Secretary of Montreal Jewish School Commission Defends It from Attack by Advocates of Separate Jewis

In a statement issued to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency today, Nathan Gordon, secretary of the Montreal Jewish School Commission defends the Commission from the attacks made on it by the advocates of a separate Jewish school system and take issue with their statements. Mr. Gordon’s statement follows:

“My attention has been called to an announcement dealing with the Jewish school question of Montreal which appeared in the Jewish Daily Bulletin of December 5th, 1930, and I write this letter to correct the errors it contains and to state that it misrepresents most of the vital facts in this matter.

1. “Your article quotes Jewish leaders as stating that ‘the assimilationist Jewish leaders of Montreal who formed the majority of the Jewish School Commission have sold our school rights for a mess of pottage.’ This is a very misleading, a mischievous and an insulting statement. The Jewish School Commission of Montreal consists of Samuel W. Livingston, its chairman, Rabbi Dr. Herman Abramowitz, A. Z. Cohen, Michael Garber, Dr. Max Wiseman, Edgar M. Berliner and the writer. One has only to know these men to realize that there is not a so-called ‘assimilationist’ among them. Dr. Abramowitz is the rabbi of the largest orthodox congregation in Canada. Mr. A. Z. Cohen and Dr. Wiseman are orthodox Jews and members of his congregation. Mr. Garber is a fervent believer in separate schools and has been a member of the Separate Jewish School Committee for years. The remaining three members of the Commission are members of the local Reform Synagogue. All these men are well known in Montreal for their connection with every movement that makes for the welfare of the Jewish community. These are the men who are called ‘assimilationists.’ Does it appeal to you as reasonable that such men should have sold ‘rights’ for ‘a mess of pottage.’?

GIVES EQUAL STANDING

2. “The mess of pottage apparently is intended to designate the contract that has been made with the Protestant Board of School Commissioners of this city. This contract, of course, speaks for itself. But I may state that it gives Jewish children a dignified and equal standing in the Protestant public schools gurantees them an education in a system which is efficient, modern and thoroughly Canadian, and gives them the advantages of being educated and mingling with non-Jewish children. In this connection, it should be noted that your correspondent fails to state that the Commission obtained from the Protestant Board permission to use two of its schools after the regular school hours for instruction of Jewish children in Hebrew, Jewish history and Jewish religion and it is understood that the use of additional schools will be granted should they be required.

3. “The 4th paragraph of your article accuses the Commission of having hastened the signing of the contract in order to obviate any protest on the part of the Separate Jewish School Committee. This is absolutely untrue. The signing of the contract was agreed upon quite a few days previously. As to any protest movement on the part of the Separate Jewish School Committee, it is rather strange that this Committee should have deferred its protest until the moment we were ready to sign the contract with the Protestant Board. The Committee has had reports of the sittings of our Commission for some five or six months and has known quite well the situation as it actually is.

NO SUCH RIGHT GRANTED

4. “Your article states that the Commission has made it impossible for a separate Jewish school system to be realized as a right granted by the decision of the Privy Council. This is not correct. No such right was ever granted the Jews. The decision in question stated that the government of the Province of Quebec may establish schools for Jews. Now, the Act passed by the Legislature of this Province in March 1930 authorized our Commission either to make an agreement with an existing School Board for the education of the Jewish children or if this were impossible, to establish separate Jewish schools. But no sooner had this Act been adopted, than an agitation was begun against such separate schools. The cry was taken up by the opposition political party and was made the main political issue in some recent by-elections. An anti-Semitic wave swept this Province, particularly the country districts. Prejudice ran rather high for a time. The government was unjustly blamed for this state of affairs and the opposition announced that at the next session of the Legislature it would demand the repeal of the Jewish School Act of last March. The government now in power has been in control of provincial affairs