dian of Christian culture at Wellesley was the Sh'ma Department of Religion, Bible study was required of every student until 1969. Successive a journal of Jewish responsibility presidents insisted that Jewish scholars were in- herently unqualified to teach the New Testament. 15/281, NOVEMBER 16, 1984 Thus, not until the Bible requirement was drop- ped did the Religion Department (over strenuous internal opposition) hire its first Jewish member, whose term was punctuated by anti-Semitic harassment. Two years ago her successor, a distinguished and prolific young scholar, was not recommended for tenure, largely on the grounds of "personality." He retained legal counsel, who gathered evidence indicating that the negative tenure decision was "significantly influenced by iFighting anti-semitism at wellesley the taint of anti-Semitism." With the threat of litigation and attendant publicity looming, the Jerold S. Auerbach department decision was reversed— and the new- Anti-Semitism is always repugnant, even in an in- ly tenured scholar departed for a more congenial stitution as benign and genteel as Wellesley Col- academic environment. lege. No glaring episode, or ugly incident No sooner had the tenure issue receded than a disrupted the normal serenity of college life. In- series of student complaints provided dismaying • stead, there was abundant evidence of a persistent evidence of persistent insensitivity toward at pattern: a history of , a legacy of the college. Jewish students reported frequent i insensitivity. academic conflicts scheduled for major Jewish Wellesley College, according to its statutes, was holidays; professorial denials of their requests to founded "for the glory of God and the service of postpone assignments due on Yom Kippur; pro- the Lord Jesus Christ." Wellesley students were fessorial displeasure at class absence due to holi- expected to regard "Christian character" as "the day observances; a threat to eliminate the kosher most radiant crown of womanhood." They were meal plan (which presidental intervention halted); encouraged to spend their lives "in humble imita- and the systematic avoidance by admissions tion of Him who ''came not to be ministered unto, recruiters of predominantly Jewish high schools. but to minister— the phrase that still serves as Even the college president conceded "a disturbing the college motto. Until five years ago every pattern" of insensitivity toward Jews. This is not trustee, faculty member, and officer was required altogether surprising in an institution that retains by college statute (although not in practice) to the Christian cross as the symbol of its spiritual belong to an evangelical church. life, holds its annual convocation ceremony (the first formal event of every academic year) in the , Christian exclusivity was moderated over time in- Christian chapel, and unselfconsciously accepts its to a formal quota system, which restricted Jewish Christian symbolism as a neutral reflection of the students to eight to ten percent of each entering natural order. class. (Jews, according to a college policy state- Wellesley's Anti-Semitism Made Public ment, possessed "identifiable physical features.") So the pattern was set: a series of overt acts of Wellesley retained its Jewish quota until the late discrimination or covert instances of insensitivity, I I940's, when Massachusetts fair practices legisla- invariably followed by presidential affirmations of tion required its abandonment— over the opposi- the virtue of tolerance. Discrimination against tion of Wellesley's president. After a steady rise in Jews was never explicitly condemned, although the admission of Jewish applicants during the Jews were the specific targets of discrimination. 50's, the percentage steadily receded until, cur- The pattern persisted until it was reported in out- rently, it is only slightly higher than during the side media (the college newspaper remained con- i quota years. spicuously silent on the subject). In response to a Jews "Not Qualified" to Teach Bible Commentary article about anti-Semitism at Sarah Lawrence, I provided evidence drawn from For many decades the unofficial academic custo- Wellesley archives that demonstrated the iden- tical pattern of restricted admissions and ad- JEROLD AUERBACH teaches history at ministrative . Not long afterward the Jewish Wellesley. 