Summary: mental harassment inflicted upon a college student, by a instructor who claimed to be Jewish, in response to the student's conversion to orthodox Judaism.
------
Fall, 1985, my mother accompanied me to her and her mother's alma mater, at a small New England college. Mom was from an old New England family, my dad, from a Jewish family. At freshman orientation, my mother and I sat at a table with the new Jewish studies professor and she introduced us and our family situation.
I will herein discuss:
1- this instructor's general contempt for traditional Judaism
2- his mental abuse and boundary crossing of me in two categories:
a - regarding religion, after I became traditionally observant.
b- in general social situations, after I became traditionally observant.
3- His ignorance.
Because
of the power differential between professor and student, harassment can
take subtle forms, be unnoticeable to others, and very painful and bewildering.
---
Here are some examples:
His sneering expressions of contempt: using the word "Jewish" as an insult
1986 :
I was a sophomore and living a secular lifestyle; growing up liberal, I assumed I was among the enlightened.
But all that assumed "enlightenment" began to evaporate quickly in light of this professor's attitude.
This so-called Jewish studies professor said to me, alone, "I am glad I am the chair of Jewish studies here (this chair was funded by a non-Jewish benefactor), I dislike professorships of Jewish studies that are funded by Jews, accepting such a chair is, you know such a Jewish thing to do."
I gasped and said, "I think THAT is an anti-semitic comment!"
He just smirked. He could get away with it, protected by affirmative action.
Years later I read that he accepted a chair from a German Jewish couple.
--
Ignorance and sneering contempt:
1986 - At an interfaith meeting, the concept of matrilineal descent in Judaism came up. He announced, “no one knows the source for that”, then he looked around the room, smirking and sneering.
How on earth is that an answer from a professor? "No one knows" sneer sneer.
This is a college. Give me intellectual tools, some history, some sources in scripture, tradition, some sociology, but all he said was "no one knows" followed by a smirk and sneer.
The reaction from the students was of astonishment - no one knows something so important? It also made Judaism look fairly ridiculous, and in the culture of that predominantly WASP-y college, that was incredibly unfair.
I began to wake up to - you cannot trust the institutions around you, you cannot trust that a liberal arts college will hire professors who have high academic standards.
And - why the smirking and sneering? Read on:
"A smirk is specific kind of smile, one that suggests self-satisfaction, smugness, or even pleasure at someone else's unhappiness or misfortune. It suggests secrecy and deceit, giving a feeling of confidence and control over themselves and those around them, it confirms their feeling of entitlement without having to risk any potential fallout from speaking out too much."
--
On the kosher dietary laws:He said to a few students:
"Can
you believe that the orthodox think that just taking an enzyme from
meat and mixing it with milk to make cheese is mixing milk and meat?
Just one enzyme?!" while he sneered and smirked.
If you wish to disagree, go ahead and provide a robust intellectual argument, but to mock and smirk reveals bigotry and intellectual weakness.
He had also said he kept "semi-kosher" and that he does not go to stores on the Jewish Sabbath.
What intellectual framework allows for "semi-kosher" or semi-observance of the Jewish Sabbath, but hold revulsion for anything slightly closer to halacha (Jewish law)?
When the orthodox rabbi from a nearby town was going to give an informal talk at this college, this instructor remarked sneeringly, upon hearing that it would be catered by the college kitchen, "well he won't eat OUR food".
Sophomore year, when I was not yet observant, I went to the Chabad House in Burlington VT with the president of the college Hillel. We were invited in and went into the kitchen, a young woman was helping Mrs Raskin cut vegetables, and she was using a long decorated knife that is usually used to cut the challa bread at the Shabbos meal. I guess in response to my quizzical expression, Mrs Raskin said, "I traifed (rendered non-kosher) all my regular knives, I have not kashered them yet, so I only have this one to use in the meantime."
I knew in that second that kosher dietary laws were no insult at all, did Mrs Raskin, an orthodox Rabbanit, reject "her" own food? Was she condemning herself? Nope, just living by an objective standard.1988 - I was eating my kosher wrapped lunch at the
Hebrew table, the professor of Latin and Greek
asked me if kosher food tastes different, and asked me some laws. As I answered, the so-called Jewish studies professor, who was sitting to my left, was scowling,
smirking, rolling his eyes, flicking his fingers....(I really wish I had
said, "it is hard for me to answer when I am sensing negative body
language from someone, maybe we could talk later.")
Another time, at the Hebrew table, he said, "The Adon Olam prayer has Aristotle in it." I asked, "where?" His response: sneered, smirked, flicked his fingers towards me. He said nothing more, no intellectual tools, no proofs.
