REENGINEERING THE JEWISH ORGANIZATION The Transformation of Hillel, 1988-2000 JAY L. RUBIN Executive Vice President, Hillel: The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life The appointment of a new chief executive officer in 1988 and the communal reaction to the 1990 National Jewish Population Survey laid the groundwork for the renaissance of Hillel in the 1990s. This article describes how Hillel moved from near the bottom of the Jewish communal food chain to near the top in little more than a decade, drawing implications for the revitalization of Jewish organizational life. A recent article in the Detroit Jewish News ineffective and inconsequential, Hillels were .tldescribed Hillel: The Foundation for Jew­ often dismissed for serving both too few stu­ ish Campus Life as "the gem of Jewish organi­ dents and too many of the wrong kind, the zational life." A Jewish Telegraphic Agency proverbial "Jewish geeks and nerds," who feaUire story reported that "Hillel has been were unable to fit in and find a place within the undergoing an internal and revitalizing larger campus community. Even the organiza­ change." An article in the Hartford Courant tional name "Hillel" became a questionable observed that "Hillel is enjoying a dynamic symbol in Jewish life and a potential impedi­ renewal on campuses all over North America." ment to revitalizing the organization. In fact, An essay in the 1999 American Jewish Year several Jewish federations in the 1980s dis­ Book characterized Hillel as "a dramatic coun­ cussed creating alternative Jewish campus terpoint to the relatively anemic condition of organizations and jettisoning the name and contemporary Jewish youth movements." national affiliation. A few did. Other recent articles have pointed to Hillel's How did Hillel go from near the bottom of success in attracting the support of wealthy, the Jewish communal food cha:in to near the influential donors; increasing student partici­ top in little more than a decade? What lessons pation; expanding into the former Soviet can be drawn from this by other Jewish orga­ Union; helping stimulate the renaissance nizations? What imphcations does Htilel's agenda of Jewish Federations; opening or revitalization have for the revitalization of Jew­ planning more than two dozen new and reno­ ish life around the world? vated Hillel facilities; and modeling Jewish pluralism. CHANGING TIMES Such praise in the Jewish and mainstream The stereotypes were largely wrong. HUlel media would have been unlikely a generation was never as ineffective as its detractors ago. The B'nai B'rith HiOel Foundations, the claimed. corporate precursor to Hillel: The Foundation Founded in 1923 by William Chauncy for Jewish Campus Life, suffered from both a Baldwin, a Congregationalist minister at the poor self-image and a poor public image. HiUel University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign, had a largely undeserved reputation as a place and led by gifted and charismatic rabbis and where rabbis unsuited for the rigors and unde­ educators, such as Ben Frankel, Abram Sachar serving ofthe emoluments of congregational and others, Hillel emerged as a classic campus life found gainful employment. Viewed as ministry during its formative decades. In 1925, B'nai B'rith assumed the task of building the national Hillel movement following an unsuc­ Jay L. Rubin joined the staff of Hillel in 1997 and cessful overture to the Union of American was a federation executive for 16 years and a history professor before that. Hebrew Congregations (Reform). 308 The Transformation of Hillel / 309 B 'nai B 'rith was well positioned to grow the on Jewish life in general and on Jewish life on campus organization. The oldest and largest campus. Jewish men and women were major Jewish service organization in the United States, beneficiaries of the civil rights revolution as B'nai B'rith had grassroots support, deep barriers fell andnew opportunities arose. The pockets for the time, a strong interest in Jweish melting pot succeeded to an unprecedented youth, and a multi-denominational Jewish ori­ degree as Jews increasingly participated in entation . The B' nai B' rith Hillel Foundations every aspect of campus life. Jewish smdents hired rabbis to provide critical spiritual, cul­ also disproportionately embraced (and in many mral, educational, and social services to Jew­ cases led) the culture wars ofthe 1960s, with ish campus communities throughout the United their concomitant intergenerational conflict, States. Local B'nai B'rith lodges undertook sexual freedom, drug use, radical politics, and efforts to provide Hillel Houses on or near anti-institutional bias. campus. Hillel served as "the synagogue on Like other campus ministries, Hillel stmggled campus," a place where Jewish students could to respond to the challenges of a new era and celebrate Shabbat and other Jewish holidays, to be taken seriously in an age of diminished gain access to kosher food and pastoral coun­ support for organized religious hfe. Although seling, participate in informal Jewish learning a number of individual Hillels and Hillel direc­ opportunities