Informal

Camps Ramah Shimon Frost

In its last issue, AVAR ve'ATID presented the story of Camps Massad — the first part of the late Shimon Frost's essay comparing Massad and Ramah Hebrew summer camps. The Ramah story, translated from the Hebrew by his widow, Peggy, follows.

istorians frequently differ regarding the origins and development of human events. Do persons who initiate and promote actions bring them Habout, or are these people and their ideas also the products of certain changes in society? Ramah's appearance on the American camping scene is a classic example of a combination of both causes. The immediate post-World War II years represented a period of transition and consolidation for American Jewry. Among many , the trauma of the Holocaust caused disillusionment and uncertainty about the future of the Jewish people. In demographic terms, the era is characterized by the transformation of the Jewish community from an immigrant society to one comprised primarily of native-born Jews with deep American roots. This phenomenon, combined with the struggle for a Jewish homeland in Eretz Yisrael, and the efforts to ameliorate conditions of Holocaust survivors in Europe's D.R camps, brought about a greater sense of unity within the Jewish collective. Demobilized Jewish soldiers with their young families began a mass exodus from urban centers to suburbia. In the absence of a "Jewish atmosphere" in these towns, the became the central Jewish institution in communities which sprang up all over the American continent. The first thing always did, was to establish an afternoon religious school for their children. This was a period of dramatic growth of congregational schools, most of them under the aegis of Conservative synagogues. These schools had fewer teaching hours than community Talmud Torah frameworks that had hitherto served most city children (except for the few who attended Jewish day schools, and for the Reform sector which supported Sunday schools). The Conservative educational

207 system required its schools to have classes three days a week for at least five years before Bar/Bat Mitzvah age. The Conservative leadership saw in the afternoon school a solution to the problems of American-Jewish education. However, it was clear that in order to attain serious, long term goals, there must be supplementary educational bodies. This was especially true if a future generation of Jewish communal leaders was to emerge. In 1948, for example, only seven students reeived degrees as Hebrew teachers from the Teachers Institute of the Jewish Theological Seminary; thirteen more students graduated in 1950. Only a small number of these came from congregational schools. This dilemma clearly called for new Conservative educational frameworks. The new strategy was to include nursery-kindergartens (full-day), afternoon schools (six hours per week), a program of secondary education, and summer camps. In addition, there would be programs for university students and adult classes. The notion of summer camps under Conservative aegis was therefore an integral part of an all-encompassing design for widening educational possibilities within the movement, and in order to serve the needs of its congregants. One of the principal architects of these innovations was Dr. Moshe Davis of the Jewish Theological Seminary who had been active in the founding of Camps Massad. He was motivated by the hope that campers would acquire a knowledge of Jewish sources through the . The need to provide spiritual leadership for the growing number of Conservative congregations also weighed on the mind of Professor Mordecai M. Kaplan, Dean of the Teacher's Institute of the J.T.S. He supported the establishment of the Leaders' Training Fellowship (LTF), which was designed for post- Bar/Bat Mitzvah youth who would continue their Hebrew studies and participate in cultural, religious and social activities with the aim of developing an elite to serve the Conservative constituency. The next logical step was a summer camp. The immediate impetus for summer camping came from outside the Seminary — from the community itself. Among the first initiators was Rabbi Ralph Simon of Chicago whose children had attended . His enthusiasm for the idea of Hebrew educational camping sparked the interest of several laymen in the Chicago and Mid-West regional leadership of the United Synagogue of America. A group of such people turned to Davis, Kaplan's successor as Dean of the Teacher's Institute, to support the establishment of a camp in the Mid-West, under J.T.S. supervision. Thus, opened in 1947. In 1950, Ramah in the Poconos was organized, and 1953 saw the opening of Ramah in (later moved to Palmer, Mass.). An attempt was made to set up a Ramah Camp in Maine (1948), but it closed after a single season. As of summer 1981, the Ramah network consisted of six over-night and one day-camp (Nyack, N.Y.), in addition to Ramah programs in .

