Racism, Antisemitism, and the Schism Between Blacks and Jews in the United States: a Pilot Intergroup Encounter Program Lewis Z

Home , Institutional racism, Maafa, Racial antisemitism

Racism, Antisemitism, and the Schism Between Blacks and Jews in the United States: A Pilot Intergroup Encounter Program Lewis Z. Schlosser, Regine M. Talleyrand, Heather Z. Lyons, and Lisa M. Baker

A schism now exists between Blacks and Jews in the United States, 2 groups that were strong allies during the civil rights movement. The authors describe the historical antecedents of and contributing factors to this schism and present information on and lessons learned from 2 Black–Jewish dialogues that were conducted. Existe en la actualidad un cisma entre Negros y Judíos en los Estados Unidos, 2 grupos que fueron grandes aliados durante el movimiento de reivindicación de los derechos civiles. Los autores describen los antecedentes históricos y los factores que han contribuido a este cisma y presentan la información obtenida y las lecciones aprendidas a partir de 2 conversaciones llevadas a cabo entre individuos Negros y Judíos. Between me and the other world there is ever an unasked question: How does it feel to be a problem? —W. E. B. DuBois (1903, p. 1) istorically, people of African descent and people of Jewish descent (hereinafter referred to as Blacks and Jews, respectively) have been Hamong the most consistent, prominent, and public targets of hatred, discrimination, and oppression (Lerner & West, 1995). Perhaps the most well-known and powerful examples of these histories of oppression are the Maafa (i.e., the middle passage of the African slave trade) and the Shoah (i.e., the Holocaust during World War II). Despite this shared history of having overcome and survived extreme oppression, as well as a past alliance fighting together for civil rights (Berman, 1995; Kaufman, 1995), Blacks and Jews now find themselves pitted against one another in the United States. Underscoring this reality, research supports the continued presence of some Black antisemitism and Jewish racism (Fiebert, Horgan, & Peralta, 1999). The schism between Blacks and Jews has been the subject of some scholarship (Adams & Bracey, 1999; Berman, 1995; Daughtry, 1997; Kaufman, 1995; Lerner & West, 1995; Salzman & West, 1997). These past scholars have suggested that the origins of the schism are based on the economic divide between Blacks and

Lewis Z. Schlosser, Department of Professional Psychology and Family Therapy, Seton Hall University; Regine M. Talleyrand, Graduate School of Education, George Mason University; Heather Z. Lyons, Department of Psychology, Loyola College in Maryland; Lisa M. Baker, Department of Psychology, VA NY Harbor Healthcare System, Brooklyn Campus. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Lewis Z. Schlosser, Department of Professional Psychology and Family Therapy, Seton Hall University, 400 S. Orange Avenue, South Orange, NJ 07079 (e--mail: [email protected]).

116 Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development • April 2007 • Vol. 35 Jews, as well as the emergence of Black Nationalism and Zionism. However, to our knowledge, there is little recent scholarship on intercultural dialogues between these two groups. Given the commitment to multiculturalism by professionals in the counseling field, it follows that counselors endorse the examination and reparation of conflicts between racial and cultural groups. Furthermore, develop- ing a model to address the Black–Jewish conflict may lead to awareness of and solutions to conflicts among other racial and cultural groups. The intergroup encounter literature base can be helpful in understanding the Black–Jewish schism. Intergroup encounter programs (Abu-Nimer, 1999; Maoz, 2004) flourished out of a recognition of the need to focus more on process than outcome in contact hypothesis research (Amir, 1969), understanding conflict as a means of achieving equity, and the evidenced power of grass roots interac- tion opportunities. Of relevance to Black–Jewish relations, other intergroup encounter programs (e.g., focused on Arab–Jewish interactions; Abu-Nimer, 1999; Maoz, 2004) have stressed an understanding of the sophisticated historical and political complexities of the rift. In addition, these programs encourage equality between groups during the intervention, while also recognizing the reality of a power imbalance between the groups in the real world. Two other important factors are honest self- and group-reflection that recognizesindividuals’ role in creating and maintaining rifts and a focus on process rather than outcome. We sought to incorporate these aforementioned aspects into our pilot intergroup encounter program, which is the main focus of this article. In addition to aspects of successful intergroup encounters, there are models of intergroup encounter programs that should be considered. Maoz (2004) recognized three such models. The first is the Coexistence Model, which is focused on stereotype reduction, intergroup similarities, and engendering positive intergroup attitudes. The second, the Confrontational Model, high- lights intergroup conflict to raise awareness among majority group members and empower minority group members through this confrontation as well as help to define identity. Finally, the Mixed Model combines elements of both models through the sharing of personal experiences. Because we wanted to benefit from aspects of theC oexistence and Confrontational Models, we used the Mixed Model approach in the dialogues described later in this article. It is important to define some key terms. The first term is racism, which ac- cording to Sue (2003) “is any attitude, action, or institutional structure or any social policy that subordinates persons or groups because of their color” (p.31). Jones (1997) stipulated that there are levels of racism, including individual, institutional, and cultural. Individual racism is defined as interpersonal interactions, covert or overt, that reflect one’s internalized racism. On the other hand, institutional racism is the manifestation of these beliefs in laws and policies that create the power to systematically disadvantage people of color. Cultural racism is defined as the inherited racial climate of a nation or community as reflected in the media, cultural worldview, cultural symbols, and activities.

Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development • April 2007 • Vol. 35 117 We include ourselves among the many scholars (e.g., Helms, 1995; Helms & Cook, 1999; Sue, 2003) who believe that racism is differentiated from prejudice and discrimination because it involves power. That is, to be racist one must hold prejudicial attitudes and have the power to oppress others; thus, people of color in the United States cannot be racist. The second term is antisemitism. Antisemitism is prejudice, hostility, and discrimination toward Jews as a religious or cultural group that can manifest on an individual, institutional, or societal level. Beck (1982) proposed seven categories of antisemitism: religious, social, political, economic, psychological, sexual, and racial antisemitism. Many scholars, as we do, omit the hyphen from antisemitism to ensure that the word will not be used for anything besides its original intent, that is, the hatred of Jews. It is important to note that the current taxonomy for race, ethnicity, and religion fails to adequately describe Jews (Schlosser, 2006). That is, Judaism is seen solely as a religion. This conceptualization of Judaism has many implications, including the nega- tion of the experience of secular American Jews. In addition, racism and antisemitism need to be understood and considered in the context of the United States as a nation where Whites enjoy the greatest power (McIntosh, 1998) and as a secular nation with an overwhelming Christian majority (Schlosser, 2003). When we use the term Blacks, we are referring to people of African descent, including African Americans, African nationals, Afro-Caribbeans, and multiracial individuals who self-identify as Black (e.g., Black Hispanics). When we use the term Jews, we are referring to people of Jewish descent and those who converted to Judaism; this includes Ashkenazim, Sephardim, and Mizrachim, as well as religious and secular Jews (see Schlosser, 2006, for a discussion of the diversity of Jews). We recognize that both Blacks and Jews experience incredible within-group variability that can shape their racial and cultural socialization experiences. Although some of the issues that are pertinent to within-group variability might play a role in the Black–Jewish dialogue, a full discussion of these issues is beyond the scope of this article. Finally, because context matters, we limit our discussion to the United States, where Blacks and Jews have a history with one another and, unfortunately, where racism and antisemitism have continued to flourish. The remaining portion of this article is organized in three parts. The first part is the background related to Black–Jewish relations in the United States, including the historical antecedents of and factors contributing to the Black–Jewish rift. The second part of the article is focused on two Black–Jewish dialogues that were conducted. We describe the events and process that occurred when the authors (two Blacks and two Jews) met to have their own Black–Jewish dialogue. Next, we describe our experiences of facilitating a pilot Black–Jewish dialogue at the Boston College Diversity Challenge Conference (BCDCC) in October 2004. The article concludes with (a) lessons learned; (b) limitations; and (c) recommendations for counseling research, practice, and training.

