Un-Orthodox Jew and R’ Yehuda Kolko
After all is said and done, the most significant benefit offered by Un-Orthodox Jew to the pursuit of Kolko was his posting of a lawyer’s contact information.
I’ve been extremely uneasy — as I think we all should have been — about UOJ’s pursuit of this story while under the cloak of anonymity. It’s one thing for a named person with known credibility and clear liability to pursue conversations with anonymous victims and publish their statements. It’s quite another for an anonymous individual with no credibility and no clear personal stake to pursue a story like this in the fashion that UOJ did.
And while it’s impossible to state that UOJ harmed the cause of pursuing Kolko, it’s entirely possible to state that virtually all of his acts — other than having the victims themselves create a community there to discuss their abuse, and other than posting Jeffrey Herman’s information — harmed more than helped, as all knew that his credibility was indeterminable, and that his claims could not be easily verified. It is the responsibility of those who take information seriously to present it in credible and readily-falsifiable manners.
There is no excuse for UOJ’s having conducted this investigation, outing and pursuit while remaining anonymous.
In the end, Jeffrey Herman and David Framowitz made this abuse case real. But positive ends do not justify any means, and these ends don’t justify UOJ’s conduct. Indeed, had not Herman and Framowitz come forward to take on this case, it is most likely that it would have progressed as it had: with an anonymous, ranting, non-credible individual attacking Kolko with a vengeance, and no one but the victims having the information they needed to believe the abuse took place. Herman and Framowitz saved UOJ from keeping Kolko around in perpetuity.
If we are to approach the issue of clergy abuse responsibly — and perhaps to decide that we, as independent Jewish bloggers, should go it alone without the mainstream Jewish media — we cannot allow conduct such as UOJ’s to go forward. This was as true several months ago (when I first thought of writing this post) as it is today, when Kolko is almost certainly finished.
We can decide to address the issue of clergy abuse head-on as a blogger community. And if we do, we can create standards and methodologies for handling these cases as responsible people should. But we, and the Jewish community, cannot go on with the UOJs of the world taking on these issues as he did.
May 15th, 2006 at 11:36 am
UOJ helped make the connection; Luke Ford helped bring down LA Tendler by posting complaints. But JWB/Vicki Polin served as very convenient smokescreen for Gafni, as they did for M Tendler before. (It’s telling, incidentally, that when “Survivor” posted her list of people who worked for the cause, she forgot to include Luke — I had to post his name anonymously).
Of course your role, as an enable of JWB and as a freelance journalist who manages to let the story of the decade appear on his blog but slip through his fingers, is another fascinating case study.
May 15th, 2006 at 12:26 pm
Are you suggesting standards on a journalistic or religious level? I’m not very familiar with the standards of journalism, so if you’re speaking from that perspective, it could be that the anonymity is a problem. From a religious perspective, I think it gets trickier.
But either way, how could UOJ’s identity being known changed things here? I’m asking this as a sincere question, not as a challenge.
May 15th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
Greg - Clearly, anonymity was not the only thing that led to UOJ’s lacking credibility. But the basic reason why his being not anonymous would have changed things is due to the fact that any factual claim from an anonymous source is immediately suspect. We tolerate that suspicious information from anonymous victims whose words get verified by responsible named journalists, prosecutors, or other responsible named parties whom we can rely upon to have verified that information — and whom, if the information turns out not to be good, we can then know not to trust. We let that respected and credible source serve as the credibility check we need for the anonymous victims. But due to UOJ’s anonymity, we know nothing about his credibility and ability to investigate these claims in the first place, and also know that he faces no real-world consequences if he’s shown to be wrong. Therefore, we can’t trust his claims.
RY - Yes, UOJ helped by posting that victims could reach out to this lawyer, but that has very little to do with his other work in this area. It cannot be argued that the mailing or other blogging he did on this matter contributed in any regard except in drawing victims to his site where they could learn of Herman.
I don’t know what you’re talking about re: Gafni. You’ll have to explain better if you want me to reply.
As to “my role,” I don’t really get what you’re saying. What is the story of the decade? Anyway, I know I can’t cover every story — especially a lot of the important ones on abuse, for which the payoff as a freelance journalist doesn’t make it economically feasible — so I don’t know why I’d be so concerned that any particular one slipped through my fingers.
May 15th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
Reb Yudel continues to parrot these ridiculous claims on behalf of his defense of his best friend Yori Yanover who has devoted a whole blog to attacking me, Polin, Blau and any one else who defends survivors and fights the predators, while Yori has equated child-porn with free speech, defended such notables as Rabbi Heshy Worch, Rabbi Mordecai Gafni and convicted JCN18 colleague/child-molester Rabbi David Lipman.
The facts are Gafni had been cleared by a group of YU rabbonim and twice by Jewish Renewal before either Polin or I stepped into the frey. I provided Polin with research and the names of address of several survivors which were forwarded to Gary Rosenblatt. I too made connections just like UOJ, I simply haven’t advertised that fact until now as it wasn’t important. I believe even Gary, to this day, does not truly know that that’s where the research originated.
Trust me Larry, you have no idea what the extent of my activities are. Even Mr. Rosenblatt, Ms. Polin among others do not know 90% of what I do. I do not advertise the extent of my activities.
The facts are that Tendler had been cleared by his board years earlier (by the people now blaming me) and that the RCA bungled their 15 month effort by allowing Tendler to continue counselling women and providing him with the names of witness contrary to promises made to people ALL without my or Ms. Polin’s help.
Neither I, nor Ms. Polin, nor Mr. Ford, nor Rabbi Blau (who’ve all been accused of smilar things by former and current defenders and/or enablers of sexual predators) have ever been in a position or had the power to stop these predators by removing them from positions of authorities. None of us have that power,
My aim is solely to gather information and expose and in that respect anonymous bloggers have been quite successful. I note Yudel does not mention the anonymous blogging and mailing campaign at the end of last year with respect to Tendler.
No one or group has been effective in dealing with any sexual predator of prominance openly. There are no mainstream reporters in the Jewish press that have been worth much in our battles (with some brief exceptions, Lanner-Rosenblatt).
>Of course your role, as an enable of JWB
I wasn’t aware Larry that you cared so little about the first amendment in which my anonymous speech is protected, as apparently is your anonymous speech.
You and SIW also know little of the history on which the freedoms in this country which we were enjoyed are built on and the origins and necessity of anonymous speech and publishing.
When there is an effective free press in the Jewish community and our rights and liberties are protected, when our institutions are accountable and transparent, we will no longer be anonymous. While we are subject to corrupt institutions run be people who would stop at nothing to silence our voices to protect their and their colleagues excesses, we remain like our great forefathers … anonymous. That is how we will strengthen ur institutions and ensure our freedoms, so what we do today anonymously, we can do in the future openly.
Except:
Many of the great founding Fathers of our American Constitution… Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison, and many others, published their philosophical and political works anonymously. Following the institution of the Constitution, and indeed, the institution of our federal government including the federal courts, while many political critics considered the “American Dreamâ€? to be nothing more than a floundering experiment, Hamilton, Jay, and Madison anonymously authored and published a series of documents known as “The Federalist Papersâ€?. The publishers, concealing their true identities for decades, left the exact authorship of some of these articles in doubt, even today. Publishing under the pseudonym “Plubiousâ€?, the retired President Madison, confessing his role in the publications after Hamilton and Jay had long since died, could not recall for certain the actual author of each document.
May 15th, 2006 at 1:03 pm
I agree that anonymous reports are less reliable. However, in the ultra-orthodox community, because there are so many more negative consequences for those that criticize powerful individuals and institutions, there is much criticism that can only be aired anonymously. In a fearful society, it is imperative that we tolerate some anonymity of critics; because that is the only way certain grievances will ever be addressed.
May 15th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
Steve,
I can understand that an outsider would view the situation as you do, but you need to understand that forces at work in yeshiva / chassidish circles in Brooklyn. You yourself have mentioned there is a mafia-type guard that surrounds Rav Elyashev in Israel. There exists a powerful force in Boro Park / Flatbush that utilizes Mafia tactics to silence, intimidate and ultimately break anyone who is brave enough to identify themselves in these matters. A businessman who is a Torah Temimah graduate by the name of Eli Greenwald stepped forward to help the victims get redress. Thugs controlled by Kolko and Margulies tried to destroy him. Except for Rav Shmuel Kaminetzky and Rav Avrohom Chaim Levin, any rov that Greenwald spoke to was too chicken-livered to provide any help in the investigation and go on record as saying that it must be investigated. If UOJ had identified himself, he would have been utterly destroyed by the mafia. The only reason they failed in completely neutralizing Greenwald is because he is widely known for being an upstanding person.
May 15th, 2006 at 1:40 pm
the problem with being anonomys is we never know if he has a personal ax to grind.
I thought the article was still unconvincing as it reports the story of one individual who doesn’t even have a witness.
they claim there are others but without them coming forward it remains a claim.
why are we to believe him.
May 15th, 2006 at 1:58 pm
>After all is said and done, the most significant benefit offered
>by Un-Orthodox Jew to the pursuit of Kolko was his posting
>of a lawyer’s contact information.
Actually no, his most significant benefit was gathering information and disseminating it all throughout Brooklyn. UOJ’s efforts were critical in gathering the victims so action could be taken.
>I’ve been extremely uneasy — as I think we all should have
>been — about UOJ’s pursuit of this story while under the
>cloak of anonymity.
As was I, as I had no direct knowledge, until the lawyers involved confirmed credible allegations. Then I had confirmation.
>It’s one thing for a named person with known credibility and
>clear liability to pursue conversations with anonymous victims
>and publish their statements.
