Yikes!

Lets stop asking the same old questions.

"What's Wrong With Hebrew School?"

That's the big question Mindy Schiller asks in the latest issue of "World Jewish Digest" (a publication whose name suggests an international following, but all the advertisers are from the Chicago area, as are all the schools cited in Schiller's article).

The article piqued our interest at work because, well, we're in the Hebrew school business. And in the end I have a number of major concerns.

1. The article asks all the same questions that we've been asking for twenty years, and offers a whole bunch of the same, tired answers. For example:

So, if Hebrew schools aren’t making the grade, what’s the reason?... [A] problem repeatedly expressed by critics of Hebrew school focuses on the teachers. Put simply, most are part-timers looking to earn a little extra money. (Unfortunately, educators say that hiring full-time teachers is something that most Hebrew schools cannot afford.) In fact, the United Synagogue for Conservative Judaism estimates that approximately one third of Conservative schools employ a full-time education director. “If you’re working this as a supplementary job, with a supplementary salary, then that means it’s not your main focus,” says Saul Kaiserman, Director of Lifelong Learning at Temple Emanuel in Manhattan. “Even if you have a great, committed, involved teacher, they’ve got other things that are vying for their attention.”

Are you kidding me? Next the World Jewish Digest is going to ask the question, "Why are Jewish communities shrinking?" and they're gonna answer it with, "Well, it turns out that one major factor may be intermarriage."

The article keeps doing this. It sets up Hebrew school as being this giant failing enterprise, offers evidence that is mostly from Jewish adults whose experience reflects the state of Hebrew schools circa 1984, and then offers the same quotes from the same people (Jack Wertheimer and Steven M. Cohen... whoopdeedoo... No offense to those guys -- who are brilliant -- but isn't this just a rehashing of the same stuff they've been saying for years?).

Nothing new to see here.

(The author herself basically admits this when she quotes one source as saying: “The fact that Hebrew schools haven’t been working is old news.”)

2. The article's author takes it as a given that Hebrew schools are failing.

She gives some anecdotal evidence, quotes Wertheimer and Cohen (and their research), then declares, "Hebrew schools aren’t making the grade."

This is ridiculous. All of her evidence is from a handful of Chicago area schools. She doesn't look at programs anywhere else. She doesn't look at truly innovative programs happening right in her own back yard. She doesn't really look at all.

A better-written article would include commentary from people who would say things like, "Yeah... Hebrew schools have been a problem for a long time. But there are a lot of really good Hebrew school programs out there." This article doesn't do that.

3. Halfway through the article, the author gives up her whole entire premise. Wait... let me say that again. Half way through the article, the author suddenly (and without warning, or any indication to the reader that she's even aware she's doing it), the author totally changes direction.

She starts talking about a school at B'nai Tikvah in Deerfield, Ill. that -- wonder of wonders -- doesn't actually suck. As I read this, I'm thinking, "Hey wait a minute. This school isn't exceptional. I know lots and lots of Hebrew schools that are just as good as that one." And then... we get this:

The question is: is B’nai Tikvah representative?

According to JESNA’s Kraus, the answer is yes.

Wait a minute! Didn't she just say that Hebrew schools are broken? Now she's saying that this one excellent school is actually pretty normal, and that lots of schools are doing really great things.

So why did we need this whole long stinking article?

4. The author has a whole section that looks at ways in which new, interesting stuff has to "compete in the marketplace." Then, she talks about CHAI and Mitkadem, and the Conservative movement's educational/curricular initiatives. That's all fine and good. All that curricular stuff is great.

But nowhere does she even consider that new, innovative stuff has been coming out of the for-profit (and the non-movement-affiliated non-profit) world for years now. Are we cold borscht? What about A.R.E. (now part of Behrman, but still), or K'tav? What about the all those non-movement non-profit initiatives? Coming out with curricular "initiatives" (my boss loves to riff on why the word "initiatives" should scare us all) is all fine and good, but it is definitely not a new idea.

Case in point: The author, talking about the problems with Hebrew school curriculum, writes, "Critics cite a holiday-based curriculum that recycles the same topics year in and year out."

If she'd bothered to talk to anyone who actually works in a Hebrew school, she'd know that a few years ago, we released the Whole School Holiday series. The whole idea behind the series is that [a] schools only need to spend about one day per year on most holidays, and [b] kids should learn new, developmentally appropriate things each year. This set of materials offers kids something new to learn (as opposed to a curriculum that "recycles the same topics year in and year out") in every grade.

Anyway... I could go on for a while, but I don't want to take too much time disparaging this article. In the end, if it gets people to talk about Jewish education, then good. I suspect that the World Jewish Digest of Greater Chicago is actually pretty small potatoes, and that the few people who read this blog and then click over to the article will probably triple its readership. But whatever. It was a nice excuse to rant about the fact that Hebrew schools aren't actually all failing. I like talking about that.

