Responses to “The Hillel Monopoly”
In “The Hillel Monopoly,” posted on this site three weeks ago, Sam Green–a junior at Swarthmore and president of his campus Hillel–questioned whether Hillel, or any one organization, can act as an umbrella for Jewish life on campus. Green’s contentions with Hillel, and his praise of Chabad as a possible alternative for religious life, attracted a range of letters and comments from former Hillel professionals, students and others.
Below are a few responses to Green’s story, along with his response to the criticism. To read Green’s full story, go here.
Rabbi Dr. Jack Nusan Porter, a Jewish sociologist and author of “The Sociology of American Jews: A Radical Approach,” writes:
In response to Sam Green’s poignant complaint that Hillel can not serve everyone and that Chabad is a good alternative, as a former rabbi and Hillel leader at Northwestern University, I disagree. Chabad is a cult which overtly has sweet rabbis and rebbetzins and children and makes a nice “tish”, Shabbat table but over time one will see a very conservative approach to Judaism, women, Israel, and American politics
A better model is the one I grew up with Dror-Habonim [sic.] Labor Zionism—great food, Israeli and folk dancing and singing, and progressive ideas discussed. Yes, it could use a bit more spirituality and tradition but that’s my model. The problem is that few campus leaders have had that as a model since Habonim-Dror was and is a small movement but it could be taught to Hillel directors and others. I’d be happy to do it
Yes, there should be alternative groups to Hillel and they can work together, even share the same real estate. We had such alternative activist groups in the 60s and 70s at NU and we worked well with Rabbi Rackovsky of Hillel
It can be done without Chabad.
Meanwhile, Michelle, who commented on the article online, writes:
As a former student involved in a Hillel as well as a former Hillel staff member (and now grad student once again involved in Hillel…), I find this story incomplete and narrow minded. Religious life, as the author assumes, is not the only entrance into, or way to experience, Jewish life.
Jewish life has multiple entry points, not only Shabbat dinner or food in general (although it is a great way to get students involved), as seem to be the way that the author connects. The “secular Zionist” is mentioned, but by historical definition, they would not be attending the Shabbat services. Instead, they might be involved in an Israel activist organization (most often run through Hillel) or a national group like AIPAC.
Further, who says Jewish students have to be divided into a sect in order to find meaning in being Jewish? It wasn’t directly stated, but I get the sense that the author perceives Orthodox Judaism as the “most authentic” or “best” way to be Jewish. My biggest thing with students is to get them to be comfortable, and proud even, of their own personal brand of Judaism. “But you’re a better Jew than I am” is my least favorite phrase. If you consider yourself Jewish, you cannot possibly be more or less Jewish than anyone. Also, if you are an observant, Orthodox Jew, are you more observant than an observant, Reform Jew? I don’t believe so. …
And a post titled “Disagree” states:
Hillel is not the same on every campus, nor is any other organization. A campus like Swarthmore is going to be different than a UPenn. There’s no question about that. Its important for people to realize that a Hillel is exactly what its students make of it, as Hillel employs staff, but the ultimate beneficiaries of Hillel are the students. If one wants a specific Jewish experience, you have to make it. Hillel staff are there to support students in their Jewish development but can’t be the sole backer. And everyone has a different Jewish experience. …
One should be aware that Chabad is interested in making Jews more Jewish in the way of Chabad, and NOT bringing out individual expression of Judaism that is best for students. …
Green writes back:
My article was not motivated by a desire to ‘stick it’ to Hillel or criticize Hillel as an institution, but rather to point out that it’s hard for Hillel to be pluralist on small campuses like my own, where I serve as Hillel’s board president. While researching this story I talked to lots of Jewish students from small schools who had complaints similar to mine; students at large universities, meanwhile, had better experiences. Many students have had positive experiences with Hillel–so have I and I want to have more of them.
My experiences with Chabad, meanwhile, have been overwhelmingly positive. I believe that my Chabad rabbi wants to facilitate a Jewish experience for me and has no intention of converting me to his way of life.
I have also read about Chabad’s work on campus in Sue Fishkoff’s “The Rebbe’s Army” and according to her, Chabad’s theology does not mandate that their representatives, on campus or not, try to shift secular Jews towards a more observant lifestyle. Secular Jewish college students from all walks of life show up at the rabbi’s house each week for Shabbat dinner, and stay for hours to talk and learn about Judaism because Chabad rabbis create a warm Jewish atmosphere that people enjoy and can improve themselves in. I did not say that Chabad was pluralistic and I don’t think it’s helpful to call Chabad a “cult” as this is offensive language that hurts Jewish unity.
Thank you for taking the time to read and comment on my article.
Sam Green
Swarthmore 2011
To read all of the responses to Green’s story, click here. Keep the conversation going…
