The Architecture of Jewish Student Centers on American University Campuses

Home , Collegiate gothic, Duke Chapel, Hillel International, Hillel the Elder, Poway synagogue shooting, Vincent Scully

arts

Article Situational Ecumenism: The Architecture of Jewish Student Centers on American University Campuses

Jeremy Kargon School of Architecture & Planning, Morgan State University, Baltimore, MD 21251, USA; [email protected]

Received: 28 June 2019; Accepted: 18 August 2019; Published: 23 August 2019

Abstract: Since the start of the 20th century, the presence of Jewish students on American university campuses required accommodation of their religious practices. Jewish activities, including prayer, took place in existing campus buildings designed for other purposes. Eventually, at some universities, facilities were built to serve Jewish religious and social needs. These Jewish Student Centers, which include worship spaces yet are typologically different from synagogues, generally have to accommodate the diverse religious streams that characterize Jewish life in the United States. To do so, both architects and Jewish organizations have adapted the idea of ecumenism, by which related sects seek unity through fellowship and dialogue, not doctrinal agreement. Three examples—at Yale, Duke University, and the University of California San Diego—demonstrate diﬀerently the situational ecumenism at the core of their designs. These buildings, and other Jewish Student Centers elsewhere, make visible the intersection between American collegiate and Jewish religious values, variously deﬁned.

Keywords: Jews; architecture; college; university; student center

1. Introduction As universities in the United States sought to bolster their research mission in the late 19th century, schools founded by religious sects shifted their undergraduate emphasis towards secular education (Geiger 2015; Veysey 1970). Doing so attracted students from backgrounds that reflected the changing demographics of an immigrant society. Universities such as Harvard and Yale—established in colonial times to educate ministers for Congregationalist New England—now had to educate Catholics, Baptists, and Jews seeking to enter academic and professional ranks (Coe and Davidson 2001, p. 236). The structure of undergraduate education, which previously required both religious training and supervised worship, necessarily had to change. The architecture of higher education followed suit. The campus chapel, at one time the literal center of many private universities, became effectively obsolete. As historian Margaret Grubiak has explained, some universities lessened their institutional emphasis on religion by ending compulsory attendance of chapel services (Grubiak 2014, pp. 4–6). At other schools, the religious spirit was transposed onto cultural or social edifices, such as the library, the dining hall, or the football stadium. Yet students’ religious needs still had to be met. If the spiritual place of religion on campus was no longer central, the physical place for students’ worship could at least be found on the campus periphery. Examples of current-day university-affiliated religious organizations include the Newman Center (Catholic, established in 1893 at University of Pennsylvania), the Wesleyan Foundation (United Methodist Campus Ministry Association, established in 1913 at University of Illinois), and Hillel International (Jewish, without specific denominational affiliation, established in 1923 at University of Illinois). Grubiak writes that “they house a vibrant sectarian religious life, allowing for participation in any number of faith traditions without the concern of a careful, legal nondenominational identity” (Grubiak 2014, p. 121). But what are the concerns of these sectarian organizations? What is their

Arts 2019, 8, 107; doi:10.3390/arts8030107 www.mdpi.com/journal/arts Arts 2019, 8, 107 2 of 31 relationship to their host universities and to the surrounding communities in which those universities are located? How are those relationships expressed by the architecture of the buildings in which they operate? From among the university-affiliated religious groups, attention to the design of buildings for Hillel can begin to answer such questions. Called here “Jewish Student Centers,” these buildings tend to cultivate Jewish identity within an integrative framework, emphasizing institutional affiliation rather than religious difference. To do so, Jewish Student Centers are designed consciously to reflect the architecture of the adjacent university or that of a surrounding neighborhood. Such a reflection is often itself an architectural proposition about reciprocal openness among Jewish students, students of other faiths, and the university’s faculty or administration. To nurture that openness, Jewish Student Centers borrow the innovative programmatic model of Jewish Community Centers, developed in the 1920’s and proliferating after the Second World War (Karp 1995, pp. 19–23). Those innovations included an emphasis on spatial and functional flexibility; accommodation of non-religious activities; provision of classrooms for both religious and secular education; inclusion of extensive administrative facilities; and the cautious application of symbolic artwork at interior and exterior locations. Jewish Student Centers go further. The most successful ones make visible through their architectural design an effervescent social life that may not otherwise be available to Jewish students on campus or elsewhere. In a related fashion, Jewish Student Centers distinguish themselves from synagogues and community centers by insisting upon a religious openness—ecumenism, to adapt the typically Christian usage of the word—to accommodate the different, even conflicting, religious perspectives that constitute American Judaism. In some cases, ecumenism is embedded in architectural planning; in others, ecumenism guides a facility’s operation. In all cases, it is situational, depending upon context to determine its architectural expression. Moreover, Jewish Student Centers aspire to religious pluralism despite ever-sharper disagreements over the scope of inclusion within Jewish student communities (Bernstein 2018; Hurwitz 2019; Prince 2019). With this aspiration comes a basic message that common Jewish interests exist despite differences of political opinion, cultural background, or even faith. Some interests must, inevitably and even contentiously, fall outside this framework. But for those that fall within it, Jewish Student Centers should provide the spatial and material infrastructure for their engagement. To demonstrate these and related issues, this paper contains the following:

1. A deﬁnition of the Jewish Student Center, its relationship to Jewish architecture, and the issues addressed by its development. 2. A social-historical overview of Jewish student organizations in American higher education, with special emphasis on the history of Hillel International. 3. Three case studies of campus-aﬃliated Jewish Student Center buildings:

Joseph Slifka Center for Jewish Life at Yale (Roth and Moore Architects, 1995) Freeman Center for Jewish Life, Duke University (Gurlitz Architectural Group, 1999) Glickman Hillel Center for Jewish Life, UCSD (M. W. Steele Group, in development)

These three are a very small sample of the many Jewish Student Centers at universities around the United States. Nevertheless, they indicate the existence of a coherent building type not previously studied within the history of Jewish architecture or the history of university campuses. This account of the Jewish Student Center is consistent with recent historiographical emphasis on local architectures and their relationship to the better-known subjects of traditional architectural histories, as follows: The recapitulation of styles since the Renaissance, Modernism’s innovations, progress, and failures, postmodernism’s critique of the former, Critical Regionalism, etc. (Goldhagen 2003; Huyssen 2006). Although the Yale, Duke, and UCSD campuses participate in many of these histories, campus architecture designed for Jews has not. If Jewish Student Centers have long since assumed an Arts 2019, 8, 107 3 of 31 established place on the periphery of American university campuses, their architecture need not itself remain a peripheral topic.

2. What Is a Jewish Student Center? At the very least, a Jewish Student Center houses administrative offices of the group (or groups) that provides Jewish programming for a school’s student body. Typically, a Jewish Student Center also has spaces for social events, for kosher dining, and for religious services. In addition, a Jewish Student Center may include a library, classrooms, an auditorium for lectures, and even a ritual bath. Space for Jewish worship distinguishes Jewish Student Centers from other campus buildings. On the other hand, it is the way that space serves the student community that distinguishes a Jewish Student Center from other Jewish buildings. Unlike a synagogue, a Jewish Student Center usually supports activities of several Jewish religious movements, not any single one of them. That distinction extends only subtly to the exterior design of the building. As with synagogues, stylistic diversity is the rule (Gruber 2004). The individual designs of American Jewish Student Centers demonstrate each building’s connection to a regional design culture and local building practices (See Figure1a–f). Yet, although Jewish Student Centers share a superficial similarity with other contemporary buildings—including those designed for Jewish communities—there exist differences that are more than just programmatic. Jewish Student Centers tend to share a centripetal layout that supports operational flexibility and, more importantly, focuses occupants’ visual attention towards a common center. These buildings’ interior designs encourage a feeling of intimacy, often described by students as “like home.” On the exterior, Jewish Student Centers bear few, if any, Jewish religious symbols; instead, designs of Jewish Student Centers engage (directly or indirectly) the architectural language of the college or university they serve in a manner consistent with each school’s unique institutional identity. Among the examples to be illustrated here, the Slifka Center for Jewish Life at Yale is especially urbane and thoughtful. Its architecture reflects Yale University’s on-going institutional discourse about design. For more than a century, Yale’s campus has been a test bed for architectural theories and their practical application. The Slifka Center’s design came at the tail end of a transitional period in Yale’s architectural development; conviction about modernism, the positive efficacy of urban renewal, and even architectural progress had been superseded by an embrace of contingency, connection, and context. The design of the Slifka center is (implicitly) a statement about these positions, as well as (explicitly) a proposition about how these architectural positions can serve Jewish life at Yale, and elsewhere. Slifka Center’s Rabbi Jason Rubenstein has said, “Judaism doesn’t just do something for the Jews here, but that pluralistic matrix also has something for Judaism ... There’s a kind of Jewish creativity that can happen here” (Roth et al. 2019). The Slifka Center’s plan underlies the spatial counterpart to that matrix, as follows: Visual interconnection, functional flexibility, and the centrality of social (not religious) functions. Yale’s Slifka Center is prototypical in this regard. Duke’s Freeman Center for Jewish Life is included here for its overt stylistic reference to Duke’s Gothic campus architecture and how that reference signifies, through a kind of architectural catachresis, meanings different from the original Christian ones. Primary among them is institutional affiliation. In common with many other Jewish Student Centers, the Freeman Center uses architectural style to reinforce Jews’ arrival and belonging to a venerable—and long exclusive—academic club. The Freeman Center’s planning shares much in common with other Jewish Student Centers, and so it is characteristic of the type. The design of UCSD’s Glickman Hillel Center for Jewish Life, still in development, points usefully to contemporary issues surrounding Jewish Student Centers and their stakeholders. The story of its commission is a current-day example of the exigencies that have historically affected Jewish student life at American universities: intra-student bias, institutionalized exclusion, and even violence. Today, security considerations increasingly affect Jewish college students, their group activities, and the physical environment in which those activities take place. The architecture of the Glickman Arts 2019, 8, 107 4 of 31

Center results in part from those considerations. Even so, its design shares the two common planning characteristics with the other buildings also under consideration here: At the center, spatial interconnectivity and, on the periphery, deflective camouflage, under the guise of “fitting in.”Arts The 2019 appearance, 8, x FOR PEER ofREVIEW the Glickman Center’s architectural design may be unique among4 Jewishof 31 Student Centers, and its tripartite massing may be an innovation among other Hillel buildings, but Centers, and its tripartite massing may be an innovation among other Hillel buildings, but the the schematic relationship among the building’s functional spaces is similar to that of many others. schematic relationship among the building’s functional spaces is similar to that of many others. The The Glickman Center’s courtyard, towards which all interior spaces open, promises to provide the Glickman Center’s courtyard, towards which all interior spaces open, promises to provide the same same kind of openness, flexibility, and centripetal movement found at the other Jewish Student Centers. kind of openness, flexibility, and centripetal movement found at the other Jewish Student Centers.

(a) (b)

(e) (f)

FigureFigure 1. 1.Examples Examples of contemporary contemporary Jewish Jewish Student Student Centers. Centers. (a) Smokler (a) Smokler Center Centerfor Jewish for Life, Jewish Johns Life, JohnsHopkins Hopkins University, University, Baltimore, Baltimore, MD; MD;(b) Rabin (b) Rabin Hillel Hillel Center Center for Jewish for Jewish Life, UCLA, Life, UCLA, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA; CA;(c) ( cThe) The Cohen Cohen Center Center for for Jewish Jewish Life, Life, Univer Universitysity of ofIllinois, Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, Champaign-Urbana, IL; IL;(d) (dHillel) Hillel at at SteinhardtSteinhardt Hall, Hall, University University of Pennsylvania,of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA; ( ePA;) Newberger (e) Newberger Hillel Center, Hillel UniversityCenter, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; (f) Melvin Garb Hillel Center, San Diego State, San Diego, CA. of Chicago, Chicago, IL; (f) Melvin Garb Hillel Center, San Diego State, San Diego, CA. Image Credits: Image Credits: © 2019 Google Street View; reuse according to Google’s Terms of Service. © 2019 Google Street View; reuse according to Google’s Terms of Service. In short, each case study demonstrates important differences in the way architecture’s physical and material elements have been deployed; but, together, they demonstrate a common approach towards spatial organization, architectural context, and the use of architecture itself to manage both. Furthermore, these Jewish Student Centers have been designed within a global Jewish tradition. Each building created by and for Jews engages, inevitably, the issue of Jewish identity. “What does it mean Arts 2019, 8, 107 5 of 31

In short, each case study demonstrates important differences in the way architecture’s physical and material elements have been deployed; but, together, they demonstrate a common approach towards spatial organization, architectural context, and the use of architecture itself to manage both. Furthermore, these Jewish Student Centers have been designed within a global Jewish tradition. Each building created by and for Jews engages, inevitably, the issue of Jewish identity. “What does it mean to be ‘Jewish’?” is a question that is embodied by Jews’ material culture (including architecture) at local, regional, national, and international scales of discourse (Sachs and Voolen 2004; Gruber 2003, p. 12). The use of architecture to conduct such a discourse depends on a community’s social aspirations, as well as its means. A Jewish Student Center is no exception, and more generally, it mirrors the values of the student communities it serves. Those values include religious ones (gender egalitarianism, or traditional Jewish gender roles; the acceptance or rejection of Jewish dietary laws; which traditional religious obligations must be respected; etc.), social ones (Zionism, charity, material wealth, environmentalism, political action), or intellectual ones (the importance of study; Judaism’s intellectual history; fluency in Hebrew or the preservation of Jewish vernacular languages). Some of those values naturally intersect with those of the university community as a whole, or with those of other religious student groups on campus. As historian Gretchen Buggeln has pointed out, “many of the same concerns shaped the architecture and ... religious lives of all [faiths groups]” in twentieth-century United States (Buggeln 2015, p. xx). It is the set of values defined by those intersections that become most visible in Jewish Student Center architecture. As the following examples show, the architecture of Jewish Student Centers addresses those values in ways both consistent and unique.

