The (New York) Jewish Week . . . Connecting the World to Jewish
News, Culture, Features, and Opinions – Thursday, 16 January 2014
Dear Reader,
Did you know that Lord Sacks, the former British Chief Rabbi,
will be teaching at two universities in New York this year?
You can read an interview with him in our Education supplement
this week, which also features articles on local day schools in Brighton Beach
and Suffolk County, the Reform movement's digital Hebrew curriculum and the
first full American Jewish studies program in Israel.
Education January 2014
Former British Chief Rabbi gets new bully pulpit here.
Local day school focus: Mazel rebuilds after Sandy, Suffolk
academy engineers new curriculum.
Day schools in the wake of Pew.
INSIDE THIS SPECIAL SECTION
The Latest From The Jewish Quad
Adult Ed ‘Needs More Funding’: Skirball Head
Learning What Makes American Jews Tick
Mazel’s New High-Water Mark
URJ’s Digital Hebrew Curriculum Catching On
A Revival Spreads
Suffolk Day School Engineering A New Curriculum
As Pew Study Raises Concerns, Invest In Jewish Day Schools
Indexing Day School Tuition
-------
Also, check out exclusive online Opinion articles, including
"A Look Inside Hillel's Boundaries," by the Hillel director at the
University of Michigan; "When Conversations On Israel Turn Sour," by
the director of a program to promote intra-Jewish dialogue, and the
"Conservative Movement's Impact On The Right And The Left," by a
Conservative rabbi.
OPINION
A Look Inside Hillel’s Boundaries
Tilly R. Shames
Several incidents, seemingly centered on Israel, sparked
nationwide reactions from academic institutions and Hillels in recent days. I
would argue, though, that they have much less to do with Israel than we might
think.
First, dozens of university presidents and provosts around the
country rejected the boycott of Israeli academic institutions recently adopted
by the American Studies Association. In response, they pointed to the importance
of free speech and free academic exchange.
Second, at the University of Michigan, an anti-Israel student
group placed fake eviction noticesunder the doors in residence halls to send a
message about Palestinian evictions. The university’s Department of Housing, in
whose name these “eviction notices” were falsely distributed, noted the group
was “in violation of Housing’s solicitation policy” and apologized immediately
to its residents.
Lastly, in response to Swarthmore College Hillel’s resolution to
“open Hillel” to anti-Zionist speakers, Eric Fingerhut, the president and CEO
of Hillel International, re-asserted Hillel’s Israel guidelines by welcoming “a
diversity of student perspectives on Israel”, while drawing the line at
activism that delegitimizes Israel, denies it the right to exist, or imposes
boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS).
The responses of these leaders reveal that our focus should not
be on Israel, but on the freedom of academic exchange, freedom to pursue one’s
mission, and freedom to set institutional boundaries.
These incidents challenged Hillels and university administrators
to consider and define appropriate boundaries for discourse, scholarship and
advocacy among the student body. While some may perceive these responses as
limiting speech or activism, I believe they offer the broadest possible
invitation for exchange and dialogue within our institutional boundaries.
University presidents called for academic freedom and global relationships. The
Department of Housing called for civil discourse and dialogue. And Hillel
called for diversity, pluralism, and civility. To focus on what is outside of
our parameters alone is to ignore the broad expanse of what is supported inside
our institutions.
Every institution has the right to pursue its mission and
establish its boundaries. I agree with the Hillel guidelines that we should not
host an event that calls for the destruction of Israel, such as those furthered
by the BDS movement. Further, I think we also need to consider the limits to
activism on the right, and oppose our institutions being used by both extremes.
While some have criticized Hillel for setting limits, I can think of no other
Jewish institution with as broad a mission, as diverse a community, and as
strong a desire to pursue civil discourse and address challenging topics as
Hillel.
A recent defense of Hillel International’s stance applauded its
“censorship” and suggested “anti-Zionists” should not be invited to dinner. But
this response reflects neither our Hillel values, nor what happens in many
Hillels. As a Hillel director I find it profoundly troubling that Hillel’s
mission is being misconstrued, by both defenders and attackers, to be bound up
with censorship and exclusion.
Shabbat dinner is just one way in which Hillels across the
country welcome the diversity of students into their doors. It should not be
surprising that we absolutely should be inviting all students into Hillel’s
safe spaces, like Shabbat, to engage in difficult topics.
We believe every student has a place at our table for the
following reasons:
What are these labels?
Where is the line drawn among an anti-Zionist, post-Zionist, and
non-Zionist? As with most efforts to categorize people, the reality is more
complex than the labels might suggest. Yes, there are anti-Zionists on campus,
but most of the students who I meet who appear to reject Zionism are supportive
of Israel in some form. They just don’t associate with the word Zionism because
they think the label lumps them in with policies with which they may not fully
agree. Plus, millennials don’t like labels. That’s not about Israel. That’s
about exploring one’s identity in college. It’s only through engaging in a
conversation in a safe space (like dinner) that we can learn their thoughts and
feelings about Israel.
