Posted on by barakrichman · 1 Comment

Rabbis Following in Cartel Footsteps of Lawyers, Doctors, Engineers, Many Others

First, I thank the CLR for offering its space for an extended discussion of what I think is a critically important issue to many synagogues in America: the freedom to select and hire the rabbi they want.  I confess, however, that this is not a terribly complicated or difficult legal issue. America’s rabbis implement rules that are squarely illegal and are well outside any reasonable First Amendment protection.

Let me briefly describe the organization of America’s Jewish denominations.  Synagogues are independent congregations, governed like any independent nonprofit and like Baptist, Quaker, or other congregational churches.  synagogues hire rabbis just as they hire secretaries, and they pay a voluntary dues to national associations in affiliating with particular movements.  When a synagogue wants to hire a rabbi, however, it confronts a tightly organized labor market.  Individual rabbis are prohibited from seeking employment independently, and instead are required to apply only for jobs through their professional associations.  If they act independently, they are expelled from their associations. Meanwhile, congregations seeking to hire a rabbi must enlist exclusively through the hiring processes sponsored by the rabbinical associations and can only interview the individuals the association sends their way.  I have written about this system in greater detail here and here.

By organizing their individual members, the rabbinic associations are able to leverage their collective power against individual congregations.  This strategy among professionals is nothing new.  The American Medical Association has a very checkered past of instituting similar practices, and until federal antitrust officials intervened had expelled any individual member who accepted employment or payment from early HMOs. Several Bar Associations considered it “unethical” to charge low prices for certain rudimentary services.  Associations of professional engineers prohibited negotiations on price, associations of dentists prohibited its members from working constructive,y with insurers and mother professionals, and the list goes on.  Three similarities persist throughout this history: first, that the professionals expelled members who misbehaved, thereby enabling the association to leverage the entire market of its professional members; second, the association used thus leverage to exploit patients, purchasers of legal services, and other consumers; and third, courts and antitrust enforcers concluded that these practices violated the Sherman Act.

The rabbis are no different.  Their collective dominance allows them to pursue full-employment policies, extract higher wages than other clergy, and stifle innovation and entry from would-be entrants.  America’s synagogues suffer as a result.  Synagogues are contracting, unable to gather the financial resources necessary to sustain themselves; and American Judaism remains ossified in organizational structures that may have made sense in the 1950s but currently are unable to address contemporary needs.  These are the classic harms from a cartel.

So, the practices are familiar and the consequences are predictable.  This is precisely the conduct the Sherman Act is designed to prohibit.  That also means the solution is easy too.

Posted on by

Griffith-Jones (ed.), “Islam and English Law”

This January, Cambridge University Press will publish Islam and English Law: Rights, Responsibilities and the Place of Shari’a edited by Robin Griffith-Jones (The Temple Church, London). The publisher’s description follows.

Former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams triggered a storm of protest when he suggested that some accommodation between British law and Islam’s shari’a law was ‘inevitable’. His foundational lecture introduced a series of public discussions on Islam and English Law at the Royal Courts of Justice and the Temple Church in London. This volume combines developed versions of these discussions with new contributions. Theologians, lawyers and sociologists look back on developments since the Archbishop spoke and forwards along trajectories opened by the historic lecture. The contributors provide and advocate a forward-looking dialogue, asking how the rights of all citizens are honoured and their responsibilities met. Twenty specialists explore the evolution of English law, the implications of Islam, shari’a and jihad and the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights, family law and freedom of speech. This book is for anyone interested in the interaction between religion and secular society.

Posted on by

Schragger & Schwartzman on Religious Institutionalism

Richard Schragger and Micah Schwartzman (both of University of Virginia School of Law) have posted Against Religious Institutionalism. The abstract follows.

The idea that religious institutions should play a central role in understanding the First Amendment has become increasingly prominent in recent years. Litigation over the application of civil rights laws to ministers and the requirement that religious employers provide contraception coverage to their employees have elicited calls for a doctrine of church sovereignty based on an institutional conception of the Religion Clauses. In this Article, we present grounds for skepticism about this new religious institutionalism, especially the concept of “freedom of the church,” which we distinguish from the seemingly related but importantly distinct idea of church autonomy. We further explain why individual rights of conscience are sufficient to protect the free exercise and anti-establishment values of the First Amendment. Our argument, contrary to some recent scholarship, is that religious institutions do not give rise to a special set of rights, autonomy, or sovereignty, and that what might be called institutional or church autonomy is ultimately derived from individual rights of conscience. Indeed, for purposes of understanding religious liberty, we contend that any notion of institutional autonomy — to the extent it exists — can come from nowhere else.

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

CLR Forum Debate: Is Conservative Judaism a Cartel?

Back in August, I posted a critique of Duke Professor Barak Richman‘s argument, discussed in an article in the New York Times, that Conservative Judaism’s process for naming rabbis violates the antitrust laws. Barak responded in the comment box, and it occurred to me that it would be a nice idea to host an online debate on the subject. Professor Daniel Crane (Michigan) has kindly agreed to participate. So, for the next couple of days, Barak and Dan will face off here at CLR Forum. We’re very grateful to both of them and look forward to a lively and enlightening exchange. And the com boxes will be open!

Posted on by

Oliver-Dee, “Muslim Minorities and Citizenship”

This November, Tauris Academic Studies will publish Muslim Minorities and Citizenship:  Authority, Communities and Islamic Law by Sean Oliver-Dee (Associate Research Fellow, London School of Theology). The publisher’s description follows. 

The issues of citizenship, identity, and cohesion have rarely been as vital as they are today. Since the events of 9/11 and subsequent terrorist episodes in Bali, Madrid, London, and elsewhere, focus in this area has centered primarily upon Muslim minority communities living in the West. This book examines the question of citizenship and loyalty, drawing on the historical contexts of Muslim minorities living under British and French imperial rule in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and looks at how shari’a functioned within the context of imperial civil code. It draws important comparisons that are of immense relevance today, and engages with current debates about the compatibility of Islamic law with civil law in non-Islamic societies. Engaging with both Muslim minority and government perspectives, this is important reading for scholars, students, commentators, and policy-makers concerned with the question of Western engagement with its own minorities.

Posted on by

Michaelson on the Religious Roots of American Antinomianism

Jay Michaelson (Ph.D. student at Hebrew University) has posted Hating the Law for Christian Reasons: The Religious Roots of American Antinomianism.  The abstract follows.

Popular American law-talk is a religious discourse. While Americans routinely valorize the “rule of law” and “common sense,” they express hatred for lawyers and laws, which are supposedly drowning our country in a sea of regulation and litigation. What explains this curious ambivalence is a Protestant ethic, beginning with the Apostle Paul, who, in an explicit rejoinder against Judaism, denied that the law (which governs the body) is a path to salvation (which is a matter of the soul). The result is a philosophy of “law without laws,” a religious antinomianism that has shaped, explicitly and implicitly, such disparate phenomena as the jury system, debates over the common law, and contemporary jeremiads about litigation and regulation.

This article, forthcoming in the anthology “Jews and the Law,” edited by Suzanne Last Stone and Ari Mermelstein, traces this American antinomianism in secular and religious sources. It begins by analyzing three different moments in American popular legal history: the Clinton impeachment, the debates surrounding the adoption of the English common law in the early republic, and discourse about the value of the jury from the Colonial period. The paper then turns to the religious sources, chiefly Paul’s letters to the Romans and Corinthians, and later texts by Augustine, Aquinas, and Luther. It concludes by observing that the contemporary American mistrust of law is not a secular, civic, or jurisprudential ideology but a deep, religious conviction.