3. Jewish Student Organizations in American Higher Education The Jewish Student Center’s origin can be explained in part by the development of Jewish student organizations in North American higher education. Throughout most of the 19th century, the number of Jewish college students was small, and so there were few opportunities for cooperative action. The needs of students’ worship could be met either by nearby synagogues or not at all; generally, Jewish college students came from assimilated families for whom observance of the Sabbath or kashrut was not a compelling obligation. After the accelerated immigration of Jews from Eastern Europe after 1881, however, the number of Jewish college students increased, and more of them were religiously observant (Levinger 1937, pp. 1–2). At the turn of the 20th century, increasing numbers of Jewish students faced a dilemma that has been characterized by historian Jenna Weissman Joselit as “an especially diﬃcult one. Not only were co-religionists [relatively] few and far between, but organizations designed speciﬁcally to service the needs of the Jewish student were noticeably lacking” (Joselit 1978, p. 133). Coming even before spiritual or religious needs were social and intellectual ones. Excluded from other students’ fraternities due to ethnic bias, Jewish students at the time also lacked academic endorsement of their creed. American universities had yet to establish a program, like the German Wissenschaft des Judentum, that placed Jewish religious texts at the focus of secular study and accorded to Jewish culture the prestige long given to Christian sources (Soussan 2013, p. 3). In 1906, the Menorah Society was founded by Jewish undergraduates at Harvard University in part to address this problem (Hurwitz and Sharfman 1914, p. vii). The Menorah Society’s founders were forthright about their inspiration, at once intellectual and social. “The organization was the result of a spontaneous desire at Harvard to have some kind of Jewish cultural society,” wrote Henry Hurwitz in retrospect. He continued:

[T]here was room at the university, and need, for a non-partisan organization, devoted to the study of Jewish history, literature, religion, philosophy, jurisprudence, art, manners, in a word, Jewish culture, and to the academic discussion of Jewish problems. (Hurwitz and Sharfman 1914, p. 1)

As Joselit points out, only an organization that was neither exclusively religious (such as an on-campus Jewish prayer group) nor exclusively social (such as a Jews-only fraternity) would have been acceptable Arts 2019, 8, 107 6 of 31 at that time to Harvard’s administration or to the administration of any other American university. By 1914, the Menorah Society had become a national movement. Its founders stressed that each chapter’s fit to a particular university could determine the substance and tenor of its activities (Joselit 1978, p. 138). They limited the Society’s brief to that of a campus organization, merely one club among others at its members’ school, and so Menorah Society chapters had no physical home apart from their host universities’ existing facilities. After the First World War, however, the Menorah Society had difficulty maintaining its appeal among Jewish students. Some criticized its reluctance to assume political positions during the 1920s, a time when Zionism assumed an increasing importance among American Jews (Joselit 1978, p. 144). Of greater impact was the concurrent rise in Jewish fraternity and sorority membership that accompanied a nationwide post-war boom in fraternity activity among all university students. The earnest intellectualism of the Menorah Society may still have held an attraction for some students; indeed, the movement continued its publication, Menorah Journal, until the founder’s death in 1961 (Alter 1965). But Jewish fraternities, eventually permitted by university authorities,1 made possible the kinds of activities that students (of all faiths) commonly sought while in college. Yet neither the Menorah Society nor fraternities provided pastoral advising or religious services for Jewish students. It was to do both, as well as to improve other aspects of Jewish students’ college life, that the Hillel organization was founded. In 1923, Rabbi Benjamin Frankel led a small Jewish congregation in Champaign, Illinois, the seat of University of Illinois. Frankel was “shocked at the cynicism, ignorance, and indifference of the Jewish students towards their own faith and people” (Grusd 1939, p. 72). The students’ isolation from the main centers of Jewish community could hardly have helped; nor did the apparent polarization between the Menorah Society and local chapters of Jewish fraternities. Frankel’s solution was two-fold, as follows: To establish “a cultural and social center for Jewish students” and to solicit financial support from B’nai B’rith, the oldest Jewish service organization in the United States. Frankel made the case that, “instead of bemoaning the lack of moral fibre [sic] and responsibility in youth and attributing our political, economic, and social ailments to a so-called misguided younger generation,” a new organization could instead cultivate those same students “by a coordinated program of character-building” (Bisgyer 1940, p. 9). By reaching out to B’nai B’rith, Frankel spontaneously innovated a model whereby student involvement would be nurtured by professional administrators and sustained by a national organization’s finances. Frankel named his program after Hillel the Elder, an ancient Jewish religious teacher and leader. Frankel’s 20th century Hillel addressed the full spectrum of Jewish life—including religious as well as academic, social, and political activities—rather than any single facet of it. Almost a century later, Frankel’s original concept remains intact, even if Hillel’s administrative framework has changed. Each Hillel chapter is still governed by local stakeholders with ties to the host school; but subsidies to them from the umbrella organization (and its original sponsor, B’nai Brith) no longer contribute to the chapter’s operating costs. Hillel International, the offices of which are located in Washington DC, provides “students and professionals with Jewish educational resources and learning curricula ... [as well as] support in the areas of human resources, fundraising, strategic planning, leadership development, communications, fiscal administration, and student engagement” (Hillel International 2019). Hillel’s original and continued success has been ascribed to the following:

Permanent professional direction [rather than solely student-led governance] ... Every Foundation operates under the guidance of a Hillel Director ... who combines Jewish academic competence with experience in Youth work ... Hillel is neither theologically nor ideologically selective ... It is designed to serve all Jewish students regardless of

1 The ﬁrst Jewish fraternity, Zeta Beta Tau, was established in 1898. Jewish professional fraternities, such as Sigma Epsilon Delta and Phi Delta Epsilon, formed in 1901 and 1904, respectively. A Jewish sorority, Iota Alpha Pi, was founded in 1903. But it was only after the First World War that membership in these groups expanded substantially among Jewish students (Levinger 1937, p. 2). Arts 2019, 8, 107 7 of 31

their backgrounds, ideologies or denominational preferences ... Jewish education on the college level requires a college approach to Jewish life and culture ... Lastly, Hillel operates on the fundamental principle of self-motivation. The Director is the guide and counselor, but students ... share responsibility in Hillel’s operation and program development. (Jospe 1963, pp. 30–32)

These principles continue to guide the organization, although some on-campus Jewish groups choose not to ally with Hillel. Jewish organizations at some schools have severed long-standing ties with Hillel’s parent organization (Banko 2015); others, such as Chabad, choose separate quarters in rejection of Hillel’s ecumenism (Jeffay 2007). These moves reflect the increasing polarization of religious and political views at American universities. Nevertheless, on the overwhelming majority of college campuses, Hillel is the primary tenant, if not the sole manager, of Jewish Student Centers. Through their first three decades, individual Hillel units operated within existing buildings, either on or off campus. After the Second World War, the increased affluence of some Jewish communities (on and off campus) provided sufficient funding for dedicated buildings to house Hillel functions. The commission, design, construction, and operation of these facilities were conducted in as many ways as there are college campuses; each Jewish Student Center reflects in its developmental history the organizational character of the local institution. Some universities have been active partners, providing a building’s site and design guidance as part of a campus master plan. Others, especially public universities, can contribute nothing to the process, so that its Center must be developed entirely by the local Hillel Foundation’s supporters. In every case, a Jewish Student Center is the physical manifestation of its stakeholders’ consensus about the how to support Jewish identity—variously defined—among students at a particular school.

4. Case Study I: Slifka Center for Jewish Life, Yale University (1995, Roth and Moore, Architects)

4.1. Historical Background As the third oldest college founded in what became the United States, Yale University has the longest history of Jewish enrollment among the schools considered here. Yale was chartered in 1701 to serve the Connecticut colony’s Congregationalist religious establishment and by 1777 included the study of Hebrew as part of its curriculum. Over the course of the next century, the religious content of Yale’s curriculum changed incrementally to reflect the increasing secularization of American higher education. In 1892, Yale removed theology from its required curriculum, although students were still obligated to attend daily chapel service until 1926 (Grubiak 2014, pp. 14–16). Yale initially admitted Jewish students in the first decade of the 19th century but, in the following years, only a handful of Jewish students chose to attend (Oren 1986, p. 6). After the wave of Jewish immigration from Eastern Europe began in the 1880s, the number of successful Jewish applicants to Yale increased considerably. In 1923, Yale—along with other prestigious universities around the United States—imposed admission quotas restricting the number of Jewish students to be admitted (Oren 1986, p. 320). For the next forty years, therefore, those Jews that were admitted to Yale shared a crisis of identity familiar to all immigrant groups seeking to assimilate within an indifferent or inhospitable society (Prell 2000, p. 165). Otherwise, Jewish student activity at Yale reflected collegiate trends elsewhere. Early on, Jewish students at Yale followed Harvard’s example and established a chapter of the Menorah Society (Hurwitz and Sharfman 1914, p. 136). Attempts to establish recognized Jewish fraternities were at first rejected by Yale but later, in 1923, were successful (Oren 1986, p. 83). For religious activities, students attended services at local community synagogues. In 1933, a graduate student was appointed counselor for Jewish undergraduates under the supervision of the university chaplain (Oren 1986, p. 107). The counselor’s office on Yale’s Old Campus subsequently became the locus of Jewish activities for undergraduates and graduate students alike. A Hillel unit serving Yale and University of Connecticut was set up in 1941, and the Hillel director assumed the counselor’s function and office on Yale’s campus (Call 2012). Hillel’s physical Arts 2019, 8, 107 8 of 31 footprint changed definitively at the start of the 1960s in the wake of Yale’s loosening admission quotas and the subsequent increase of Jewish enrollment. As early as 1964, Yale Hillel Rabbi Richard Israel began conversations with architect Harold Roth to design a dedicated facility to house the program (Fellman 1995). The next year, the Yale’s Friends of Hillel purchased a house on High Street, a block south of the campus, as the residence of Hillel’s rabbi and an independent dining facility, the Kosher Kitchen (Joseph Slifka Center for Jewish Life at Yale 2019). Larger facilities on nearby Crown Street were acquired, in 1973, to establish a kosher dining facility for students’ regular use. Yet Hillel’s programming still operated out of its Old Campus office, so that throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the unit occupied three distinct locations serving a Jewish student body exceeding 25% of undergraduate enrollment. With the 1981 appointment of Rabbi James Ponet as Yale Hillel’s director, the stage was set for a campaign to consolidate Hillel’s facilities in a building created expressly to serve Jewish pastoral and cultural activities at Yale. With Harold Roth’s continued involvement, Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 31 in collaboration with his partner William Moore, the Joseph Slifka Center for Jewish Life at Yale openedset infor 1995. a campaign to consolidate Hillel’s facilities in a building created expressly to serve Jewish pastoral and cultural activities at Yale. With Harold Roth’s continued involvement, in collaboration 4.2. Sitewith Context his partner William Moore, the Joseph Slifka Center for Jewish Life at Yale opened in 1995. The Slifka Center is located within New Haven’s original nine-square street grid, laid out in 1638 4.2. Site Context (Osterweis 1953, p. 12) (See Figure2). In New Haven’s historic plan, eight squares of developed land surroundedThe aSlifka central Center plot is (thelocated Green) within given New overHaven’s to publicoriginal functions,nine-square including street grid, worshiplaid out in as 1638 well as burial,(Osterweis commercial, 1953, andp. 12) governmental (See Figure 2). activities.In New Have Sincen’s historic the early plan, 1800s, eight threesquares churches of developed have land presided surrounded a central plot (the Green) given over to public functions, including worship as well as over the central area of the Green (Osterweis 1953, p. 192), reflecting New Haven’s theocratic origins burial, commercial, and governmental activities. Since the early 1800s, three churches have presided and the city’s past religious identity. The Slifka Center fronts onto Wall Street, a secondary street over the central area of the Green (Osterweis 1953, p. 192), reflecting New Haven’s theocratic origins bisectingand the the city’s grid’s past north-central religious identity. square, The only Slifka one Center block fronts north-west onto Wall of theStreet, Green. a secondary The core street of Yale University’sbisecting undergraduatethe grid’s north-central campus square, lies northwest only one block of the north-west site, further of the along Green. Wall The Street. core of The Yale Slifka Center’sUniversity’s site is adjacent, undergraduate on one campus side, tolies a northwest mixed used of the building, site, further with along active Wall commercial Street. The propertiesSlifka on itsCenter’s ground site floor; is adjacent, to the on other one side, side to is a the mixed Yale us Universityed building, Chaplain’swith active commercial residence. properties Directly on across Wall Streetits ground is Silliman floor; to College, the other one side of is Yale’s the Yale fourteen University residential Chaplain’s colleges. residence. These Directly nearby across buildings Wall are sheathedStreet variously is Silliman in College, brick, stone, one of and Yale’s clapboard. fourteen The residential Slifka Center’s colleges. surroundings These nearby arebuildings architecturally are heterogeneous,sheathed variously composed in of close-setbrick, stone, buildings and builtclapboard. in diverse The stylesSlifka during Center’s diff erentsurroundings periods, togetherare architecturally heterogeneous, composed of close-set buildings built in diverse styles during different characteristic of a New England city almost four centuries old. periods, together characteristic of a New England city almost four centuries old.

FigureFigure 2. Slifka 2. Slifka Center Center for for Jewish Jewish Life Life at at Yale, Yale, LocationLocation Plan. Image Image Credit: Credit: map map data data © 2018© 2018 Google, Google, LandsatLandsat/Copernicus;/Copernicus; reuse reuse according accordin tog to Google’s Google’s TermsTerms of Service. Annotations Annotations by bythe theauthor. author.

2 See Scully et al. (2004) and Pinnell (2012). See also the many monographs on architects who built for Yale, including James Gamble Rogers, Eero Saarinen, Louis Kahn, Paul Rudolph, Gordon Bunshaft, Maya Lin, etc. Arts 2019, 8, 107 9 of 31

Yale University’s campus is itself a famous showcase of American architecture.2 The Collegiate Gothic-style library, law school, and residential colleges stand side-by-side with modernist buildings by Louis Kahn, Eero Saarinen, SOM, and Paul Rudolph, among others (Scully et al. 2004, pp. 293–330). Campus development slowed in the mid-1970s, after which Yale planners focused primarily on renovating its aging building stock (Turner 1984, p. 304). Before this time, Yale began to grapple fitfully with the theories and practices of architectural postmodernism. Architect Charles Moore replaced Paul Rudolph as Dean of Yale’s School of Architecture in 1963, signifying the school’s shift away from modernist formalism (Stern and Stamp 2016, pp. 248–49). The influential 1971 book Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 31 Learning from Las Vegas was based on a class taught at Yale by its authors Robert Venturi, Denise Scott Brown,Brown, and Steven and Steven Izenour. Izenour. Vincent Vincent Scully, Scully, the celebrated the celebrated architectural architectural historian historian at Yale,at Yale, had had endorsed Venturi’sendorsed earlier Venturi’s book, Complexity earlier book, and Complexity Contradiction and inContradi Architecturection in, and Architecture published, andThe published Shingle Style The Today or TheShingle Historian’s Style Today Revenge or The, an Historian’s account Revenge, of American an account architects’ of American renewed architects’ engagement renewed engagement with historical with historical styles, in 1974. Yet the Yale campus at the time reflected almost none of these trends styles, in 1974. Yet the Yale campus at the time reflected almost none of these trends (See Figure3a–c). (See Figure 3a–c).

