What's wrong with the Applebome article

It seems like no big deal. A short piece in the Sunday New York Times sketching out the current state of affairs in a suburban New Jersey town. To most of us in Teaneck, especially those of us interested enough in local affairs to keep abreast of the latest developments by attending public meetings, reading the local papers, and opining upon them in the blogosphere, there was nothing new whatsoever in that piece. We may disagree with certain characterizations or believe certain things should have been phrased differently, but for the most part, we recognize the sentiments expressed in that article as a fair reflection of the way people think. So why is it that the publication of this piece will probably shake up the Teaneck landscape more than any controversy in the Council chambers or debate before the Planning Board?

The simplest explanation is that an article in the New York Times escalates everything to a whole new level. Now our friends, relatives, and co-workers from elsewhere in the area are privy to our internal debates. While one might let an unfavorable mention in the local news section of the Record go unanswered, a flood of angry and/or supportive letters is sure to follow a Times article as residents battle over how the paper of record should present our town to our neighbors in the region. One such letter, attributed to Rabbi Steven Pruzansky of the Orthodox synagogue Congregation Bnai Yeshurun on West Englewood Ave., has already been circulated through the blogosphere. Many more are sure to follow, on the Internet and in print.

What is it that is likely to arouse the most indignation? Quite simply, it is the author's conflation of the debate over development with the rise in the Orthodox Jewish population of Teaneck and the recent electoral success of a number of candidates from that community. While Mayor Katz and Sen. Weinberg were quoted disputing the linkage between the two, the majority of the article pointed in the direction of the conclusion that the changing socio-religious demographics explain the current tensions over development in town.

There is, of course, an obvious explanation as to why this conclusion appeals enormously to the staff of the New York Times. Having already covered on a number of occasions the fallout from the transformation of the Lawrence (Long Island) school district after a number of board seats were won by Orthodox Jewish candidates and having also written about a similar story involving a growing population of Orthodox Jews in Lakewood, NJ, they must feel that they have identified a trend. If the current climate in Teaneck can be viewed through the same lens, then they would really be onto something. That is not to suggest that there is anything sinister or suspect about the Times' approach; we all have a tendency to seek confirming evidence for our views, and a corresponding tendency to ignore or overlook that which contradicts them.

Unfortunately, in this case, the Times has got it wrong. While fights over school funding elsewhere (and perhaps here, too) certainly do have a religious dimension to them, as religious
communities do not use the public schools for primarily religious reasons, the difference of opinion over development in and around Teaneck's business districts is not the same thing. I have argued elsewhere that one could view the struggle in generational terms, but one need not view it that way either. While the major personalities involved seem to fall more neatly into those categories than they do into religious ones, and it is logical to think that younger families with greater financial obligations and less nostalgia for Teaneck's past history may be more interested in reducing taxes than they are in aesthetics, that view is not obligatory either. In fact, there is no need to try to classify this current disagreement over the direction of our business districts as anything but a political one that involves only a small part of the town's population on either side of it.

Has the impact of the Orthodox Jewish community's growth in numbers and influence been felt in Teaneck? Yes, it certainly has. Do some longtime residents feel somewhat discomfited by the changing face of Teaneck? Yes, they certainly do. Are these topics themselves worthy of an article in the New York Times? No, they're not, but if you can find a way to link current events to those feelings that surely brew under the surface of many suburban towns, then you've got an angle for an article. In this case, the author is guilty of trying too hard, and now we in Teaneck will have to deal with the consequences of that.