are. Or are you trying to say no one can be a heretic. It must be one or the other.
The difference is, it doesn't matter to you but you feel the world waits for your opinion.
You really think a school like the Gur Beis Yaakov would want to be accredited by an outside accreditor? What possible reason would they have for ignorant idolatrous savages to form opinions about their school? How could it be any other than harmful?
Think anout the possible consequences of such a step. It might lead to one of the children to take an interest in going to college, as disastrous, shameful, and evil a future as could be imagined. You don’t know what goes on in places like that. Such places teach lies like the world is more than 6,000 years old in such places. There is no morality whatsoever. Girls are allowed to wear pants and mingle with boys in such places. They even have premarital sex. Surely they want a better life for their daughters than the life of an idolatrous whore that people who go to college face.
How did you observe your lifelong fast from facts.
The Jews are the most literate people in all history.
Since the turn of the century (i.e., from the year 2000 onward), Jews have been awarded 24% of all Nobel Prizes and 26% of those in the scientific research fields. (Jews currently make up approximately 0.2% of the world's population and 2% of the US population.)
And that can accomadate your 'point' easily. It could be -- I am just rejecting your logic here -- that the cost of that tremendous positive is the minor negative that so irritates you.
Also, it beats violence. In Israel, there were apparently riots and violent clashes over the schism.
https://m.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-707329/amp
Regardless of the issues in this case, note this sentence from the post.
"many of the parents have threatened to stop sending their daughters to Bais Yaakov if the girls from the families loyal to Rabbi Shaul Alter are permitted to remain at the school because these parents do not want their daughters exposed to the ideas espoused by Rabbi Shaul Alter."
As is the case with every fanatical extremist religious sect regardless if it is Jewish, Christian or Muslim , the tenets of those sects are so weak, so lacking in logic, so unable to stand on their own that the only way they can survive is by forcibly excluding competing beliefs.
Lesson learned? Probably not.
One of the merits of the Talmud is that it records debates and conflicting opinions - indeed, in places like Mishnah Avot explicitly approves of conflicting opinions provided the conflict is for good reason (e.g., the disputes between Hillel and Shammai). I don't think that the frummers here got the message.
They rejected it, as is their right.
And that was the view of Aquinas and Augustine on the value or heresy for the development of Truth.
Now apply that to Yale Law School.
Some years back I was approached by a student who had just been expelled from a very conservative Baptist school when it was discovered he and his roommate were having a gay relationship. He wanted to sue them.
I told him that under the First Amendment his lawsuit would likely be a non-starter. I also told him that the school was, to a gay person, the religious equivalent of a man who comes home drunk every night, beats his wife, and then says "See what you made me do." In other words, it was an abusive relationship, and just like the battered wife he would be far better off running for the exit and not looking back. We do not tell battered wives to stay and try to make things better; we tell them to get out of the marriage and the sooner the better.
And that's my take generally on these religious institutions and their dissidents. It's a fool's errand to try to get them to change their belief system. If their belief system is that Person X is a terrible human being, then Person X's energies would be spent far more productively making a life for himself that doesn't include hanging out with people who tell him he's a terrible person.
Unless their religious beliefs are correct and he will go to Hell if he doesn't mend his ways.
The probability of that happening is the same as the probability that the Baptists will go to hell for being anti gay.
Hard as this is for you to believe, your opinion on the probabilities involved is of no interest to anyone.
Yes it is or you wouldn't have bothered to respond.
My opinion is worth as much as yours. And if you’re going to invoke the far-fetched no-evidence-whatsoever scenario that the Baptists might turn out to be right, it’s fair to point out that you’ve offered a far-fetched scenario for which there’s no evidence.
God isn't free if the very first of all Beings is subject to probability.
But hell to pay for someone who tries to get you to change your belief. Gay is great , you say, and look out whoever crosses you.
It is one thing to say that homosexual behavior is immoral --- that is a consistent standard . But you say all gay behavior is fine -- yet you adduced sick normal sex behavior person's behavior in the previous sentence.
I wonder why you even have an opinion.
It's a cult.
Sidney, Wow!! So a non-believer can't be a fanatic. Are you perhaps thinking of you. Silly to the point of absurdity. If you hate religion why are you hunting it down like a starving cold sleep-deprived hunter shilvering in a blind. 🙂
The odd thing about this case is that religiously observant Jews should have brought this to a beis din (a religious tribunal, which in the U.S. is a form of arbitration); observant Jews aren't supposed to sue other observant Jews in secular court.
You expect nonconformists to follow the rules of the orthodox system? If they did that, they would ouldn’t be nonconformists now, woild they?
It would seem plausible that in the Gur movement, the only legitimate beis din you can take your dispute to is the one run by the Gur Rabbi. Well then. Suppose they did that. You think Rabbi Y.A. is going to a accept a ruling from Rabbi Shaul’s beis din? Or vice versa?
Good point!
NO, it isn't , it is just an outsider passing judgment where he should have none to be consistent. Not everyone called non-conformist sees themself that way, and rightly.
Not being Jewish, my guess is that the people who brought suit in secular court probably did so because they thought they would be probably lose in front of a religious tribunal. And this is hardly the first time someone decided to ignore what their faith tells them they’re supposed to do when it was to their advantage.
What "religious tribunal" are you imagining to have authority over this issue?
The one David Nieporent referenced in his comment, to which I was responding.