------
Another time he said in class that if a Jew converts to another religion, he is no longer a Jew. Again, if one learns about Judaism from sources other than him, you find out that this point of view is not held by classic Rabbinic or Karaite Judaism, nor is it held by the Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist Jewish movements.
It felt very unfair that a
professor would mislead in this way, either through his own lack of
knowledge, or through his own personal wishes of what he wanted Judaism
to be and not to be. I wondered how this college did not notice that
they had hired someone of this low caliber, and I graduated very very
disappointed in the college, with a feeling that I had to unlearn some
of his claims in order to understand anything about middle eastern
studies or about religious studies.
---
1988 - Senior year arrived. I changed. People change, especially in a free college environment. A fellow with dreadlocks gave me a warm hello and responded to my quizzical expression by flipping out his college ID. “Oh, Josh, I did not recognize you.” I said. Mary was planning to become a nun when we were sophomores, by senior year she had a steady boyfriend.
And I had returned from my junior year in Israel observing halacha - traditional Rabbinic Judaism.
At the beginning of the semester, at the Hillel meeting I asked if this year the Hillel could build a Sukkah (booth for the holiday of Tabernacles) according to halacha so I could use it. This professor rolled his eyes, sneered and smirked.
He had offered me a position during my sophomore year teaching the local Hebrew school upon my return from my junior year in Israel. I contacted him at the very beginning of my senior year and he told me to come meet with him about it.
This is how he began: “two years ago you were all for alternative forms of “who is a Jew”, now you are saying you want to be orthodox, tell me," eerie pause, "how have you changed?” and stared down at me with a scornful expression.
Given the atmosphere, and knowing his high reactivity to the “who is a Jew” question and that his wife, whom he married when a student in Germany, is not Jewish, and that he knew that I had a Jewish father and non-Jewish mother and was clearly not going down the path of alternative movements, I fumbled, “well I did not know where matrilineal descent comes from then, and then I found out.”
He kept staring, then looked to his right, curled his lip and rolled his eyes, sighed heavily as if he smelled something bad, looked to his right as if concurring with some invisible presence that I deserved eye-rolling, sneering, smirking, this was emotional abuse.
He said, "The Reform have, (the he paused eerily) accepted, (sneer) patrilineal descent."
I said nothing. He stared at me, an eerie silence loomed. Then he asked if I am the Hebrew school teacher, what will I say to the kids about who is a Jew. When I said: I can say that the reform say this and the orthodox say that, he sneered and acted annoyed, which I could not understand because I thought it was fair of me. He then said something like, "no! I think the kids should hear an honest answer..." I cannot recall the details of his annoyed response, but it felt like anything I said would have been taken negatively.
Making you feel like you are always wrong: that is precisely how agenda-driven narcissists treat others who do not conform to their narrative.
In light of the recent Hillel meeting concerning the upcoming holiday of Sukkoth, I asked, “can we build the Sukkah according to halacha?” He took a book off the shelf, thumbed through it and said, “here is the halacha” and recited from the book, slammed it shut, disposed of it on the table, and added,
“but I am sure Gah-ah-ahd will forgive us,” and smirked, scowled and stared down at me.
He said the word “G-d” with extreme contempt.
He smirked in a prolonged way at me.
He stared me down.
He also, at that meeting, took a conservative prayer book, and thumped it on the table and said that this is the new prayer book for the Hillel.
Why would anyone thump something that they care about? Why say the word “God” with extreme contempt?
It was like halacha made him ill. But I think he was more just trying to make trouble, to provoke, to offend, to get attention. When you read parashas Korach, the story of Korach in the book of Numbers, chapter 16, you see Korach's inconsistencies, and learn that provocateurs do not even keep track of what they are saying, for example, this professor was "semi-observant" but "more" observance is met with contempt, it just makes no intellectual sense, it is befuddling. Your mind races to make sense - "semi" observance is just fine but any more is met with cruelty - and when that happens, when your mind is racing to process another's contemptuous attitude, it is a sign you are dealing with a agenda-driven narcissist.
Some reasonable challenges to religion: “we are all equal, so, who cares about descent and 'who is a Jew?"” or, ” G-d is forgiving I am sure, I mean, do we really need to build the Sukkah according to halachah?" Such questions are more than welcome, however:
No
student need be sat across from a professor with the demand made that
she explain her change in lifestyle or religion. It is an abuse of the
power differential.