(a) (b)

FigureFigure 3. Buildings 3. Buildings on on the the Yale Yale University University campus,campus, New New Haven, Haven, CT. CT. (a) (Saybrooka) Saybrook College College (1922), (1922), Image Credit: © 2019 Jeremy Kargon; (b) Art and Architecture Building (1963) and (c) Mellon Center Image Credit: © 2019 Jeremy Kargon; (b) Art and Architecture Building (1963) and (c) Mellon Center for British Art (1977), Image Credit: © 2014 Gunnar Klack, reuse according to Creative Commons for British Art (1977), Image Credit: © 2014 Gunnar Klack, reuse according to Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license; (d) Seeley G. Mudd Library (1982), © 2012 Frampton Attribution-ShareAlikeTolbert, MidCentury 4.0 Mundan Internationale, used by license; permission. (d) Seeley G. Mudd Library (1982), © 2012 Frampton Tolbert, MidCentury Mundane, used by permission. One exception was a lauded but unbuilt extension to the mathematics building, designed by OneRobert exception Venturi wasin 1970 a lauded (Moore but1974). unbuilt Another extension was the toheavily-criticized the mathematics Henry building, R. Luce designed Hall, by Robertcompleted Venturi in by 1970 the (firmMoore of 1974Edward). Another Larrabee was Barnes the heavily-criticizedin 1994 (Needham Henry2009). R.The Luce former Hall, design completed by theexplored ﬁrm of the Edward juxtapositions Larrabee of Barnesscale that in 1994characterized (Needham Venturi’s 2009). polemical The former emphasis design on exploredfaçade the juxtapositionscomposition, of scalebut the that latter characterized deployed historical Venturi’s architectural polemical details emphasis simply on to façadeembellish composition, a poorly- but proportioned exterior. In fact, only the lone building built during the 1980s, the Seeley G. Mudd Library, successfully combined the historicizing tendencies of postmodern architecture with the lessons afforded by Yale’s own modernist architectural legacy (Needham 2008). With reference to 2 SeeKahn’s Scully etMellon al.(2004 Center) and Pinnellfor British(2012 Art,). See the also architects the many of monographs Mudd Library on architectsset within who an exposed built for Yale,concrete including Jamesframe Gamble the Rogers,iconic masonry Eero Saarinen, work Louis (and Kahn, ogee-curved Paul Rudolph, trim) Gordonof Federal-period Bunshaft, Maya New Lin, Haven etc. (See Figure 3d). More than a decade after the Mudd Library’s completion in 1982, its architects Harold Roth and William Moore brought a similar sensibility to their design of the Slifka Center for Jewish Life at Yale.

4.3. The Slifka Center’s Design Arts 2019, 8, 107 10 of 31 the latter deployed historical architectural details simply to embellish a poorly-proportioned exterior. In fact, only the lone building built during the 1980s, the Seeley G. Mudd Library, successfully combined the historicizing tendencies of postmodern architecture with the lessons aﬀorded by Yale’s own modernist architectural legacy (Needham 2008). With reference to Kahn’s Mellon Center for British Art, the architects of Mudd Library set within an exposed concrete frame the iconic masonry work (and ogee-curved trim) of Federal-period New Haven (See Figure3d). More than a decade after the Mudd Library’s completion in 1982, its architects Harold Roth and William Moore brought a similar sensibility to their design of the Slifka Center for Jewish Life at Yale.

4.3. The Slifka Center’s Design WhenArts 2019 discussing, 8, x FOR PEER the REVIEW project, a lead donor asked that the architect design the building10 of 31 to “look like a Yale building,” both inside and out (Roth et al. 2019). Roth and Moore interpreted his comment When discussing the project, a lead donor asked that the architect design the building to “look to referlike to smart a Yale building,” detailing both and inside to an and emphasis out (Roth on et sturdyal. 2019). materials Roth and Moore absent interpreted from other his comment buildings of its era. Theyto refer did notto smart intend detailing to copy and anyto an particular emphasis on building. sturdy materials The architects absent from had other noticed buildings that of university its buildingsera. built They before did not and intend after to thecopy main any particular phase of bu Yale’silding. Collegiate The architects Gothic had (betweennoticed that 1917 university and 1934) are stylisticallybuildings diverse. built before The Center’s and after extensivethe main phase use of of Yale’s brick Collegiate reﬂects notGothic only (between that diversity, 1917 and 1934) but also the materialare of stylistically its commercial diverse. neighbors The Center’s along extensive Wall Streetuse of brick (See reflects Figure 4not). only that diversity, but also the material of its commercial neighbors along Wall Street (See Figure 4).

Figure 4.FigureSlifka 4. Slifka Center Center for for Jewish Jewish Life Life atat Yale, Exterior Exterior View View Seen Seen fromfrom the north the along north Wall along Street. Wall Street. Image Credit: © 2019 Jeremy Kargon. Image Credit: © 2019 Jeremy Kargon. The Slifka Center’s exterior façade is heavy and made of brick and stone trim. The walls have Thedepth. Slifka The Center’s window exterioropenings façadeare numerous, is heavy yet andrelatively made small, of brick and oriented and stone vertically. trim. TheOn view walls have depth. Theare brick window arches, openings rustication, are and numerous, a slightlyyet corbeled relatively cornice. small, These and accents oriented evoke vertically. aspects of OnNew view are brick arches,Haven’s rustication, nineteenth andcentury a slightly commerc corbeledial and residential cornice. Thesebuildings. accents But, evokelike their aspects Seeley ofG. NewMudd Haven’s nineteenthLibrary, century Roth and commercial Moore’s Slifka and Center residential alludes to buildings. nearby buildings But, likebut does their not Seeley directly G. copy Mudd them. Library, Roth andIn Moore’sfact, the architects’ Slifka Center facilityalludes with historical to nearby detail buildings obscures the but essential does not a-historicism directly copyof the them.result, In fact, which conforms to no single period style. The complexity of the building’s massing does encourage the architects’ facility with historical detail obscures the essential a-historicism of the result, which free and lively interpretations, according to which certain building elements are thought to evoke conformsJewish to no ritual single objects; period for style.instance, The the complexity exterior turret of on the the building’s front facade massing has been does likened encourage by many free and lively interpretations,visitors to a mezuzah according (Roth et toal. which2019). On certain the other building hand, the elements Slifka Center are thought bears no tofixed evoke symbols Jewish to ritual objects;identify for instance, the building the exterior as Jewish. turret The on Center’s the front manage facaders hasdo hang been the likened Israeli byflag many outside, visitors beside to the a mezuzah (Roth etYale al. 2019 University). On thebanner other and hand, the Stars the Slifkaand Stripes, Center but bears the building’s no fixed symbolsdesign expresses to identify affiliation the building primarily not with Judaism but with Yale—the institution—and with the material culture of New as Jewish. The Center’s managers do hang the Israeli flag outside, beside the Yale University banner Haven’s three-century-long history. and the StarsFor and all Stripes,the solidity but of the the building’s Slifka Center’s design masonry expresses exterior, affi itsliation interior primarily appears open not with and light. Judaism but with Yale—theCo-architect institution—and William Moore agreed with thethat materialthe Slifka cultureCenter was of conceived New Haven’s for visual three-century-long connection among history. its spaces, creating a kind of inner transparency (Roth et al. 2019). Throughout the building’s interior, it is possible to see from one area to another, often from one floor to another. Doing so is made possible by each floor’s organization as a kind of nine-square plan of its own. Each level’s central space is a special event—an opening to the floor below, a common seating area, or the heart of the Center’s communal dining. Daylight passes from the main stairs and through large windows at the building’s rear façade, and so illuminates spaces throughout the building’s interior (See Figure 5a–f). Arts 2019, 8, 107 11 of 31

For all the solidity of the Slifka Center’s masonry exterior, its interior appears open and light. Co-architect William Moore agreed that the Slifka Center was conceived for visual connection among its spaces, creating a kind of inner transparency (Roth et al. 2019). Throughout the building’s interior, it is possible to see from one area to another, often from one floor to another. Doing so is made possible by each floor’s organization as a kind of nine-square plan of its own. Each level’s central space is a special event—an opening to the floor below, a common seating area, or the heart of the Center’s communal dining. Daylight passes from the main stairs and through large windows at the building’s rear façade, and so illuminates spaces throughout the building’s interior (See Figure5a–f). Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 31

(a) (b)

(e) (f)

Figure 5. Slifka Center for Jewish Life at Yale, Interior Views. (a) Library (upper level); (b) library Figure 5. Slifka Center for Jewish Life at Yale, Interior Views. (a) Library (upper level); (b) library ceiling (upper level); (c) Beit Midrash (middle level); (d) chapel/multipurpose (middle level); (e) view ceiling (upperfrom entrance level); (ground (c) Beit level); Midrash (f) dining(middle commons level); (lower (d) chapellevel). Image/multipurpose Credit: © 2019 (middle Jeremy level);Kargon. ( e) view from entrance (ground level); (f) dining commons (lower level). Image Credit: © 2019 Jeremy Kargon. During the building’s planning, advocates for the project and architect Harold Roth considered Duringthe scope the building’sof apparently planning, competing advocates requirements. for As the Roth project explained andarchitect at the time Harold of its completion, Roth considered the scope“We of spent apparently a lot of time competing talking about requirements. what form the building As Roth should explained take and at whom the time it should of its serve… completion, “We spentShould a lot we of build time a talking Yale synagogue, about what a conference form the cent buildinger, a social should club, take or even and an whom eating itclub? should In the serve ... end, we decided to try to combine everything under one roof” (Fellman 1995) (See Figure 6a–d). Should we build a Yale synagogue, a conference center, a social club, or even an eating club? In the end, Among those functions, the Slifka Center provides the following: we decided to try to combine everything under one roof” (Fellman 1995) (See Figure6a–d). Among • those functions,At the the basement Slifka level, Center kosher provides food preparation the following: (meat and dairy); serving line; communal dining; two small seminar or event rooms; a below-grade courtyard; and service spaces such as storage and toilets. • At the ground level, a welcome desk; casual seating; administrative offices; a meeting room; and a well-furnished common room (complete with fire place), akin to similar living-room-type spaces in Yale’s residential colleges. Arts 2019, 8, 107 12 of 31

At the basement level, kosher food preparation (meat and dairy); serving line; communal dining; • two small seminar or event rooms; a below-grade courtyard; and service spaces such as storage and toilets. At the ground level, a welcome desk; casual seating; administrative offices; a meeting room; • and a well-furnished common room (complete with fire place), akin to similar living-room-type spaces in Yale’s residential colleges. Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 31 At the middle level, a double-height chapel and multi-purpose room (seating more than • 160 persons);• At the amiddlebeit midrash level, a (religiousdouble-height study chapel room, and seatingmulti-purpose 40 persons), room (seating intended more alsothan for160 religious services;persons); and, a rooma beit midrash for student (religious programming study room, andseating administration. 40 persons), intended A central also for circulation religious space is itself a functionalservices; and, room, a room flexible for student in its programming configuration and for administration. receptions orA central the chapel’s circulation overflow space seating. is itself a functional room, flexible in its configuration for receptions or the chapel’s overflow seating. At the upper level, a double-height library, including adjacent research rooms; the rabbi’s study (with fireAt place); the upper and, level, another a double-height central, library, flexible including circulation adjacent space. research rooms; the rabbi’s study (with fire place); and, another central, flexible circulation space.

(a) (b)

Figure 6.FigureSlifka 6. CenterSlifka Center for Jewishfor Jewish Life Life at at Yale, Yale, InteriorInterior Plans. Plans. (a) (Librarya) Library (upper (upper level); level);(b) library (b ) library ceiling (upper level); (c) library (upper level); (d) library ceiling (upper level). Image Credits: © Roth ceiling (upper level); (c) library (upper level); (d) library ceiling (upper level). Image Credits: Roth and Moore, Architects, used by permission. © and Moore, Architects, used by permission. Arts 2019, 8, 107 13 of 31 Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 31

TheThe rearrear ofof thethe building opens onto an exterior terrace, which features a permanent pergola that serves annually as a succah (See(See FigureFigure7 7).).

FigureFigure 7. Slifka 7. SlifkaCenter Center for Jewish for JewishLife at Yale, Life atExterior Yale, ExteriorView, Rear View, Patio. Rear Image Patio. Credit: Image © 2019 Credit: Jeremy© 2019 Kargon. Jeremy Kargon. The Slifka Center’s building structure is, for the most part, concrete. The ceilings are exposed concreteThe coffers Slifka Center’sinto which building acoustical structure panels is, have for the been most placed. part, An concrete. exception The is ceilings the roof are above exposed the concretechapel and coff theers library; into which in these acoustical locations, panels the have arch beenitects placed. specified An an exception exposed is heavy-timber the roof above beam-and- the chapel anddeck the structure library; that in theseevokes locations, the interiors the architects of Yale’s specifiedCollegiate-Gothic an exposed residential heavy-timber college beam-and-deck commons. The structureinterior wall that surfaces evokes the are interiors durable ofground-faced Yale’s Collegiate-Gothic concrete block, residential left unfinished. college commons. Additionally, The interiorstained walloak panels surfaces provide are durable visual ground-faced relief from the concrete masonry. block, Those left unfinished.surfaces are Additionally,unornamented, stained even oak by Jewish panels providesymbols. visual Only at relief the frommiddle-level the masonry. beit midrash Those (house surfaces of study) are unornamented, does one encounter even by a fixture Jewish purpose- symbols. Onlybuilt for at theritual middle-level use. Wood beitpaneling midrash there(house covers of study)a small does aron onekodesh encounter, above which a fixture the purpose-builtTalmudic phrase for ritual“Know use. Before Wood Whom paneling You thereStand” covers3 is engraved a small aron in stone. kodesh The, above beit whichmidrash the features Talmudic also phrase a prominent, “Know Beforerounded Whom glass Youblock Stand” eastern3 is wall engraved to fulfill in stone. the Jewish The beit practice midrash of featuresfacing Jerusalem also a prominent, during prayer. rounded In glassthis space, block as eastern elsewhere, wall tothe fulfill Slifka the Center’s Jewish practicearchitects of sought facing to Jerusalem encourage during Jewish prayer. acts (and In this activity) space, asthrough elsewhere, a visually-neutral the Slifka Center’s kind of architects spatial and sought materi toal encourage infrastructure, Jewish open acts to (and diverse activity) and alternative through a visually-neutraluses. kind of spatial and material infrastructure, open to diverse and alternative uses. The weightiness of the Slifka Center’s exterior and the control afforded afforded by its single primary entrance visibly evoke a posture of defense agains againstt New Haven’s reputed street crime. Nevertheless, Nevertheless, the building’s door is unlocked duringduring business hours, and an attendantattendant sits near the entrance to welcome visitors. Building administrators are aware, however, of the increasing numbers of attacks against Jewish targets in the United States ((HirschhHirschhornorn 20192019).). Plans have been made to add a guard’s station with a view of the building’s exterior entrance,entrance, so that visible threats may be prevented from crossing the building’s threshold ((RothRoth etet al.al. 20192019).).

