The Anti-Semitism Controversy at Yale

The blogosphere has been abuzz about Yale's decision to close its Interdisciplinary Initiative for the Study of Antisemitism. A general outcry has succeeded the announcement, as if Yale has announced that it no longer believes anti-Semitism exists in the United States. But is this really accurate?

Judaism's history has of course been replete with anti-Semitism, including Crusades, pogroms and the ultimate anti-Semitic incident: the Holocaust. In today's world, anti-Semitism is often more subtle. It hides behind terms like anti-Zionism and human rights (when discussing Israeli Palestinian relations or anti-circumcision laws). Occasionally, there are outbursts of anti-Jewish violence, but these are generally dealt with by government authorities (the Arab world notwithstanding).

Is it possible that the administration of Yale thinks these expressions of anti-Semitism are not worth researching?

Some have suggested that the reason that Yale closed down the institute is Arab protests against a conference held there last year which discussed the dangers of anti-Semitism in the Arab world. Yale's official reason was that YIISA had failed to "serve the research and teaching interests of some significant Yale faculty and . . . [to] be sustained by the creative energy of a critical mass of Yale faculty." One of the reasons to doubt that this is the real reason is that Yale publicly courts Arab donors. The Washington representative of the PLO publicly condemned the institute and asked for disassociation from the university because of its existence.

Chances are that Judaism's history will not be majorly affected by the closing down of the institute. Clearly the university does not believe that anti-Semitism has disappeared from the world. Either it was seriously concerned with the quality of work being done there or it bowed to pressure from potential donors. In either case, the decision hardly seems worthy of all the attention it has been getting.

Hayim Nahman Bialik

One of the great poets of Israeli and Jewish culture was Hayim Nahman Bialik. Born in 1873, he was the poet of Jewish national rebirth and a leading light of cultural Zionism.

Bialik received a traditional Jewish education, including a stint at the Volozhin Yeshiva, but later left it to immerse himself in a broader cultural milieu. In 1909 he published his first collection of poetry, which was extremely well-received. While living in Warsaw, all of his poems were written in Yiddish. Bialik moved to Berlin and then, in 1924, to Tel Aviv. He began to write in Hebrew and contributed greatly to the revival of the Hebrew language. His poems and songs based on them have become an essential part of Israeli education.

Jewish Virtual Library described his influence:

The work of Hayyim Nahman Bialik takes on many genres and modes of expression. His national poetry laments the degeneration of the Jewish nation in exile and strives to stimulate latent forces to create a new destiny. Expressing a wide range of emotion, his personal verse reflects the inner conflicts of modern man. His nature poetry is rich in imagery, and his love poems show both tenderness and violent passion. Bialik's stories deal realistically with subjects drawn from contemporary events, and his legends and folktales evince a fertile imagination and gentle sense of humor. In his career called "a watershed in modern Hebrew literature," Hayyim Nahman Bialik answered the silent cry of a people in need of articulation in a new era.

Bialik represents a segment of Jewish culture which is not strictly religious but nonetheless contains many religious overtones. In this way, his works are similar to those of Shmuel Hanagid and Shai Agnon.

Modern Legal Thought and Jewish Law

The Jewish religion contains a large and complex legal system. Norms such as democracy and gender equality make it difficult to enact Jewish laws in modern society. However, some of the concepts in Jewish law can be useful for modern legal thinkers. In a video interview, Suzanne Last Stone, professor at Cardozo Law, talks about how Jewish law can be integrated into today's legal thought. For instance, the Jewish legal system is a system of obligations, rather than of rights. Individuals must adhere to a list of obligations and may incur penalties if they violate them. Nowhere in Jewish law are people guaranteed what we call "human rights." Freedom of speech is not mentioned, nor is their a right to not be enslaved. Rather, a person is allowed to speak as long as he doesn't violate one of the rules of speech (such as slander). A person is free until he commits a crime and is unable to pay restitution, at which point he is sold into slavery.

In a democratic world, we are of course not advocating taking away civil rights. However, it is possible that some of the world's legal systems focus too much on individual's rights and not enough on their obligations. This may make it easier to harm others or hurt the collective.

An example of a concept in Jewish law has been incorporated into today's legal systems is the idea that there is a core legal document that can't be changed. In Jewish religion, that core is the Torah. Since it is the Divine word, the Torah can't be changed. It can be interpreted and reinterpreted, but the core remains. So too, the Constitution of the United States. The core of the American legal system is the Constitution. It has a built in system for amendments (similar to Judaism's Oral Law) and is also open to interpretation. Since the 1970s, legal scholars in America have debated whether the Constitution should be interpreted broadly or narrowly. The broad interpretation camp has been winning that argument, as ever-increasingly liberal courts give individuals more and more rights under the Constitution. But even those interpreters recognize that the core is unchangeable.

Many countries which do not have a Constitution are considering implementing one, because of this desire to have their core values set in stone, similar to the Divine law.

Children's homes in Kibbutzim

A unique experience in the history of the Jewish people, and indeed, in the history of humanity, was the kibbutz method of child rearing. Children were raised in a children's home, whether they ate, slept and played. This arrangement freed up their parent to work for the good of the kibbutz. Also, it was believed that the women who worked in the children's homes were better qualified to care for children than their untrained parents.

The kibbutzim themselves collapsed under the weight of capitalism about 15 years ago. In order to survive, they became private enterprises, where employees receive compensation commensurate with their skills. The classic institutions of the kibbutz disappeared or were modified. One of the first institutions to go was the children's home. Today, children in kibbutzim live at home with their parents.

Yael Ne'eman wrote a memoir about her experiences growing up in a kibbutz in the 1960s. Her book is called We Are the Future. She expressed her frustration with the way she was raised:

We felt that we were unworthy of the doctrine. The output had no end, for initiative could always find more and more things to do. . . . We failed to satisfy the doctrine, mute and gentle as it seemed, asking nothing for itself, seeking only considerateness, with no demands: "to each according to his need." But who knows what need truly is, it has no bound or limit. Our doctrine was never satisfied. We felt guilty.

In the entire history of the Jewish people there has never been an idea so ambitious. At the same time, there has never been an idea so doomed to failure. Nature has provided for children by giving them parents and has provided adults with the nurturing instincts to care for their children. No progressive idea can change that, and this is what led to the demise of the children's homes in the kibbutzim.