This is a very unsophisticated statement SIW. Firstly, many of us and the predators as well that we fight have arranged our affairs so that they are judgment proof and others simply have no assets to satisfy any judgment. Secondly what of the Jewish Press who publish false opinion pieces instead of under the heading news, so what if they have liability? They still are not credible. Thirdly consider the label of moser attached to those who try to go after others in the civil courts. As such, liability is likely irrelevant in this discussion.
>It’s quite another for an anonymous individual with no
>credibility and no clear personal stake to pursue a story
>like this in the fashion that UOJ did.
As above liability and credibility do not go hand in hand.
>And while it’s impossible to state that UOJ harmed the
>cause of pursuing Kolko,
To the contrary, the case would likely have never become public other than for his organizational, informathion gathering and information disseminating efforts.
>it’s entirely possible to state that virtually all of his acts — other
>than having the victims themselves create a community there to
>discuss their abuse, and other than posting Jeffrey Herman’s
>information — harmed more than helped,
While possible to say, I believe a proper evaluation and investigation will determine the opposite. He efforts helped, not harmed.
>as all knew that his credibility was indeterminable, and that
>his claims could not be easily verified. It is the responsibility
>of those who take information seriously to present it in credible
>and readily-falsifiable manners.
Ultimatly after UOJ finished:
1) gathering information
2) disseminating information
3) organizing victims
He turned those materials over to a named lawyer and forwarded the material to a very legitimate source. As far as I can determine, all his information proved accurate and real people NOT UOJ were the ultimate source of the legal documents and the sources of the article. So there is no credibility issue. UOJ was the glue, not the information.
>There is no excuse for UOJ’s having conducted this investigation,
>outing and pursuit while remaining anonymous.
Nonsense and this argument is without a logical basis. Law enforcement conducts investigations all the time and the investigators are often anonymous. Any private person has the right to gather and disseminate information. Any private person has the right to organize. To do so anonymously is just a further right under our Constitution.
>In the end, Jeffrey Herman and David Framowitz made this
>abuse case real.
100%.
>But positive ends do not justify any means, and these ends
>don’t justify UOJ’s conduct.
Utterly incorrect. UOJ has properly exercised the freedoms and rights guaranteed by our constitution. Anyone has the same rights.
>Indeed, had not Herman and Framowitz come forward to
>take on this case, it is most likely that it would have progressed
>as it had: with an anonymous, ranting, non-credible individual
>attacking Kolko with a vengeance, and no one but the victims
>having the information they needed to believe the abuse took
>place.
But as with any corruption, when exposed to the light of day, the corrupt ultimately fall.
>Herman and Framowitz saved UOJ from keeping Kolko
>around in perpetuity.
Yet those parties would never have come together without UOJ. He was the glue.
>If we are to approach the issue of clergy abuse responsibly
>— and perhaps to decide that we, as independent Jewish
>bloggers, should go it alone without the mainstream Jewish
>media — we cannot allow conduct such as UOJ’s to go forward.
Why? In the absence of Jewish leadership on this issue, a vacuum exists and all vacuums will be filled. Is blogging the best answer to the problems in our community? Absolutely not. BUT we exist in a state of lawlessness right now and blogging and anonymity ARE the ONLY tools of justice that currently exist. I wish the Jewish leadership would make UOJ and I unnecessary, BUT the fact is we only exist because of the failure of our leaders.
> This was as true several months ago (when I first thought of writing
>this post) as it is today, when Kolko is almost certainly finished.
>We can decide to address the issue of clergy abuse head-on as a
>blogger community. And if we do, we can create standards and
>methodologies for handling these cases as responsible people
>should. But we, and the Jewish community, cannot go on with
>the UOJs of the world taking on these issues as he did.
Actually we can and will untill our Jewish leadership acts. This is only the beginnig. Kolko was not the first and will not be the last. Stay tuned.
May 15th, 2006 at 4:05 pm
I guess the real question is why sacrifice potential credibility by remaining anonymous when clearly it can only help the cause by being a real person and not a phantom?
May 15th, 2006 at 5:06 pm
1) Safety of our families.
2) We can accomplish more and obtain more information while we remain anonymous.
3) For the same reason we have undercover agents, moles, plants and snitchs.
4) I personally tell reporters not to use me for a source on any assertion in their article. I provide others who either go on-the record, off-the-record or unattributed for that purpose. So my credibility is irrelevant.
May 15th, 2006 at 6:00 pm
SIW, I think you are being overly harsh on UOJ, perhaps a case of blogger envy is in the air, after all, it is the worst allergy season on record.
The rumors about the existence of “The Kolko Club” serving “Hot Kolko” have been around for over 25 years. That is a long time for someone to have access and ability to perpetrate these terribly deviant crimes. As is demonstrated on UOJs blog, others have tried and failed to bring the Kolko abuse to light.
Sadly, the rabbinate was largely responsible for that disgrace, and all that is nothing compared to what Margo and the Torah Temimah Board of Deflectors allowed to occur on their watch.
What gives you the right to judge UOJ if he delivered on the hazmonos, then the law suits, as well as the mainstream media coverage? Can you assure us that had he not posted under the cloak of anonymity that he would have been able to accomplish more than anyone ever has in addressing Kolko’s abuse? I think not.
May 15th, 2006 at 6:06 pm
Yes, but at the same time the anonymous bloggers are relentless inthe their pursuits, with no checks and balances and no rule books when it comes to the drastic approach they take, when sometimes claims are not all that true. UOJ has had many posts that are either outdated, closed cases or editorialized opinion proposed as fact, which is wrong and when you are wrong and have no one to answer to because you are anonymous, you are a coward and cannot be taken seriously. What about protecting the families of those falsely accused? There must be a better way.
May 15th, 2006 at 6:26 pm
Kishmich, does UOJ’s apparent success in this case make all of his other irresponsible reporting and accusations of innocents justified?
That’s the equivalent of my saying to you about a euthanist - well, he killed lots of healthy people, but one of them wanted to die and he wasnt sure which so he killed them all and all those deaths were justified by his mercy towards the one saved.
IMHO, collateral damage is never acceptable when lives are at stake, and it is equally unacceptable when the future of people’s reputations are at stake.
UOJ is at best a malicious libeller who possibly got lucky and accused a potentially guilty man. But what about all those other victims?
The ends never justify the means. Otherwise, you should just drop a bomb on brooklyn to kill out all the corruption and damn the innocents lost - they were unaviodable casualties.
May 15th, 2006 at 6:33 pm
I want to be very clear SIW is 100% wrong.
UOJ acted within the law and within halacha. There is nothing unethical or immoral about what he did.
Halachically:
1) Firstly, we are clearly obligated to speak out against evil. It is a mitzvah. We are susposed to expose hypocrites.
2) There is no obligation to do so with your identity. In fact if doing so would put you in danger, it is assur. So since UOJ has been threatened and has no eidus to give. It is in fact assur for him to reveal his identity.
3) A perfect example is straight from the Torah. Moshe Rabeinu came across an Egyption beating a Jew. Did he immediately act? Of course not. He wisely looked to the left, looked to the right and then since he could act anonymously since no one was around, he killed and buried the rasha. While I am not encouraging people to break secular or kill people, I want people to understand you can act anonymously. It’s 100% OK.
Acting anonymously to destroy rashas is a time honored tradition. UOJ has acted in the great tradition of Moshe Rabeinu.
>Yes, but at the same time the anonymous bloggers are relentless
>inthe their pursuits, with no checks and balances and no rule
>books when it comes to the drastic approach they take,
So what? If the community allows pedophiles to operate without ANY checks or balances, why are you surprised that we exist to oppose them?
>when sometimes claims are not all that true. UOJ has had
>many posts that are either outdated, closed cases or
>editorialized opinion proposed as fact, which is wrong and
>when you are wrong and have no one to answer to because
>you are anonymous,
So sue him and by the way, you’ll lose.
>you are a coward and cannot be taken seriously.
As opposed to Rabbi Kolko who preyed on children and all the brave community leaders who protected him and silenced children?
>What about protecting the families of those falsely accused?
>There must be a better way.
There is but untill the community chooses that way, we’re here to stay.
May 15th, 2006 at 6:40 pm
JWB. Moshe killed one man. UOJ has “killed” the reputations of dozens, only a fraction of whom were guilty. For that matter, moshe killed an egyptian in the midst of beating a jew, but he did not address the “corruption” represented by dasan and aviram, choosing instead to run away. Your analogy does horrible injustice to the text. And if you see yourself or UOJ modern day moseses, you’re more delusional and grandiose than your average madman.
Get it straight - one true arrow just does not justify hundreds of stray ones impaling innocents. Until you learn (and you claim to investigate your accusations - but UOJ does not make such claims, and patently does not do so based on the hearsay he publishes) to avoid tarring masses of people in the hopes of catching a guilty man, you are nothing but a demagogue.
May 15th, 2006 at 7:29 pm
UOJ … keep on blogging …
it is you that gave Fromowitz the strength to out Kolko in public…
only anonymous bloggers can make a difference ..
those who had accused Kolko for the last 25 years are known to many of us …
they were villified and destroyed ….
This was the only way to do it ….
UOJ … G-d bless you!!
May 15th, 2006 at 8:04 pm
The only detailed allegations made by UOJ that I’ve reviewed are with regards to Rabbis Kolko and Pinter. The first is clearly credible, the latter was proven in court.
May 15th, 2006 at 8:05 pm
Marty, come on. Put the bong away and ease back on the SoCo. Let’s get real. You’re simply applying these outrageous metaphors when UOJ has done nothing of the sort. Granted there is an unchecked element on the UOJ blog but it is patently obvious to all who that is and what the value of those posts are. What you simply cannot deny is that after decades of abuse, ol’ Yidi’s House of Horrors has ground to a halt.