108 RAMAH BEGINNINGS

The "Ramah Committee", a small group of interested Jews that functioned as the supervisory board of the first camps, became in the course of time, the National Ramah Commission comprised of representatives of the J.T.S., the , the United Synagogue and the regional bodies of the Conservative movement. The national Ramah director heads the operations; he and the individual camp directors set administrative and educational policy, with each camp director exercising wide authority in implementing and adapting policies to local needs according to their own judgment. This explains the distinct differences among the various camps. In the beginning, educational policy was supervised by the academic staff of the Teachers's Institute. From this precedent, a practice developed of inviting a professor in residence to each camp. He serves as the authority on religious matters and as principal educational personality for both campers and staff. Camp Ramah is a "learning community" in which everyone — campers, staff and administrators — participate. Campers study an hour and a half, five days a week; the staff, including waiters, take courses depending on the educational personnel available; administrators listen to lectures given by the professor in residence. The Ramah network enjoys organizational benefits derived from its being part of a national movement. Every Conservative synagogue — its religious and educational leaders, and active members (Board of Directors, Education Committee, Sisterhood, etc.) — is involved, at least theoretically, in recruiting campers. Many synagogues award scholarships to youngsters needing financial aid, as well as to outstanding pupils. In the golden age of the congregational school, before the recent decline in standards and content, efforts were made to foster a camp atmosphere during the school year among pupils who attended Ramah. This took the form of adapting the school curriculum to materials taught at camp. At times, L.T.F. served as the framework for teenager enrichment programs. The camp season lasted a full two months, except for Ramah in California which had two one-month cycles. In the mid-seventies other Ramah camps began to permit half season attendance. This arrangement helped solve numerous problems, including those arising from changes in the Jewish family structure. Children of divorced parents could spend half of their vacation period with the parent with whom they did not live, and the other half, at a summer camp. Despite steep rises in camp tuition (about $2100 for a full season), 1986 found Ramah camps almost filled.

209 THE IDEA AND ITS REALIZATION Since the founding of its first camp, Ramah has undergone periodic changes in its educational aims. Regardless of local differences, it is possible however, to generalize about several phases of development. 1947-1951 were years of groping. The educational philosophy was cautious and conservative; emphasis was on enriching the synagogue school curriculum. This included improving Hebrew language skills and attempts to make Hebrew a living language as part of the camps' daily life; the learning of texts (Pentateuch, Prophets, Writings, Mishnah); and camper participation in religious rites in accordance with Conservative practice. Coming to terms with traditional literary sources was the focus of the learning process. Teachers of the J.T.S. deemed this encounter with text and interpretation to be the very heart of the Jewish experience. Thus, one goal of textual analysis was to develop attitudes which would enable both campers and teachers to take part in the experience, and thereby belong to the Jewish tradition. Even during those early years of Ramah, there were numerous emphases and priorities that differed from those at Massad. Officially, a moderate Zionist spirit — American style — pervaded Ramah, but "Americanism" was fiercely guarded. In the summer of 1950 (two years after the proclamation of the Jewish state), Ramah's leadership in the Poconos decided not to raise the Israeli flag on the camp's flag-pole. The rationale for that decision was two-fold: a) "American Jews are not entitled to the privilege of raising the Israeli flag because nothing prevents them from making and settling in Israel; and b), according to American law, it is forbidden to raise the flag of a foreign state."1 In place of Israel's flag, a special banner was introduced. It was blue and white, but substituted the symbol of the Ten Commandments for the Magen David. (The Ten Commandments were the ensignia of the United States Army Jewish Chaplaincy Corps.) Soon thereafter, a group of Massad counsellors "invaded" Camp Ramah at night (the two camps were located near each other), and took down the special flag, replacing it with the Israeli flag. The Massad Committee apologized for the incident: "We are duty bound to say that what was done by some of our Massad youth to your special flag was perpetrated without our knowledge. Neither the director of the camp, its administrators, nor the Massad Committee were aware of what was happening, and when they did hear about the event, they were very sorry about it." Subsequently, the ceremony of flag- raising was discontinued at Ramah.