118 Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development • April 2007 • Vol. 35 historical antecedents The History of Blacks and Jews in the UNITED STATES

This section introduces the issues and dynamics in the history and present understanding of Black–Jewish relations. This description is not comprehensive because there are several books devoted to this topic (Adams & Bracey, 1999; Berman, 1995; Daughtry, 1997; Kaufman, 1995; Lerner & West, 1995; Salzman & West, 1997). When discussing events that preceded the current schism, it is important first to note the historical alliance between Blacks and Jews. This alliance was most apparent in the United States when Jews and Blacks came together to fight for Black civil rights. The civil rights movement was largely led by Black leaders and was propelled by the energy and work of Blacks (Kaufman, 1995). There were, however, many Whites who were a part of the movement; these Whites were also often Jews (Kaufman, 1995). There are several reasons that Blacks and Jews became allies in the fight for civil rights. The shared histories of oppression have helped shape the lives of generations of Blacks and Jews. These histories of oppression contributed to shared values, such as social and community responsibility and identification with the “underdog” (Adams & Bracey, 1999; Kaufman, 1995; Lerner & West, 1995). Lerner and West also discussed the role of religious teachings, such as the importance of love and understanding, in contributing to their shared values. At the time of the civil rights movement, the Jewish community was still reeling from the effects of the Shoah, and they continued to experience antisemitism (Kaufman, 1995). As a result, many Jews related to the plight of American Blacks and felt a certain kindred spirit in the struggle against oppression. Seeing the value of such an alliance, many Blacks accepted help from Jews (Adams & Bracey, 1999). The relations that developed between Blacks and Jews during the peak of the civil rights movement have been described as coopera- tive and loving; at the same time, however, some questioned the motivations for the alliance, seeing self-interest as a major and sometimes divisive role in the relationship (Lerner & West, 1995). Not only did Blacks and Jews band together socially and politically on the basis of their shared histories of oppression and the value they placed on social justice (Daughtry, 1997), but both Blacks and Jews stood to benefit from a society that was free from discrimination (Lerner & West, 1995). During the late 1960s, however, this alliance began to splinter (Berman, 1995). Many Jews saw the gains from the civil rights movement as a victory and an endpoint in the struggle, whereas most Blacks saw them as just the beginning (Kaufman, 1995). Scholars have also pointed to the economic divi- sions, as well as the emergence of Black Nationalism and Zionism, as weaken- ing the Black–Jewish alliance (Adams & Bracey, 1999; Lerner & West, 1995). These forces were aimed at building cohesion and strength within their own

Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development • April 2007 • Vol. 35 119 groups; they also had the effect of emphasizing between-group differences and supporting isolation rather than collaboration. In addition to these broader tensions, there were tensions in the 1970s and 1980s in cities where Jews and Blacks became neighbors (Adams & Bracey, 1999; Daughtry, 1997). Increased poverty and crime contributed to Jewish flight from the cities to the suburbs. However, this flight was often propelled by people who profited from these tensions. For example, real estate companies stirred up fear among Jews about their new Black neighbors and the supposed decrease in their property values as a result of Black in-migration to their neighborhoods (Lerner & West, 1995). Furthermore, during this time of increased tension, the media was quick to publicize polarizing comments made by leaders within the Black and Jewish communities. Although these comments often did not represent the views of the groups as a whole, such comments nonetheless contributed to increased tensions between the groups. Finally, the Black–Jewish conflict continues to exist today. This history provides an important context for the dialogue that follows regarding the Black–Jewish schism.

Circumstances Maintaining the Black–Jewish Schism Blacks have endured centuries of racism, discrimination, and oppression; likewise, antisemitism and oppression have been a serious problem for Jews for thousands of years. Arguments have been made by both Black and Jewish scholars concerning the nature and severity of oppression experienced by their respective groups. For example, the argument has been made that antisemitism is the oldest form of oppression, having been around for more than 4,000 years (Feldman, 1997). Another argument made is that racism is the most salient and severe form of oppression, with the United States being founded on and maintained by a racist system that is based on skin color, where people with white skin have the most privileges, and people with dark skin have the fewest (People’s Institute for Survival and Beyond, 2004). Taken together and extended to their logical conclusions, these assertions have likely contributed to the Black–Jewish schism (Daughtry, 1997). That is, members of both groups engage in the “oppression olympics,” fighting for the status as the most op- pressed group (Martinez, 1994). It is our contention, however, that validating racism does not equate with invalidating antisemitism and vice versa. Another important contributor to the Black–Jewish schism centers on issues of visibility. Specifically, we are talking about aspects of one’s person that could identify (or be used to identify) one as Black or Jewish. Some examples of this include skin color, facial features, body type, and surname. For Blacks, the visibility of skin color has contributed to the perpetuation of racism and the resulting socioeconomic discrimination and oppression. In contrast, most Ashkenazi Jews have been able to limit the effects of antisemitism by “passing” as White (i.e., being seen as not Jewish). As noted by Schlosser (2003), being seen as White in the United States is typically equated with an assumption of being Christian. Passing refers to the actions taken by a person to hide