Painful Sports News of the Day

This was really in today's AP Cubs-Pirates recap:

"Cubs C Michael Barrett was still in the hospital Monday morning for a follow-up procedure after having surgery Saturday night to stop bleeding in his scrotum. He is on the 15-day DL after getting hit in the groin area by a foul tip on Saturday."

(Thanks to Eric.)

Dear Editor... Please Send Jane Ulman to Journalism 101

Dear Editor,

I'm writing to express my disappointment with Jane Ulman's article about Tisha b'Av observance ("Tisha B'Av Dilemma: Day of Solemnity or Celebration?", July 20).

Ms. Ulman suggests that Reform Jews don't celebrate Tisha b'Av, relating an anecdote about a synagogue in Cincinnati, Ohio that held a rummage sale last year on the fast day. Her only source for the story is an unnamed "spokesperson" for the temple's sisterhood.

The story serves little purpose to the article. Who cares if she can find some congregation somewhere (in this case, suburban Cincinnati) who doesn’t commemorate Tisha b’Av? It is inappropriate that she infers generalizations about Reform Jews from this one example.

Furthermore, I challenge the factual accuracy of her assertion that Tisha b’Av is “a non-event in some, usually Reform, congregations.” What evidence does the author have to support such a claim? Has Ms. Ulman done a statistical survey of holiday practice at synagogues in America? Since she failed to cite such research, I gather that her statement was based on her own assumption, a reflection of popular stereotypes about Reform Jews. What is the value of a newspaper article in which the author simply shares her own assumptions, reinforcing stereotypes?

It is particularly strange that Ulman reported on last year's activities in Cincinnati instead of reporting on Tisha b'Av observance at local Reform congregations. For example, Temple Judea in Tarzana planned an event entitled "Lunch Without Lunch - Does Tisha B'av Have Meaning For Us Today?" I wonder why Ulman chose to discuss a congregation thousands of miles away that didn't commemorate the holiday when a congregation right on her doorstep did indeed mark the occasion.

Later in the article, Ulman writes, "Some Reform Jews, as did 19th century Rabbi David Einhorn, actually see the holiday as celebratory." While the author's understanding of Jewish history is not incorrect, her inference that modern Reform Jews celebrate on Tisha b'Av is ridiculous. She mentions "some Reform Jews" who "actually see" (present tense), but then fails to cite any examples or quote anyone born after 1809. As an active Reform Jew, I can say that I've never met anyone who celebrated on Tisha b'Av, and I would challenge Ulman to find a normative Reform Jew who does.

Einhorn -- it should be noted -- believed a lot of things that today's Reform Jews would find ridiculous. Citing Einhorn in a discussion of modern practice is like a political writer reporting that, "Some members of the Democratic Party, as did 18th century President Thomas Jefferson, actually believe in owning slaves." Like Ulman's mention of Einhorn, such a statement is an over-simplification of Jefferson's complex views and, more importantly, has nothing to do with today's Democratic Party. Unlike Einhorn, today's Reform movement is outwardly Zionist, chants Kol Nidrei on Yom Kippur, and believes that the Jewish textual tradition is important. And many of us commemorate Tisha b'Av.

Ms. Ulman's reporting was irresponsible, inflammatory, and contrary to norms of journalistic standards. In the future, I urge you to give her writing the much closer editorial supervision it deserves.

Sincerely,

Josh

Amalek's Big Toe

A few months ago, Rabbi Jack Riemer decided that Islamo-Fascists are an incarnation of Amalek.

Last week, Rabbi Marc Gellman made a similar declaration in his Newsweek column. It turns out, according to Gellman, that Amalek utilized the same tactics as Hezbollah:

What made Amalek so dastardly was that unlike any other enemy who attacked the Israelites fleeing slavery in Egypt from the front, Amalek attacked the rear. This meant that his soldiers could kill women and children, the elderly and the infirm and in so doing avoid engagement with the soldiers at the front. In this way he could produce maximum carnage and maximum terror.

Of course Deut. 25:17-19 instructs us to remember Amalek for a good reason. Sayeth Gellman:

I believe this is because the planned and plotted slaughter of innocents even during wartime cannot be condoned and must be remembered as a bright moral line which can never be crossed.

Sorry. I have a bullshit meter that buzzes whenever someone uses the Torah to score political points. But maybe that's just me. Perhaps the Amalek label is appropriate here.

[Don't worry. Newsweek's erudite readers bash Gellman plenty in this week's Letters to the Editor.]

Cross-posted on Jewschool.