And I don’t know of one person on that blog who has been wrongly and falsely accused without justification, and that includes Scheinberg, who personally I have a lot of respect for, as well as Belsky, who I know very well and hold in high regard. If these men are recognized as leaders of this community, then they have to withstand the criticism that comes with the territory. Life is not all melave malka honorees and under the table gelt.
Quite frankly, UOJ may have been in a position where his identity would have hurt his credibility. I have no idea. Maybe he’s Jeffrey Dahmer’s brother or the security guard who let Mohammed Atta get on his flight. Frankly, I don’t care. What he did is objectively admirable, even if all he did was provide the public with Herman’s contact information.
We all have a tachlis, and I would hate to judge harshly that which has at a minimum provided the victims of this abuse an outlet for some very difficult issues. And can anyone honestly deny that unknown numbers of children have been saved as well?
May 15th, 2006 at 8:31 pm
>UOJ has “killed� the reputations of dozens, only
>a fraction of whom were guilty.
I see no evidence of this to the contary, he has spared 100s if not thousands of future students and campers from a sexual predator something countless Jewish leaders have failed to do over decades.
Blog on UOJ, blog on.
May 15th, 2006 at 9:42 pm
Steven, you are being disingenuous here. Not purposefully, but because of your own bias. You have defended Israel Singer many times, and only revealed that you lived in Singer’s house and were treated like a part of his family, after you were challenged on it. You claimed that anyone who read protocols, which happens to be a small portion of the frum Jews who are now online, would have know of your connection.
Obviously, this is throwing your judgement way off. UOJ has been a strong critic of Singer, and that is the real root of your dislike.
Now, I will give you credit, you have been calling for bloggers to not be anonymous for a long time now. However, I think it is just your bias of “knowing” that singer is a good guy, that makes you criticize him and the article so strongly. Otherwise, that position is incongruous with your long standing abhorence of clergy abuse and cover-ups. Nevertheless, I think we should let you off this time, since you do do some good work and are not disagreeing maliciously.
May 15th, 2006 at 11:38 pm
JWB, what makes you the supreme authority on all that is right and correct?
May 16th, 2006 at 12:03 am
Yes, I think dan k is right. SIW’s judgment on this guy IS suspect. Sounds like he has an axe to grind against UOJ…
May 16th, 2006 at 12:33 am
The Council on Foreign Relations and the Elders delegated that responsibility to him, vay back ven.
May 16th, 2006 at 7:10 am
Otherwise, that position is incongruous with your long standing abhorence of clergy abuse and cover-ups.
I don’t see how. If anything, this is perfectly consistent with Steven’s long-standing abhorrence of clergy abuse and cover-ups. An anonymous blogger with UOJ’s somewhat manic tone is perfectly entitled to give his opinions on everything and anything going on out there - but it isn’t reporting.
May 16th, 2006 at 7:29 am
“but it isn’t reporting”
I am sure UOJ would be the first to agree with that. What’s the difference what it is, reporting, blogging, or cyber-diarrhea of the mouth (keyboard?). What you call it or how you categorize it is meaningless. What it accomplished must be considered, regardless of your race, religion, bias, or belief, an incredible accomplishment, particularly in light of the heretofore inept effort at bringing the Kolko Club to a halt.
Could someone please let me know when they are ready to convert the TT property into a parking lot? I know there are those of you that would argue that such would be ossur given the prohibition of maalin bkodesh v’ain moridin. You would, of course, be correct if TT were actually a yeshiva. But since it is really the pedophilic playground and personal bank account fronting for some of the lowest dregs Judaism has ever produced, turning the place into a parking lot would not violate that prohibition.
May 16th, 2006 at 8:38 am
But since it is really the pedophilic playground and personal bank account fronting for some of the lowest dregs Judaism has ever produced, turning the place into a parking lot would not violate that prohibition.
Kish, this is precisely the same tone taken by UOJ which makes him/her so annoying. Why do you expect that people would beleive that the netire extablishment needs to be destoryed and made a parking lot? Hundreds of boys have passed through there and gotten their education. There are many teacher and educators there who are completely innocent and have gotten up every day to do their jobs. So the boss and a colleague might possibly be crooks, means that the rest of the institution must disappear?
The argument is not about reporting, the argument is about resorting to guerilla warfare and coming across as a psycho begging people to listen because you feel thats the only way you will be taken seriously.
If you are such a hero now, why not show your faces? Bask in the glory!
May 16th, 2006 at 9:02 am
This in nonsense. You don’t like UOJ’s tone, so what?
UOJ is a hero who has clearly saved 100s if not 1,000s of jewish youth from Rabbi Kolko.
As to attacks that it isn’t reporting. So what?
UOJ has never represented it as reporting. He hasn’t represented himself as a reporter, a doctor, a lawyer or an accountant. So what?
Everything he has done has been moral, ethical, legal and within halacha.
May 16th, 2006 at 9:07 am
Everything he has done has been moral, ethical, legal and within halacha.
That is a matter of opinion.
You made you the supreme psak maker?
May 16th, 2006 at 9:10 am
Something - Your claim is plainly absurd. Of course UOJ would’ve faced tough consequences for pushing forward the story, and that’s the whole point. If you’re not risking anything while your story is going to ruin someone’s life, then you can’t be trusted. You don’t think every single Jewish journalist who’s pursued the abuse story or various other stories has been called all kinds of things, and told they’re not welcome in all kinds of places? That’s part of the job of calling those in power to task, and that’s part of why you know you can believe what they write: because their neck is on the line, and if they went at it the wrong way, they’re over.
Kish Mich - “Can you assure us that had he not posted under the cloak of anonymity that he would have been able to accomplish more than anyone ever has in addressing Kolko’s abuse?” Firstly, as I said above, I don’t think he really accomplished all that much here. Herman and Framowitz did. But is there any way in which his anonymity helped here? I can’t think of one, unless he’s known as a pathological liar. If UOJ were going at this under his real name, and had described his methodologies for gathering evidence and for verifying claims, his report would have been taken with very much more seriousness by everyone from the start. Instead, everyone wrote it off for what it was — anonymous ranting — until Herman and Framowitz came into the picture. “What he did is objectively admirable, even if all he did was provide the public with Herman’s contact information.” Indeed, providing Herman’s information was admirable, or at least a smart/good thing to do. Going on a crusade he knew could not have been taken credibly due to his anonymity by engaging in mass mailings and writing on his blog is not part of that, and is not admirable.
JWB - “I personally tell reporters not to use me for a source on any assertion in their article. I provide others who either go on-the record, off-the-record or unattributed for that purpose. So my credibility is irrelevant.” Exactly. I never trust anything you give me that isn’t verified by credible alternative sources, and I shouldn’t — and neither should anyone else. We’re not talking about the same thing, here. “If the community allows pedophiles to operate without ANY checks or balances, why are you surprised that we exist to oppose them?” Moral relativism is not an answer.
Dan k - Do you really think I could care at all what UOJ has to say about Singer? I don’t care what anyone has to say, except for when they’re in a position to know better and they actively lie — like the Jewish Week and other Jewish publications did. As to my role in the Singer story, I made quite clear from the beginning that I would do no reporting on it as I my conflicts of interest made me ineligible. I did not reveal my conflicts only when I was challenged on it. I did no reporting on it, only analysis of the public record, as I made clear in my posts and as I said was the result of a conflict of interest. You can disagree with my analyses, but you can’t claim I did biased reporting on it — because I did no reporting at all.
May 16th, 2006 at 9:12 am
>Why do you expect that people would beleive that the
>netire extablishment needs to be destoryed and made
>a parking lot? Hundreds of boys have passed through
>there and gotten their education.
If children have beemn molested there due to the silence of community leaders, administrators and staff, no good in the world will outweigh this evil.
>There are many teacher and educators there who are
>completely innocent and have gotten up every day to
>do their jobs. So the boss and a colleague might possibly be
>crooks, means that the rest of the institution must disappear?
Yes. It is our job to protect children, NOT to protect the parnasah of a pedophile, those who protected him actively and those who protected him with their silence. I will only feel sorry or have any compassion for any teacher who stood up publicly and said Kolko must go now or I will. If such a person exists let the community step forward and offer that person a position in another institution. The others should never again be in chinuch.
>The argument is not about reporting,
Correct.
>the argument is about resorting to guerilla warfare
Wrong.
>and coming across as a psycho begging people to listen
>because you feel thats the only way you will be taken seriously.
Clearly, the leadership in the community have brought us to this point where UOJ is necessary. Blame your leaders NOT UOJ.
>If you are such a hero now, why not show your faces? Bask in the glory!
UOJ is a hero but there is no glory in this, it simply must be done. Like Moshe Rabeinu, UOJ acted properly AND anonymously and saved Jewish lives. Blog on UOJ, blog on.
May 16th, 2006 at 9:12 am
>Why do you expect that people would beleive that the
>netire extablishment needs to be destoryed and made
>a parking lot? Hundreds of boys have passed through
>there and gotten their education.
If children have been molested there due to the silence of community leaders, administrators and staff, no good in the world will outweigh this evil.
>There are many teacher and educators there who are
>completely innocent and have gotten up every day to
>do their jobs. So the boss and a colleague might possibly be
>crooks, means that the rest of the institution must disappear?
Yes. It is our job to protect children, NOT to protect the parnasah of a pedophile, those who protected him actively and those who protected him with their silence. I will only feel sorry or have any compassion for any teacher who stood up publicly and said Kolko must go now or I will. If such a person exists let the community step forward and offer that person a position in another institution. The others should never again be in chinuch.
>The argument is not about reporting,
Correct.
>the argument is about resorting to guerilla warfare
Wrong.
>and coming across as a psycho begging people to listen
>because you feel thats the only way you will be taken seriously.
Clearly, the leadership in the community have brought us to this point where UOJ is necessary. Blame your leaders NOT UOJ.