4.4. Reception of the Slifka Center’s Design At its inauguration, descriptionsdescriptions of of the the Slifka Slifka Center Center for for Jewish Jewish Life Life at at Yale Yale emphasized emphasized the the way way in whichin which the newthe new building building would would confirm confirm Jews’ belonging Jews’ belonging at an institution at an institution with which with they which had maintained, they had historically,maintained, an historically, ambivalent relationship.an ambivalent In arelationship. profile for Yale In Alumni a profile Magazine for Yale, Bruce Alumni Fellman Magazine wrote,, “AfterBruce Fellman wrote, “After years of wandering, Yale’s Jewish community has a home of its own” (Fellman 1995). Fellman meant a home for students as Jews and their Jewish activities, rather than simply a 3residenceA phrase for adapted Jewish from students the Babylonian at Yale. Talmud, InBerachot fact, th28b.e trope of home, side by side with the trope of

3 A phrase adapted from the Babylonian Talmud, Berachot 28b. Arts 2019, 8, 107 14 of 31 years of wandering, Yale’s Jewish community has a home of its own” (Fellman 1995). Fellman meant a home for students as Jews and their Jewish activities, rather than simply a residence for Jewish students at Yale. In fact, the trope of home, side by side with the trope of wandering (and the Jewish diaspora), remains vivid in contemporary descriptions of the building. References to plurality and tolerance are equally common. As the architect Harold Roth explained, the building “had to be welcoming and comfortable for all persuasions of the Jewish faith” (Fellman 1995), a goal as much architectural as programmatic. Rabbi James Ponet, leader of the Yale Hillel at the Slifka Center’s opening, has told the following story of how both home and tolerance had to be continually renegotiated:

One day, the Orthodox were davening in the room ... called the Beit Midrash ... There’s an event across the way, organized by Yale Friends of Israel. And this group has got pizza out there. There was a sign ... saying this pizza is not kosher. [The Orthodox worshiper] comes out, and he says ... with genuine anger, “Why should [I] and the rest of us who are davening here, in our home, come out see an event that’s of interest to us, and we can’t eat anything there. We care about Israel, why should we be thus excluded from eating?” And, I said to him, “That’s because this place is a home to everybody.” And, to be at home in a place that’s for everybody—the State of Israel is an important metaphor—means a lot of compromise in order for everybody to be able to have some sense of being at home. (Roth et al. 2019)

This perspective underscores how the Slifka Center is neither a synagogue nor a community center. Compromise and coexistence extend equally to worship and to secular affairs, within close spatial proximity and with the kind of intimacy that proximity imposes. Of course, not everyone accepts that vision and in the quarter century since the Slifka Center opened other Jewish groups at Yale have challenged Slifka’s role as the most visible physical signifier of Jewishness on the Yale campus (Xue 2008). Yet what allows the Slifka Center to continue as such is its architectural concept, one that physically promotes the intellectual flexibility continually demanded by Yale’s Jewish student body. The Slifka Center’s completion coincided with the start of a new phase of Yale’s campus development, and so the Slifka Center provided the university a strong example of contextual architecture that incorporated modernism’s important lessons, too. The 2017 completion of two new residential colleges, designed in the Collegiate Gothic style by Robert A. M. Stern Architects, attests to Yale’s latter-day endorsement of Postmodernism—demonstrated just as vividly, if less pedantically, by both of Roth and Moore’s earlier buildings.

5. Case Study II: Freeman Center, Duke University (1999, Richard Gurlitz Architects)

5.1. Historical Background Duke University’s institutional history is much shorter than Yale’s but emerges in a similar way from a local need for clerical training. Normal College in Trinity, North Carolina, became Trinity College in 1859 with support from North Carolina members of the Methodist Episcopal Church. In 1892, local magnate Washington Duke funded Trinity College’s move to Durham, seventy miles to the east. The Duke family continued its patronage, culminating in 1924 with a substantial $40 million donation to the college and other charities. The college was renamed Duke University and embarked on an ambitious physical expansion culminating in the construction of the West Campus, designed in the Collegiate Gothic style by African American architect Julian Abele with the Philadelphia ﬁrm Horace Trumbauer and Associates (See Figure8a–c). Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 31

(SolomonArts 2019, 8, 1071983). The commission of a separate Jewish Student Center was, in part, a reaction to15 such of 31 persistent Christian imagery.

(b)

(a) (c)

Figure 8. TheThe Architecture Architecture of of Duke Duke Universi University’sty’s West West Campus, Campus, Durham, Durham, NC. NC. ( (aa)) Duke Duke Chapel Chapel (1932); (1932); (b) Residential Quadrangle and Tower;Tower; ((cc)) GothicGothic ArchwayArchway andand Ornament.Ornament. ImageImage Credit:Credit: © 2019 Jeremy Kargon.

Duke’sThroughout Freeman its history, Center Duke’sfor Jewish Methodist life is located origin hasadjacent remained to Campus explicit, Drive, as attested a road by connecting its motto WestEruditio Campus’s et Religio Gothic, “Knowledge quadrangle and Faith.” with the Yet older despite East the Campus, school’s near Methodist Durham’s aﬃliation, downtown. Jewish The students land alongenrolled Campus in Trinity Drive College is heavily as early wooded, as 1908 (Wilson maintain 1999ing). Bythe 1939, forest-like a Hillel environment unit had been that established inspired at Duke’sDuke to original serve approximately planners (Blackburn 100 students 1946, p. (Grusd 16). Lots 1939 on, both p. 73). sides Jewish of Campus enrollment Drive accelerated have been in used the in1980s recent after years the Universityfor major public aggressively structures sought such to as raise the itsNasher academic Museum proﬁle of to Art that (Rafael of a national—and Viñoly 2005) andsecular—research the Rubenstein institution. Arts Center Today, (William Jews make Rawn up Associates around 11% 2018). of the The undergraduate Freeman Center, student at body the northwest(Hillel’s Guide corner to of Jewish Campus Life Drive2019). and Yet theSwift prominence Avenue, occupies of Duke a Chapel, prominent situated site roughly at the very a mile center from of theWest center Campus, of West continues Campus to remind(See Figure students 9). of the Methodist Church’s established presence. Christian symbols may be found throughout the campus, so much so that some Jewish students at Duke claimed 5.2.that Site expression Selection of and their Initial Jewish Building identity Design was discouraged as a result (Solomon 1983). The commission of a separateThat site Jewishwas not Student the one Center originally was, selected. in part, aAfte reactionr the project’s to such persistentinitial approval Christian by Duke’s imagery. Board of TrusteesDuke’s in Freeman 1987, the Center University for Jewish offered life a lot is locatedon the south adjacent side to of Campus Campus Drive, Drive, a about road connectinga third of a mileWest closer Campus’s to West Gothic Campus. quadrangle A design with thewas older commissioned East Campus, from near New Durham’s York architects, downtown. Gwathmey The land Siegelalong Campusand Associates, Drive is a heavily firm with wooded, a national maintaining reputation the as forest-like dedicated environment modernists. that Their inspired commission Duke’s signaledoriginal plannersboth to Duke (Blackburn administrators 1946, p. and 16). to Lots Durham on both’s general sides ofpublic Campus that the Drive Center have for been Jewish used Life in couldrecent “challenge years for major preconceptions public structures and provoke such as new the Nasherways of Museum thinking of … Art about (Rafael religion Viñoly (specifically 2005) and Judaism),the Rubenstein cultural Arts continuity Center (William and education” Rawn Associates at Duke 2018).(Weiss The 1990, Freeman p. 21). Center,But Gwathmey at the northwest Siegel’s unbuiltcorner of design Campus suggests Drive that and the Swift building’s Avenue, innovation occupies a prominent would be aesthetic, site roughly rather a mile than from programmatic. the center of West Campus (See Figure9). Arts 2019, 8, 107 16 of 31

Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 31

Figure 9.FigureFreeman 9. Freeman Center Center for for Jewish Jewish Life at at Duke, Duke, Locati Locationon Plan. Image Plan. Credit: Image map Credit: data © map 2018 Google, data © 2018 Landsat/Copernicus; reuse according to Google’s Terms of Service. Annotations by the author. Google, Landsat/Copernicus; reuse according to Google’s Terms of Service. Annotations by the author. Like other campus Jewish Centers, Gwathmey Siegel’s proposal included a sanctuary for 5.2. Site Selection and Initial Building Design worship, a multi-purpose room for social events, a library, a student lounge, offices, and dining Thatfacilities. site was These not would the one be originallyhoused, however, selected. within After abstract the project’sarchitectural initial forms, approval the appearance by Duke’s of Board of Trusteeswhich in differed 1987, the starkly University from Duke’s offered predominant a lot on Gothic the south architecture side of (See Campus Figure Drive,10). about a third of a mile closer to West Campus. A design was commissioned from New York architects, Gwathmey Siegel and Associates, a firm with a national reputation as dedicated modernists. Their commission signaled both to Duke administrators and to Durham’s general public that the Center for Jewish Life could “challenge preconceptions and provoke new ways of thinking ... about religion (specifically Judaism),

cultural continuity and education” at Duke (Weiss 1990, p. 21). But Gwathmey Siegel’s unbuilt design Figure 9. Freeman Center for Jewish Life at Duke, Location Plan. Image Credit: map data © 2018 Google, suggests thatLandsat/Copernicus; the building’s innovationreuse according would to Google’s be aesthetic,Terms of Service. rather Annotations than programmatic. by the author. Like other campus Jewish Centers, Gwathmey Siegel’s proposal included a sanctuary for worship, a multi-purposeLike other room campus for social Jewish events, Centers, a library, Gwathmey a student Siegel’s lounge, proposal oﬃces, included and dininga sanctuary facilities. for These would beworship, housed, a multi-purpose however, within room for abstract social events, architectural a library, forms, a student the lounge, appearance offices, ofand which dining di ﬀered facilities. These would be housed, however, within abstract architectural forms, the appearance of starkly from Duke’s predominant Gothic architecture (See Figure 10). which differed starkly from Duke’s predominant Gothic architecture (See Figure 10).

Figure 10. Center for Jewish Life at Duke: original design circa 1990. Image Credit: Gwathmey Siegel Kaufman & Associates Architects LLC, used by permission. Original document courtesy Duke University Archives.

This difference was intended not just as a matter of style. As the architects explained, “The architectural image is one of a village, a collection of spaces around a plaza … The historical image is the Old City of Jerusalem, with its gateways, temple roofs and town squares—one civilization building over the previous one, creating a layering through time” (Development Committee for the Center for Jewish Life 1990). Gwathmey Siegel sought, through a contemporary architectural

Figure 10.FigureCenter 10. Center for for Jewish Jewish Life Life atat Duke: Duke: original original design design circa 1990. circa Image 1990. Credit: Image Gwathmey Credit: Siegel Gwathmey Kaufman & Associates Architects LLC, used by permission. Original document courtesy Duke Siegel Kaufman & Associates Architects LLC, used by permission. Original document courtesy Duke University Archives. University Archives. This difference was intended not just as a matter of style. As the architects explained, “The architectural image is one of a village, a collection of spaces around a plaza … The historical image is the Old City of Jerusalem, with its gateways, temple roofs and town squares—one civilization building over the previous one, creating a layering through time” (Development Committee for the Center for Jewish Life 1990). Gwathmey Siegel sought, through a contemporary architectural Arts 2019, 8, 107 17 of 31

This difference was intended not just as a matter of style. As the architects explained, “The architectural imageArts 2019 is, 8 one, x FOR of aPEER village, REVIEW a collection of spaces around a plaza ... The historical image is the Old17 of City 31 of Jerusalem, with its gateways, temple roofs and town squares—one civilization building over the previouslanguage, one, to evoke creating a connection a layering to through Judaism’s time” origins, (Development differentCommittee from but complementary for the Center forto Duke’s Jewish LifeChristian 1990). ones. Gwathmey Siegel sought, through a contemporary architectural language, to evoke a connectionIn 1990, to Judaism’sa faculty origins,member di ffraisederent fromconcerns but complementary about the selected to Duke’s property’s Christian wetland ones. status (RichardsonIn 1990, 1990). a faculty The architects member adjusted raised concerns their design, about but the the selectedcosts of those property’s adjustments wetland exceeded status (theRichardson Center’s 1990stipulated). The architectsbudget. In adjusted 1995, the their Center’s design, backers but the decided costs of to those “find adjustments a new site exceededand to refine the Center’sthe program stipulated of needs,” budget. in order In 1995, to align the Center’s more realis backerstically decided with the to level “find of a newfunding site andavailable to refine for the programproject (Djuren of needs,” 1997). in orderIn 1996, to alignarchitect more Richard realistically Gurlit withz of theChapel level Hill of funding was hired available to assist for selection the project of (aDjuren new site.1997 ).Gurlitz’s In 1996, architectteam evaluated Richard Gurlitzfive locations of Chapel north Hill of was Campus hired to assistDrive, selection considering of a new design site. Gurlitz’spotential teamand cost. evaluated Their report five locations recommended north of a Campus site at the Drive, corner considering of College design Drive and potential Swift andAvenue cost. Their“as exhibiting report recommended the most favorable a site at physical the corner as ofwell College as planning Drive and characteristics” Swift Avenue (Richard “as exhibiting A Gurlitz the mostArchitects favorable 1997, physical p. 4). Duke’s as well Building as planning and Grounds characteristics” Committee (Richard endorsed A Gurlitz Gurlitz’s Architects recommendation, 1997, p. 4). Duke’sas well Buildingas his selection and Grounds to replace Committee Gwathmey endorsed Siegel Gurlitz’s as architect recommendation, of the building, as well to be as named his selection after todonors replace Brian Gwathmey and Harriet Siegel Freeman. as architect As ofan the implicit building, criticism to be namedof the project’s after donors previous Brian incarnation, and Harriet Freeman.Duke’s Building As an implicitand Grounds criticism Committee of the project’s made also previous the following incarnation, comment: Duke’s “The Building building and will Grounds have Committeethe appearance made of alsothe other the following buildings comment: nearby it” “The(Duke building University will Building have the and appearance Groundsof Committee the other buildings1996). nearby it” (Duke University Building and Grounds Committee 1996).