120 Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development • April 2007 • Vol. 35 an aspect of her or his identity that is not readily apparent or visible to the naked eye. For example, Ashkenazi Jews often passed as part of the White U.S. majority by changing their names; giving up speaking Hebrew, Yiddish, or both and eschewing Jewish cultural traditions in favor of Christian ones. Passing has afforded these Jews with White privilege (McIntosh, 1998) and often greater socioeconomic status than Blacks, but it also came at the cost of their Jewish culture and identity. The ability of Jews with white skin to pass was a likely consequence of the governmental focus on White/non-White distinctions in an effort to systematically oppress Blacks. Hence, the ability of many Jews to rise in their socioeconomic status at a greater rate than Blacks (because of racism) has also contributed to the Black–Jewish schism. Not all Jews, however, have the same ability to pass (e.g., Orthodox Jews). Finally, most Blacks can trace some White ancestry in their family histories either as a consequence of White slave owners raping African women during slavery or consensual interracial relationships (Helms & Cook, 1999). Regardless of the origin of the White ancestry, fewer Blacks can pass because of their skin color, other aspects of their phenotype, laws that once prohibited passing, and social mores against such a decision. black–jewish dialogues Our goals for these dialogues were twofold: we hoped to raise awareness of the issues surrounding the Black–Jewish schism, and we also wanted to create a safe space in which people could dialogue about Black–Jewish relations. In preparation for conducting a Black–Jewish dialogue at the BCDCC, we first met to have a dialogue of our own on Black–Jewish relations. Then, at the BCDCC, we conducted a pilot dialogue on the Black–Jewish schism with a mixed audience of Blacks, Jews, and those who were neither Black nor Jewish. The details of these dialogues follow.

The Authors’ Own Black–Jewish Dialogue Before facilitating the dialogue at the BCDCC, it was important to have our own Black–Jewish dialogue. Our own success was predicated on two condi- tions: a commitment to the project and mutual respect for one another. In our own dialogue, each person shared his or her (a) personal experiences with and as Blacks and Jews, (b) professional expertise on relevant subjects, and (c) expectations for the workshop we were to lead. The purpose of our dialoguing was to raise our awareness of the issues we might face in leading a Black–Jewish dialogue, as well as to develop a model for the dialogue at the BCDCC. We spent an entire day on this process. Our stories. The first author is a White Ashkenazi Reform Jewish man who grew up in a predominantly White neighborhood and in a household where racial epithets were used frequently. He came to the topic of Blacks and Jews as part of an ongoing journey toward multicultural competence and becoming

Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development • April 2007 • Vol. 35 121 antiracist. The second author is an African American/Haitian woman who grew up in a predominantly White and Jewish neighborhood. Because of early peer group socialization and acculturation processes, she was exposed to many aspects of the Jewish culture, even more so than to her Black cultural roots. These experiences influenced her to later study Black and Haitian cultural identity and acculturation processes. The third author, who self identifies as a Black/biracial woman, grew up with members of different nationalities, religions, and races in her family, including Blacks and Jews. Despite the diversity in her own family, cultural and racial differences were not discussed; this sparked her interest in this topic. The fourth author is a White Ashkenazi Reform Jewish woman of Finnish and Irish/Welsh Catholic descent. She was raised in a socially progressive household in a predominantly White and politically conservative neighborhood. At an early age, she became aware of her identification with and interest in people who experience oppression, especially American Blacks; this inspired her interest in the topic. Our dialogue. During our own Black–Jewish dialogue, learning about each other’s personal and professional experiences allowed us to further develop the trust that had existed since our graduate school experiences (we were all graduates of the same doctoral program). We believe that it was this base that facilitated our ability to take risks with one another and engage in a difficult dialogue concerning content that was professionally and personally relevant. Having our own dialogue was also enlightening in that it allowed us to know each other in a deeper, more complex way on the basis of our own racial and cultural socialization experiences, as well as our reasons for wanting to participate on this project. We were also able to learn about the ways that each of us manages these intercultural dialogues. One defensive strategy, which we termed cultural protectionism, emerged during our own Black–Jewish dialogue. Cultural protectionism is the resistance each person experienced when topics arose that might be deemed critical of in-group members. For example, the two Black authors became protective during reflections on antisemitic remarks made by Jesse Jackson in 1984; they recognized that they felt more comfortable having a critical discussion of Jackson’s remarks only with other Blacks. Similarly, the two Jewish authors recognized their resistance to critique Israel’s policies regarding a Palestinian state in the presence of non-Jews. These tendencies should be recognized for their protective function in a potentially unsympa- thetic larger society; however, safe ways to explore these experiences can be investigated with the group (e.g., if needed, these discussions could be held first in homogeneous subgroups). In sum, having our own dialogue prepared us for facilitating a dialogue with others by increasing our own group cohesion and comfort with one another, especially when discussing sensitive topics related to race and culture. We also felt better prepared for the content that might emerge in a discussion of Black–Jewish relations. Finally, we recognized that cultural protectionism might affect the process of the Black–Jewish dialogue at the BCDCC.

