Challenges of Equality: Judaism, State, and Education in Nineteenth-Century France

2. Roadblocks to Regeneration

28 2 Roadblocks to Regeneration In January 1832, Louis Cottard sent a passionate letter to the Minister of Education on behalf of the Jewish schools within his jurisdiction. As Rector of the Academy of Strasbourg, Cottard was the top educational official in the district and hoped to win government financial support for Jewish schooling. Cottard brought to his work a strong belief in the moral value of modern education, and viewed Jewish communal schools as vital tools for the social and economic regeneration of French Jews. Without them, Jewish children would fall prey to “ignorant and dangerous Talmudists” who would ignore arithmetic and the French language in favor of religious obscurantism, emphasizing a messianic return to Jerusalem that would encourage disloyalty to France.1 Despite their utility in Cottard’s eyes, Jewish schools faced enormous obstacles in the northeast. First, most Jewish communities were too small to support their own schools. In addition, only two communes within his jurisdiction—Haguenau and the larger community at Strasbourg—provided money for Jewish schooling. Indeed, the financial condition of most Jewish schools remained precarious, and some of these institutions had even closed.2 By withholding money, Cottard argued, local officials undermined national policies encouraging Jewish integration and regeneration. Cottard had reason for disappointment. At first glance, the early years of the July Monarchy seemed to usher in a new era of greater religious equality . Most significant, in February 1831 the National Assembly voted to include a permanent fixed appropriation for French Judaism in the national 29 Roadblocks to Regeneration budget. The Jewish Consistories now enjoyed the political legitimacy accompanying a line in the budget, as well as a more regularized financial situation. Historians of French Jewry generally consider this act the final step in achieving full religious equality. Berkovitz argues that the new law emboldened Jewish leaders to pursue state financial aid more vigorously and openly from their more legal secure position.3 Equal status, however, did not necessarily entail equal treatment, and the inclusion of Judaism in the state budget did not solve all of the Consistory ’s problems. Even though the law now provided a fiscal foundation for French Judaism, it proved grossly inadequate in meeting consistorial expenses. Equally important, the terms of the new law did little to ease the problem of justifying separate Jewish education. In fact, subsequent legislation undermined those very educational institutions that Cottard considered so vital to Jewish regeneration. Ultimately, while civic funding did pull some Jewish schools into the French system, it proved just as effective at keeping others out. Cottard’s letter also points out the larger contradictory forces impeding Jewish educational plans. With the passage of the Guizot school law in 1833, the French government called for a stronger, more uniform local commitment to primary education. The new law, however, did not necessarily shower benefits upon Jewish schools. Local authorities continued to control educational funding decisions, yet remained reluctant to support separate schools for a small, politically weak segment of the population. In this context, the demands of utility and equality collided: the Jews deserved equal treatment under the law, but only insofar as that equality proved useful. Centralization further compounded the difficulty of proving the utility of Jewish schools. Consequently, a strategy based solely on either utility or equality could not succeed. As we will see below, joining the two concepts enabled Jewish leaders to demonstrate the unity of Jewish and French interests, and to attract the support of government officials. The slippery understanding of utility and equality complicated their task. Defining the utility of French Judaism, for example, involved sensitive issues. Even a self-proclaimed philosemite like Cottard expressed negative attitudes toward Jewish traditionalism that echoed the views of many nonJews both inside and outside the government bureaucracy. The question of how best to integrate the Jews of Alsace was certainly far from resolved during the 1820s, and doubts regarding Jewish business practices and political loyalty found their way into educational debates.4 Persistent skepticism toward Jewish integration again raised the apparent paradox of separate Jewish education: how could Jews hope to integrate by schooling their children 30 C H A P T E R 2 separately from everyone else? Cottard himself considered their progress meager. His solution called for changing the priorities of French education to encourage the growth of Jewish schools designed to mediate between French culture and traditional Jewish...