1 k Advocate, perhaps alerted by the Commentary Presidential silence was followed by the explicit letter, published a comprehensive, careful, and refusal of the Board of Trustees to endorse the shocking article with ample documentation of faculty resolution. The Board, with cavalier Wellesley's stunted transition from parochialism disregard of the history of restrictive quotas and to pluralism. hiring discrimination, denied that there was a history of anti-Semitism at Wellesley. Instead, it Once Wellesley's dirty linen was washed in invented a mythical "history of dedication to public, and only then, the shield of institutional "— at a college where only white Chris- decorum that concealed anti-Semitism was shat- tian women once were welcome. The Trustees tered. For the first time in college history it was deplored discrimination but refused to mention possible, indeed urgently necessary, to conduct a Jews by name— as though two months of debate full, open inquiry into anti-Semitism, discrimina- had not concerned Jews. They affirmed "the tion, and insensitivity toward Jews at Wellesley. moral imperative of the Founder," which, of In successive faculty meetings, the primary forum course, was the foundation of Christian exclusivi- for this debate, there were three pivotal issues ty. The Trustees managed to deny what everyone (which surely resonate beyond Wellesley College). else in the college knew to be true. In this First, would discrimination directed specifically Wellesley Wonderland, where words lost all against Jews be specifically identified and con- meaning, the president then proceeded to assert demned? Or would anti-Semitism vanish amid the compatibility of these diametrically opposed sweeping declarations of universal tolerance that resolutions, one acknowledging and condemning were as insensitive to Jews as the original anti-Semitism while the other did neither. Only a discriminatory acts? Second, would the pattern of torrent of criticism— from faculty, Hillel, and discrimination be perceived as institutional, or concerned supporters— finally budged the trustees would it be reduced to the isolated acts of mere to the minimal concession that anti-Semitism had individuals, for which there was no institutional indeed been a problem at Wellesley and that it responsibility or culpability? Finally, would the was deplorable. connections between past and present be acknowledged, and the burden of institutional history accepted, or would the claim of tabula Sh'ma rasa absolve Wellesley for everything prior to a journal of Jewish responsibility yesterday? Editor Eugene B. Borowitz Assistant Editor Margaret Moers Wenig Faculty Condemns the Anti-Semitism Adminstrator Alicia Seeger After a prolonged and excruciating debate, the Production CLM Graphics faculty (amid thunderous administrative silence) Art Abba Spero and Steven Mills finally acknowledged the evidence of anti- Contributing Editors Michael Berenbaum, J. David Bleich, Semitism, condemned its history at Wellesley, Balfour Brickner, Mitchell Cohen, Daniel ]. Elarnr, Blu Greenberg, committed the college to obliterate discrimination Susan Handelman, Paula Hyman, Nora Levin, David Novak, against Jews in recruitment, admission, employ- Harold Schulweis, Steven Schwarzschild, Seymour Siegel, Sharon ment, and promotion, and declared that insen- Strassfeld, Elie Wiesel, Arnold Jacob Wolf, Michael Wyschogrod. sitivity toward the religious obligations of Jews Sli'nm welcomes articles from diverse points of view. was impermissible. To assuage the universalists, Hence, the opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those the faculty also dedicated the college to the of the editors. Donations to Sh'ma Inc. are tax-deductible. eradication of all forms of racial and religious Sh'ma is available in microform from University Microfilms (but not gender) . Internatl, Ann Arbor, Mi. Send manuscripts to 198 St. James Place, BWyn N Y. 11238. A resolution is not a solution. But it carried Address all other correspondence, subscriptions and change of significance, at least symbolically, in a college address notices to Box 567, Port Washington, N.Y. 11050. whose only official policy toward Jews had Sh'nm (ISSN 0049-0385) is published bi-weekly except June, declared them an unwelcome presence. There July and August, by Sh'ma Inc., 735 Port Washington Blvd., Port Washington, N.Y 11050. Subscriptions $22 for two years followed tangible evidence of heightened atten- in U.S. and Canada; $12 a year overseas. 10 or more to one tiveness to the recruitment of Jewish students, and address,$6 each per year. Retired or handicapped persons of respect for their religious observance. Since the restricted means may subscribe at half price. resolution called upon the president and trustees Copyright ® 1984 by Sh'ma Inc. to affirm its principles, it seemed that Wellesley POSTMASTER: Please forward Form 3579 to Box 567, Port finally had turned an important institutional cor- Washington, N.Y 11050. ner. Second class postage paid at Port Washington, N.Y. and at additional entry Bethpage, N.Y. Regrettably, that happy ending was deferred. 15/281, Novemlier 16, 1984

