Search
Close this search box.

VIDEO: Greenfield Responds to Critics of his Yeshiva Safety Law


gfn[VIDEO IN EXTENDED ARTICLE]

The effort to ensure that every non-public school in New York City, including yeshivas, have security for their children is heating up. Last Tuesday, the New York City Council held a a public hearing of Councilman David G. Greenfield’s legislation, known as Introduction 65, that would provide any non-public school that wants one with the same NYPD security that every public school currently receives. Despite the fact that more Council Members support Greenfield’s legislation than any other legislation, there are still a few Council Members that oppose the legislation and they were actively pushing back against the law that would provide yeshivas with much-needed security.

During the question and answer period of the first panel that testified in favor of the bill, a few Council Members criticized the security legislation. The diverse panel consisted of Jeff Leb of the UJA Federation of New York, Debbie Klugmann of Bais Yaakov of Boro Park, Allan Fagin of the Orthodox Union (OU), Joy Jones of Ebenezer Preparatory School, and Joe Rosenberg of Archdiocese of New York. Despite the widespread support for this bill, yhe group came under harsh questioning from Council Members who are opposed to the legislation.

Councilman Greenfield was quick to respond to that criticism in an impassioned plea for the safety of all school children in New York, not just those in public schools. A four minute selection of Greenfield’s response during the hearing is in the YouTube clip below that is well worth watching.

(Chaim Shapiro – YWN)



3 Responses

  1. Although I love David Greenfeld, and he is a superb orator, I feel that I have to point out that thius is just a typical political speech – way oversimplified and misleading. (That is how people like Obama win elections.)

    In reality, the issue is NOT whether we agree that children need to be safe. No one could possibly argue with that! The real issue is whether the City should pay for the security in PRIVATE schools, or leave that up to the private schools themselves to pay for it. One could legitimately argue that the City already provides security in public schools as part of the overall school package. Go there, and security is included. Go to private school, and get private security.

  2. yitzyk, shefele, why WOULD you argue that if you can argue the other side? Why would Greenfield argue THAT if he can (and did) argue the other view?

  3. Yitzyk. Using your logic we can argue, you want food stamps, shop only where the government tells you. You want a housing subsidy, live in public housing. You can apply your logic to any form of govt assistance and say this is where the assistance is. Do you disagree?

Leave a Reply


Popular Posts