Headline Writers Have a Tough Job

I read the following headline today:

"Ferry carrying up to 150 sinks off Bahrain"

Does this mean that a ferry of the coast of Bahrain is carrying 150 sinks? If this is the case, I'm sure everyone aboard has very clean hands.

The Right Way to Look Analytically at the Israel Lobby

A lot of people are up-in-arms about a paper recently published by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.

Walt, a professor at Harvard, and Mearsheimer, a professor at the University of Chicago, argue that "a vast network of journalists, think tanks, lobbyists, and largely Jewish officials have seized the foreign policy debate and manipulated America to invade Iraq." They explain that

...the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby’. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country - in this case, Israel - are essentially identical.

Since the publication of the paper, it has drawn praise from David Duke and the ire of the pro-Israel lobby, who are understandably defensive in response to an attack on their very existence. Harvard, possibly under pressure from donors, has cautiously backed away from the paper.

Having read the paper, I think their main point isn't totally off-base (I agree that AIPAC is a bit too vocal), but I also think they make some problematic assumptions. Of these, the most bothersome is their continued reference to "the Lobby," a mostly unconnected group of organizations and individuals that work tirelessly to represent Jewish/Israeli causes in American politics and within the American national conscience. Their characterization of this group sounds a lot like a thinly-veiled attack on par with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Mearsheimer and Walt address this critique early on:

There is nothing improper about American Jews and their Christian allies attempting to sway US policy: the Lobby’s activities are not a conspiracy of the sort depicted in tracts like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. For the most part, the individuals and groups that comprise it are only doing what other special interest groups do, but doing it very much better.

Then they spend the rest of the paper disproving themselves, making vast generalizations about "the Lobby," discussing "the Lobby's" goals and citing unnamed "prominent Lobby figures."

The best response I've read thus far is Christopher Hitchens' piece in Slate, entitled "Overstating Jewish Power."

Hitchens dismantles Mearsheimer and Walt's piece on a number of levels. He points out a number of their false assumptions, takes them to task for ignoring evidence that doesn't support their claims, and explains how many of their conclusions are based on fallacious logic. He doesn't call them anti-Semitic, accuse them of "having an axe to grind," or suggest that their work is on par with that of neo-Nazis. Rather, he takes them on point-by-point and explains why they're wrong. It's an inspired piece of writing.

In the middle of it, Hitchens makes an interesting point. He writes,

Almost everybody also concedes that the Israeli occupation has been a moral and political catastrophe and has implicated the United States in a sordid and costly morass. I would have gone further than Mearsheimer and Walt and pointed up the role of Israel in supporting apartheid in South Africa, in providing arms and training for dictators in Congo and Guatemala, and helping reactionary circles in America do their dirty work—most notably during the Iran-Contra assault on the Constitution and in the emergence of the alliance between Likud and the Christian right. Counterarguments concerning Israel's help in the Cold War and in the region do not really outweigh these points.

Remember, this is Hitchens talking. He's taking Mearsheimer and Walt to task for being unfair and overly critical of Israel and the American pro-Israel lobby.

It's about time for American Jews to remember that reasonable people (who are not anti-Israel) accept as a given that Israel has done some crappy things. To these people -- the very thoughtful types whose opinions matter -- ardent defenses of Israel that paint the country as one that can, and has, done no wrong must sound totally ridiculous. Instead of insisting on Israel's innocence in everything it has ever been accused of, maybe its time to admit, "Hey, Israel has done some things wrong. But it's ready to move forward, and America needs to continue to be at its side."

And that's the real reason AIPAC is so dangerous.

For All I Know, It's a Great Movie

I read the following in a Reuters story about foreign films up for Oscars:

The Academy has many Jewish voters, and some have said they will not vote for a Palestinian film at a time when a declared enemy of Israel is taking power in the West Bank and Gaza.

This sounds an awful lot like, "Since Jews control Hollywood, there's no way a Palestinian movie will ever win an Oscar."

Maybe it's just me.

Oy Vey

It seems the Dodgers are in the process of making a move that's almost as tragic as getting rid of Dodger Dogs would have been. According to TJ Simers in Sunday's Times,

You wanted more hits, and so the Dodgers have responded the best way they know how.

In the biggest blockbuster move to date under the new ownership of the Boston Parking Lot Attendant [Simers' nickname for Dodger owner Frank McCourt, who made his millions on parking lots in Boston], the team will no longer allow organist Nancy Bea Hefley to play anything other than a pregame ditty, the national anthem and "Take Me Out to the Ballgame."

In place of the traditional sounds of the organ during the game, a disc jockey will now play CD hits.