3 assumptions with no basis
1) they thought (but you don't know) "Probably" but you don't know, not being Jewish but you think you know
2) Why is that ignoring your faith? Is this you defining 'advantage' to mean 'disadvantage'
3) You appear to have zero stake in this whole thing but there youare mouthing off 🙂 You want someone rewarded and someone punished, the classic heretic -hunter
The rule against going to the secular authorities is a rule of the diaspora, based on the assumption that the secular authorities hate Jews and bringing disputes to them gives them an opportunity to attack the Jewish community. Some (many?) authorities hold that recourse to the secular authorities is valid when they can be considered fair and not desirous of harming Jews.
I don’t think we are dealing wifh the kind of Jews who have high opinions of the fairness of people in the outside world.
Given that the whole basis of the episode is a dynastic dispute, a plausible scenario here is that the parents took the school to the beis din run by Rabbi Shaul (which they would regard as the legitimate Gur beis din) Rabbi Y.A. instructed the school officials not to accept the legitimacy of Rabbi Shaul’s beis din and hence not to participate, and Rabbi Shaul then ruled for the parents and told them they couldd go to secular court to enforce his ruling
Based on this comment section, seems like a fair cop.
I hope the children afflicted by parents who choose nonsense-teaching, superstition-based schools overcome the obstacle of substandard parents.
Choose reason. Every time. Be an adult.
Or, at least, please try.
Indeed. Again, the nonsense cult of equality and multiculturalism is dying for that very reason: despite being packaged as rational and modern, it's just hypocritical nonsense and superstition. The whole world can see through that horseshit, especially the part where liberal and ‘progressive’ Americans claim to have the — empirically grounded and proven — knowledge and skill sets required to craft a new (global) culture. (One that isn’t a complete piece of shit, that is.)
Now, back to the closet, inferior evolutionary dud. Your time is over.
If your point is that given human nature, in a dispute between our better angels and our darker angels, the dark side will prevail more often than not, I actually don't disagree with you that much. Where we disagree is whether that's something to be celebrated.
The left looks at human greed, selfishness, prejudice, lust for power and hostility toward those unlike us, and says, "We're better than that." The right responds, "No we're not." Much as I hate to admit it, you may just be right. Which is why I'm not nearly as optimistic as Arthur is that superstition is going anywhere any time soon.
My point is that Arthur’s own beliefs in (1) equality, (2) multiculturalism, and (3) liberals’ and progressives’ claims of being both knowledgeable and competent to build a successful multicultural, value pluralist, post-racial, post-ethnic, post-religious society are UNEMPIRICAL, cultish bullshit.
Freedom from superstition actually entails freedom from his vestigial cultish commitments.
Arthur, aka AIDS, is instead an evolutionary dud who promotes what is demonstrably just an evolutionarily inferior meme AS IF it somehow constitutes genuine progress. He’s a mindless hypocrite and shyster, selling the world yet another American snake oil.
This is deep in the Jewish-on-Jewish litigation, but I really do have one important question before I voice my opinions on this matter.
Is the school in question supposed to be a suitable substitute for a K-12 education (or at least some portion thereof)?
If not, and this is more like Bible study or other religious instruction in addition to traditional education, then I think most of the criticisms go away, even if the place is largely structured as a school.
If it is though... then I have concerns.
A recent New York trial court decision involving a lawsuit by a group of Hassidic schools that want to avoid giving their children a secular education resulted in a victory for the schools. The decision held that in New York, the legal obligation to provide a secular education is an obligation of parents, not schools. Under this decision, it would appear that the school involved is legally just a religious school that need not be a substitute for a K-12 education. It merely just so happens that it runs its program from early in the morning until into the evening. Any impact this may have on the ability of parents to meet their theoretical legal responsibilities in other ways is simply not its problem. And as long as the district attorney candidates who get endorsed by Hassidic group leaders continue to win (and keep their promises), it won’t be the parents’ problem either.
I’ll repeat a general point I’ve occassionally made over the years. Yoder v. Wisconsin, in holding that the Amish have a constitutional right not to give their children a secondary education, emphasized that the Amish had a long history of being law-abiding, independent, productive members of society not dependent on handouts.
This language is arguably a condition. If a religious group has a history of its adherents living on welfare, crime, or generally not being able to be independent, economically productive members of society, then there is no constitutional right for the group to do education their own way.
I have in general been very solicitous of religious liberty in my years commenting on this nlog. More recently, I’ve tended to come out as less solicitous than Alito. I find myself more conscious and perhaps more solicitious of society’s needs and its side of the scale than perhaps I have in the past. This may be one of those cases.
Perhaps this implied Yoder condition should be made explicit, and enforced. A religious group that expects to be able to live on welfare so it can devote all its time to religious studies is simply not entitled to educate its children in its ways. It forfeits its right to keep its children’s educations free from contamination by the outside world.
There are still ways one can earn a living without higher (or much) secular education. Hassidic Jews in particular have been important members of a number of trades, like diamonds, that have been important to the economy. Some groups have heeded the warning of Yoder. And these groups, under a Free Exercise Clause that has teeth, should continue get to keep their children out of public school and limit their secular education in their parochial schools.
The Yoder standard is a workable compromise between the liberty of sects (and cults) to go their own way, keep to themselves, and work out their own life, and the need of society for its citizens to function in it at some basic level. In general, religious groups get to keep their children out of not just public schools but public conceptions of what an education is. But that right is forfeit if they have not worked out a way for their children to earn their keep and provide for themselves, once they become adults.
People fall on hard times. The exception here should be a very narrow one. It should require a high standard of proof. It should not address the impacts of recessions or depressions, or losses from economic dislocation or technological obsolescence of a particular trade a group may become involved in. People in difficulties get time to recover, and the assistance everyone else gets. The members of the group would have to have a consistent history of not being economically productive members of society, or making any meaningful attempt to prepare their children to be economically productive members of society, in good times and bad.