5.3. The Freeman Center’s Design The selectionselection of of the the new new site dictatedsite dictated to Gurlitz to Gu a dirlitzﬀerent a different design approach. design approach. The site’s topography The site’s wouldtopography ensure would that, seenensure from that, Campus seen from Drive, Campus the Center Drive, would the Center appear would at its fullest appear height. at its Atfullest the site’sheight. north At the side, site’s neighboring north side, buildings neighboring were buildings smaller and were residential. smaller and Gurlitz’s residential. design Gurlitz’s addressed design both considerations.addressed both Itconsiderations. shared the earlier It shared project’s the compositionalearlier project’s method, compositional whereby method, the building whereby would the bebuilding assembled would from be assembled distinct architectural from distinct elements, architectu eachral elements, standing ineach counterpoint standing in to counterpoint the next. But, to asthe an next. ensemble, But, as an it looked ensemble, entirely it looked diﬀerent. entirely The di Freemanfferent. The Center Freeman for Jewish Center Life for derivesJewish Life its exteriorderives appearanceits exterior appearance from the university’s from the university’s Collegiate Gothic Collegiate architecture Gothic(Compare architecture Figures (Compare8b and Figures 11). Sheathed 8b and in11). Duke’s Sheathed typical in Duke’s stone, atypical three-story stone, tower a three- anchorsstory thetower southwest anchors corner the southwest of the building, corner facingof the Campusbuilding, Drive, facing and Campus allows Drive, for student and allows access for directly student into access the Center’sdirectly into dining the hall.Center’s dining hall.

Adapting the Gothic style for a Jewish building was unusual, but not without precedent. Although the oldest European synagogues shared rudimentary Gothic-like building details with their mediaeval Christian neighbors (Wischnitzer 1955, p. 7), the Gothic style most recently signified there a Christian Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 31 culture in opposition to secularizing trends. In the United States, such associations have been more equivocal,the Gothic althoughstyle had obviouslyonly rarely influential, been adopted as Duke’s in full own by American Gothic campus Jews fo attests.r their Yetsynagogues. the Gothic Many style hadwere only designed rarely beenin eclectic adopted historical in full bystyles American with some Jews Gothic for their elements, synagogues. side Manyby side were with designed so-called in eclectic“Moorish” historical or “Oriental” styles with details. some Many Gothic more elements, 19th-century side by side American with so-called synagogues “Moorish” were orbuilt “Oriental” in neo- details.Classical Many styles. more For three 19th-century decades Americanfollowing the synagogues Second World were War, built synagogue in neo-Classical design styles. followed For other three decadesarchitectural following fashions, the Secondas follows: World Modernist, War, synagogue formalist, design regionalist, followed and other Postmodern architectural neo-classicist. fashions, asDuke’s follows: Freeman Modernist, Center formalist, borrows regionalist,a bit from all and of these, Postmodern as wellneo-classicist. as from Duke’s Duke’s Collegiate Freeman Gothic. Center But borrowsthe architect a bit tempered from all of that these, style’s as well overt as Christian from Duke’s associations Collegiate by Gothic. removing But theall symbolic architect temperedornament thatand style’sby contrasting overt Christian the style’s associations basic forms by with removing elements all symbolicof different ornament architectural and by associations. contrasting The the style’sresult asserts basic forms the Freeman with elements Center’s of diaffiliationfferent architectural with Duke associations.University rather The result than assertswith Methodism the Freeman or Center’sChristianity. affiliation with Duke University rather than with Methodism or Christianity. On the building’s north side, brick masonry wallswalls support two pyramidal roofs, between which thethe mainmain entranceentrance providesprovides accessaccess fromfrom vehicularvehicular parking.parking. At At the building’s east and west sides, exterior spaces separate the north from thethe southsouth wings.wings. In this way, thethe FreemanFreeman Center’sCenter’s apparent scale depends upon one’s position—monumental andand collegiate,collegiate, as seen from Campus Drive; smaller and domestic,domestic, as seenseen fromfrom thethe building’sbuilding’s neighborsneighbors (See(See FigureFigure 1212).). TheThe building’sbuilding’s architectarchitect alsoalso sought toto evokeevoke associations associations with with Jewish Jewish history, history, not no justt just Duke’s Duke’s history. history. Gurlitz Gurlitz has saidhas said that “thethat very“the firstvery thoughtfirst thought of a building, of a building, anything anything that was that other was thanother a than tent, ina tent, Judaism, in Judaism, was a tabernacle. was a tabernacle. This is probablyThis is probably the roots the of roots any kindof any of kind Jewish of Jewish architecture—and architecture—and the root the of root that of Jewish that Jewish architecture architecture really hadreally a lothad to a dolotwith to do community” with community” (Koster (Koster 2000). 2000).

GurlitzGurlitz alsoalso explained, explained, “A “A big big part part of of the the Jewish Jewish experience experience is theis the Egyptian Egyptian experience. experience. These These are theare threethe three pyramids pyramids of Giza, of Giza, which which you you can seecan verysee ve clearlyry clearly in these in these plans plans of the of administration the administration area andarea sanctuaryand sanctuary... [pyramids] … [pyramids] are a strong are a imagestrong throughout image throughout Judaism andJudaism throughout and throughout the centuries” the (centuries”Koster 2000 (Koster). Whether 2000). or Whether not this or particular not this particular association association is correct, is the correct, pyramidal the pyramidal roofs do roofs connote do locallyconnote a locally kind of a domesticitykind of domesticity akin to theakin Center’s to the Ce residentialnter’s residential neighbors. neighbor The Freemans. The Freeman Center’s Center’s plans areplans schematically are schematically simple. simple. Building Building elements elements ﬂank flank a wide a wide central central corridor corridor and and itsits openopen staircase. YetYet thethe plan’splan’s geometrygeometry isis complicated,complicated, inﬂuencedinfluenced byby thethe site’ssite’s boundaries.boundaries. The north half of the building aligns with true north; the south half of the building is rotated to align with Campus Drive (See Figure 13a,b). Arts 2019, 8, 107 19 of 31 building aligns with true north; the south half of the building is rotated to align with Campus Drive

Arts(See 2019 Figure, 8, x FOR13a,b). PEER REVIEW 19 of 31

(a) (b)

Figure 13. Freeman Center for Jewish Life at Duke, floor ﬂoor plans. ( a)) Plan, Plan, upper level; ( b) plan, lower level. Image Image Credit: Credit: ©© GurlitzGurlitz Architectural Architectural Group, Group, used used by by permission. permission. Original Original document document courtesy Duke University Archives.

These rotations allowed the architect to accentuate the building’s Gothic-style tower seen from the south; atat thethe samesame time, time, the the building’s building’s chapel chapel (located (located on on the the north north side) side) faces faces due due east east without without any anyadjustment. adjustment. As constructed,As constructed, Freeman Freeman Center Center houses houses the followingthe following functions: functions: • At the upper level, level, welcome welcome desk; desk; casual casual seating; seating; the the chapel chapel (seating (seating more more than than 110 110 persons); persons); a • alibrary library and and adjacent adjacent exterior exterior terrace; terrace; administrati administrativeve offices; offices; meeting/study meeting/study rooms; rooms; and a lounge at the end of a wide, open corridor. • At thethe lowerlower level, level, kosher kosher food food preparation preparation (meat (meat and dairy);and dairy); communal communal dining dining and multi-purpose and multi- • room,purpose suitable room, alsosuitable for worshipalso for wo (seatingrship (seating more than more 200 than persons); 200 person an at-grades); an at-grade courtyard; courtyard; and service and spacesservice suchspaces as such storage as storage and toilets. and toilets. A room A room designated designatedmikvah mikvah(ritual (ritual bath) bath) remains remains unfinished. unfinished. The Freeman Center’s structure is covered by other finishes. Interior wall surfaces are generally The Freeman Center’s structure is covered by other finishes. Interior wall surfaces are generally painted drywall and ceilings are commercial-grade acoustical tile and painted-drywall soffits (See painted drywall and ceilings are commercial-grade acoustical tile and painted-drywall soffits Figure 14a–f). Extensive glazing provides a sense of openness towards the exterior. For instance, the (See Figure 14a–f). Extensive glazing provides a sense of openness towards the exterior. For instance, placement of a glazed wall immediately behind the chapel’s bemah emphasizes its connection to the the placement of a glazed wall immediately behind the chapel’s bemah emphasizes its connection to the natural surroundings. But instances of traditional Jewish iconography are few. A local craftsman, natural surroundings. But instances of traditional Jewish iconography are few. A local craftsman, Steve Steve Herman, created decorative woodwork for the building (Freeman Center for Jewish Life at Herman, created decorative woodwork for the building (Freeman Center for Jewish Life at Duke 1999). Duke 1999). Herman inserted a magen David (Star of David) at the base of the reader’s desk in the Herman inserted a magen David (Star of David) at the base of the reader’s desk in the chapel and in chapel and in an unglazed portal in the lounge, overlooking the multi-purpose hall. For the chapel’s an unglazed portal in the lounge, overlooking the multi-purpose hall. For the chapel’s aron kodesh, aron kodesh, Herman applied imagery of a menorah (ritual candelabra). In addition, the curtain cover Herman applied imagery of a menorah (ritual candelabra). In addition, the curtain cover for a smaller for a smaller aron kodesh in the library also bears a magen David. In advance of the building’s 1999 aron kodesh in the library also bears a magen David. In advance of the building’s 1999 dedication, artwork dedication, artwork depicting biblical themes was donated by local artists Jim Kellough and Sherri depicting biblical themes was donated by local artists Jim Kellough and Sherri Wood; Ikat fabrics by Wood; Ikat fabrics by Lynne Caldwell were donated to the Freeman Center soon after. Lynne Caldwell were donated to the Freeman Center soon after. Like many buildings designed for Jewish functions, the Freeman Center includes building elements whose gematria (numeric code) is intended to signify biblical themes. Twelve small windows in the multipurpose room refer to Israel’s Biblical-era twelve tribes; five small windows in the library refer to the five books of Moses. At the building’s exterior, a pergola of five columns, set against the north exterior wall of the chapel, forms an arbor for the cultivation of grapes, thereby alluding (according to the architect) to the Jewish Sabbath and its ritual cup of wine (Koster 2000). Arts 2019, 8, 107 20 of 31

Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 31

(a) (b)

(e) (f)

FigureFigure 14. Freeman14. Freeman Center Center for for Jewish Jewish Life Life atat Duke,Duke, interior interior views. views. (a)( aView) View from from reception reception (upper (upper level); (b) lounge area (upper level); (c) sanctuary facing bemah (upper level); (d) library (upper level); level); (b) lounge area (upper level); (c) sanctuary facing bemah (upper level); (d) library (upper level); (e) central space and stairs (upper level); (f) commons and dining (upper level). Image Credits: © 2019 (e) central space and stairs (upper level); (f) commons and dining (upper level). Image Credits: © 2019 Jeremy Kargon. Jeremy Kargon. One long-anticipated building element, the mikvah (ritual bath), has yet to be built. A mikvah was Likeincluded many in buildingsthe initial stages designed of the for planning Jewish functions,process in the late Freeman 1980s (Ruderman Center includes et al. 1988, building p. 2) elementsbut whosewasgematria controversial(numeric from code)the start. is intendedUsed primarily to signify by Orthodox biblical women themes. and Twelve men for smallritual purification, windows in the multipurposeinclusion of room a mikvah refer was to Israel’s seen by Biblical-era some Jews at twelve Duke as tribes; an example five small of traditional windows gender in the libraryinequality refer to the fiveunwelcome books of on Moses. college campuses At the building’s today. Others exterior, countered a pergola that “a of mikvah five columns,would exclude set against no one while the north exterioropening wall the of thecenter chapel, to those forms who an hold arbor to traditiona for the cultivationl Jewish practice” of grapes, (Byrne thereby 1989). The alluding opposing (according sides to the architect)worried about to the the Jewish balance Sabbath between and itsJewish ritual religi cuposity of wine and (Kostercultural 2000 identity:). what would the Onepredominance long-anticipated of one say building about the element, significance the mikvahof the other(ritual at Duke? bath), To has accommodate yet to be built. the wishes A mikvah of was includedboth insides, the an initial endowment stages ofseparate the planning from the processbuilding in fund the was late established 1980s (Ruderman to build and et al.maintain 1988, p.the 2) but was controversial from the start. Used primarily by Orthodox women and men for ritual purification, inclusion of a mikvah was seen by some Jews at Duke as an example of traditional gender inequality unwelcome on college campuses today. Others countered that “a mikvah would exclude no one while Arts 2019, 8, 107 21 of 31 opening the center to those who hold to traditional Jewish practice” (Byrne 1989). The opposing sides worried about the balance between Jewish religiosity and cultural identity: what would the predominance of one say about the significance of the other at Duke? To accommodate the wishes of both sides, an endowment separate from the building fund was established to build and maintain the mikvah, and space in the building was set aside for that purpose (Gordon 2019). In the end, a mikvah was never built, and the designated room is today used for storage.

5.4. Reception of the Freeman Center’s Design At the time of its dedication, the Freeman Center’s opening was described by Duke’s student paper as an “emotional event” for the university’s Jewish community. Roger Kaplan, director of Duke’s Center for Jewish Life for which the Freeman Center was built, said that Jewish students at Duke had now “a room to call their own.” University President Nan Keohane called the building “lovely and practical,” and opined that the building’s “soul is large” (Wilson 1999). Members of the committee that had commissioned the building spoke favorably about the building’s siting, as well as its open connection to the exterior. Judith Ruderman, Duke’s assistant vice provost and an advocate of the project from its conception, said that “When ... I look out of every window, there’s a vista. It’s eautifully sited, it’s functional, I find it warm yet elegant, people like to be in there” (Koster 2000). Twenty years later, the Freeman Center continues to serve its original purpose with only a few changes. The building’s openness, however, has led to concerns about security. Even in advance of anti-Semitic defacement of Duke students’ memorial for the victims of the Pittsburgh Tree of Life synagogue shootings (Kimmelman 2018), the Freeman Center’s administration had restricted free access between the building’s exterior and interior spaces. Visitors to the building must request access via intercom, but the building’s complicated geometry makes single-point surveillance difficult (Gordon 2019). Controversies over funding, too, raise concerns about the Center’s institutional sustainability and that of Jewish Student Centers everywhere. In 2018, Bernie Lunzer, president of a union representing newspaper journalists, wrote to Duke President Vincent Price about job cuts at businesses operated by Digital First Media. Lunzer asked that Price reconsider Duke’s accepting donations from Heath Freeman, managing director of the hedge fund that purchased Digital First Media in 2010 (Lunzer 2018a). Freeman, son of the Freeman Center’s eponymous donors, is a Duke alumnus, a member of the Center’s advisory board, and one of the Center’s ongoing benefactors. In a second letter to Price, Lunzer argued that the behavior of Freeman’s company contradicted the intellectual and moral ethos to which Duke University subscribed (Lunzer 2018b). Lunzer’s appeal reflects a trend to force universities around the world to examine donors’ business practices, the sources of their wealth (Bennett 2019), their political agendas (Dodgson and Gann 2018), and even their personal comportment (Feeney 2014). Do the recipients of charity share the liabilities—civil, criminal, or moral—of their benefactors? In this case, Duke’s representatives answered no (Gronberg 2018). But considering most Jewish Student Centers’ reliance upon private financial support for their physical existence, future fundraisers may have to work with alternative methods, closer oversight, and reduced expectations in order to assure alignment with Jewish Student Centers’ religious and social missions.