---
Sneering contempt- conversion to Judaism according to halacha, the Jewish Sabbath according to Rabbinic tradition
Another story - at the Hebrew table, the "who is a Jew" question came up,
This professor said, "I have a reprehensible story, a woman in Germany went to an orthodox conversion and the Rabbi asked, 'if you want to rearrange your furniture on the Sabbath, are you allowed to?' and she retorted (again this professor spoke with extreme scorn), 'when I had a Christian head, I thought a piano was heavier than a napkin, but now that I have a Jewish head, I realize that a napkin weighs the same as a piano.'"
It was bold-faced and blatant contempt for the observance of the Jewish Sabbath according to halacha - Jewish law - in the Rabbinic tradition, here the reference was to carrying from a private to public domain and moving objects that are not to be used on the Sabbath. Rabbinic Judaism holds that we do not play musical instruments on the Sabbath, and we do not carry objects, whether light or heavy, from private to public domain on the Sabbath.
A form of Sabbath has been kept in various ways by Christian and Jewish communities including the Karaite, Sadducean and Pharisaic-turned-Rabbinic as well as the Samaritan for over two millennia, the Sabbath is a gift to humanity, if you like your weekend, thank the Jews for Saturday and the Christians for Sunday.
But I need not defend the traditional observance of the Jewish Sabbath according to Rabbinic Jewish law, or any religion. He expressed bold faced contempt for a religion, for any religion.
It was raw bigotry.
I retorted, "he was asking about Sabbath observance! What is wrong with that?"
And the so called professor retorted: "well, um, it was they WAY he said it...I guess that was not a very good example."
So the Jewish Sabbath according to halacha is "reprehensible" and a second later, "never-mind"? That flip flop was not because is a flash he gained respect for scripture or tradition, but because the point I was making was too strong to counter, and as relativists and propagandists do, he merely withdrew.
---
Hebrew class: you could tap your foot to the rhythm of the following, "this would offend the orthodox... that would offend the orthodox. " Sneer sneer.
In cases like this he would be referring to so-called bad grammar in the Bible that disproves its teachings.
I thought, did he ever ask any orthodox if, say Biblical criticism or so-called "bad" Biblical grammar offends them?
He would say in class: "mistakes would creep into the text" and walk his fingers on the page like moving bugs, as if so-called mistakes really "crept" into a text like crawling ants.
He NEVER brought different texts for comparison, and always said this with his smirk and sneer.
I believe that looking upon a sneering and smirking countenance is an upsetting experience, it is puzzling, it indicates that the sneerer is aware that he is getting away with something.
1. Where were any texts for comparison?
2. What are the rules that scribes used when copying sacred writ?
3. Why, again, all his smirking, indicating deceit?
4. Are differences between texts, (which he never showed us), an indication of "mistakes", or of different versions which should be compared from beginning to end?
But the above four questions reflect critical thinking.
Study the different traditions for Jewish prayers in the Ashkenazic, Sephardic, and Edut HaMizrach communities and see how the basic themes of each prayer line up - is one tradition "mistaken" and the others correct? Traditional Jews are in fact used to texts that vary, it does not bother them.
Point to a "mistake" if there is one. He NEVER did, just smirked.
But, protected by affirmative action, he could sneer away at intellectual honesty itself.
---
In class, he mentioned that an acquaintance of his stopped abusing alcohol when he saw a verse in psalms, that wine makes the heart of man happy. Cliff, a Christian student, quipped, grinning, "was this fellow a Reform Jew?" I added, "there may be a grammatical mistake in that verse so maybe he shouldn't have been so inspired", the two of us grinned at each other, breaking the tension from this instructor's constant sneering contempt for scripture, except when he agreed with it.
This instructor had us learn Hebrew from the book of Amos, he would say very passionately how in this book, "God leads non-Jewish nations as well, not just Jews!! You see!!"
You wonder if "mistakes crept into the text" applied there as well.
---
Telling orthodox Jews not to attend this college
About year 1993, I perused a book on colleges. I thumbed through to see what was said about this college, and this is what I saw, quoting from memory, "although two students have ordered kosher take-out dinners from the cafeteria here, there is no orthodox minyan and orthodox Jewish students will not feel comfortable here."
I wondered if it was this professor who stated - no orthodox need apply.
--
Calling me an "absolutist" in front of others
Hebrew class, the word neshama came up, I said it is related to the word breath, he said with that regular sneer, "what?" I said, breath and soul are related, they have the same three letter root, he continued to express contemptuous surprise and said, "they are related?" and I said, "absolutely" and he said, "you are a real absolutist aren't you."
Three other students: Hilary, Cliff and another were there. They looked taken aback and looked between me and the "professor" to see what would follow.
I said nothing, betraying all victims of anti-religious bigotry.