>If you are such a hero now, why not show your faces? Bask in the glory!
UOJ is a hero but there is no glory in this, it simply must be done. Like Moshe Rabeinu, UOJ acted properly AND anonymously and saved Jewish lives. Blog on UOJ, blog on.
May 16th, 2006 at 9:40 am
>Something - Your claim is plainly absurd. Of course UOJ
>would’ve faced tough consequences for pushing forward
>the story, and that’s the whole point.
SIW he’s not a reporter, he’s not reporting. Your anaysis is irrelevant.
Further, our founding fathers certainly disagreed with you and regularly published anonymously.
>If you’re not risking
>anything while your story is going to ruin someone’s life,
>then you can’t be trusted.
Again, trust is irrelevant.
>You don’t think every single Jewish journalist who’s pursued
>the abuse story or various other stories has been called all
>kinds of things, and told they’re not welcome in all kinds of
>places?
There are few Jewish reporters doing these kind of stories and none who would have been willing OR capable of doing this story. SIW the Jewish press is utterly useless.
>That’s part of the job of calling those in power to task, and
>that’s part of why you know you can believe what they write:
>because their neck is on the line, and if they went at it the
>wrong way, they’re over.
You think reporters have a monopoly on the truth, that only reporting counts? You are wrong. That’s why we have a first amendment and free speech both of which allows everyone of us to do what UOJ does.
And your trust is irrelevant. You should place your trust in Hashem not man.
>But is there any way in which his anonymity helped here? I can’t think of one,
It helped him organize and assemble the victims and gather the information, something he could not have done if his name were public.
>“If the community allows pedophiles to operate without ANY
>checks or balances, why are you surprised that we exist to
>oppose them?� Moral relativism is not an answer.
Of course it’s not the answer, it’s the reality of the situation. If the community leadership won’t act than others will and you will not like us or our methods but in the absence of anything else you will get us. What we do is moral, ethical, legal and within halacha.
Further, this sort of action has been common within survivors in other religious movements, mailings, postings etc. and has been very effective.
May 16th, 2006 at 9:41 am
You are at least as evil as the people you crusade against if you sincrely feel that killing an entire educational institution is the way to deal with the problem, istead of getting rid of the crooks. Why is that the acceptable response? WHat possible logic could you have for that? Because of a bad apple, the other apples must lose their livelihood and the children must suffer? Not to minimize one spec of the suffering of the victims or the severity of the crimes committed, but to say the rule must be to shutdown completely is ludicrous.
>The argument is not about reporting,
Correct.
>the argument is about resorting to guerilla warfare
Wrong.
OK enlighten me, what is it then?
I’m on the side of whats right and good. I am on the side of callnig out the bad people and brining them to justice. I am also on the side of using that same justice fot he people doing the calling out. Rules apply to everyone. Especially the people who shoot first and ask later. Especially a blogger like UOJ who in other isntaces has misrepresented opinon as fact and has maligned people purely on speculation and nothging else, which is easy to do when you have no one to answer to, and no balls in the sack.
May 16th, 2006 at 9:48 am
Steven, I never claimed that you did biased REPORTING on it, which seems like the out you are using. However, when you did your “analysis of the public record”, you did not identify the conflict immediately, but rather after several of your analytic posts. Additionally, you seem to have a pretty good handle on the differences between what is considered journalist and what is considered. However, many of your readers, myself included, do not have the same understanding. You should know this, yet you use ignorance of this fact as your excuse.
In any case, you very clearly DO care about what UOJ and others write about Singer, and not just because it goes against you journalistic standards. You are human, and just as I am biased towards my friends and family, so are you, and any other journalist. No reputable news organization would allow a ben bayit to do analysis of the public record, even with full and immediate disclosure.
As I said earlier, anyone who has followed your writings knows that you abhor anonymity, along with molestation. However, you say clearly that in this case, the ends do not justify the means. I think that most sensible people disagree with you on this. After all, you, or Gary, or any other journalist, would never ever have gotten this story to this point for precisely the reasons that you outlined. The frum community is small and unless you are comfortable outside of it, you have no chance. Of course, outsiders don’t stand much chance either, without the insight of insiders.
I think that if you had more contact with survivors of such incidences, your integrity would force you to reevaluate your position.
May 16th, 2006 at 10:16 am
>You are at least as evil as the people you crusade against
Absurd.
>if you sincrely feel that killing an entire educational institution
>is the way to deal with the problem, istead of getting rid of the
>crooks.
If it’s dead, they killed it, not I, not UOJ, not the NY Magazine. The administrator by covering for a child molester, the staff for allowing Kolko to remain even one minute after they knew of the allegations.
>Why is that the acceptable response? WHat possible logic
>could you have for that? Because of a bad apple, the other
>apples must lose their livelihood and the children must suffer?
1) We are susposed to protect the children NOT the parnasah of an administartor who protect a child molester or the members of staff who did not take a stand to protect the children by demanding Kolko not stay there even one minute, once they knew of the allegations.
>Not to minimize one spec of the suffering of the victims
>or the severity of the crimes committed, but to say the
>rule must be to shutdown completely is ludicrous.
What is ludicrous is that even after the lawsuit was filed Kolko was reported still teaching.
>The argument is not about reporting,
Correct.
>the argument is about resorting to guerilla warfare
Wrong.
>OK enlighten me, what is it then?
It’s about protecting children when our leadership won’t.
>I’m on the side of whats right and good. I am on the side
>of callnig out the bad people and brining them to justice.
When, where and how?
>I am also on the side of using that same justice fot he
>people doing the calling out. Rules apply to everyone.
>Especially the people who shoot first and ask later.
>Especially a blogger like UOJ who in other isntaces has
>misrepresented opinon as fact and has maligned people
>purely on speculation and nothging else, which is easy to
>do when you have no one to answer to …
1) Everything UOJ did was moral, ethical, legal and within halacha.
2) UOJ is entitled to his opinion and to dilike community leaders.
3) UOJ’s post on Kolko now stand as credible.
4) Before you attack UOJ, answer my simple questions:
a. Why has our community leadership not done anything all these decades?
b. Why is there no mechanism ir resources in the Jewish community for Kolko
s victims to access?
c. Why in all these decades has no Jewish reporter discovered or reported this story?
d. Why are there no mechanisms to remove OR investigate such a teacher in a private Jewish school in NY despite the allegations that were filed in court and were before the police? Why was Kolko still teaching?
When the community fails to protect its children, others will.
We all answer to Hashem and I am more than prepared to, but only for my actions NOT my silence.
May 16th, 2006 at 10:24 am
OrthoJew, if you had a child in TT that was never molested, came out an absolutely perfectly adjusted young man, a straight A student, with offers from every high school there was - yet you knew that other children were molested, wouldn’t it nevertheless be incumbent upon you to do everything you could to stop that abuse?
I’m sure you understand (perhaps you don’t) that I was talking tongue in cheek when I mentioned the parking lot scenario. Nevertheless, no institution, regardless of the number of quality students it produces, can enjoy the business as usual attitude TT has taken advantage of while there are other children falling prey to a serial pedophile hiding behind rabbinic robes and an administration that has turned a blind eye and an outstretched arm to those very children entrusted in its care.
May 16th, 2006 at 10:28 am
Dan k - If there are people who can’t tell the difference between when I’m reporting new information and when I’m analyzing the coverage and public record that’s out there, well, they’re too stupid to be concerned about. As to identifying my conflicts of interest completely, perhaps I should have done that from the start — but from the start I did say that I’d be doing no reporting owing to my conflict of interest. If I were providing new information for which I’d need to be trusted, I’d have taken it more seriously; but I was just providing the same analysis that anyone could have with the information available, not asking to be trusted, and readers were free to agree or disagree. As to “ben bayit” — I think that’s overstating it; it was a month while I was in his employ, and it was more than three years ago, before my journalism career took off, and either way — you’re wrong about what a reputable news organization would do in that regard, since virtually every analysis of the public record in Op-Ed pages comes from a biased source. Frankly, UOJ’s comments on this issue were something I’d forgotten until you brought them up; he’s always been a relative irrelevance for me, except on this Kolko issue. I don’t often read his blog, never have, and probably never will unless I’m looking for specific information.
Either way, my points about UOJ here, as you’ve noted, are entirely consistent with my previous takes on anonymity and clergy abuse. As I’ve stated repeatedly in this thread, the ends accomplished by UOJ required only a fraction of the means he employed; the vast quantity of work done by UOJ was irrelevant to the outcome, so any declaration that the ends justify those means is absurd on its face because the ends are not a result of those means.
“After all, you, or Gary, or any other journalist, would never ever have gotten this story to this point for precisely the reasons that you outlined.” I don’t know what reasons you’re referring to, but I’ve got no clue why me, Gary, or whomever couldn’t have gotten this story, given how little it required for UOJ to “get it.” Indeed, UOJ didn’t really “get it,” as I’ve repeatedly explained. All he got was the contact info for Herman posted where victims could see it. But there’s very little keeping journalists from doing a good job on these stories; after all, if “outsiders” as you term them can’t get to the “insiders,” then how to explain Kolker’s contact with all the “insiders” for this story? Every investigative reporter faces challenges in getting to a story; that’s why it’s called “investigative.”
I’m in tons of contact with survivors of clergy abuse, so I don’t know what you’re talking about at the end. I’m not decrying UOJ’s approach because the victims are anonymous, but because UOJ is anonymous.
May 16th, 2006 at 10:28 am
SIW, I think we can agree that UOJ can at least lay claim to “shadchan” status insofar as Herman and Framowitz are concerned. Many shadchonim take great pride in matches they made that resulted in successful marriages. While it is Herman and Framowitz who will have to make this case in court, they would have been mere ships passing in the night had it not been for UOJs blogging.