6. Case Study III: Glickman Hillel Center for Jewish Life, UCSD (Expected 2020, M. W. Steele Group, Architecture + Planning)

6.1. Historical Background As a more recently established public university, University of California, San Diego (UCSD) would appear to have little in common with two schools founded to serve the Christian faith. Nevertheless, the story of UCSD’s development by state officials and its reception by the local community also includes an account of religious sectarianism that persists even to this day. Attempts by the university’s Hillel Foundation to develop a vacant parcel of land have been resisted by a handful of nearby residents for almost two decades. The religious bias underlying neighbors’ complaints has been so slightly Arts 2019, 8, 107 22 of 31 veiled that even the judge hearing their objections called them “evocative of Eastern Europe and not appropriate” in the United States (The Times of San Diego 2018). With the legal case recently settled, and with its architecture in the design development phase, the Glickman Hillel Center for Jewish Life illustrates how Jewish-American identity continues to grapple—through its physical environment, includingArts 2019 its, 8 buildings—with, x FOR PEER REVIEW the valence of sectarian identity even at public universities.22 of 31 Established in 1960, UCSD was originally conceived as a graduate-level research institute, focused grapple—through its physical environment, including its buildings—with the valence of sectarian on theidentity STEM even fields at thatpublic were universities. in high demand at the height of the Cold War (Walsh 1964). San Diego’s politiciansEstablished and business in 1960, leaders UCSD supported was originally the choice,conceived which as a wasgraduate-level received withresearch ambivalence institute, by localfocused residents. on the La STEM Jolla’s fields homeowners that were in expressed high demand fear at of the falling height real of the estate Cold values War (Walsh and of1964). a threat to “theirSan Diego’s historically politicians close-knit and community”business leaders were supported a new universitythe choice, towhich hire was “foreigners received andwith Jews” (Stratthausambivalence 1996, by p. local 214). residents. For decades La Jolla’s La Jollahomeowners had maintained expressed itsfear exclusivity of falling real by estate covenants values and real estateof practices a threat to that “their prevented historically Jews close-knit and other community” ethnic minorities were a new from university purchasing to hire homes “foreigners there. But and Roger Revelle,Jews” Director (Stratthaus of the 1996, nearby p. 214). Scripps For decades Institute La ofJolla Oceanography, had maintained had its exclusivity already faced by covenants staffing problems and real estate practices that prevented Jews and other ethnic minorities from purchasing homes there. at Scripps due to such practices and was vocal about La Jolla’s need to change. Unafraid of antagonizing But Roger Revelle, Director of the nearby Scripps Institute of Oceanography, had already faced local residents, he told them, “You’ve got to make up your mind. You’re either going to have a university staffing problems at Scripps due to such practices and was vocal about La Jolla’s need to change. or you’reUnafraid going of toantagonizing have an anti-Semitic local residents, covenant. he told You them, can’t “You’ve have both”got to (makeStratthaus up your 1996 mind., p. 215)You’re. When the futureeither university’sgoing to have beneficial a university economic or you’re impacts going to were have understood an anti-Semitic by covenant. La Jolla realtors, You can’t most have of the discriminatoryboth” (Stratthaus practices 1996, were p. quietly215). When put the aside. future university’s beneficial economic impacts were UCSDunderstood accepted by La Jolla its first realtors, students most of in the 1964 discriminatory and has since practices become were quietly a major put research aside. university. The architectureUCSD accepted of the campus its first students reflects, in 1964 large and part, has the since institutional become a major modernism researchcharacteristic university. The of the mid-1960s.architecture The centralof the campus feature reflects, of the campusin large part is Geisel, the institutional Library, designed modernism by characteristic William L. Pereira of the and Associates,mid-1960s. whose The exposed central feature concrete of the frame campus is a structuralis Geisel Library, tour de designed force (See by William Figure 15L.a). Pereira and Associates, whose exposed concrete frame is a structural tour de force (See Figure 15a).

(a) (b)

(c)

FigureFigure 15. The 15. ArchitectureThe Architecture of University of University of California, of California, San San Diego, Diego, and and its Neighbors.its Neighbors. (a) Geisel(a) Geisel Library, Library, UCSD (1970); (b) Offices, Salk Laboratories (1963); (c) Single Family Residence in La Jolla UCSD (1970); (b)Oﬃces, Salk Laboratories (1963); (c) Single Family Residence in La Jolla (circa 2019). (circa 2019). Image Credits: © 2019 Jeremy Kargon. Image Credits: © 2019 Jeremy Kargon. Perhaps more influential is Louis Kahn’s famous Salk Institute Laboratories, located just to the west of the campus. Its material palette of wood, exposed concrete, and stainless-steel may be found Arts 2019, 8, 107 23 of 31

Perhaps more influential is Louis Kahn’s famous Salk Institute Laboratories, located just to the west of the campus. Its material palette of wood, exposed concrete, and stainless-steel may be found in UCSD buildings being built even today. On the other hand, buildings in the residential neighborhoods surroundingArts 2019, the8, x FOR campus PEER REVIEW are di fferent, if entirely characteristic of southern California; single23 of 31 family houses of one or two stories, with prominent roofs, behind thick foliage or solid walls (See Figure 15b,c). in UCSD buildings being built even today. On the other hand, buildings in the residential UCSD’s Hillel unit liaises with other schools in San Diego, including the University of San Diego, neighborhoods surrounding the campus are different, if entirely characteristic of southern California; CSU Sansingle Marcos, family andhouses San of Diego one or State. two stories, As a result,with prominent the Hillel roofs, organization behind thick maintains foliage or close solid community walls ties throughout(See Figure the15b,c). region. The Hillel at San Diego State commissioned a purpose-built facility that opened in 2014.UCSD’s Since Hillel then, unit thatliaises facility with other has becomeschools in the San de Diego, facto including center for the Hillel’s University activities of San in Diego, San Diego. Yet yearsCSU before San Marcos, that, inand the San mid-1990s, Diego State. sta Asff a atresult, the UCSDthe Hillel Hillel organization decided maintains that their close own community programming had outgrownties throughout spaces the leased region. from The Hillel the university at San Dieg itself.o State Ascommissioned Neal Singer, a purpose-built vice president facility of the that UCSD Hillel’sopened board, in said2014. in Since 2002, then, “we that decided facility thathas become we really the neededde facto center a facility for Hillel’s of our activities own, aplace in San where Diego. Yet years before that, in the mid-1990s, staff at the UCSD Hillel decided that their own kids could come study or use the computer or research stuff in the library or have counseling sessions” programming had outgrown spaces leased from the university itself. As Neal Singer, vice president (Grimmof the2002 UCSD). Their Hillel’s first board, priority said wasin 2002, proximity “we decided to the that UCSD we really campus. needed Hillela facility quickly of our own, identified a a suitableplace parcel—Site where kids 653, could a triangular, come study vacant or use lot the bounded computer on or three research sides stuff by roadways.in the library The or parcelhave was ownedcounseling by the city sessions” of San Diego,(Grimm which 2002). issuedTheir first a request-for-proposals priority was proximity (RFP) to the to UCSD solicit campus. development Hillel bids in 2000.quickly After identified a city-appointed a suitable committee parcel—Site reviewed 653, a triangular, the proposals, vacant thelot Citybounded Council on three voted sides to negotiate by with Hillelroadways. for the Theparcel’s parcel was purchase. owned by Inthe reactioncity of San to Diego, this decision,which issued however, a request-for-proposals a coalition of (RFP) neighbors (who hadto solicit responded development unsuccessfully bids in 2000. to After the a RFP) city-appointed filed a lawsuit committee to preventreviewed the the sale.proposals, In May the 2006, City Council voted to negotiate with Hillel for the parcel’s purchase. In reaction to this decision, the San Diego City Council approved anyway the sale of the property to Hillel for $940,000, after which however, a coalition of neighbors (who had responded unsuccessfully to the RFP) filed a lawsuit to the neighborhoodprevent the sale. coalition In May renewed 2006, the San their Diego objections City Council (Batterson approved 2011 anyway). Through the sale years of the of court-orderedproperty environmentalto Hillel for impact $940,000, statements, after which tra theffi cneighborhood studies, and coalition repeated renewed review their by theobjections City Council, (Batterson Hillel’s right to2011). develop Through the years property of court-orde was finallyred environmental acknowledged impact by statements, the San Diegotraffic studies, Superior and Courtrepeated in 2018 (Battersonreview 2018 by ).the City Council, Hillel’s right to develop the property was finally acknowledged by the San Diego Superior Court in 2018 (Batterson 2018). 6.2. Site Context 6.2. Site Context Site 653 lies on the south side of La Jolla Village Drive, opposite from the La Jolla Playhouse, situated onSite the 653 southernmost lies on the south extension side of of La the Jolla UCSD Village campus. Drive, opposite A spur of from La Jollathe La Scenic Jolla Playhouse, Drive separates situated on the southernmost extension of the UCSD campus. A spur of La Jolla Scenic Drive the property from residential properties to the south. To the west, with views of the Pacific Ocean, separates the property from residential properties to the south. To the west, with views of the Pacific is a naturalOcean, landscape is a natural managed landscape bymanaged Scripps by InstituteScripps Institute (See Figure (See Figure 16). 16).

Figure 16. Glickman Hillel Center at UCSD, Location Plan. Image Credits: map data © 2019 Google, Figure 16. Glickman Hillel Center at UCSD, Location Plan. Image Credits: map data © 2019 Google, TerraMetrics, DataCSUMB SFML, CA OPC; reuse according to Google’s Terms of Service. TerraMetrics,Annotations DataCSUMB by the author. SFML, CA OPC; reuse according to Google’s Terms of Service. Annotations by the author. Arts 2019, 8, 107 24 of 31

Due to the legal sensitivity surrounding the project, architects and planners M. W. Steele Group first approachedArts 2019, 8, x FOR the PEER UCSD REVIEW Hillel’s design as a problem of site planning, of context, and24 of of massing. 31 As architectDue Mark to the Steelelegal sensitivity explained, surrounding to accommodate the project, the architects neighbors’ and planners objections, M. W. his Steele team Group made all automobilefirst approached traffic enter the fromUCSD La Hillel’s Jolla Scenicdesign as Drive, a prob atlem the of east, site andplanning, made of the context, buildings and of smaller massing. in scale and sizeAs architect to conform Mark to Steele the residential explained, surroundingsto accommoda (teSteele the neighbors’ and Paluso objections, 2019). The his project’steam made scope all was eventuallyautomobile cut in traffic half toenter about from 6500 La sf,Jolla but Scenic the design Drive, remainedat the east,one and of made three the small buildings buildings smaller organized in aroundscale an and open size courtyard. to conform to The the westernmost residential surroun partdings of the (Steele property, and Paluso highest 2019). in elevation The project’s and scope closest to La Jollawas Village eventually Drive’s cut in main half pedestrianto about 6500 crossing, sf, but the would design be designedremained one as a of publicly-accessible three small buildings garden. In thisorganized manner, around the project’s an open developmentcourtyard. The wouldwesternmost provide part anof the amenity property, for highest local residents in elevation and and UCSD closest to La Jolla Village Drive’s main pedestrian crossing, would be designed as a publicly- students alike. accessible garden. In this manner, the project’s development would provide an amenity for local The project’s pedestrian entrance will be located on the site’s north side, along La Jolla Village residents and UCSD students alike. Drive, so thatThe project’s foot traffi pedestrianc into the entrance UCSD Hillel will be will located not enter on the the site’s neighborhood north side, along to the La south. Jolla AsVillage a further planningDrive, consideration, so that foot traffic movement into the aroundUCSD Hillel and intowill not the enter project’s the neighborhood central courtyard to thewill south. be As informal, a off-axis,further and planning guided byconsideration, complex geometries. movement Thearound passageways and into the between project’s buildings central courtyard will be narrowwill be and intimate,informal, different off-axis, from and the guided surrounding, by complex wide-open geometries. La The Jolla passageways suburbs. As between Steele buildings explained, will “there’s be a sensenarrow of an old-worldand intimate, quality different about from it, of thesethe surroun forms;ding, they’re wide-open sort of tightLa Jolla and suburbs. come together” As Steele similar to a traditionalexplained, “there’s town (Steele a sense and of an Paluso old-world 2019 ).quality about it, of these forms; they’re sort of tight and come together” similar to a traditional town (Steele and Paluso 2019). 6.3. The Glickman Hillel Center’s Design 6.3. The Glickman Hillel Center’s Design Like the previous examples of Jewish Student Centers, the future Glickman Hillel Center will seek Like the previous examples of Jewish Student Centers, the future Glickman Hillel Center will to fit in, but not with respect to UCSD’s modernist campus architecture. Instead, the Glickman Hillel seek to fit in, but not with respect to UCSD’s modernist campus architecture. Instead, the Glickman CenterHillel will Center look likewill look its residential like its residential neighbors. neighbor Thes. building’sThe building’s design design will will be be accentuated accentuated byby its roof forms,roof which forms, cascade which cascade over the over site the and site extend and extend in multiple in multiple directions directions (See (See Figure Figure 17 17).).

FigureFigure 17. Digital 17. Digital Visualization: Visualization: Aerial Aerial View View of of Glickman Glickman Hillel Hillel Center Center at at UCSD, UCSD, seenseen fromfrom North East. ImageEast. Credits: Image ©Credits:M. W. © Steele M. W. Group,Steele Group, used byused permission. by permission.