2 The Problem of Jewish Acquiescence same tormenting dilemmas of acculturation, iden- So much for Wellesley's Jewish problem. There tity, and loyalty that beset most American Jews. jwas, sadly, an even more insidious problem: When anti-Semitism lurks, or insensitivity sim- .Jewish acquiescence in, even denial of, mers, it is all too tempting to remain silent— or discrimination that was, after all, directed against to blame other Jews for instigating trouble. Jews. It is always easy to be lulled into compla- With hindsight, it is possible to appreciate how i cent gratitude for the favors bestowed by an elite, any struggle against anti-Semitism turns upon an j esteemed, generous institution. It is tempting to accurate assessment of institutional strengths and i; lapse into self-congratulation for being not worthy vulnerabilities. Wellesley's image as a liberal, j' (with a degree, an appointment, or a promotion) respected college enabled us to turn its professed I by such a prestigious college. Jewish students are values of diversity and tolerance to our advan- especially vulnerable, for they hardly come to tage, even though we knew all too well that these f Wellesley to deepen their Jewish identities values were violated in practice. In such a tradi- , (although the college, inadvertently, may help tional institution, where hoop-rolling is more •Ithem to do so), untenured faculty are understand- venerated than boat-rocking, it was imperative to ! ably anxious lest they jeopardize their promotion equate the condemnation of anti-Semitism with • possibilities. traditional virtues, although the equation was The most distressing forms of Jewish self- fallacious. Success also depended upon the will- j degradation occurred among senior faculty and ingness to violate a sacred college norm, by !i trustees. Every dismal provided by cen- reaching beyond the institution for support— j turies of Jewish life in the Diaspora was recreated whether from a lawyer, a reporter, or a Jewish ! at Wellesley. Court Jews truly committed to their defense organization. That enabled us to trans- j, people, aligned themselves with their institutional cend our internal weakness as a tiny minority and benefactor. Jewish universalists, committed to to negotiate with college authorities with the every worthy liberal cause, could not bear to assurance, so comforting to us and disturbing to identify and condemn discrimination against them, that a concerned Jewish community was at- Jews. Assimilated Jews retreated behind the veil tentive to Wellesley issues. Nothing enraged col- of civility and decorum that define good manners lege authorities more than our encouragement of among the Christian elite whom they emulate. outside scrutiny; but nothing made them respond And self-hating Jews, who usually identify as Jews with greater alacrity. Within the faculty, it was J only to legitimate their condemnation of Israel, only necessary to remain unyielding on our ; engaged in extraordinary forms of linguistic ability bedrock principles— explicit acknowledgment and < to affirm the complexity of the issues in order condemnation of anti-Semitism. Given the deep fto deny the existence of anti-Semitism. Cutting aversion of our opponents to prolonged and across all categories and ranks were the Jews of divisive conflict, the longer we stood firm the silence, who could not stir themselves to utter a closer their commitment to conflict-avoidance brought them to our position. • word in public against anti-Semitism. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that the struggle to In the end, it is "our" Jewish problem, not i frame an acceptable faculty resolution was largely Wellesley's, that is most troubling. Yet it is within ;an intramural Jewish battle, while the bemused, our power to resolve, for its remedies are entirely or indifferent, majority watched from the internal. A cure does not require demeaning pleas sidelines. And, needless to say, the Trustees' for institutional tolerance of our presence. We •resolution, which denied that anti-Semitism was can, however, affirm our own self-respect as Jews even a problem, was proposed by a Jew, and af- by demanding the respect of others, not on their firmed by every Jewish trustee. terms but on ours. •

I Unwilling to be Jews in Public Wellesley cuts tie to anti-semitic past Jews at Wellesley are not significantly different Richard J. Israel from Jews in other academic, business, and pro- It is no secret that Wellesley College, like most of fessional institutions: willing to be Jews at home the private colleges in New England, has (perhaps); but on the street, and at work, deter- denominational Christian origins and also no mined to be professors, executives, lawyers and secret that like most of the private colleges in New doctors. Our split lives affirm our "enlighten- England, it became very nervous about the ment," enabling us to separate public and private, personal and professional, religion and nationali- RICHARD ISRAEL, a rabbi, directs the Hillel ty. So Wellesley Jews confront, or evade, the Council of Greater Boston.

3