before Jewish studies programs tors rose to the challenge and planted the proliferated on campus, and socialize with seeds of organizational transformation, the other Jews. In an era when young people movement as a whole became marginalized, typically married in their early twenties, Hillel maligned, and factionalized through the next played a significant role in Jewish dating and two decades. courtship. On residential campuses, espe­ The social upheavals of the 1960s also cially, Hillel offered a "home away from home" affected B' nai B' rith, the parent organization, and a refuge to Jewish students in a largely as fraternal organizations lost their primacy in gentile environment. American life. Financial cutbacks by B'nai Before the 1960s, Jewish college students B'rith exacerbated Hillel's problems. Hillel faced very different intemal and extemal worlds. lacked the ability to expand to new campuses First, they were more connected Jewishly. with large Jewish emollments; to attract, de­ Their parents or grandparents were likely to velop, retain, and support sufficient numbers have immigrated to the United States from the ofqualityJewishprofessionals; and to operate centers of Jewish life in Europe. Living in or a national infrastructure to ensure quality, near urban Jewish communities, they shared a develop financial resources, and revitalize the working familiarity—if not a complete under­ organization. Management and labor in the standing—of Jewish ritual, language, and cul­ form of the "national office" and the "field" ture. Intermarriage rates were low. Affiliation were often at odds. Jewish federations began rates were high. Second, anti-Semitism rein­ to play an increasingly important role in the forced group identity and limited other outlets governance and funding of local and regional and options. Admission quotas held down the Hillels, though they contributed little to a number and percentage of Jews on many national vision. By 1988, Hillel as a national campuses. Fraternities, sororities, honor Jewish movement faced an uncertain fumre at societies, and other organizations openly or best and, at worst, no future at all. tacitly restricted their membership to white Christians. As the number of Jewish college CHANGING PARADIGMS students grew as a result of the GI Bill and the Two seminal events lay the groundwork for entry of more and more Jewish families into the the renaissance at Hillel in the 1990s: the middle class, Hillel offered no such baniers to appointment of Richard M. Joel as the new leadership, involvement, or socialization. chief executive officer in 1988 and the reaction And then came the 1960s. The social to the National Jewish Population Survey spon- changes of the 1960s had an immense impact SUMMER 2000 Journal of Jewisn Communal Service / 310 sored by the-then Council of Jewish Federa­ ordination, while a powerful plus, could no tions (CJF) in 1990. longer serve as the sine qua non to Hillel The decision of aB 'nai B 'rithHillel Founda­ employment. tions' search committee to recommend the Hillel also had to evolve from a smdent hiring of Richard M. Joel symbolized the des­ membership club with dues and officers into a perate condition of the organization. One community infrastmcture supporting a wide observer characterized the move as the Jewish range of different Jewish interest groups and equivalent of a "Hail Mary Pass." Joel, 3 7, was organizations. Joel championed a "participa­ not a rabbi, in an organization historically tion" model of community, raflier than the more identified with the rabbinate. He was a Modem traditional "affiliation" model. He believed Orthodox Jew in an organization desperate to passionately in smdent empowerment and in attract non-orthodox and unaffiliated Jews. He the need for Hillel programming to reflect the had no prior involvement with Hillel, having great diversity of Jewish smdent interests and attended New York University as both an backgrounds. Hillels had to become less build­ undergraduate and law school student. (NYU ing-centered and instead connect with Jewish did not have a Hillel until the founding of the smdents in residence halls, smdent unions, Edgar Bronfman Center for Jewish Student fraternity and sorority houses, and other cam­ Lifein 1996.) He had worked as a prosecuting pus and community settings. attorney in the Bronx and as associate dean To succeed, Hillels had to adapt fully to the and professor at the Cardozo School of Law of different worlds of the university, the Jewish Yeshiva University. community, and American society as a whole B'nai B'rith leaders looked beyond the re­ and to embrace fully the best practices of each. sume in selecting Joel. Joel had passion, From the university world, Joel championed charisma, and extraordinary communication the concept of accreditation, non-resident and interpersonal skills. He spoke trustee boards, and alumni giving. From the knowledgeably and honestly about the Jewish world, he advocated lay leadership search for meaning by Jewish young aduhs, development, partner agency relations, and a including his own willingness to invest profes­ global agenda.