May 16th, 2006 at 10:30 am
Kish Mich - Yes, the “shadchan” stuff is real, and is a fraction of what UOJ actually did on this. That’s my point.
May 16th, 2006 at 10:50 am
Steven, I think you are being a little harsh about those of us who can’t make the distinction between when you are reporting something new and when you are analysing. I don’t think you are seeing this from the average reader’s perspective. Of course, when prompted to choose between those two descriptions, anyone with any intelligence can tell the difference. However, most of the time, people just come here and read what Steven Weiss the journalist, is BLOGGING about. It all tends to be just be viewed as a bunch of blog posts, as opposed to original reporting vs. analysis. The only time the distinction is clear to all, is when you reference the fact that you are working on a story, or when you link to one that you wrote. Otherwise, people read this as a blog, which happens to be written by a journalist.
The only reason why this story came out, was due to the rumormill that UOJ had started. Without that info, people would never have banded together. It is true, that the real effect he had was by making the shiduch, but he would never have done so had he not heard from numerous people about their experiences. It is precisely because he has an irresponsible and anonymous blog, that this information came to light. No responsible journalist would have publicly asked for information unless they had already confirmed the veracity of the claims. Therefore, neither you nor Gary would have been able to get the critical mass of people together and in contact with a lawyer, unless you could face public scrutiny of your claims.
As a journalist, you must know plenty of cases where you personally believe someone’s story, but cannot publish it because there is no proof. This happens all the time and reporters and editors sit on those stories until something changes. However, when an anonymous blogger believes something, then they can publicize what they know and make a public request for information. Then, an army of David’s can bring their knowledge together, and get something done. That is what happened here and that was the only way this story was going to break, short of a long-shot coincidence.
I don’t disagee that this is a very dangerous game to play, but I think the ends do justify these means. Of course, an anonymous blogger would still have to convince the general audience that he is correct, and that takes more than just time and creative writing.
May 16th, 2006 at 11:06 am
JWB, if you are applying for the job of UOJ’s lawyer, don’t you are doing a poor job.
May 16th, 2006 at 11:10 am
Per Luke Ford:
>What does Steven mean “cannot allow”? We have
>no power over a person deciding to blog anonymously?
>The writers of the Federalist papers were anonymous?
>I don’t think anonymity counts as much as merit.
100%. We have a constitution SIW and a first amendment that protects free speech which according to our courts INCLUDES anonymous blogging.
If you don’t like it SIW, go live in communist China or Syria.
May 16th, 2006 at 11:24 am
American democracy was built and strengthed by our Founding Fathers and their anonymous writings. Anonymous writings is an American tradition that dates back to the very beginning of our proud country. SIW your lack understanding of American history with regard to anonymous writings and the American free press is just shocking. Are you as ignorant on this subject as Gary Rosenblatt?
Here’s a history lesson:
see the full material at: ...
Excerpt:
…
For example, the earliest and most famous American experience with freedom of the press, the 1735 Zenger trial, centered around anonymous political pamphlets. The case involved a printer, John Peter Zenger, who refused to reveal the anonymous authors of published attacks on the Crown governor of New York. When the governor and his council could not discover the identity of the authors, they prosecuted Zenger himself for seditious libel. See J. Alexander, A Brief Narrative of the Case and Trial of John Peter Zenger 9-19 (S. Katzed. 1972). Although the case set the colonies afire for its example of a jury refusing to convict a defendant of seditious libel against Crown authorities, it also signified at an early moment the extent to which anonymity and the freedom of the press were intertwined in the early American mind.
…
May 16th, 2006 at 11:51 am
I feel sorry for those of you who have nothing better to do all day than to sit hitting reload just to copy and paste the same lines.
Isn’t it time for you to watch Maury or Springer?
May 16th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
good question:
...
May 16th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
Anyone’s belief is irrelevant.
Given the serious allegations that have been filed in court proceedings, Rabbi Kolko should not be allowed any contact with children. In the public school system this is automatic, in the private Jewish system there are no such protections.
The fact is there are credible allegations in the court system (at least 3 seperate survivors) and at least another dozen or so according to a legitimate news article in the general media.
Law enforcement statistics indicate single false allegations of this sort (named abuser)are rare and false allegations with multiple unrelated accusers are simply statistically for all practical purposes virtually zero.
May 16th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
As I’ve indicated in the past, the rate of false allegations is very small. According to the few law enforcement agencies that properly track these statistics. The population of false sexual assault complaints is 5.7-6.7%.
BUT, if one analyzes these statistics further, one finds that if one looks at the police unit that restricts itself to handling major rape cases where the assailant is UNKNOWN to the victim, they report that a whopping 30 percent of cases, turned out to be false.
Thus within the sub-population of sexual assault complaints with an assailant KNOWN to the victim, the percentage of false sexual assault complaints is extremely low.
Further, once you take the sub-population of sexual assault complaints with an assailant KNOWN to the victim AND MULTIPLE UNRELATED victims, the percentage of false sexual assault complaints is virtually zero.
In Kolko’s case according to NY Magazine: “All told, Herman says he knows of as many as twenty victims between the ages of 19 and 50 who say they were abused by Kolko. “.
May 16th, 2006 at 1:37 pm
Steven, from reading your blog it’s clear that you are not a part of any chassidic or black hat yeshivish community so you don’t care what they say or fear what they can do to you. But you aren’t naive. Surely you must know the kind of pressure that can be applied within the frum community. Look at the number of orthoblogs that have gone on hiatus or been deleted in part due to pressure from or outing in the frum community.
I posted an admittedly ranting screed about Detroit’s frummies on UOJ’s blog and almost immediately was the target of a malicious post identifying me personally and discussing my personal problems. The frummies honestly believes that the laws of Lashon HaRa apply more to the case of an accused pedophile rebbe than to a semi-anonymous blog comment critical of their narrow minded community.
What I find hugely humorous is that the attack on me said nothing that I wouldn’t have admitted to publicly, and took pride in identifying me when I took no steps to protect my identity and had posted enough information that this yutz had no problem figuring out who I am. Giving up anonymity brings some power. I’m not afraid of them. So they say that I’m Ronnie Schreiber. BFD. SFW? What’s the Chiddush?
So when I started the Bozoyon blog recently, I decided to do it without anonymity. I do it under my persona of the Bozoer Rebbe, but my Purim persona is well known in Detroit and elsewhere in the Yiddishe Velt. I use the Bozoer persona not to hide but among other things because the Gemara says that clowns have a portion of Olam HaBa. I’ve always posted here with my real email address and most of the time my URL link goes to my embroidery business (anyone want to buy some way cool custom Judaica?). Which is a little crazy if you think about it. I sell Judaica and also do contract embroidery, including logo work for Jewish organizations, frum ones included. Why would I risk losing business by possibly offending a frummie by stating something his or her small mind regards as kefirah? Though kefirah is the farthest from my intentions. I do all the custom embroidery work for one of the larger online Judaica shops, operated by the wife of a local Conservative rabbi. We respectfully disagree about some Jewish issues, but she and her husband treat me with respect and affection, regardless of my political or religious beliefs. I’m sure that many of the liberal Jews for whom I have also done custom work would think I’m am kimmat a nazi because I was an early reader and poster at Little Green Footballs (Charles and I share a love of bicycling, Frank Zappa’s music, and Israel) - not to mention the fact that I knew Rabbi Kahane personally. But if you want custom Hebrew embroidery, done by someone who actually knows Hebrew, you almost have to come to me, at least in this town. So if my liberal, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist (did a great tefillin bag for a fellow deadhead buddy of mine who is in a drumming circle with the verse from tehillim about praising HaShem with drums and a nice middleeastern drum), and frei Jewish customers do business with me though we don’t 100% agree on 100% of everything, why should I fear any retribution from the frum community? It’s against halacha to hold a grudge, right?
Frummies may want to punish me for speaking out (truthfully or not - I can make mistakes like anyone, maybe more than most), but true Jews will act appropriately. There are many kind Torah true Jews here who have shown me great chesed.
The truth is that I’ve never hidden my attitudes or foibles. The frummies here know who I am and there is very little that they can do to me, so I can blog more effectively without anonymity. UOJ may have more to lose.
May 16th, 2006 at 1:38 pm
As I’ve indicated in the past, the rate of false allegations is very small.
You have any statistics regarding the rate of false allegations in the frum community?
May 16th, 2006 at 1:40 pm
Dan k - I do expect readers, when reading any document, to understand when a given claim is presenting something as fact or opinion. It’s something that responsible readers do, as they formulate their own opinions about a situation. And as they do so, they evaluate a given text for what to believe and what to reject. When I present something as fact, I’m expecting readers to either trust me or indicate where my information could be wrong, or what additional facts might change how my original fact will be perceived; when I’m writing something as opinion, I’m expecting readers to either agree or disagree with my arguments. The plainness of this distinction is obvious. That’s how responsible readers respond to content.
Your assertions about UOJ in your latest comment are self-contradicting and wrong. UOJ’s contribution didn’t rely on many victims coming forward to Herman, but one: Framowitz. Second, the fostering of an online discussion for victims and others does not require virtually anything of what UOJ did. Third, neither of these key elements relied upon or was assisted by UOJ’s anonymity, and especially not his “irresponsibility,” a claim so absurd as to not require a response. Fourth, you’re wrong that neither Gary Rosenblatt nor I could do the same thing, though admittedly it’d be more difficult for Rosenblatt to manage in his publication. Fifth, we with good reason sit on stories that can’t be credibly proven — obviously, the Kolko story could have been (as Kolker proved) and this is much more the result of Herman’s, Framowitz’s, and Kolker’s work than UOJ’s.