This is the kind of thing that would usually get me to write some angry and nostalgic post about how fucking stupid this is. But Les Carpenter, a columnist for the Seattle Times, did my job for me. His whole article is here. Some good pieces:

For 17 years as the organist at Dodger Stadium, Nancy Bea Hefley has lulled babies to sleep, moved fathers to sing with their sons and tempted mothers to dance in the aisles simply by tapping her fingers.

Yet on this night, as on so many nights these days, she sits ...

And does nothing.

Her kind is dying now. A game that thrived through the last century on the ballpark organ jingle has decided in the new millennium that the melody of baseball is no longer good enough. In order to properly enjoy a $32 box seat and $4 hot dog, today's fan apparently needs the stadium speakers pulsing to the steady thump of any one of about 20 songs that can be found on CDs with names like "Jock Jams" or "Rock 'n Jock."

Not that you can't tell if you're in Cleveland, Tampa or Lincoln, Neb., or at a football game, a hockey game or a soccer match. Everywhere you go it's the same 20 songs; the only thing that changes is the order in which they're played.

And the Nancy Bea Hefleys of baseball are left to their knitting.

...soon the day will probably come when no one will have an organ and there will be no more Nancy Bea Hefleys left in the game.

"People come to me and say 'I wish you would play more,' " Hefley says. "I play what I'm told to play, that's life, go with the flow. Change is not always good, but change is coming anyway."

And another piece of everything that was once good about baseball is chipped away.

I don't know her, but Carpenter's piece confirms Nancy Bea's place as one of my favorite people. I hope the Dodgers reconsider. If out-of-town writers are talking about how much they'll miss her music, then she's something special, right?

Surprise, Surprise

I know I shouldn't have been at all surprised by this article, which says that women's magazines basically make up (out of thin air) the information in their sex articles, but, well, I sort of was. It totally makes sense that all the sex advice is bullshit (because any guy who's ever read Cosmo or Marie Claire knows it is), but I guess it had never occurred to me that they'd actually do it.

I guess my question is... should anyone care? Would this knowledge keep any subsriber from continuing to read these magazines?

(BTW - the article is actually a couple of years old, but it's new to me, so... there ya go)

When do you cross the Holocaust line?

The College Days' latest issue hit the web last night. [For the uninformed: College Days, Wiconsin's Oldest College newspaper, is the student paper at Ripon College, where I went to school from 1998-2002. I was co-Editor-in-Chief of the paper for a year and a half.]

I have an opinion about the whole film-permissions thing, but I'll save it for later. Suffice it to say that I'm gonna pull out the 40+ pages that are my senior sem (about the decline of social capitol and the concept of community and civic engagement at Ripon College) and smack Sarnowski upside the head with them. He may have a point, but he's going way too far. Someone needs to find him something constructive to do with his time.

Anyway, one of the first things I always read when I browse the Days' site is Sonya Sorich's column. Sonya's a senior now, and she started writing for the paper while Gina and I were its editors. She's the real deal: she's astute and has a keen eye for understanding the craziness that revolves around her, and she has a real knack for articulating what everyone's thinking. She's the columnist that the paper has always needed, and she's going to be sorely missed when she graduates in May.

In this week's column, she talks about memories of the past semester, and lists her "top five." It's an interesting read, but it made me pause when I got to "No. 2." It reads:

2) Food Service. Once the massive fly exodus exited the Pub after fall break, few of us had reason to complain about food this semester. The newly decorated Pub (a.k.a. "The Max") was quickly followed by an impressive Terrace (a.k.a. "Central Perk"). The Pub resurrected the popular breakfast meal exchange, and the Terrace played on campus laziness by offering surprisingly edible delivery. Gone are the days of Camp Auschwitz-inspired food lines at Ripon College. New trends in food service even rival the selection available at Save-A-Lot. Add a $1 pregnancy test, Sodexho, and I'm sold.

The Auschwitz analogy bugs me.

First, as Creecy pointed out when I discussed it with him, it's pretty unnecessary. She could have made her point about how bad the food choices used to be without comparing Sodexho to the Nazis. Then there's the fact that I should probably take offense...

A part of me wants to say, "Sonya, you really don't get it. Auschwitz was a place of incomparable horror, and you sound ignorant and insensitive when you compare the food at Ripon College -- even the worst food the Sodexho could ever serve -- to the treatment of the hundreds of thousands of innocents who were held at Auschwitz (and the million or so that were murdered there)."

But then, I think the Jewish community spends a lot of time flapping their mouths and getting hypersensitive about this sort of stuff. And I think that Sonya's a great writer (actually, an award-winning one) who's very intelligent and very well-educated.

So I guess I'm just not sure where the line is. Is it never ok to compare anything to the Holocaust? Should Jews take offense whenever someone gets called "Gestapo-like"? Or is it sometimes ok? Or is it only ok when Jews do it? I guess I'm just not sure.

I'm hoping for comments on this one.