122 Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development • April 2007 • Vol. 35 The Black–Jewish Dialogue at the BCDCC

People who participated in our Black–Jewish dialogue volunteered to do so. The 90-minute session was titled “Exploring Two Histories of Oppression: Racism, Antisemitism, and the Schism Between Blacks and Jews in the U.S.” The participants were all attendees at the BCDCC, a conference on issues of cultural diversity that typically attracts counseling students and professionals. Our presentation was a mixture of didactic and experiential activities, and the stated purpose of the dialogue was to raise awareness and to create a safe space in which Black–Jewish relations could be discussed. We began the presentation by introducing ourselves and sharing our previously mentioned stories. We then established some ground rules and invited participants to add any important rules to the list. Our own dialogue experiences led us to believe that establishing psychological safety was likely to be a key issue for many of the participants. The ground rules were consistent with those typically used in difficult dialogues on issues of cultural diversity (Gorski, 2003). Some examples of the final ground rules included the fol- lowing: (a) contribute to the discussion on the basis of personal experiences, rather than the assumption of a general truth (“I” instead of “they,” “we,” and “you”); (b) empathically challenge, but do not attack, other participants; and (c) contribute to the greatest extent of individual ability. Socialization experiences activity. We then asked participants to write down what they learned from family, peers, school, the media, and their communities about (a) being a member of their own race, (b) Blacks, and (c) Jews. We also asked participants about their present views about Blacks and Jews and asked them to consider how their experiences had shaped those views. Engaging participants in a written activity was done purposefully to inform participants that the Black–Jewish dialogue is both internal and external. That is, the written activity may have been the first time some participants had reflected on their racial or ethnic identities and how their identities and external forces had shaped their reactions to Blacks and Jews. Events contributing to the Black–Jewish schism. In preparing for the actual participant dialogue, we presented some background on the dynamics between Blacks and Jews in the United States. (This included material described in the Historical Antecedents section of this article.) We also discussed issues related to what we coined the hierarchy of oppression. We covered previously mentioned issues such as (a) the oppression olympics (Martinez, 1994), (b) visibility, and (c) the fact that validating racism does not equate with invalidating antisemitism (and vice versa). We also stressed that race is still heralded by many scholars, including the present authors, as the most salient divisive factor in the United States (Sue, 2003), but that does not mean that Blacks and Jews should compete with one another. We believe that it is important for people to realize that both Blacks and Jews experience prejudice. Finally, we asked participants to consider who benefits most from the Black–Jewish schism, which led into the dialogue itself.

Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development • April 2007 • Vol. 35 123 The Black–Jewish dialogue. We conducted the dialogue in a large group for- mat, with the participants and facilitators sitting in one circle. Participants discussed their experiences with the topic and their appreciation for having a safe space wherein they could dialogue. Many people discussed issues related to the oppression olympics and why the two groups have not reunited as social and political allies. A few participants noticed generational differences in perspectives on Black–Jewish relationships, including reflections from individuals who experienced close Black–Jewish collaboration during the civil rights movement and others who were born later and did not witness this collaboration firsthand.There was also a sense of loss and longing expressed by those who had wanted these intercultural dialogues to take place but who had not had the opportunity nor the skills to facilitate such an exchange. A Black male participant shared a particularly poignant account of how his parents told him of the murders of both Black and Jewish friends who were engaged in civil rights activism. A Jewish female participant talked about her experiences growing up in the South where her Black neighbors were her close friends. For this participant, discussing the current schism brought up feelings of sadness and loss. One of our process observations was that the content of the disclosures moved from a description of politics and opinions to the sharing of more personal and emotional experiences. Therefore, we reasoned that the dialogue participants seemed to benefit from “testing the waters” as they learned how the group would react to their risk taking. In summary, the dialogue gave participants an opportunity to reflect cognitively and emotionally on their understanding of the Black–Jewish schism. Further- more, the dialogue provided a safe space for participants to hear each other’s stories and to think about ways to rebuild broken alliances. Strategies for reconciliation and healing. Finally, we closed the presentation with an interactive discussion about potential strategies for reconciliation and healing. This discussion elicited comments from both the facilitators and participants concerning the strategies we believed may be used most effectively for Black–Jewish reconciliation. Because of this dialogue, we concluded that one way to initiate the healing process may be through the knowledge that Blacks and Jews share many common values and experiences. For example, in both Black and Jewish cultures, there is an emphasis on oral communication (Elster, 2003; Kelley, 2002). Second, both cultures value spirituality, intercon- nectedness, and the importance of extended family (Friedman, Friedlander, & Blustein, 2005; Greene, 1994). Third, both groups share a past experience with discrimination and have developed coping mechanisms, such as the use of food and rituals, and both groups have developed a healthy paranoia because of their experiences (Terrell & Terrell, 1981; Thompson, 1994). Finally, given their memberships in nondominant cultural groups in the United States (McIntosh, 1998; Schlosser, 2003), Blacks and Jews have had to deal with acculturation and enculturation issues. Participants in the dialogue found it inspiring to recognize that, despite the negative portrayal in the media of

124 Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development • April 2007 • Vol. 35 Black–Jewish relations, the groups share many common experiences. When they recognized the cultural similarities, group members could begin to ponder the possibility that the schism was externally or artificially imposed and that collaboration is more natural for Blacks and Jews. discussion In the extant literature, there has been little emphasis on examining intercultural conflict among racial and cultural groups in the United States. The Black–Jewish dialogue highlighted in this article, as well as our encourage- ment to others to continue such dialogues, represents our contribution to counseling’s growing commitment to peaceful multiculturalism and social justice. Furthermore, we hope that this article provides a preliminary model for intercultural dialogues. We based our dialogue on models of intergroup encounter programs, which stress intrapersonal and interpersonal awareness, growth, and understanding (Abu-Nimer, 1999; Maoz, 2004). Thus, we used a mixture of didactic and experiential activities to provide a historical and political context for our dialogue and to encourage self- and group reflection. The positive comments from the participants suggest that similar dialogues could be useful in exploring Black–Jewish relations.

Lessons Learned From Our Dialogue and Workshop Our own Black–Jewish dialogue, as well as our presentation and dialogue at the BCDCC, generated some interesting discussions and some valuable lessons. First, we realized that participants experienced the Black–Jewish schism differently depending on their cultural identification, racial and ethnic group orientation, peer and family socialization processes, and environmental and societal contexts. For example, a participant’s age provided a context for his or her understanding of Black–Jewish relations. In other words, some participants remembered firsthand how Blacks and Jews had once been social and political allies, whereas others who were born after the civil rights movement were more aware of the tensions that exist between Blacks and Jews, rather than past alliances. In addition, we learned how strongly parental and familial influences shaped participants’ views of and related stereotypes toward Blacks and Jews. Some participants discussed how their parents’ adverse reactions toward various racial or cultural groups shaped their initial perceptions of these groups. Others related that living in a diverse neighborhood during childhood had a positive influence on their current views toward other racial and cultural groups. Thus, use of open and honest self-reflection assisted us in better understanding that people exist in contextual cultural relationships. Next, we learned that for participants to grow in their understanding of the Black–Jewish schism, it was essential for the discussion to go beyond an intellectual level. Although informational scholarship on Black and Jewish relations was helpful in bringing up discussion points, it was also extremely

Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development • April 2007 • Vol. 35 125 beneficial to acknowledge and access emotional reactions to the conflict. We encouraged the use of personal stories by sharing our own personal motivations for engaging in this dialogue. This process allowed participants to access emotional and psychic “energy,” and it was in the sharing of these stories that participants showed the capacity for empathy, change, and connection. In accessing these emotional reactions, it also became evident that many of us used psychological defenses (i.e., cultural protectionism) when discussing the Black–Jewish conflict with members outside of our identity groups. Finally, we learned that Blacks and Jews share many cultural values, beliefs, and traditions. Understanding common beliefs and values has the potential to be a useful tool in the healing process (Maoz, 2004), because it may reduce the polarization that can occur between groups during a difficult dialogue. Having the participants create a list of shared characteristics appeared to have a unifying effect and seemed to reduce, if not eliminate, any between-group polarization.

Limitations of the Dialogue and Workshop Our objective was to provide a safe climate in which to increase awareness regarding factors contributing to the schism between Blacks and Jews. Al- though this workshop was an initial step in promoting Black–Jewish discourse, we were constrained by time, which limited the scope of our discussion. Al- though we offered resources that could increase participants’ knowledge base regarding Black–Jewish relations, there was insufficient time to fully explore each group’s history and the factors that contributed to the schism. Also, our written activity at the beginning of the workshop enabled participants to reflect upon their racial and cultural socialization experiences. However, we did not openly inquire about participants’ racial, cultural, and religious or professional identifications or affiliations, which could have provided more contextual data for their responses. Finally, the intergroup dialogue process might look different for leaders and participants with less privilege (e.g., education, social class); this is an important area to explore in the future. Despite these limitations, we believe that our pilot intervention can potentially guide future discussions on Black–Jewish relations.

Implications for Research, Practice, and Training As previously noted, there are very few empirical studies that have focused on the Black–Jewish conflict. In addition, we are unaware of any recent work being done by counselors to heal the rift between these two groups. The next logical step is for more dialogues to occur along with methodologically rigorous and psychometrically validated evaluations of process and outcome. Future research could also assess intercultural dialogues using mixed methods to help understand how conflict between different cultural groups is maintained. In addition, using racial identity models and measures may assist researchers in understanding how people react to racial conflict; this is because racial

126 Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development • April 2007 • Vol. 35 identity provides a lens through which people interpret race-related stimuli (Helms & Cook, 1999). Enhancing the intergroup dialogue, as well as the conflict resolution process, may also be accomplished by attending to several critical factors (e.g., timing, expectations, trust) outlined in a family systems model (Pruitt & Olczak, 1995). It is important to understand that people may respond in ways to minimize their anxiety when presented with culturally loaded material. Although these defenses might ease intrapersonal distress, they might also (a) create barriers to honest and productive intercultural dialogue (Sue, 2003) and (b) prevent the development of an ability to respond to complex cultural stimuli (Helms, 1995). Hence, it is important for dialogue participants and facilitators to be aware of cultural defenses so that they can accurately identify and appropri- ately respond to them during intercultural dialogues. It is also critical for counselors to understand individuals’ and groups’ identities and intergroup relations; failure to explore this material may lead to unspoken material in the counseling session and a missed opportunity for therapeutic growth. Un- derstanding how clients express themselves when exposed to racial conflict may help counselors understand the survival skills and coping strategies that clients use (Helms & Cook, 1999). Finally, other models exist for intergroup dialogue. One such model currently being used with Jews and Palestinians in Israel posits that emphases must be placed on group identity and group (vs. individual) contact to reduce stereotypes (Halabi & Sonnenschein, 2004). This model recognizes that intergroup encounters can increase participants’ self-awareness and empathy for others, and these changes may lead participants to make positive behavioral change. Testing the effectiveness of this model in the United States may be a fruitful endeavor for future scholars. In summary, we believe that intercultural dialogues can be used to increase awareness regarding the schism between Blacks and Jews as well as promote healing among racial and cultural groups. Without the opportunity to continue intergroup encounter programs, research suggests that participants may not be motivated or equipped to transform attitudinal change into social change (Abu-Nimer, 1999). Intergroup dialogue is the hope for the future, because we believe that it is one way to rebuild the social and political connections that have been strained. references Abu-Nimer, M. (1999). Dialogue, conflict resolution and change: Arab-Jewish encounters in Israel.New York: State University of New York Press. Adams, M., & Bracey, J. H. (Eds.). (1999). Strangers and neighbors: Relations between Blacks and Jews in the United States. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Amir, Y. (1969). Contact hypothesis in ethnic relations. Psychological Bulletin, 71, 319–342. Beck, E. T. (1982). Why is this book different from all other books? In E. T. Beck (Ed.), Nice Jewish girls: A lesbian anthology (pp. xiii–xxxvi). Watertown, MA: Persephone. Berman, P. (Ed.). (1995). Blacks and Jews: Alliances and arguments. New York: Delta Trade.

Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development • April 2007 • Vol. 35 127 Daughtry, H. D. (1997). No monopoly on suffering: Blacks and Jews in Crown Heights (and elsewhere). Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press. DuBois, W. E. B.(1903). The souls of Black folk. Chicago: A. C. McClurg; Cambridge: University Press John Wilson and Son. Elster, A. (2003). Authority, performance, and interpretation in religious reading: Critical issues of intercultural communication and multiple literacies. Journal of Literacy Research, 35, 663–692. Feldman, S. M. (1997). Please don’t wish me a merry Christmas: A critical history of the separation of church and state. New York: New York University Press. Fiebert, M. S., Horgan, L., & Peralta, E. (1999). Assessing African-American and Jewish intergroup perceptions and attitudes. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 88, 253–258. Friedman, M. L., Friedlander, M. L., & Blustein, D. L. (2005). Toward an understanding of Jewish identity: A phenomenological study. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 77–83. Gorski, P. C. (2003). Multicultural education and the Internet: Intersections and integrations (2nd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Greene, B. (1994). African American women. In L. Comas-Diaz & B. Greene (Eds.), Woman of color: Integrating ethnic and gender identities in psychotherapy (pp. 10–29). New York: Guilford Press. Halabi, R., & Sonnenschein, N. (2004). The Jewish-Palestinian encounter in a time of crisis. Journal of Social Issues, 60, 373–387. Helms, J. E. (1995). An update on Helms’ White and people of color racial identity models. In J. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (pp. 181–198). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Helms, J. E., & Cook, D. A. (1999). Using race and culture in counseling and psychotherapy: Theory and process. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Allyn, & Bacon. Jones, J. M. (1997). Prejudice and racism (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Kaufman, J. (1995). Broken alliance: The turbulent times between Blacks and Jews in America (2nd ed.). New York: Simon & Schuster. Kelley, V. (2002). “Good Speech”: An interpretive essay investigating an African philosophy of communication. Journal of Black Studies, 26, 44–54. Lerner, M., & West, C. (1995). Jews and Blacks: Let the healing begin. New York: Grosset/Putnam. Maoz, I. (2004). Coexistence is in the eye of the beholder: Evaluating intergroup encounter intervention between Jews and Arabs in Israel. Journal of Social Issues, 60, 437–452. Martinez, E. (1994). Seeing more than black and white. Retrieved on October 28, 2005, from http:// www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/mrtinez2.htm McIntosh, P. (1998). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. In M. McGoldrick (Ed.), Re-visioning family therapy: Race, culture, and gender in clinical practice (pp. 147–152). New York: Guilford Press. The People’s Institute for Survival and Beyond. (2004). Undoing racism. Unpublished manuscript. Pruitt, D. G., & Olczak, P. V. (1995). Beyond hope: Approaches to resolving seemingly intractable conflict. In J. Z. Rubin (Ed.),Conflict, cooperation, and justice: Essays inspired by the work of Morton Deutsch (pp. 59–92). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Salzman, J., & West, C. (Eds.). (1997). Struggles in the promised land: Towards a history of Black-Jewish relations in the United States. New York: Oxford University Press. Schlosser, L. Z. (2003). Christian privilege: Breaking a sacred taboo. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 31, 44–51. Schlosser, L. Z. (2006). Affirmative psychotherapy for American Jews. Psychotherapy: Theory, Re- search, Practice, Training, 43, 424–435. Sue, D. W. (2003). Overcoming our racism: The journey to liberation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Terrell, F. N., & Terrell, S. (1981). An inventory to measure cultural mistrust among Blacks. The Western Journal of Black Studies, 5, 180–184. Thompson, B. (1994). A hunger so wide and so deep. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

128 Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development • April 2007 • Vol. 35