Let us look quite directly at the three individuals most responsible for blowing this story open: Herman, Framowitz and Kolker. Before this New York Magazine story, and even moreso before the lawsuit was filed, there was no specific reason to believe the allegations against Kolko. These three men changed all that. Were it not for the lawsuit or the NYMag story, there would be no credibility to the allegations, and this lack of credibility would be most directly attributable to UOJ’s anonymity (at which point at least some discussion of his credibility could be had). To claim UOJ is largely responsible for either or both of those elements is to overstate his contributions; to claim that a large part of UOJ’s actions is in any way responsible is to be plainly in error. And, once more, none of his positive contributions required or were assisted by his anonymity.
JWB - Don’t be an idiot. There’s no reasonable comparison between the Federalist papers and the specific allegations of sexual misconduct made against an individual by UOJ. Further, as a matter of law, it is obvious today — as a result of the lawsuit and the NYMag story — that UOJ did not engage in libel; that is something I never claimed he did. What is equally obvious is that the claims were not credible until at least the lawsuit and much moreso the NYMag story. UOJ was not believed by many, and he should not have been — and neither should you be for any specific factual claims not supported by available and credible evidence. The question was never one of libel or not — it was a question of whether those putting forward information that could greatly affect the Jewish community can be trusted. And no anonymous person on their own can be trusted when it comes to questions of fact.
May 16th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
>You have any statistics regarding the rate of false allegations in
>the frum community?
As I’ve said before all studies continue to show the same rates of abuse across the board in society regardless of race, religion, socio economic status.
May 16th, 2006 at 1:50 pm
Bozoer - Do you think people in other Jewish communities don’t face the same kind of pressure? That there aren’t synagogues, yeshivas and other institutions where as a result of my reporting I’m persona non grata? And that the same doesn’t apply to other Jewish journalists? Do you think we don’t receive threats of lawsuits or actual ones, claims that we are heretics, moserim, or rodfim, and so much more? And the same applies to all investigative journalists who expose scandal without concern for their continued standing in the community they inhabit. This goes on all the time with liberal reporters who expose a liberal politician and find themselves suddenly shunned. That’s the cost of doing credible work.
May 16th, 2006 at 1:58 pm
SIW as I’ve said before trust is irrelevant. You’re susposed to trust Hashem, not a blogger and not a journalist.
Anonymous or named is irrelevant. Maoz’s Jewish Press has no credibility today, Susan Rosenbluth’s Jewish Voice and Opinion has no credibility today, UOJ has credibility today. It has nothing to do with anonymity, it has to do with a track record.
Credibility is built through a history, through a track record. When any publication or journalist starts out they start from scratch (or the track record they bring to the publication from previous experience). Various publications have various standards.
Credibility is built over time.
When UOJ started he had no track record, now he does.
May 16th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
JWB - You’re being dense and stupid. Yes, the JP and JVO have almost no credibility anymore — and therefore we won’t be duped into believing any future stories of theirs. But if UOJ fails on a story he can disappear today and reappear tomorrow as someone else.
May 16th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
As I’ve said before all studies continue to show the same rates of abuse across the board in society regardless of race, religion, socio economic status.
In other words, you have no idea. Why don’t you advocate on behalf of those good souls who have been victims of false allegations too?
May 16th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
You forgot the Jewish Week, they have no credibility either.
May 16th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
Let me give you an example.
There are 2 publications. Each publishes the winning lottery numbers for the next week.
1 is published by John Joe Smith and is never right.
1 is published anonymously and is always right (or significantly right, gets 80% of the numbers).
Which is credible? Which will people “trust”? Which will people buy?
What if John Joe Smith buys the anonymous publication and attaches his name to it and the publication’s prediction accuracy drop to zero? Will consumers trust it more?
SIW your analysis of anonymous speech simply is flawed. Try doing some research on the material I’ve previously noted.
If UOJ expose 20 Kolko’s over the next year on his blog, is he still not credible, is he still not “trustworthy”?
That is for his readership to decide, not you. It will be his track record and not your “journalistic standards” and “beliefs” which will matter.
The consumer/blog readers will make this determination not you.
May 16th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
>JWB - You’re being dense and stupid. Yes, the JP and
>JVO have almost no credibility anymore — and
>therefore we won’t be duped into believing any future
>stories of theirs. But if UOJ fails on a story he can disappear
>today and reappear tomorrow as someone else.
1) So can Maoz and Rosenbluth, they can legally change their names or write under a pen name. Remember Gafni/Winiarz/Winyarz?
2) If UOJ reappears tomorrow as someone else, he starts back at zero credibility.
May 16th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
There are 2 publications. Each publishes the winning lottery numbers for the next week.
1 is published by John Joe Smith and is never right.
1 is published anonymously and is always right (or significantly right, gets 80% of the numbers).
WOW, speaking things that are strictly a “matter of opinon.”
I’ll ask again, why isn’t UOJ speaking for himself? Are you his spokesman / lawyer? Are you the same people?
May 16th, 2006 at 2:55 pm
I can’t have an opinion? Don’t trend on my 1st amendment rights.
May 16th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
Orthodox Jew, JWB is obsessed with this particular issue and likes to do a lot of cutting and pasting of text. He has slightly more credibility than Vickie Polin, slightly. UOJ, on the other hand, has a broader target. He seems genuinely concerned about how Torah Judaism has been hijacked by a bunch of narrow minded idiots. He seems fairly disciplined, which might explain why he’s not here. I happen to disagree with him about some things, but whoever said we all had to march in lockstep? Part of the problem is enforced conformity to things that have nothing to do w/ the core of Yiddishkeit.
Steven, I don’t minimize the social stigma and pressures put upon journalists in the orthodox community, but you recognize that you chose to be a journalist and pay the dues accordingly. UOJ is not a journalist, just a Jew with an agenda or two. I trust him at least as much as I trust the NYT or ABC News with their unnamed sources. I’ve only been reading his blog for a few months so I’m not sure what other allegations he’s made that are unproven, beyond calling a few self-appointed “gedolim” some nasty names.
Everyone has to decide for themselves about blogging anonymity, just like in 12 step programs. AA has no problem with members publicly identifying themselves as recovering alcoholics, as they recognize the value that comes with publicizing a problem and a possible solution. Likewise, bloggers should respect those who decide to use the anonymity of blogging to address issues that might otherwise not be raised.
May 16th, 2006 at 3:04 pm
Spare me the opressed victim crap. You jwb/uoj whomever misrepresent your opinons as the be all end all fact. Are you saying you are infallible or incapable of being incorrect?
May 16th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
Did anyone hear me infringe on anonyes first amendment rights? Does this reaction not illustrate the absudity of these people?
May 16th, 2006 at 3:22 pm
>Are you saying you are infallible or incapable of being incorrect?
Of course not, only Hashem is.
The press is not infallible.
The police are not infallible.
The DA’s office is not infallible.
Our community leaders are not infallible.
Our rabbis are not infallible.
Our dayanim are not infallble.
Our beis dins are not infallible.
And even our gedolim are not infallible.
May 16th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
You forgot
Our anonymous blogging whistleblowers are not infallible
May 16th, 2006 at 4:01 pm
Read the first 2 lines where I refer to little insignificant blogger me.
I would add my critics appear to have the worst track record of all.
May 16th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
Sorry Stevey, but maybe if you got up from your basement and went into the real world you wouldnt write such crap. I have been around much longer, am much more educated ,and know much more about the real world then you ever will. The JewishPress has more credibility, then any thing you have ever written.
May 16th, 2006 at 4:14 pm
whic 2 lines was that?
May 16th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
For those with low reading comprehension:
>>Are you saying you are infallible or incapable of being incorrect?
>Of course not, only Hashem is.
May 16th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
So you’re saying you referred to yourself, ie god?
Sorry, my reading comprehension is just fine.
May 16th, 2006 at 4:35 pm
Again for those with low reading comprehension:
>>Are you saying you are infallible or incapable of being incorrect?
>Of course not, only Hashem is.
Which means: I (a mere blogger) am NOT Hashem and therfore I am NOT infallible or incapable of being incorrect.
May 16th, 2006 at 7:49 pm
Bozoer - “but you recognize that you chose to be a journalist and pay the dues accordingly. UOJ is not a journalist, just a Jew with an agenda or two.” And if he’s going to take this approach to pursuing his agenda, doing so anonymously is irresponsible, unfair, and unethical. I don’t have to get beat up for stories if I don’t want to, and neither would any journalist, if as a profession we’d decide to go after vanilla stories summarizing shul dinners and so forth. It’s when we put our names on the line to do journalism that will have a real impact that we face a challenge, and the reason we need our names on the line there is to ensure that if the information’s bad, we take a hit, so readers can know what they’re dealing with. That’s not the case with UOJ. He made a choice to pursue his agenda, and to do it in a cowardly fashion that helped no one. “Everyone has to decide for themselves about blogging anonymity, just like in 12 step programs.” You and JWB keep making anonymous bloggers out to be some sort of victims; there’s no justification for this sort of language or approach. It’s their choice to spout off anonymously, and it is the correct and overwhelming choice of responsible readers to treat that anonymous work with the lack of credibility it inspires. And those of us who would like to see responsible discourse and information distribution should protest those who do it irresponsibly: they’re muddying the water.
May 16th, 2006 at 8:22 pm
Utter nonsemse.
You mistake free speech with journalism. The two are different.
>And if he’s going to take this approach to pursuing his agenda,
>doing so anonymously is irresponsible, unfair, and unethical.
Why, because they can’t silence him like they’ve silenced everyone for decades. Because they can’t threaten his children or family?
>I don’t have to get beat up for stories if I don’t want to,
>and neither would any journalist, if as a profession we’d
>decide to go after vanilla stories summarizing shul dinners
>and so forth.
and that is the sum of Jewish Journalism today.
>It’s when we put our names on the line to do journalism
>that will have a real impact that we face a challenge,
Again UOJ isn’t a journalist.
