"Hirsch was not moved to formulate the policy of Austritt in the 1870s because of disinterest in the welfare of the nonobservant. His teachings and writings were addressed to that constituency and his concern for them was very real. However, if there is a shortcoming to be ascribed to the remarkable kehillah in New York City that has inherited the traditions of Frankfurt: am Main, it is an insularity and isolationism, which is not the cause, but the product, of Austritt. Lack of contact over a period of years is bound to decrease a sense of concern and ongoing interest. With the passage of decades the kehillah has increasingly focused in an inward direction and has had little contact with individuals of different religious outlook and orientation. The result has been a sad loss for the wider Orthodox community. The standards, integrity, cohesiveness, and faith of the kehilla have produced outstanding educational and communal institutions greatly benefiting both residents of its environs and the entire city. But the general Orthodox community in the United States, not to speak of those beyond the pale of Orthodoxy, has not had the benefit of its guidance or leadership. On the other hand, the ability of the kehillah to recreate itself on these shores after dislocation and war, despite relatively meager financial resources during its early years, and to develop into a community that is a model kehillah, stands as a tribute to the staunch advocates of Torah im derekh eretz among its adherents and to their total commitment to its religious ideals. It is a singular community in which the word of Rav remains unquestioned law, k’vod ha-rabbanut is a meaningful phrase, and the label of the community, K'hal Adas Jeschurun, stands for a level of religious probity and reliability that is acknowledged by the entire spectrum of Orthodox Jewry."
Judith Bleich, “Rabbinic Responses to Nonobservance in the Modern Era,” In J. J. Schacter (Ed.), Jewish tradition and the nontraditional Jew (pp. 37-115), Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson Inc. (1992), p. 93, footnote 123