1 A letter dated Aug. 15, 1950 from Sylvia Ettenberg, one of Ramah's leaders, to the director of Camps Massad.

110 In the course of time, Zionist tendencies became stronger. Beginning with 1968, Ramah campers about to enter their last year of high school were required to spend the summer in a special Ramah program in Israel. In addition, the presence at the camps of large numbers of Israelis who served on the staff imparted a Zionist-Israeli atmosphere, previously missing. In her master's thesis on Ramah camps, Shuly Rubin Schwartz summarized the main differences between Massad and Ramah: "Although Ramah was in many respects an offshoot of Massad, it represented a parting of the ways — a) despite a Jewish national orientation, Ramah is an American camp with Americanized campers and counselors; and b) 'Hebrew is only a tool; it cannot be the goal', declared Sylvia Ettenberg." Jewish educators were in general agreement that Ramah came to fill the gap between Camp Cejwin (whose Jewish content was positive but weak) and Massad: more formal Jewish studies, religion, and Hebrew and than at Cejwin; more openness and flexibility in religious matters and less Zionist ideology than at Massad.

THE ERA OF EXPERIMENTATION

1952-1956 were years of the first revolution at Ramah; this radical change is closely connected with Louis (Eleazer) Newman. Newman, an American-born professional Jewish educator, represented a progressive educational philosophy, and was a proponent of "a democratic educational environment". He served as the principal of Akiva Academy in Philadelphia, and then as head of the Melton Institute for Educational Research at the J.T.S.; subsequently, he directed the Bureau of Jewish Education in . His years as Ramah camp director in Wisconsin enabled him to apply his educational theories. (In the words of one of his admirers, "Lou holds Dewey in one hand and the Tanakh in the other".) The goal of Newman's policies was for the camp to become a complete educational environment, emphasizing individual development: "We want a) to create an environment for living in which all people — campers, counsellors and the entire staff — can become better human beings; b) to impart in our campers knowledge of the Jewish tradition; and c) to teach the Hebrew language for the purpose of reading and speaking." Newman's experiments lasted only three years, but his influence on the Ramah network, and on both campers and counsellors, was deep and continuing. He did not approve of competition: the Maccabiah was abolished (a decision voted on by the entire camp and adapted unanimously); the daily schedule was eliminated (except for studies); and the counsellors' educational role in relation to their cabins was enhanced. For a short time, counsellors were also the teachers, but this experiment did not succeed. Newman's fidelity to the Hebrew language was without reservation but, nevertheless, as Ms. Schwartz remarks: "Newman's

221 philosophy had within it the potential to erode the ideological principles of Raman — Hebrew studies and Jewish living". The ideal was developing the individual through education and responsibility, and emphasizing the aim of Judaism to be the nurturing of "a good person". The camp was the place where campers learn to think and make decisions; to this end, projects were based on the principles of group dynamics. A new period began for Ramah when Rabbi Seymour Fox became dean of the Teacher's Institute. He organized the Continuing Study Seminar in which all camp directors, unit heads, and educational staff participated throughout the year (not only during the months preceding the opening of camp). Three parallel seminars were held — for directors, unit heads, and general educators; these seminars met during the years 1955-1966. At Fox's invitation, beginning with 1961, Professor Joseph Schwab of the University of Chicago, joined the leadership of the seminars. From time to time other well-known persons in the field of education and the social sciences also took part. They included Israel Schefler, Lawrence Cremin, Ralph Tyler, Bruno Bettleheim, and James Coleman. The declared aim was to bring in the best educational thinkers and developmental psychologists to forge Ramah's national educational philosophy. Schwab was particularly interested in the non-cognitive dimension at Ramah. He doubted that values are learned only in group work and through projects. Under his influence, the cabins (units of 14-16 campers living together), assumed new roles. Instead of being primarily organizational units of the camp's structure, they became frameworks in which "children lived together and developed mutual relationships in a non-hierarchical, non-judgmental environment". In this milieu, a camper was expected to free himself from the strains of continual group living. For some, it was to be a means of overcoming fears that accompanied separation from home and homesickness. The presumption was that when the camper succeeds in overcoming these problems, he can be free to turn his attention to other emotions and "make contact with his inner feelings...."2 The climax of Ramah's program for educating the emotions, "the inner life of man", "was to be found in and through, tefillah", states Fox. The new role of the cabin, along with an increased emphasis on the arts, became part of the affective dimension and interpersonal educational goals of the camp. There were also "interest groups" (specializing in dance, arts and crafts, nature, etc.). Participation in such groups was voluntary; they afforded oppor• tunities for developing talents and achieving excellence. As Ramah expanded its informal education programs, many of them went beyond what is usually defined as "Jewish education", although a Jewish environment and values were basic to the camp.

