When research becomes a tool in a controversy: Gender segregation in academia

Last week, the Knesset approved an amendment to the Student Rights Law allowing for gender-segregated studies in advanced degrees. At the center of the storm is a study commissioned by the Council for Higher Education (CHE) from the Tzafnat Institute, which I led together with Dr. Motti Talias and Prof. Israel Katz, and which dealt with master's degrees in therapeutic professions. The Tzafnat Institute has been accompanying the CHE for years, including in the research of the program for integrating Haredim into academia, and is familiar with the central challenges in the field. This is the knowledge base from which we operated.

This is how such a process is supposed to work: a public body that is required to decide on a question commissions a study in an orderly procedure. The researchers collect data, analyze it, and submit findings and professional interpretation. The decision remains in the hands of the decision-makers. A study is commissioned for the purpose of discussion. One can accept the recommendation. One can reject it. But there is a point to the discussion. We submitted the study in December 2024, and throughout the work, the professional echelon at the CHE was careful to maintain our research autonomy. However, according to a report by Chen Artzi Sror, the Minister of Education's opposition prevented the discussion of the study in the professional committee at the CHE and in the Knesset Education Committee. The Minister's office denied this. And so, a year and a half after submission, the study reached the public without being discussed.

What is required to read such a study? In his column, Prof. Yuval Albashan called to ignore the conclusions and read only the findings. This reading assumes that data speaks for itself, and that interpretation is noise. But findings are read within a context and a whole. In our case: data that revealed ambivalence, risks identified in expanding segregation, and other barriers that have not yet been addressed. Our study included a survey among Haredi students and bachelor's degree graduates interested in therapeutic training, and interviews with professionals, with Haredi therapists, and with other stakeholders. All of Albashan's references concern the survey, and no findings were brought from the interviews. Although the damage to the quality of training was mentioned, it was as an argument to be weighed and not as a finding that arose from the study and from the mouths of Haredi therapists.

Also, regarding the survey, it is attributed to us that we presented those debating the question of the mixed track as those who answered positively. In practice, we emphasized that the percentage reflects those debating as well, and we even excluded those who tended not to enroll, even if they did not rule it out completely. We took a restrictive approach. In addition, in research on Haredi society, the tension between the personal voice and the community voice is known, and an answer in a survey may express either of them. And furthermore: the survey was directed at students and bachelor's degree graduates, who have not yet studied a therapeutic master's degree and cannot evaluate its quality, and therefore a complementary perspective of Haredim who have gone through the track and of professionals is required.

What was not discussed? The conclusions are written in the report. Here I will mention that the fear of damage to the quality of training also arose from the mouths of certified Haredi therapists. Not an argument that came from outside. And alongside the question of segregation, we mapped other barriers: a long track without financial backing, admission conditions relying on knowledge of English and statistics, a lack of transition channels from general degrees and education, family burden, and challenges raised by the encounter between faith and therapy. The debate and the legislation dealt with only one barrier, based on the assumption that this is the only way to bring Haredim to therapeutic master's degree studies. An assumption we failed to confirm. This is exactly what research is for: to examine if what we assumed stands the test. Therefore, we recommended not to expand segregation in therapeutic master's degree studies. The only exception concerned music and movement therapy tracks, for which we recommended a point-specific solution. Alongside this, we proposed a third way: instead of double tracks with segregation, to channel those budgets into a support envelope sensitive to the Haredi student within existing tracks, and to address the rest of the barriers. Crutches for gradual integration, not separating walls. One can accept the recommendation. One can reject it. But there is a point to the discussion.

Ben Shalom Cohen is a senior researcher, organizational consultant, and psychologist at the Tzafnat Institute.