---
In Hebrew class I asked, "couldn't the different names for God reflect different aspects of God?" This was in response to his promotion of the 19th century German revisionist school of Biblical criticism. He blushed, looked flustered, hardened his expression and sneered, "is that what YOU believe?" Again, he brought no information, just smirked.
---
1988 - I had to go to his office, he had a booklet on the middle of his desk, he showed it to me and said, "I get these every so often, for the Madison Avenue types from the orthodox on how to make friends and influence people." I went to my dorm room and called him and said he said something prejudicial about people who live on Madison Avenue. He said, it is a business district, no one lives there.
"Madison Avenue" really refers to capitalism, and college professors are at the top of the heap regarding capitalism, college professors are in fact the finest of capitalists.
---
Boundary crossing:
1- I was chatting with a young woman, an associate professor. He was passing by, stopped, stared, leaned into the conversation, and said, repeatedly, "YOU know HER? YOU know HER?" sneer sneer. What right did he have to interrupt our conversation, bore into my face and repeat whether I am acquainted with a young professor? I was talking to her, was I not? Did I owe him an explanation of who I am acquainted with? Was he surprised because she is German and I was acting friendly to her?
It was boundary crossing, and boundary crossing is abuse.
Boundary crossing:
2 - On the way to Hebrew class, which I unfortunately needed to take my last semester, and from him, to fulfill my minor, he saw me coming down the path. He stood and sneered and smirked the whole way during one of the longest walks of my life, I did not know what to do, I had to get to class, and there he was, staring me down and sneering at me all the way there as I walked towards class.
I regret that I did not take a sharp right, cut over the grass, go around him, and get to class on my own. I did not have to engage with him. I did not have to worry about the feelings of a mental abuser.
There I was, betraying all who have a right to boundaries, and that is everyone.
---
He invited a conservative Rabbi, Shaya Cohn, to speak at the college, he spoke about the laws of taharat hamishpacha, in which husband and wife abstain from intimate relations during her menstrual cycle until she immerses in a pool of water called a mikvah. This so called rabbi of course added that those who claim that such laws help self control are mistaken, the Rabbis had other wives and concubines that they could have sex with any time.
Actually, for the last thousand years, the European Jews could only have one wife as per the takana of Rabenu Gershon. The Jews in Arab lands who were permitted to have more than one wife - most did not, one needed to be financially well off for more than one wife. The concept of the concubine lapsed I think with the fall of the Temple.
So, actually, no, despite what this so-called Conservative Rabbi Shaya Cohn would like to think, Jewish men cannot have sex anytime they want.
The so called "Rabbi" actually said the following: "laws of purity make no sense because one could have stab wounds all over his arm and not be impure but a menstruant woman is impure!"
I retorted - "menstruation comes from the womb, where new life can be formed, stab wounds on an arm cannot produce a baby, only a womb can..."
"Rabbi" Cohn cut me off and said I had already been talking enough.
To not see any difference between stab wounds and menstruation is unbelievable stupidity.
He also said that "Judaism is just a feeling, if I was born Catholic I would feel Catholic".
I asked, "are there any ethics, any teachings, that you hold dear?
"No!" he retorted, "it is just a feeling!"
This brings us to "who is a Jew" and "Judaism is just a feeling."
Definitions of "who is a Jew" and "what is Judaism" that are not based upon scripture and tradition can benefit some people.
However, alternative movements tend to exclude the orthodox from fair dialogue, from social participation, and can even result in political and social activism against orthodox Jews and orthodox Judaism.
By defining Jews and Judaism according to impression and feeling, and leaving definition vague, those in alternative movements resist contact with those who bear sources in scripture and tradition for fear of being proven wrong. Alternative movements must thus make an effort to groom their members against the orthodox so that questions like, "what is the source for that?" are not asked, and, if they are, are deflected. In this case, this instructor deflected such questions with the subtle interpersonal bullying of sneering, smirking, and making fun.
Part of this attitude is contains the following:
Words have no definition
This professor promoted a message
of intellectual anarchy, one of them being that there is no definition
of the term "Jew" or "Jewish". He said, "...as if there is a definition of who is a Jew or a Christian..." this was when I was a Sophomore, before my religious awakening, and I thought, even then, of course terms need definition.
He was in stark contrast to those professors who offered much objective information and left it for the student to continue studying, having been given the tools of "learning how to learn".
Self-imposed so-called leaders who are not connected to classic ideas but to promoting their own agendas will turn on you.
They claim non-definition of terms but decidedly do have their own definition, which may not in fact be inclusive at all.