A livelyA lively roof-scape roof-scape is common is common among among nearby nearby La La JollaJolla residences;residences; a a restrained restrained material material palette palette is, too (Seeis, too Figure (See 15Figure, bottom). 15, bottom). One diOneﬀerence difference will bewill the be Glickman’sthe Glickman’s Center’s Center’s judicious judicious use use of of so-called so- called Jerusalem stone on some exterior walls and paving. This material, heavier and more substantial Jerusalem stone on some exterior walls and paving. This material, heavier and more substantial than the than the project’s other materials, evokes the “old-worldliness” that the architect has associated with project’s other materials, evokes the “old-worldliness” that the architect has associated with Jewishness Jewishness in this building and others in his portfolio (Steele and Paluso 2019). Functionally, the in thisGlickman building Center and others will be in divided his portfolio into three (Steele parts: and Paluso 2019). Functionally, the Glickman Center will be divided into three parts: • The Hospitality Building, containing a reception desk, lounge seating, and additional casual The Hospitality Building, containing a reception desk, lounge seating, and additional casual • seating, all within a single open space that faces the Center Courtyard. seating,• The allLeadership within a singleBuilding, open containing space that a faces seminar the Centerroom, Courtyard.bathrooms, and storage space, The Leadershipsurrounding Building,a second large containing space facing a seminar the Center room, Courtyard. bathrooms, and storage space, surrounding • a• secondThe Community large space Building, facing the including Center the Courtyard. largest open space, a kitchen, bathrooms, and a second- Thestory Community suite for administrative Building, including functions. the largest open space, a kitchen, bathrooms, and a • second-story suite for administrative functions. Arts 2019, 8, 107 25 of 31

The Center’s courtyard will function both as welcoming foyer and as usable space for activities throughout the year. The ensemble will be built to LEED Silver standards, including water conservation and solar energy collection supplying up to 50% of the building needs (Hillel UC San Diego 2018). But the Glickman Hillel Center will not include many of the following spaces that Jewish Student Centers often include: A dedicated chapel, a library, or extensive dining facilities. Instead, the emphasis in the Glickman Center will be activity, variously defined and variously accommodated within the different kinds of spaces provided by the design (See Figure 18). This approach was intentional. Mark Steele and his team toured other Hillel buildings and found that “[Hillel’s leaders] really ... want Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 25 of 31 students to come in and see activity ... Not a real, overly-stodgy religious place. They want them to see poolThe tablesCenter’s and courtyard coffee bars will ... Tofunction bring [students]both as welcoming in, so they foyer feel comfortableand as usable wanting space for to justactivities being there”throughout (Steele the and year. Paluso The 2019 ensemble). Worship will may be bebuilt held to inLEED any of Silver the three standards, open spaces, including depending water onconservation the number and of solar participants energy andcollection the needs supplying of the up service. to 50% Architect of the building and client needs have (Hillel considered UC San a movableDiego 2018).bemah and aron kodesh to allow even greater flexibility.

Figure 18. Site and Building Plans, Glickman Hillel Center at UCSD. Image Credits: © M. W. Steele Group, used by permission.

TheBut the building’s Glickman interior Hillel Center design will has not not include yet been many developed, of the following but the spaces architects that Jewish anticipate Student that Jewish-themedCenters often include: ornament A willdedicated be subtle, chapel, if present a library at all., or Steeleextensive explained diningthat, facilities. in synagogues Instead, the he hasemphasis designed, in the congregations Glickman Center commissioned will be activity work, variously from local defined artists; and this variously is likely accommodated to be the case herewithin(Steele the different and Paluso kinds 2019 of). spaces As currently provided designed, by the thedesign Glickman (See Figure Center 18). will This display approach no Jewish was iconographyintentional. Mark on the Steele exterior and his (See team Figure toured 19). other In part, Hillel the buildings lack of explicit and found symbolism that “[Hillel’s has to doleaders] with securityreally … concerns, want students heightened to come locally in and in thesee wakeactivity of a… recent Not a attack real, overly-stodgy on a San Diego religious area synagogue place. They only awant few them miles to away see pool from tables the UCSD and coffee campus bars (Medina ... To bring et al. [students] 2019). Access in, so to they the feel Center comfortable Courtyard wanting will be controlledto just being by there” gates between(Steele and each Paluso of the 2019). three buildingsWorship may and allbe visitorsheld in willany haveof the to three enter open through spaces, the north-facingdepending on entrance the number and (potentially) of participants subjected and the to aneeds security of the check. service. Architect and client have considered a movable bemah and aron kodesh to allow even greater flexibility. The building’s interior design has not yet been developed, but the architects anticipate that Jewish-themed ornament will be subtle, if present at all. Steele explained that, in synagogues he has designed, congregations commissioned work from local artists; this is likely to be the case here (Steele and Paluso 2019). As currently designed, the Glickman Center will display no Jewish iconography on the exterior (See Figure 19). In part, the lack of explicit symbolism has to do with security concerns, heightened locally in the wake of a recent attack on a San Diego area synagogue only a few miles away from the UCSD campus (Medina et al. 2019). Access to the Center Courtyard will be controlled by gates between each of the three buildings and all visitors will have to enter through the north- facing entrance and (potentially) subjected to a security check.

6.4. Reception of the Glickman Center’s Design In advance of the building’s construction, it is impossible to determine its future reception among UCSD’s students or the community at large. But the success of the project’s legal case in 2018 has confirmed the importance of the project’s mission for San Diego’s Jewish community. Local Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 26 of 31

supporters have evoked, in San Diego as in New Haven and Durham, the trope of home and belonging. In this case, “home” is expected to mean a pluralistic community under Hillel’s stewardship. As UCSD student Elliot Yamin has said, “That means a place where everyone feels welcome, no matter their background ... with Orthodox Jews and Reform Jews, Israelis and Persians, Americans and international students and students who are really, really Jewish and students who are just Jew-ish” (Stone 2018). At UCSD, “home” will mean an environment very different from that of the university campus nearby. What the architecture of the Glickman Center promises is, in fact, a Artskind2019 of, sophisticated8, 107 domesticity, set adjacent to yet apart from the neighbors. Apparently, fitting26 of in 31 is seeming fit, but at a comfortably secure remove.

Figure 19. DigitalDigital Visualization: Visualization: Glickman Glickman Hillel Hillel Center Center at at UCSD, UCSD, Project Project Exterior. Exterior. Image Image Credits: Credits: © ©M.M. W. W. Steele Steele Group, Group, used used by by permission. permission.

6.4.7. Conclusions Reception of the Glickman Center’s Design InIn advanceretrospect, of thethe building’scommon metaphor construction, of home it is impossible is an unlikely to determine one for Jewish its future Student reception Centers among on UCSD’suniversity students campuses. or the No community one is expected at large. to live But in thethem, success and a ofmeal the commons project’s legalis not case a family in 2018 dining has confirmedroom. Furthermore, the importance in contrast of the to project’s residences, mission these for buildings San Diego’s are Jewishdesigned community. to be public Local edifices. supporters Why, havethen, evoked,have students in San Diego and others as in New consistently Haven and referr Durham,ed to home the trope when of home speaking and belonging.about Jewish In thisStudent case, “home”Centers? is As expected these case to mean studies a pluralistic have illustrated, community Jewish under students Hillel’s do stewardship. not identify these As UCSD buildings student as Elliothome-like Yamin because has said, they “That are marked means a with place Jewish where sy everyonembols, and feels so welcome, somehow no familiar. matter their Rather, background students ...feel with at home Orthodox because Jews of and certain Reform architectural Jews, Israelis characteristics and Persians, and Americans ascribe Jewishness and international to them studentsthrough andtheir students cumulative who personal are really, experien really Jewishces. This and would students not whohappen are in just more Jew-ish” visibly (Stone institutional 2018). At settings; UCSD, “home”architects will for mean the Yale an environment Slifka Center very indicate different that fromcomfort, that ofintimacy, the university and familiarity campus nearby.have been What an theimportant architecture catalyst of for the students’ Glickman associations Center promises of Jewishness is, in fact, with a kind their of surroundings sophisticated (Roth domesticity, et al. 2019). set adjacentNor would to this yet aparthappen from as effectively the neighbors. within Apparently, a building built fitting for in a different is seeming purpose, fit, but whether at a comfortably a college securerecreation remove. center or an off-campus synagogue. Jewish Student Centers nurture Jewish identity through the scope of activities—prayer, dining, study, play—that they are uniquely suited to support 7. Conclusions (Gordon 2019). Moreover, common spatial tropes (openness, interconnectivity, and the presence of relatedIn retrospect,functions) reinforce the common students’ metaphor attention of home to their is an activities’ unlikely Jewish one for content. Jewish Such Student tropes Centers embody on universityan architectural campuses. type, perhaps No one ismore expected so than to exterior live in them, style, and interior a meal décor, commons or applied is not symbolism, a family dining even room.if they Furthermore,are not as easily incontrast identifiable to residences, by sight alone these (Colquhoun buildings are 1969; designed Herdeg to 1985). be public edifices. Why, then,Architect have students Percival and othersGoodman consistently touched referred upon to this home phenomenon when speaking when about he Jewish placed Student the Centers?“congregational As these sense case of studies the Jews” have (Goodman illustrated, and Jewish Goodman students 1949) do at not the identify core of thesetheir buildingsidentity and as home-liketheir visual because culture, they including are marked architecture. with Jewish As symbols,he wrote and elsewhere, so somehow “If there familiar. is anything Rather, students true in feelreligion at home that is because specifically of certain Jewish, architectural it is this integrating characteristics of the andindividual ascribe actors Jewishness and their to them community” through their(Goodman cumulative and Goodman personal experiences. 1947). Goodman This would had sought not happen to link in morethe obvious visibly institutionalpersistence of settings; Jews’ architectsreligious traditions for the Yale with Slifka new architectural Center indicate forms, that bu comfort,t he did so intimacy, through and an emphasis familiarity upon have functional been an importantanalysis rather catalyst than for students’the application associations of religious of Jewishness symbol. with theirFor Goodman, surroundings only (Roth well-planned et al. 2019). Norrelationships would this among happen a synagogue’s as effectively ritual within spaces a co buildinguld inspire built profound for a di spiritualfferent purpose, connections whether among a collegemembers recreation its congregation. center or anUltimately, off-campus however, synagogue. a Jewi Jewishsh Student Student Center Centers is expected nurture Jewish to signify, identity not through the scope of activities—prayer, dining, study, play—that they are uniquely suited to support (Gordon 2019). Moreover, common spatial tropes (openness, interconnectivity, and the presence of related functions) reinforce students’ attention to their activities’ Jewish content. Such tropes embody an architectural type, perhaps more so than exterior style, interior décor, or applied symbolism, even if they are not as easily identifiable by sight alone (Colquhoun 1969; Herdeg 1985). Architect Percival Goodman touched upon this phenomenon when he placed the “congregational sense of the Jews” (Goodman and Goodman 1949) at the core of their identity and their visual culture, including architecture. As he wrote elsewhere, “If there is anything true in religion that is specifically Arts 2019, 8, 107 27 of 31

Jewish, it is this integrating of the individual actors and their community” (Goodman and Goodman 1947). Goodman had sought to link the obvious persistence of Jews’ religious traditions with new architectural forms, but he did so through an emphasis upon functional analysis rather than the application of religious symbol. For Goodman, only well-planned relationships among a synagogue’s ritual spaces could inspire profound spiritual connections among members its congregation. Ultimately, however, a Jewish Student Center is expected to signify, not to sanctify. Through its architectural design, the building is expected to express certain concepts, values, and even feelings. To judge from the examples presented here, Jewish Student Centers convey three interrelated messages:

arrival (of Jewish students) to the university, its intellectual tradition, and its social legacies; • settlement (of Jews) within the university’s surrounding neighborhood; • belonging (of individuals) to a Jewish community. • The substance of these messages differs on each campus, just as the narratives of arrival, settlement, and belonging differ from place to place or person to person. Each of these universities admits Jewish students with past records of high academic achievement and, in doing so, obscures among them students’ differences due to ethnicity, class, or geographical origin. But a successful Jewish Student Center may positively reinforce those aspects of a student’s identity. The Slifka Center, for instance, certainly does so. By its exterior façade, its architecture celebrates the intellectual play of connotation and interpretation; by its interior spatial interconnectivity, its architecture emphasizes the multifaceted nature of contemporary Jewish identity. At Duke, the Freeman Center’s message depends upon (literally) how you look at it. From one angle, the building is first and foremost akin to others at Duke; from another, it is uniquely suited to its site and to the Jewish activities of its occupants. At UCSD, the Glickman Center’s design will announce above all else its students’ right of settlement in residential La Jolla. Yet each building eschews reliance on explicit Jewish symbols and instead deploys materials, light, and effective spatial organization to project its message. Taken together, the effectiveness with which such messages can be conveyed by architecture addresses, in part, the question of a uniquely Jewish architecture (cf. Gruber 2004). Jewish Student Centers are, as a group, stylistically and functionally syncretistic; indeed, syncretism may be their fundamental characteristic. There is no need of irony to observe that Jews’ tradition of textual exegesis might also operate in their experience of architecture. Where Jewish Student Centers are concerned, each architectural design becomes an opportunity for interpretation, wrought in space and physical materials. This intentional characteristic is certainly as typologically significant as any visible style. To be sure, campus facilities serving students of other faiths have shared some of these traits, especially in the years after Second World War when Modernist architectural practice was ascendant. As architect Phillip James Tabb has written, “Denominational identity was occupying new territory in American religious architecture with the coexistence of pure modernism and selective historicism. The suburbs and university campuses were the primary recipients of expansion and experimentation ... [S]piritual life seemed to flourish through the function of the interiority of religious practices and the fellowship among the congregation members” (Tabb 2019, p. 301). On those college campuses, religious fellowship had necessarily to take on multiple dimensions among all students, including Jews. As the story of Jewish Student Centers suggests, students’ belonging to multiple communities affords them opportunities for extra- and intra-sectarian dialogue, made nevertheless easier by a physical, nurturing home. Nevertheless, architecture alone cannot assure that dialogue. Arguments about the Hillel Foundation’s authority to sanction or to forbid certain forms of political activity have led some to question the organization’s commitment to pluralism. At the same time, student activism hostile to Israeli cultural and academic programming has posed a renewed challenge to Jewish groups’ equal participation within university communities (cf. Shire 2017). And, ever more frequently, acts of violence against Jewish students (and their buildings) have come from inside and outside university campuses (Jaschik 2018). If these trends continue, future Jewish Student Centers will tend towards Arts 2019, 8, 107 28 of 31

exclusivity, not ecumenism. What that means for their architecture is two-fold, as follows: Increased concern for security and, paradoxically, less of the intimacy that has characterized these buildings until now. Paul Goldenberg, a security consultant aﬃliated with Rutgers University Miller Center for Community Protection and Resilience, has warned about the practical consequences of this transition: “Security has come with a tremendous cost to the Jewish community ... Our institutions should not be surrounded by copper tin wire and bars” (Sales 2018). Alternatively, in the future, ecumenism may transform into opacity, whereby ﬁtting in becomes once again—for Jews, and perhaps other minority religious groups—hiding in plain sight. Considering the prevalence of such trends in the history of Jewish architecture elsewhere, Jewish Student Centers in the United States could eventually embrace that long-standing, if troubled, tradition.

Funding: This research received no external funding. Acknowledgments: The author would like to thank architects Harold Roth and William Moore; Joyce Gordon, Director of Jewish Life at Duke; Dawn Micena, Oﬃce Manager for Gurlitz Architects; architects Mark Steele and Michael Paluso; Yale University Archives; and Amy McDonald, Duke University Archives. Conﬂicts of Interest: The author is a parent of a Duke undergraduate, and has in the recent past donated small amounts (less than $200 total) to the Jewish Life at Duke fund.

