Israel’s treatment on campus is a perpetual concern of a broad swath of American Jews, and rightly so. The very idea of a Jewish state, to say nothing of the policies that state’s citizens elect to follow, regularly receives there unwarranted criticisms that might play in the European mainstream, but have little currency in the United States off the quad.
The anxiety consequently produced nevertheless often manages to miss the true nature of the challenge on campus, as well as the reality of Jewish life there. A couple of articles published in the past few days offer refreshing windows into what things look like at ground level.
Kenneth L. Marcus, the president and general counsel of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, wrote in eJewishPhilanthropy of the divide in the Jewish community between “quietists” and “alarmists,” the former being those who deny that there is any anti-Semitism on campus, and the latter being those who “see danger behind every corner.”
Neither camp, Marcus notes, is entirely correct. The alarmists too often ignore the extraordinary richness of opportunities for Jewish life on campus along with the demise of an institutional anti-Semitism that once barred Jews from entry or made their lives difficult while there. The quietists see those opportunities perhaps too well, ignoring troubling undertones in the discussion of Jews and the Jewish state.
Another article published in The Times of Israel by Seffi Kogen, a student at Columbia and the Jewish Theological Seminary, laments the “disappearance” of Jewish students from Israel-themed events, diagnosing pre-college Jewish educational experiences that teaches them that campuses are a hotbed of anti-Israel protests and speakers and arms them with debating points, only to find that students don’t show up to do anything much related to Israel except for those rare annual rites of dramatic anti-Israel protest. He thinks the solution is getting young Jews “to love to discuss Israel and think about Israel, and not only to fight for Israel.”
Kogen’s take represents the downside for Israel’s case when young people are fed too many alarming stories before they get to school while not being told enough about the less dramatic but more costly pervasive negativity in the attitude toward Israel taken by far too many young people who don’t know or care much about the Middle East. If you are taught only to fight, but not to persuade, and only to be concerned about a speech in the student union, and not a conversation in a dorm room, it’s not surprising that you find yourself shrugging most days and getting animated only when someone puts a mock wall up.
Of course, as a general matter, it’s easier to get concerned about dramatic displays than subtle remarks. Dealing effectively with the latter, which is probably of far greater consequence than the former, means getting better at teaching young people how to get beyond pro-Israel talking points and into the substance of the justice underlying the cause of Jewish independence.
It’s harder, but that’s what we’ll have to do if we really want to improve the way Israel is talked about on campus.
The false question of quietism vs. alarmism (suggesting an a priori bias) fails to address the real issue. Do Jewish students feel free to admit their Jewishness, express their beliefs, and support Israel without fear of repercussion? The answer is no … and the "alarmists" (I'd call them realists) understand that.
There are NO attacks on Jews that aren't worth responding to with maximum effort. Call me alarmist if you will.
The false dichotomy of "quietist' vs. "alarmist" fails to address the real issue: Jews ARE being intimidated on campus.
This isn't just a college problem. Once again Clinton's Chappaqua, NY invited a Mondoweiss writer who advocated slaughtering the Fogel children to speak to the student body. Not a word in protest from any of the Jewish community, the rabbis or anyone on the school board. It's bad enough when leftist anti-Israel Kristol came yearly to speak to these students but now they are inviting those who advocate killing Jews as legally acceptable. The issue isn't alarmist versus quietist. Its common sense versus extreme stupidity.
Apologies to Kristol….meant anti-Israel Nicholas Kristof.
Phil "Mondoweiss" Weiss is unarguably a repugnant person, but can you point us to where he "advocated slaughering the Fogel children"? If you can, I'd be most interested in seeing it; if you can't, then you do not help the cause by making unsupportable claims.
What about creating a welcoming space for Jewish students to practice their religion and trust that political discussions can begin after services? Religiously, I was jarred by two things when I was in college a dozen years ago – that as a Conservative Jew, the only services available to me on campus were in English (something I didn't even think about when deciding where to go to school) and that no one was interested in talking to me about my experience of religion. They only wanted to label me because of politics. I think the biggest challenge to any religion during college years is to remain meaningful to a group of people who are exploring complicated intellectual ideas for the first time in their lives. Since so many people lack serious background in our wisdom tradition, providing a welcoming space that exemplifies how religion can be a meaningful part of a modern life is the key challenge on campus, in my opinion.
I cannot speak to Mr.Kogen's piece,which may be a accurate reflection of his own experiences.(Though it also may run counter to the experiences of others.)But what type of moral equivalency permits Marcus to write the following: n n n n n…"To listen to the alarmists, one would think that anti-Semitism is everywhere in post-secondary education"… n…"To listen to the quietists, one would think that anti-Semitism is nowhere to be found in American higher education"… n n nAFirst Who are these "alarmists" he speaks of?Who are the people who claim "that anti-Semitism is everywhere in post -secondary education.Do they exist?If so do they have names? nAnd if they do,what of it? nIs a person who has been the repeated victim of anti-semitism and who overstates the danger,somehow on the same moral plane as someone who pompously "explains" to the victim of a hate crime that "anti-semitism is nowhere to be found in American higher education. "There is no moral comparison between the two.Is he implying that there is?If he isn't why does he not condemn the ”quietests” ,and then add that some of those who are concerned about anti-semitism mistakenly see it everywhere.We do NOT have a problem with too little concern about anti-semitism.