Fox, Seymour, "Ramah: A Setting for Jewish Education", in The Ramah Experience, (Ed. Sylvia Ettenberg and Geraldine Rosenfeld), Jewish Theological Seminary — Ramah Commission, 1989.

112 This period was characterized by openness to innovation and educational experimentation, not only in relation to camping but also in serving as a labo­ ratory for effecting changes in Jewish education. It is not surprising, therefore, that in this climate, camps Ramah, more so than Massad, were vulnerable to the 60s during׳ behavior whirlpool that characterized American society in the late the Vietnam War. The decentralized structure of the camps gave local directors a wide range of opportunities to design special emphases for their units. In some camps, classes were devoted to subjects outside the mainstream of Jewish education, while others accentuated the tendency to become hothouses for Jewish social isolation. Camp Ramah at Palmer, Mass, was particularly radical. One critic said: "They were ready to exchange the traditional cultural values of Ramah for those of the new youth culture". This experimentation met with resistance from the National Ramah Commission, but because of the network's decentralized nature, the criticism came only after the fact. However, conclusions were drawn, and in the 70's Ramah's educational philosophy returned to the golden mean.

BACK TO NORMAL

One of the most innovative programs of the time was the "Mador" program for preparing counsellors. The most talented and potentially most successful campers who had completed high school were concentrated in one camp for an intensive summer program; they alternately studied and served as junior counsellors for two-week periods. Learning was on a high level and the practical work was accompanied by supervision and evaluation. Undoubtedly, this was a unique way to prepare future counsellors. What is the current (1988) educational image of camps Ramah? According to Dr. Burton Cohen, the national director of the Ramah network — now a professor of education at J.T.S. — the educational climate at the time combines the two former approaches with the addition of a new tendency present in today's Conservative Movement. Thus for example, the National Ramah Commission's policy states that two parallel minyanim should be maintained in each camp — a traditional minyan, and an egalitarian one where girls are called to the Torah and serve as prayer leaders, etc. In practice, only Ramah in the Berkshires follows this guideline; in the other camps all the minyanim are egalitarian. The daily schedule has once again become fixed, but within certain limits campers can choose their activities. (Most counsellors are themselves former campers.) However, the current situation is not satisfactory, according to Cohen: "There is a shortage of qualified personnel despite the fact that the Israeli contin­ gent of staff members serves as activity counsellors and as teachers". The schedule of Jewish studies ("the learning community") remains as at the beginning. There are usually two educational directors in each camp, one specializing in Hebrew language learning, the other in other areas of study. Language classes are Ivrit

223 b'lvrit, but Jewish studies requiring discussion are taught, at least partially, in English. This contrasts with the earlier practice of teaching all subjects in Hebrew. Social changes have also influenced the camp population and educational goals. Already in 1969, one counsellor wrote:

When Ramah began, the campers represented an elite; they spoke Hebrew, and came from yeshivot and from homes observing . Today, the camps have grown in number from two to seven; they accept young people from less traditional backgrounds, who are more interested in confronting the problems of contemporary youth than in studying traditional Judaism.

The former Chancellor of the Seminary, Professor Gershon Cohen, speaking to the National Ramah Commission in 1973, summed up these changes from a different perspective:

The founders [of Ramah] sought to create a native-born American elite for the Jewish community. Emphasis was therefore placed on Hebrew as a means of communication among Ramah campers.... The aim today is not to create a limited elite leadership.... but to form a widerbased infrastructure of young people who will become the congregants. We know that it is not possible to Hebraize American Jewish life by intensive indoctrination during two months of the year.... As against this, we have learned that the direction of an individual's religion can be changed....

The fortieth anniversary of Ramah was celebrated with much pomp and intensive soul-searching regarding the network's successes and failures. In the opening article of a special issue of dedicated to Ramah's birthday, Professor Ismar Schorsch, present Chancellor of the Seminary, writes: "I am convinced that in terms of social importance, and the extent of influence on individual lives, Ramah is the most significant undertaking ever attempted by the J.T.S."