References

Alter, Robert. 1965. Epitaph for a Jewish Magazine: Notes on the Menorah Journal. Commentary 39: 51–55. Available online: https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/epitaph-for-a-jewish-magazinenotes-on- the-menorah-journal/ (accessed on 20 June 2019). Banko, Daniel. 2015. Swarthmore Hillel Votes to Drop ‘Hillel’ from Name. The Phoenix, March 19. Available online: https://swarthmorephoenix.com/2015/03/19/swarthmore-hillel-votes-to-drop-hillel-from-name-after- ultimatum-from-hillel-international/ (accessed on 21 June 2019). Batterson, David. 2011. Hillel of San Diego Still Battles for a New UCSD Facility. San Diego Reader, November 29. Available online: https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2011/nov/29/stringers-hillel-san-diego-still-battles- new-/ (accessed on 18 June 2019). Batterson, David. 2018. UPDATED—Opposition Remains for La Jolla Jewish Center Plan. San Diego Reader, November 10. Available online: https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2018/nov/10/stringers-opposition-la- jolla-jewish-center-plan/ (accessed on 18 June 2019). Bennett, Catherine. 2019. Ethics Fly out of the Window at Oxford University When Big Donors Come Calling. The Guardian, June 22. Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/22/ethics-ﬂy- out-window-oxford-university-when-big-donors-come-calling (accessed on 24 June 2019). Bernstein, Hannah. 2018. Hillels and Israel: How Campus Jewish Communities Are Grappling with Polarizing Politics. New Voices, October 25. Available online: http://newvoices.org/2018/10/25/hillels-and-israel-how- campus-jewish-communities-are-grappling-with-polarizing-politics/ (accessed on 27 June 2019). Bisgyer, Maurice. 1940. Greetings from the National Secretary. In Hillel Handbook. Edited by Rita Chilow and Richard Ritman. Washington: B’nai B’rith Hillel Foundations, vol. 2. Blackburn, William. 1946. The Architecture of Duke University. Durham: Duke University Press. Buggeln, Gretchen. 2015. The Suburban Church: Modernism and Community in Postwar America. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Byrne, Donald. 1989. Jewish Center Advisers Debate Inclusion of Orthodox Bath. The Chronicle, April 3, pp. 3, 5. Call, Stephanie. 2012. Guide to the Papers Rabbi Maurice L. Zigmond (1904–1998). Jewish Heritage Center at NEHGS. Available online: http://digiﬁndingaids.cjh.org/?pID=364992 (accessed on 17 May 2019). Coe, Deborah, and James Davidson. 2001. The Origins of Legacy Admissions: A Sociological Explanation. Review of Religious Research 52: 233–47. Colquhoun, Alan. 1969. Typology and Design Method. Perspecta 12: 71–74. [CrossRef] Development Committee for the Center for Jewish Life. 1990. Promotional Brochure: The Center for Jewish Life at Duke University. Durham: Duke University. Djuren, Ron. 1997. The Center for Jewish Life. Unpublished memorandum dated 5 February 1997. Durham: Duke University Archives. Arts 2019, 8, 107 29 of 31

Dodgson, Mark, and David Gann. 2018. Universities Need Philanthropy but Must Resist Hidden Agendas. World Economic Forum. Available online: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/02/universities-need- philanthropy-but-must-resist-hidden-agendas/ (accessed on 14 June 2019). Duke University Building and Grounds Committee. 1996. Unpublished minutes. Durham: Duke University Archives. Feeney, Nolan. 2014. University Rejects Donald Sterling’s $3 Million Gift. Time. Available online: https: //time.com/81910/donald-sterling-ucla-3-million-gift-rejected/ (accessed on 14 June 2019). Fellman, Bruce. 1995. A Home of One’s Own. Yale Alumni Magazine, November. Available online: http: //archives.yalealumnimagazine.com/issues/95_11/slifka.html (accessed on 28 January 2019). Freeman Center for Jewish Life at Duke. 1999. Unpublished invitation booklet. Durham: Duke University Archives. Geiger, Roger. 2015. The History of American Higher Education. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Goldhagen, Sarah Williams. 2003. Modernism, Discourse, Style. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 64: 144–67. [CrossRef] Goodman, Percival, and Paul Goodman. 1947. Tradition from Function. Commentary 3: 542–44. Goodman, Percival, and Paul Goodman. 1949. Modern Artist as Synagogue Builder: Satisfying the Needs of Today’s Congregations. Commentary 5: 51–55. Gordon, Joyce. 2019. Author’s interview with Joyce Gordon, Director, Jewish Life at Duke. Duke University, Durham, NC, USA, June 3. Grimm, Ernie. 2002. Vacant Lot in La Jolla Causes Grief. San Diego Reader, September 12. Available online: https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2002/sep/12/vacant-lot-la-jolla/ (accessed on 18 June 2019). Gronberg, Ray. 2018. Duke Has Another Union Problem. What’s behind This One? Durham Herald Sun, March 28. Available online: https://www.heraldsun.com/news/local/counties/durham-county/article207156474.html (accessed on 14 June 2019). Gruber, Samuel. 2003. American Synagogues. New York: Rizzoli. Gruber, Samuel. 2004. Jewish Identity and Modern Synagogue Architecture. In Jewish Identity in Contemporary Architecture. Edited by Angeli Sachs and Edward van Voolen. New York: Prestel, pp. 21–31. Grubiak, Margaret. 2014. White Elephants on Campus: The Decline of the University Chapel in America, 1920–1960. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Grusd, Edward. 1939. Converting Jews to Judaism. National Jewish Monthly 54: 72–75. Available online: https: //www.hillel.org/docs/default-source/historical/national-jewish-monthly---november-1939.pdf (accessed on 15 May 2019). Herdeg, Klaus. 1985. The Decorated Diagram. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Hillel International. 2019. FAQs. Hillel International. Available online: https://www.hillel.org/about/faqs (accessed on 21 June 2019). Hillel UC San Diego. 2018. Glickman Hillel Center for Jewish Life. Hillel UC San Diego. Available online: http://ucsdhillel.org/glickman-hillel-center/ (accessed on 19 June 2019). Hillel’s Guide to Jewish Life. 2019. About Duke. College Guide—Hillel’s Guide to Jewish Life at Colleges and Universities. Available online: https://www.hillel.org/college-guide/list/record/duke-university (accessed on 17 June 2019). Hirschhorn, Sara Yael. 2019. America’s Synagogues Are Burning: A Turning Point for U.S. Jews. HaAretz, May 24. Available online: https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-america-s-synagogues-are-burning- a-turning-point-for-u-s-jewish-history-1.7278563 (accessed on 26 June 2019). Hurwitz, Henry, and I. Leo Sharfman, eds. 1914. The Menorah Movement. Anne Arbor: Intercollegiate Menorah Association. Hurwitz, Sophie. 2019. At USC, Controversy Over a Drag Show Alienates LGBT Jews. New Voices, April 30. Available online: http://newvoices.org/2019/04/30/at-usc-controversy-over-a-drag-show-alienates-lgbt-jews/ (accessed on 27 June 2019). Huyssen, Andreas. 2006. Modernism after Postmodernity. New German Critique 99: 1–5. [CrossRef] Jaschik, Scott. 2018. For Hillel, Community and Safety. Inside Higher Ed, October 29. Available online: https://www. insidehighered.com/news/2018/10/29/hillels-nationwide-focus-assuring-students-and-protecting-safety (accessed on 30 July 2019). Jeﬀay, Nathan. 2007. A Logic of Their Own. The Guardian, July 10. Available online: https://www.theguardian. com/education/2007/jul/10/highereducation.students1 (accessed on 21 June 2019). Arts 2019, 8, 107 30 of 31

Joselit, Jenna Weissman. 1978. Without Ghettoism: A History of the Intercollegiate Menorah Association, 1906–1930. American Jewish Archives 30: 133–54. Joseph Slifka Center for Jewish Life at Yale. 2019. History of Jewish Life at Yale. New Haven: Joseph Slifka Center for Jewish Life at Yale. Available online: https://slifkacenter.org/about/history-of-jewish-life-at-yale/ (accessed on 18 May 2019). Jospe, Alfred. 1963. Jewish Students and Student Services in the United States. Washington: B’nai B’rith Hillel Foundations. Available online: https://www.hillel.org/docs/default-source/historical/1963_jewish_students. pdf (accessed on 15 May 2019). Karp, Abraham. 1995. Overview: The Synagogue in America. In The American Synagogue: A Sanctuary Transformed. Waltham: Brandeis University Press, pp. 1–34. Kimmelman, Ruben. 2018. Swastika Defaces Duke University Mural Honoring Synagogue Shooting Victims. NPR, November 20. Available online: https://www.npr.org/2018/11/20/669321036/swastika-defaces-duke- university-mural-honoring-synagogue-shooting-victims (accessed on 30 July 2019). Koster, Kim. 2000. A Community Finds a Home: The Freeman Center for Jewish Life. Duke Magazine, January 31. Available online: https://alumni.duke.edu/magazine/articles/duke-university-alumni-magazine-73 (accessed on 17 June 2019). Levinger, Lee. 1937. The Jewish Student in America. Cincinnati: B’nai B’rith. Lunzer, Bernie. 2018a. First Letter to Duke President Vincent Price, 10 January 2018. Available online: https: //dfmworkers.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Letter-to-Vincent-Price-1-10-2018.pdf (accessed on 14 June 2019). Lunzer, Bernie. 2018b. Second Letter to Duke President Vincent Price, 31 January 2019. Available online: https: //dfmworkers.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Second-Letter-to-Duke-University-1-31-2018.pdf (accessed on 14 June 2019). Medina, Jennifer, Christopher Mele, and Heather Murphy. 2019. One Dead in Synagogue Shooting Near San Diego; Oﬃcials Call It Hate Crime. New York Times, April 27. Available online: https://www.nytimes.com/ 2019/04/27/us/poway-synagogue-shooting.html (accessed on 19 June 2019). Moore, Charles. 1974. The Yale Mathematics Building Competition: Architecture for a Time of Questioning. New Haven: Yale University Press. Needham, Paul. 2008. Mudd to be Sealed? Yale Daily News, September 15. Available online: https://yaledailynews. com/blog/2008/09/15/mudd-to-be-sealed/ (accessed on 15 July 2019). Needham, Paul. 2009. The Architecture of Richard Levin. Yale Daily News, April 16. Available online: https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2009/04/16/the-architecture-of-richard-levin/ (accessed on 15 July 2019). Oren, Dan. 1986. Joining the Club: A History of Jews and Yale. New Haven: Yale University Press. Osterweis, Rollin. 1953. Three Centuries of New Haven, 1638–1938. New Haven: Yale University Press. Pinnell, Patrick L. 2012. Yale University: An Architectural Tour. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Prell, Riv-Ellen. 2000. Fighting to Become Americans. Boston: Beacon Press. Prince, Cathryn. 2019. Left-Wing US Student Groups Increase Pressure on Birthright for ‘Balanced’ Trip. The Times of San Diego, January 10. Richard A Gurlitz Architects. 1997. Site Selection: Center for Jewish Life, Duke University. Unpublished report dated 10 July 1997. Durham: Duke University Archives. Richardson, Curtis. 1990. Letter to Duke University Staﬀ Architect Ron W. Djuren. Unpublished letter dated 14 February 1990. Durham: Duke University Archives. Roth, Harold, William Moore, Rabbi Jason Rubenstein, and Rabbi James Ponet. 2019. Group interview with author at the Slifka Center for Jewish Life at Yale, 29 May 2019. Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA. Ruderman, Judith, Leon Dworksy, Rabbi John Friedman, and Rabbi Steven Sager. 1988. Recommendations to the Board of Trustees. Unpublished report dated October 1988. Durham: Duke University Archives. Sachs, Angeli, and Edward van Voolen, eds. 2004. Jewish Identity in Contemporary Architecture. New York: Prestel. Sales, Ben. 2018. Here’s What it Costs to Put Your Synagogue under Armed Guard. Jewish Telegraphic Agency, November 13. Available online: https://www.jta.org/2018/11/13/united-states/heres-costs-put-synagogue- armed-guard (accessed on 30 July 2019). Scully, Vincent, Catherine Lynn, Eric Vogt, and Paul Goldberger. 2004. Yale in New Haven: Architecture and Urbanism. New Haven: Yale University. Arts 2019, 8, 107 31 of 31

Shire, Emily. 2017. Brown Students Shut Down Trans Activist’s Speech—Because Israel. The Daily Beast, April 13. Available online: https://www.thedailybeast.com/brown-students-shut-down-trans-activists-speechbecause- israel (accessed on 30 July 2019). Solomon, Tandy. 1983. Being Jewish at Duke: The Sizable Minority. The Chronicle, February 16. Soussan, Henry. 2013. The Gesellschaft Zur Förderung Der Wissenschaft Des Judentums in Its Historical Context. London: Leo Baeck Institute. Steele, Mark, and Michael Paluso. 2019. Author’s interview with architects Mark Steele and Michael Paluso at the Oﬃces of M. W. Steele Group, 23 May 2019. San Diego, CA, USA. Stern, Robert A. M., and Jimmy Stamp. 2016. Pedagogy and Place: 100 Years of Architecture Education at Yale. New Haven: Yale University Press. Stone, Chris. 2018. Hillel supporters celebrate judge’s go ahead. The Times of San Diego, December 2. Available online: https://timesofsandiego.com/education/2018/12/02/ucsd-hillel-student-center-akin-to-a-hanukkah- miracle-supporters-on-site-told/ (accessed on 15 May 2019). Stratthaus, Mary Ellen. 1996. Flaw in the Jewel: Housing Discrimination against Jews in La Jolla, California. American Jewish History 84: 189–219. [CrossRef] Tabb, Phillip James. 2019. Epilogue. In Modernism and American Mid-20th Century Sacred Architecture. Edited by Anat Geva. New York: Routledge, pp. 296–302. The Times of San Diego. 2018. Hillel Moves Ahead with UCSD Center after Judge Denies ‘Eastern Europe’ Lawsuit. The Times of San Diego, November 9. Available online: https://timesofsandiego.com/education/2018/11/09/hillel- moves-ahead-with-ucsd-center-after-judge-denies-eastern-europe-lawsuit/ (accessed on 15 May 2019). Turner, Paul V. 1984. Campus: An American Planning Tradition. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Veysey, Laurence. 1970. The Emergence of the American University. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Walsh, John. 1964. San Diego: New General Campus for University of California Plots an Unconventional Course. Science 144: 659–60. [CrossRef][PubMed] Weiss, Kim. 1990. Synthesis and Symbolism: Gwathmey Siegel at Duke. Spectator, August 16, 21–22. Wilson, Caroline. 1999. Supporters Commemorate Opening of Jewish Center. The Chronicle, October 25, pp. 1, 18. Wischnitzer, Rachel. 1955. Synagogue Architecture in the United States. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America. Xue, Clark. 2008. Slifka at 13: Spiritual or Social Hub? Yale Daily News, October 27. Available online: https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2008/10/27/slifka-at-13-spiritual-or-social-hub/ (accessed on 18 June 2019).

© 2019 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).