They claim a certain intellectual anarchy but are well ensconced in platforms that provide them with a good salary, retirement plans, subsidized housing with the privilege of living in a home that the college owns, free tuition should a child of theirs choose to attend the college at which they teach.
It is easy to mock if you are protected by affirmative action in a job with many perks and privileges, and at the same time mocking the religion you are supposed to be representing and teaching, and at times even mocking the college itself. The geography professor, who hailed from Israel said, "this college is a business", cynically stated while occupying a nice position there. This so-called professor concurred with her.
They gain much fulfillment from their positions of influence, express contempt for the institution that hired them, are enjoying a level of fulfillment that cannot be achieved my most because positions of influence are, by definition, limited.
They claim non-definition, but view themselves as next in line to define.
--
Some context that may explain his contemptuous behavior:
He had absorbed, and was pushing, a German revisionist school, headed by Julius Welhausen thus:
Denial that ancient Israelites are connected to today's Jews:
He would refer to "ancient Israelite religion", and given his attitude, he was clearly dismissing Judaism as a chain of tradition stemming back three thousand years, as if those "ancient Israelites" had nothing to do with modern Jews. This is also Welhausen's posture - Jews today are not related to ancient Israelites, today's Jews are a fake, a phony people.
Stated publicly that Hasidic Jews do not contribute to society.
In a alumni magazine, about 1993, a summary of a talk he gave was published in which he spoke about "an emerging Jewish civilization" in the USA and that Jews are contributing to society "except for the Hasidic Jews of Brooklyn."
Contempt for the Yiddish language:
He said that his grandfather was Reform German, and he remarked, this time light heartedly, that this grandfather would not allow Yiddish to be spoken in their home because Yiddish is a primitive language.
What is the rationale for being a Jewish studies professor and holding the Welhausen school of German revisionism? Here it is: to be one of the chosen, prized, "court Jews", akin to what existed in Italy and England when the rest of the Jews were barred from public service; to be the "good Jew" in contrast to all those backwards ones around.
---
The challenge for the modern liberal is - can you embrace the hands-off tolerance that prevented civil war in England and is decidedly not expressed by the modern liberal? Can you live and let live? Imposing one's personal agenda is the opposite of tolerance.
John Selden, one of the founders of the English Parliament and avid student of traditional Jewish teachings, advocated for tolerance. Connect with the scriptural basis of modern political science.
For the student - recognize that professors are in a power differential over you. They should be teaching how to learn, not pushing their own agendas, and you need to recognize the difference.
The affect on me as of this writing, I graduated 35 years ago and still this episode remains fresh in my mind. I did not understand at the time the toll that the following was taking upon me: 1 - Bigotry directed generally: hear disparaging things about traditional Jewish observance, 2 - Boundary crossing: be interrupted while talking to another instructor and demanded an explanation, stared at as I walked towards class, 3 - Bigotry directed at me: stared down after requesting a Sukkah according to Jewish law, with the concept that God cares - MOCKED by him in a bold faced and unapologetic fashion.
I had to slowly learn that I owe no explanation to anyone for my personal choices, or for whether I am speaking with someone, and no one has a right to stare me down. You must respect boundaries of everyone around you and intrusions should be seen as a violation. There should be someone to report any intrusions and bigoted statements to, and swift action should be taken, from warning, to reprimand, to ending employment.
---
This professor made a public point that he was Jewish, married to a non-Jew, and that she had not converted to Judaism to marry him because, "you don't have to", and that there should be alternative views on "who is a Jew".
But his manner was bitter, perhaps because he was not living in line with the basic need of belonging to a community, and apparently even his robust platform as college professor was not compensating for his personal turmoil.
If you choose an alternative lifestyle, consider carefully if you have substitutes for belonging and/or family. Building your life on a gamble that is not in line with the basic needs of belonging and family may express itself in bitterness.
One who is ensconced in a position of influence may be living according to constructs that most people cannot live by. He or she may abuse that position of power.
The platform of influence, whether it takes the form of teaching college students, or giving lectures, or legal and political activism, or journalism, grants an emotional outlet.
But
should the influencer lose that platform, she will have no place to
release the tensions that build up from living by concepts that are not
in touch with two basic needs: belonging and family.
People need belonging - the one with the platform can scorn anything that points to belonging as "racist" or "tribal", but she possesses belonging via her platform.
People need family - the activist jettisons family as burdensome to the planet and/or to their own goals, but the activist's "family" is their very activism: this includes the college students they are teaching, the articles they are writing, the speeches they deliver, that is in place of their family.
In short, the college student needs to protect him/herself from boundary crossing professors and sharply asses the intellectual environment in which they are learning.
No comments:
Post a Comment