In New Voices’s first installation of the new Bloggers’ Round Table feature (props to Ben and David for this, I think it’s a great idea), I and several other NV bloggers offered our thoughts on the propriety of Brandeis Hillel’s rejection of the campus JVP chapter. You should read it – check out the comments as well. Here, I want to expand on my thoughts a bit further.
To begin with, it’s worth noting that Hillel’s mission statement introduces a conflict in its values from the get-go (“Hillel student leaders, professionals and lay leaders are dedicated to creating a pluralistic, welcoming and inclusive environment for Jewish college students…” and “Hillel helps students find a balance in being distinctively Jewish and universally human by encouraging them…to support Israel and global Jewish peoplehood.”). It’s worth keeping this in mind as we consider what’s going on at Brandeis – campus Hillel chapters have to balance these two concepts, and they should be given some latitude when analyzing their actions from this perspective. In other words, it’s not fair to expect them to always hew only to one of these ideals and ignore the other. Reality is more complicated.
That said, there are ways of “supporting Israel” without sacrificing pluralism. Hillel has every right to make its institutional support for Israel completely clear – believing that Diaspora Jews owe Israel their loyalty is a perfectly valid opinion (albeit one I strongly disagree with). However, it does not require and should not involve marginalizing those who don’t feel the same allegiance. Organizations like JVP promote student engagement with an incredibly challenging issue, and as such, should be valued as members of the campus conversation. Without a robust conversation space, no real, issue-based discussion will actually occur.
I can’t tolerate suppression of anyone’s opinions in the name of promoting a fair discourse. If Hillel seeks to enrich the lives of Jewish students, it should consider an exploration of the huge variety of Jewish opinions on Israel, Zionism, and “global Jewish peoplehood” a top priority, rather than an existential threat.
I welcome further discussion of this issue, and encourage readers to respond to what I’ve written here, and to each other, in the comments.