>and the reason we need our names on the line there
>is to ensure that if the information’s bad, we take a
>hit, so readers can know what they’re dealing with.
Again, those UOJ isn’t a journalist.
>That’s not the case with UOJ. He made a choice to
>pursue his agenda, and to do it in a cowardly fashion
>that helped no one.
Absolute nonsemse. UOJ saw a situation that couldn’t be addressed within the Jewish community, he gathered information, he put victims together and put them together with a lawyer. None of these people would have got anywhere without UOJ. He was the glue.
>“Everyone has to decide for themselves about blogging
>anonymity, just like in 12 step programs.� You and JWB
>keep making anonymous bloggers out to be some sort
>of victims;
Huh?
>there’s no justification for this sort of language or
>approach.
Of course there is. A community that tolerates and protects pedophiles, child molesters and abusers/exploiters of women and destroys anyone who tries to stand against them.
It’s not enough that there are 11,000 desecrated graves of Jewish children in Queen’s that no one at all will do anything about? That a child molester like Kolko can be protected for decades? At what point will you comprehend that our Jewish leadership is incapable of doing anything about this? Our Jewish media is incapable of doing anything?
Where’s your story about the Mokom Shalom cemetary? Why are 11,000 Jewish graves sill without markers or headstones? Why are the people who’ve allowed that obscenity STILL our community leaders? Why is our community utterly silent?
>It’s their choice to spout off anonymously,
It’s more than that it’s our constitutional right and our halachic obligation.
>and it is the correct and overwhelming choice
>of responsible readers to treat that anonymous
>work with the lack of credibility it inspires. And those
>of us who would like to see responsible discourse
>and information distribution should protest those
>who do it irresponsibly: they’re muddying the water.
More nonsense. Kolko would likely never have been removed from chinuch if not for UOJ. There is no real scenario that you could put together that would have led to UOJ’s results. The fact is that there in no where for victims to turn and no resources for them in the Orthodox community. UOJ put the victims together, arranged a lawyer and that turned the tide. That’s reality.
You wouldn’t last 20 minutes if you tried to bring justice publicly as UOJ did privately. They’d eat you alive.
My challenge to you is expose and stop the ongoing corruption in Queens at Mokom Shalom cemetary. Expose a few pedophiles in our school system and get them removed. Then tell me that your approach is worth spit. What major corruption have you exposed lately or for that matter your colleagues?
May 16th, 2006 at 8:27 pm
Most of us no longer even bother contacting the Jewish press as:
1) They’re not professional.
2) They don’t have the resources, experience or the skills to do proper investigative reporting.
3) Too many of us have dealt with the Yudelsons and Yanovers which exist in the Jewish media.
4) Jewish Press, Jewish Voice and Opinion
May 16th, 2006 at 8:31 pm
To Steve
UOJ gets ALL the credit in breaking the Kolko story …
Framowitz told the reporter of the New York Magazine, that he decided to come out and tell his story after he once googeled the name Kolko … and what came out in the search was a blog (UOJ) that discussed Kolko!
Lets give credit where credit is due!
May 16th, 2006 at 8:48 pm
Why don’t you do a story about felons Rabbi Gershon Tannenbaum or Rabbi Lieb Pinter? Oh that’s right, they’d eat you alive.
May 16th, 2006 at 10:44 pm
how did the conversation veer away from KOlko’s behavior to te topixcof UOJ. He is NOT the topic. Whether his way was thoretically best of not is immaterial. He succeeded. It is ridiculous to talk about whther another way might have been better, His results validated his method. The fact is that he did the most with the method that he was comfortable with. How can you fault him for that???
May 16th, 2006 at 10:45 pm
SIWs point concerning anonymous blogging cannot be ignored. The spectrum between responsible reporting on one end, and nameless blogging on the other is one where the trade off for anonymity is credibility. As we are taught early on, in either case, caveat emptor. But expecting SIW, a reporter, to accept UOJ into his cadre is like asking ground beef to step in for prime rib - you just can’t fool anybody with it. But that’s not to say that when you’re hungry, there’s nothing like a good burger that hits the spot the way steak never could.
May 16th, 2006 at 11:36 pm
Bottom Line:
Canonist has done nothing to safeguard our children & avenge the victims of molestation while UOJ & the awareness center with Herman have done so much and are just getting started. Oh & BTW rabbi Blau, u r my hero although I have yet to call u.
May 17th, 2006 at 1:26 am
I want to start off by saying I only skimmed the comments posted on this thread due to time demands.
I have to agree and disagree with Steven main points.
I’ll be honest I have been very skeptical of UOJ since the first communication I had with him. I believe this was a few months ago.
Back in around 2001-2002 when I first got started developing The Awareness Center everyone was shocked that I would use my real name, especially if I was wanting to work in the orthodox world on any level. I was warned by various rabbis that there would be people that would attempt to slander and attack me and the work that needed to be done.
The reality is that I’m in a very different position then most people I work with. I’m not from the orthodox world; I also have over twenty years of experience advocating for survivors of sexual violence. I do know what I am doing.
When JWB first contacted me several years ago I was also skeptical about him/her. I have no idea to this day who JWB really is. I do want to let you know that he/she has earned my trust. JWB is one of the most dedicated advocates I have ever met. I am honored to call him/her my friend.
I’ve been watching UOJ very closely. I’m very impressed with the way he/she has conducted the work that has been done.
UOJ broke a major case. Something that I do not believe anyone else could have done.
UOJ is a hero! I’m sure all of the survivors who trusted their life stories would agree. I would be more then honored if UOJ joined The Awareness Center team. I’ll be pefectly honest with all of you — We NEED more UOJ’s and JWB’s in the world.
May 17th, 2006 at 1:34 am
Steven I also want to point one thing out to you. There have been times The Awareness Center has had cases in which the survivors wanted their stories made public (this is NOT the wish of most survivors). I wanted to hand the stories to you. Your policy has been that if we do not have three or more survivors willing to talk to you that you would not be interested in doing any investigative reporting.
I’ll be perfectly frank with all of you. It’s not that often you will find a survivor who wants their story made public, let alone three who are willing to talk to the news media.
May 17th, 2006 at 2:17 am
Vicki - That’s not true. We had repeated conversations (at least three, I believe) in which I indicated to you my willingness to investigate and report out several alleged cases of abuse in whatever medium I would find open to it, towards establishing a rapport, credibility and momentum with publications on this issue. In our conversations, I said that it should start with cases that had three or more survivors to them in order to make the initial several stories more acceptable to these publications, something that you repeatedly indicated would not be a problem, so much so that you repeatedly promised me quick delivery of leads for me to investigate — a promise that you not only did not fulfill on those repeated occasions, but for your failure to fulfill, again on repeated occasions, you offered no excuse or explanation.
You have never come to me with a specific case that had specific survivors for me to talk to.
I am dismayed that you would seek to mischaracterize our exchange in such a fashion as you have.
May 17th, 2006 at 6:53 am
Here we go again. A jerk asking for victims to agree to be victimized again. Anonimity is vital for survival in the ultraorthodox/hasidic sects. If u read rabbi wosner’s responsa u will see that revealing ones true identity is not a prerequisite for exposing a molester and is actionable upon hlachicly in mant situations. Get a torah education canonist before u criticize us suferers. BTW, don’t worry about protecting Kolko, more fish r about to be fried alongside him.
Vicki, your doing great! UOJ and u are a victims best possible voices.
May 17th, 2006 at 8:35 am
aml - I never said the victims had to come out as named individuals, just that UOJ should have. He’s not a victim.
May 17th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
Steven,
You gave me your guidelines of needing three Survivors otherwise it wasn’t worth your time and efforts — because of the guidelines set up for you by the Forward.
I had a few cases (don’t remember exactly home many times I called you) in which the survivors wanted their stories in the news. I wanted to hand the cases over to you. The problem has always been that we that we only had one or two survivors who were interested and the other stipulation that you couldn’t agree to was that their true identities would remain confidential. You turned the stories down.
I also wanted to make sure you are aware that recently The Awareness Center was made aware of a case in which the a major news media group made a mistake and the name of a survivor on the web. We had the news media group contacted and within minutes the name of the survivor was removed. This is NOT something the Jewish newspapers are willing to do. Luckily ABC, NBC, CBS and all the major news media groups are.
May 17th, 2006 at 12:09 pm
Vicki - That is a plainly dishonest characterization of our conversations. I reinvoke my statement in my last comment to you.
May 17th, 2006 at 12:21 pm
As I do mine.
May 17th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
Vicki - Given the way you’ve conducted yourself with me — calling at odd hours about tangential issues, spamming me with tons of useless information, wasting a bunch of time, failing to follow-up and make good on promises of delivery — it comes as no surprise to me that you have failed to get other journalists in Jewish media and elsewhere to take you seriously or do stories on your claims.
I’d been waiting almost a year to hear from you since our last conversation in which you promised delivery of information, and the first mention of it I get is you claiming in public that I’ve been derelict in following-up on leads that you never delivered, and your lies about calling me up with specific cases that I refused to investigate.
I’ve always been strongly committed to this issue, and have taken a lot of flack and followed many dead leads in my work on it; you have been no help at all, and for you to write what you have here after all this time is some of the most immense chutzpah I’ve ever seen.
May 17th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
Steven, my points made were not to attack you as a person. The goal was to let you see that there is a problem in the way the Jewish news media has been dealing with cases of sexual violence. This isn’t a new problem. It’s an on going one. I’ll admit that I’m extremely frustrated with it.
If the Jewish news media doesn’t want to deal with The Awareness Center they don’t have to. We have many other resources that are happy with the work we are doing. Our web page averages about 350,000 hits per month. In the last week we have had over 40 survivors contact us. Many of whom have never told anyone else that they were survivors of childhood sexual abuse. Most of the individuals who contacted us were from charedi communties.