Who is labeling?
We host up to 600 students for Shabbat dinner. No one is
checking Zionist credentials at the door. Moreover, the student who someone
labeled “anti-Zionist” because of something on his Facebook wall or something
she said in class, is probably not an anti-Zionist. So yes, invite her to
dinner so that she too can feel welcome in her Jewish community.
It’s dinner, not divestment.
Yes, there are students we have welcomed to Shabbat dinner who
we know are anti-Zionist. They are left-leaning anti-Israel students (Jewish
and non-Jewish) who grew to trust us through our relationships, came to
Shabbat, and felt welcomed by their Jewish community for the first time. They
leave their activism at the door, and eat with our students, talk, laugh, and
share. They pass by two Israeli flags on their way to our dining hall. They
hear announcements about celebrating Israel’s independence. It is not easy for
them. It’s not easy for our students who have debated them in classrooms. But
in these spaces where activism can be left outside, we can have dinner as a
community and talk.
I agree with Eric Fingerhut when he writes, “Hillel welcomes a
diversity of student perspectives on Israel and strives to create an inclusive,
pluralistic community where students can discuss matters of interest and/or
concern about Israel and the Jewish people in a civil manner.” I also agree
with him that we must be “for ourselves” first in putting forward our Hillel
mission. We have a proactive Israel agenda that we are proud of pursuing on
campus. But after we are for ourselves, we must remember the second line of
Hillel’s famous quote, “If I am only for myself, what am I?”
Together with our student leadership, we need to create spaces
where students can deepen their relationship with Israel, love Israel, and
advocate for Israel. But our students will hardly become effective advocates or
understand and love Israel’s complexity if they only advocate, talk, and listen
to themselves. We must continue to build confidence and trust among our student
body to be a home for discourse and dialogue that meaningfully engages students
in complex and challenging ideas.
Because if not at Hillel, then where?
Tilly R. Shames is the executive director of University of
Michigan Hillel in Ann Arbor, MI.
--------
OPINION
When Conversations About Israel Turn Sour
Jonathan Cummings
In German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer’s fable of the
porcupines, a group of animals were huddling together to shelter from the cold.
Finding that they were pricking each other with their sharp quills, they moved
apart, only to feel the cold again. And so on, back and forth, until they found
it best to be a little distance from each other – not too close, and not too
far away. Yet, notes Schopenhauer, a prickly character himself, “by this
arrangement the mutual need for warmth is only very moderately satisfied.” That
distance, transposed to human interactions, “is the code of politeness and fine
manners, and those who transgress it are roughly told—in the English phrase—to
keep their distance.” In order to avoid each other’s barbs, in other words, we
compromise on the intimacy we crave.
When conversations about Israel turn sour, as they did in a
public way recently at a program at New York’s 92nd Street Y, it is easy to
blame those who are prickly and disagreeable, and to call for “politeness and
fine manners.” In this most recent case, a panel discussion on what it means to
be pro-Israel in America among the heads of leading Jewish bodies, civility was
indeed in limited supply. After a spirited but congenial hour of conversation,
the discussion disintegrated, somewhat mystifyingly, into a melodrama of
shrieks, whistles and boos from the audience and the departure of one panelist
in high dudgeon.
But are better manners the only remedy for such cases?
Schopenhauer’s claim, that taking a polite distance from each other hampers our
ability to engage in genuinely satisfying human encounters, is worth
considering. If we set the bar too high, observing every one of George
Washington’s 101 basic rules of civility for example, there may be little
energy left for the conversation itself. That could be a problem when some
American Jews are already finding it difficult to forge a meaningful
relationship with Israel, at least according to the Pew Study.
At the same time, if good manners are the only criteria for
engaging in conversation about Israel, we may be selling ourselves short.
Engaging in meaningful dialogue may demand much more of us than just being
polite – sharing our uncertainties as well as our conclusions, being willing to
talk with people whose perspectives may appear to be different from our own,
and undertaking the difficult task of seeking answers together.
Jewish history offers a different approach, acknowledging that
meaningful dialogue – “controversy for the sake of heaven,” as the Talmud calls
it – must necessarily include differences of opinion. Disagreement is not to be
avoided, straitjacketed in codes of civility and courteousness, but to be
celebrated: “both this and that are the words of the living God,” we are
taught. Minority opinions of ancient Talmudic debates are recorded and
preserved, both to remind us that there were alternatives to the opinion that
was eventually accepted, and so that we can revisit them, learning once more
the value of examining different answers to the same question. Disagreement
need not be a disagreeable experience.