EVALUATION

Has Ramah succeeded in its goals? In what areas has it been successful? Where has it failed? • These questions continue to concern the Conservative Movement's leader• ship. Schorsch lauds the Ramah-inspired pattern of prayer and mitzvot, and characterizes Ramah's style of worship as "...informality, full participation, pleasant, enthusiastic communal singing, non-dogmatic learning, and differing degrees of egalitarianism.... In essence, what Ramah sought to achieve is the shaping of a Conservative laity." Rabbi Stephen Lerner sees Ramah's principal success in its introducing campers to authentic Jewish living. He says:

114 The (campers) live all the slogans that seemed so hollow in Hebrew school during the year. Ramah embodies the goals of Conservative Judaism: the significance of learning in the Hebrew language, regular prayer, the meaningful observance of and kashrut, concern for the welfare of humanity, identification with Israel.... Two research papers dealing with educational questions and Jewish identity (not limited to Ramah) reach the conclusion that the Ramah experience imparts to its campers a feeling of intensified Jewish belongingness. Despite other reservations, these critics see in Ramah's program a potent factor in forming the Jewish identity of today's youth. Dr. Raphael Arzt, former director of Camp Ramah in Palmer, Mass. lists a number of failures (or limited successes) in Ramah's program: a) the program is made up of "parts" which do not form a unified whole; b) the educational philosophy emphasizes "ideological seclusion" at too young an age; and c) "success" is usually measured only in relation to the area of liturgy. Dr. Schorsch also complains that the educational program, for all its good points, is "a blanket with many patches" and sees an urgent need to develop a complete, crystallized educational experience. This should be based on the dynamics of midrash, that is, to develop in campers habits of creative interpreta• tion of sacred texts. In addition says Schorsch, the Conservative Movement must provide year-round frameworks for campers, as envisioned by the founders of Ramah. In a lecture given on the occasion of Ramah's fortieth anniversary, Professor Seymour Fox mentioned three "missed opportunities" at the camps: 1. The deteriorated shrinking status of the Hebrew language at Ramah: "We did not react to this problem vigorously. It was a serious error that might have been rectified had we invested in upgrading the educational staff's Hebrew knowledge and in developing a graded program for teaching Hebrew appropriate to a camp setting." 2. The State of Israel and the questions it raises for contemporary Jews: This issue, with its educational ramifications, "was never directly confronted at Ramah.... The subject of Israel rarely achieved its rightful place on the agenda". In practice, however, even though Ramah never defined itself as Zionist, scores of its alumni have settled in Israel. 3. The year-round program which was to have been part of Ramah's total educational design: The intention was to provide a framework that would serve as a bridge between the summer experience and the rest of the year. LTF was supposed to have been that bridge, but even in Ramah's golden years, the realization of this goal "rarely occurred.... [I]t was a serious failure." Now, LTF has disappeared altogther.

See earlier footnote.

115 Looking both ways — to the past and to the future — Fox sums up in his address the balance sheet of successes and failures: "Camps Ramah were in the forefront of educational enterprises, but every educational institution must systematically evaluate its aims. Let us hope that the Ramah network is indeed engaged in this evaluation." •

• 4• «0• •

Jewish Education in a Changing South Africa Isadore Rubenstein*

he 39.5 million people of South Africa,1 with its small Jewish community, have experienced a lengthy period of violence, uncertainty, Tecomomic stagnation, and wide-reaching political and social change, culminating in the inauguration of Nelson Mandela as the first black president in May 1994. Recently, the South African Board of Jewish Education (SABJE) entered into negotiations with the state's Ministry of Education regarding the future of Jewish education in the context of the small private school sector. The major issues are: 1) whether Jewish day schools that admit mainly Jewish, and therefore, white pupils, contravene a constitutional provision that forbids discrimination on the grounds of race; 2) will the schools continue to receive government subsidies; and 3) what degree of state intervention, if any, will there be in the formulation of curricula and school policy. While these are important issues that relate to the parameters of Jewish education in South Africa, there are others that must be analyzed if adequate planning for the future is to be undertaken. It is necessary therefore to re• evaluate the Jewish schools that reflect the cultural and societal reality of "old" South Africa, before attempting to focus on changes needed to cope with Jewish identity and Jewish continuity in the new era.

* The author is a young rabbi from the South African Board of Jewish Education, who is currently enrolled in the Fellows Program in Jerusalem. 1 76% blacks, 13% whites, 8.5% colored, and 2.5% Asians. The Jewish community numbers between 92,000 and 106,000.

116