My working hours are very odd. I do not work the normal 9-5. I make calls when I have the time to do it. If you considered the e-mails I’ve sent you as spam, I wish you would have told me. I will take you off the maling list. I have no problem doing that.
I wish you the best.
May 17th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
Vicki - This isn’t about me as a person. I’m not unaware about the “problem in the way the Jewish news media has been dealing with cases of sexual violence,” and to suggest that I need educating in this regard is laughable. My lack of reporting on cases you could have suggested is owed to your failing to provide a scintilla of the information you promised, without any explanation or excuse. It is your fault that whatever cases could have been exposed over this past year have not been, and your lying about our conversations can’t change that.
As well, I don’t know in what world sending out Photoshopped pictures of George Bush in a keffiyeh doesn’t count as spam, and does count as progressing the anti-abuse message, but I think all can agree at this point that whatever world you live in is very much your own.
May 17th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
Yuddi Kolko hid for a long time behind the walls of yiddishkeit - well the jug is up. You want locations where all this took place - I would be happy to supply them. He bullied KIDS. He cornered them in Yeshiva, Camp and other such places… a list you ask?
Behind the door in his classroom when he sent almost all the kids out to recess. More you want? How about in hus room in the mian building? More you want? JUST ASK… kOLKO - YOU ARE LUCKY i MUST ADMIT. i SAW YOU IN THE FORMER CONSUMERS ON m & e. 14TH STRETE IN bROOKLYN A FEW YEARS AGO. I HAD THE URGE TO TAKE YOU DOWN RIGHT THEN AND THERE. bUT LUCKY FOR YOU - YOUR FAMILY WAS WITH YOU. SO I HAD COMPASSION AND LET IT BE. YEH THAT IS RIGHT I AM NO LONGER AFRAID OF YOU. MY BLACK BELT DEGREE NOW WOULD BE GLADLY USED TO KNOCK YOU TO A PULP. WANT DETAILS - CHECK YOUR TORAH VODAAS OF OCEAN PARKWAY IN THE OLD LITTLE WHITE BUILDING BETWEEN CATON AND CHURCH AVES. THEN CROSS CHECK THEM WITH CAMPERS IN CAMP AGUDAH IN THE 70′S THEN CROSS CHECK THAT WITH HOW MANY YOU TRIED MOLESTING IN YOUR ROOM IN THE MAIN HOUSE. KINDA DIFFICULT TO REMEMBER HUH - SO MAY POSSIBILITIES. EVEN RABBI SIMCHA KAUFMAN KNEW WHAT YOU WERE DOING. SO DID ZIMMY YOUR BROTHER - HE WAS DISGUSTED!
May 18th, 2006 at 3:51 am
reading the back and forth comments on most of these blogs i will sum up the two opinions the way i see it.
1. UOJ was right
any methods used to achieve a positive result should be done.
2. UOJ was wrong
His methods are wrong and therefore we shouldn’t care if he nailed the jackpot.
While number one sounds great it is bound to not work and heres why.
the truth is we can never stop anyone from doing what UOJ has done, and if we did 10 others would pop up. what we could do, and what im sure will ultimately happen is people will just stop believing anonymous blogs. it is bound to happen either because UOJ will mess up at some point, somebody will get hurt badly, it will backfire on UOJ, and after that i cant see people still thinking this method should continue.
or
somebody will start an anonymous blog very soon just as a personal vendetta. he can then post many anonymous comments and make it look like there are hundreds of victims like “i know that he did it to five boys”, “he admitted it to me” “my cousin was a victim” (notice most of the comments on UOJ are anonymous blogs). and than eliminate any comments that i dont that aren’t to my liking. i was thinking to do just this to make a point, i just dont have it in me.
the question then becomes even if we feel that the end justifies all, it is bound to fail because it can and will be abused in the near future. once it becomes abused the method fails, looses all credibility, and in my opinion its just a matter of time.
let me know what you think.
i have one more comment:
all OUJ had to do was as follows “there has been allegations that so and so (even better a rabbi in ytt or better a first grade rebbi in some yeshiva) has been molesting children, please call mr herman at this number (or any third party organization) and report if you know someone personally. If enough people call in than you start the case. He can still remain anonymous and everybody wins. If nobody reports we know it was a bluff. the internet is being used to spread the word and no innocent person gets hurt. I am missing something?
May 19th, 2006 at 2:55 am
I have worked together with Rabbi Kolko day in, day out, for over thirty years. I remember his accuser, the one from Israel The child was clearly troubled back then. While in 7th grade, children in his class complained to their rebbi about David Framowitz. He would expose himself to classmates, and try to incite sexual games. The reason why he was eventually expelled from the school. Rabbi Kolko was invaluable at the time for assisting in managing that ordeal. Apparently Framowitz still has his issues. It is sad that a great man like Rabbi Kolko, who has done so much invaluable work on behalf of children over the last thirty-five years must put up with this now. The truth will be known eventually!
May 25th, 2006 at 7:48 am
Hey Truth.
How low can you get.
To accuse a victim of sexual molestation of being a sexual predator, exposing himself whilst in 7th grade (12 years old) to classmates and inciting sexual games. Get real.
I presume that it was he who asked to sit on Kolko’s lap or beg to have Kolko put his hands down the front of his pants, or to even ask him to take him for drives out of the camp grounds.
And what about all of the other victims? I presume that they all were just asking, or begging, to be molested by Kolko and that Kolko is the true victim of reverse sexual molestation?
You must really be perverted to say the least.
June 9th, 2006 at 6:23 am
The lawyers for Rabbi Kolko, Camp Aguda and Yeshiva Torah Temima have apparently filed a motion to require that the names of those who were abused be revealed publicly.
Officials of these institutions should be thrown out of shul this Shabbos. Anyone who continues to send their children to these institutions is out of their minds.
June 9th, 2006 at 6:59 am
To the poster hiding behind the “Truth Will Prevail” (it already has) pseudonym, why if you are such a staunch supporter don’t you reveal who you are.
The truth is that the rumors haven’t achieved virtual common law status they have over thirty years because Kolko was just too strict. Let’s see you explain my post on the UOJ blog:
To any of the naysayers trying to figure out whether Kolko is guilty or innocent - I wonder if any of you are parents.
If Kolko were strict, and not so friendly, then the 30 years of rumors would be that he is a hardass, not a child molester.
Why have there been hard and fast rumors that Kolko is a child molestor since Johnson was President? Why did the rumors never discipate, and why so many years later have they resulted in lawsuits? Also, we know UOJ is not a prophet, so how could he so accurately predict the course this case has taken?
Let me share with you the simple principle, Ockham’s Razor, which states that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. In other words, the explanation of any occurence should be made based upon the least possible number of assumptions. Simply put, the most simple explanation for a phenomenon is usually the correct one.
Why have there been hard and fast rumors that Kolko is a child molestor since Johnson was President?
Because since the mid-sixties, Kolko began molesting children. Early on, his craft was not yet as finely tuned as it became in later years, and it is safe to presume that he attempted to molest some people who then spoke to other people, thus creating the rumors - along with those who were indeed molested but who may have never admitted that they themselves were victims, but did warn others “of what they had heard.”
Why did the rumors never discipate?
Because Kolko continued to molest children.
Why so many years later have they resulted in lawsuits?
It is typical of victims to repress their abuse, or deny it entirely. It is easier to pretend it never happened and move on, than face reality and actually act upon that reality. It is also common where multiple victims of one abuser exist, that the victims are unaware of each other’s existence. There is simply no timetable as to when someone can overcome the post-traumatic stress in a fashion that will allow him/them to face their abuser and accuse them accordingly.
Also, we know UOJ is not a prophet, so how could he so accurately predict the course this case has taken?
Because he has access to information that is not available to the public.
To the anonymous poster looking for more, if anyone accuses me at a bris of such a heinous act, or if they accuse me of that at a wedding, in a doctor’s office or during kol nidre, you can rest assured I will raise my voice so loud in protest you’ll forget where you are until it is crystal clear that I am innocent of such abuse. But that’s because I’m not an abuser, so the mere thought of someone coming out and accusing me so outrages me that social parameters fall to the wayside. Trust me, Kolko’s response at that bris was fully in line with a guilty man’s actions.
It is folly to suggest that a conspiracy so long in making has resulted in Kolko’s disgrace. An identified man living in Israel who learned at TT and who had a profile that put him at risk for abuse met up with a rich anonymous blogger, and together with a high-profile attorney decided that they would take down a rabbi wwho started molesting kids when UOJ was in diapers? I could go on illustrating how ridiculous your reality would have to be if Kolko were innocent, but, really, are you serious?
So you can keep your heads buried in the sand and continue to complacently condone Kolko’s behavior, or you can join reality and make sure he not only never molests another child, but pays in some way for the damage he has caused. Because that is the Jewish way.
June 9th, 2006 at 7:09 am
How typical for a kolko supporter to come on a blog and attack by name one of the accusers, while the pedophile he defends hides with his tail between his legs. The Truth will Prevail poster is a disgrace to the Jewish race, who is in all liklihood at this very moment with kolko’s beitzim resting on his chin. That’s why he defends him, because as an impotent man who can’t gratify himself with a woman, kolko is the only outlet he has.
October 16th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
Check out this blog:
aboutuoj.blogspot.com
Some great reading about UOJ!
December 13th, 2006 at 2:47 am
I too was fondeled by Kolko in camp Ma-Na-Vu in the late 70’s. It happened when I was in the infirmary and was sleeping and Kolko came in and without saying a word, just put his hands down my pants and fondeled me for what seemed like a long while. All this time until now, I had remembered it that the doctor had done this to me but after this story became public, the memory came crashing to the surface.