So, as we try to engage in constructive conversations about
Israel, we should be conscious that shuffling politely away from each other in
search of greater civility might not always be the best option. Although good
manners are certainly important, real conversations about Israel – those which
embrace diversity, acknowledge difference, offer the real possibility of
disagreement and include a commitment to continue nevertheless – are best
undertaken in the warmth we find when we huddle together.
Dr. Jonathan Cummings is the director of Intra-Communal Affairs
at the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York, where he heads The
Israel Talks (www.theisraeltalks.org).
-------
OPINION
Conservative Movement’s Impact On The Left And Right
Gerald Zelizer
First the Pew survey, then the eulogies for Conservative
Judaism. Compared with ten years ago, the absolute number of Conservative Jews
has declined precipitously. It has the lowest retention rate among the three
major denominations. Worst of all, only 11 percent of respondents under the
ages of 30 define themselves as Conservative. But hold on.
It is true that the Conservative Movement is not doing so well.
It is also true that Conservative Judaism is doing quite
well.
Conservative Judaism, as contrasted with the Conservative
Movement, is a particular approach to Judaism. It stands for "tradition
and change," or as someone called it "authenticity and
relevancy." It also means analyzing Judaism's sacred texts, like the
Hebrew Bible, historically and scientifically. Conservative Judaism understands
those texts as shaped by both indigenous "Torah only" authors and
themes, while also impacted by the forces of societies and religions that
surrounded ancient Israel. Gauging by those two core definitions, Conservative
Judaism is flourishing, even if some of its institutions are not. How so?
Because the two lenses of tradition and change, and the historical study of
Judaism's sources, increasingly shape the vision of movements both to the left
and right of my own. Indeed, these two core principles of Conservative Judaism
have permeated both Reform and Modern Orthodoxy.
The shift of Reform towards tradition has been widely observed.
The new Reform Prayer Book is more traditional, Shabbat and kashrut are given a
higher priority in terms of observance, and it is commonplace for worshippers
wear a kippah and tallit. In addition, strong support of Israel and the Hebrew
language are now central to the Reform movement.
All these late 20th century tilts to tradition followed the
pattern of Conservative Judaism and Solomon Schechter, but a century later.
Modern Orthodoxy, however, has moved in the opposite direction.
In significant ways, it too has liberalized towards Conservative's
"change."
Prenuptial agreements, encouraged by the Rabbinical Council of
America, have since the 1990s offset the unilateral power given to men to
initiate or refuse a get, or religious divorce. "Prenups" provide
that even when the couple ceases to share a residence, the husband's obligation
under Jewish law to support the wife becomes legally enforceable as long as
they are married. This is a strong incentive for the husband to acquiesce and
initiate the get. The Orthodox prenup follows by decades the so-called
Lieberman Clause of the Conservative ketubah, which already in the 1950s required
a recalcitrant husband to have the Rabbinical Assembly bet din adjudicate his
arranging a get after a civil divorce.
Bat Mitzvah is becoming a norm in many Modern Orthodox
synagogues, emulating the Conservative ritual begun in the 1920s. To be sure,
Orthodox synagogues do not allow the girl to have an aliyah and read the Torah
as in many Conservative synagogues. But depending on the synagogue, girls
celebrate this rite of passage in creative ways, like chanting a non-Torah text
before the congregation; delivering a d’var Torah; and/or leading services in a
separate women's only group.
And note the increase in women yeshivot and hakafot on Simchat
Torah, even in Israel!
Regarding the scientific and historical approach to sacred
texts, the Maggid imprint of the respected Koren Press offers
"contemporary approaches to traditional texts." Its salesperson at a
recent United Synagogue convention pitched the books as "incorporating
modern Biblical scholarship" to the traditional texts.
My roots and allegiance to Conservative Judaism run deep and
wide. My father, a graduate of JTS, served a Conservative Congregation in
Columbus, Ohio for over 40 years. My own service here in Metuchen NJ is
approaching 45 years. I attended Camp Ramah, served as president of USY in my
youth, and later was president of the Rabbinical Assembly.
I am saddened by the struggles of our movement and am confident
its leaders will find the means of revival. If not, though, I am sanguine that
Conservative Judaism lives because much of its take on tradition and change has
leaked into Reform and Orthodoxy. According to Brandeis University professor
Jonathan Sarna, "Solomon Schechter never wanted to create a separate
movement." It was the Conservative ideology he hoped would embrace much of
American Jewry. It increasingly has.
Rabbi Gerald Zelizer is spiritual leader of Congregation Neve
Shalom in Metuchen, NJ.
-------
Read those and more, and Shabbat shalom,
Gary Rosenblatt
-------
The Jewish Week
1501 Broadway, Suite 505
New York, NY 10036 United States
-------
No comments:
Post a Comment