One-Week Workshops
view counter
Seeing ‘Crisis’ In Jewish Ethics, Group Urges Reform

Rabbis, academics say recent breaches ‘make mockery of Jewish values’; offer new blueprint.

Wed, 01/13/2016 - 08:44
Editor And Publisher
Gary Rosenblatt
Gary Rosenblatt

Fed up with ethical lapses among Jewish leaders that have “reached crisis levels,” more than 350 scholars, authors, rabbis, cantors and Jewish community activists have signed onto a “declaration” that is challenging individuals and organizations to act with more transparency and accountability, and in accord with Jewish values.

In the past several years, the New York Jewish community endured the embarrassment of prominent rabbis accused of sexual abuse; a leading Jewish communal official going to prison for accepting millions of dollars in a kickback scheme; and the financial collapse of FEGS, the mammoth social service agency that seemed to suddenly lose $20 million while no one was looking.

“Disturbing developments” like these, the strongly worded declaration states, “make a mockery of Jewish values, shatter the trust that we have placed in our community’s leaders, and alienate young people from Judaism.” News of the declaration is being reported here for the first time.

Rafael Medoff, a Holocaust historian and author in Washington, D.C., said he reached a tipping point a few months ago and felt he had to do something to “at least start a conversation in the Jewish community about ethical issues that will affect the future quality of American Jewry.”

He and several other academics have just launched a website (jewishleadershipethics.org) and a “Declaration on Ethics in Jewish Leadership,” a bold 10-point statement urging that “whistleblowers should be encouraged,” “excusing offenders’ conduct or blaming the victims for coming forward is intolerable,” and that “Jewish organizations should adopt term limits, to combat the phenomenon of entrenched and self-perpetuating leaders.”

A diverse group of prominent Jewish spiritual leaders and academics from around the country — including former Rabbinical Council of America president Rabbi Shmuel Goldin, Hebrew Union College demographer Steven M. Cohen, Holocaust historians Deborah Lipstadt and Deborah Dwork, Brandeis sociologist Sylvia Barack Fishman, White Plains Conservative Rabbi Gordon Tucker and University of California Santa Barbara Jewish studies professor Elliot Wolfson — have signed on to the document, which has been circulating on a grassroots level for about three weeks.

Medoff said he is pleasantly surprised at the number, diversity and quality of people who have already added their names to the initiative, which is seeking additional signatures as it spreads the word, and hopes to become an ongoing presence.

The declaration, which Medoff describes as “an opening salvo,” is not aimed at any specific group or individual but encourages organizations of all “all denominations and factions to embrace” its “core principles of ethical behavior, which are anchored in the time-honored values we cherish as Americans and Jews.”

By citing the need for democratic elections of lay and/or professional officers, setting term limits, and resisting major donors from having undue influence in determining policy, the declaration may come to represent a test for a more authentic standard of accountability in organizational life. And it raises the question of who speaks for American Jews in a community that is voluntary and increasingly factionalized.

Until now insiders have acknowledged with a wink and a shrug the difference between open equality and “Jewish democracy,” where lay leaders — often generous donors — may be chosen in a closed-door, predetermined manner and policies passed in swift voice votes.

Giving Voice To The Majority

What prompted Medoff to act, he said, was a Letter to the Editor in The Jewish Week last June from Susannah Heschel, professor of religion at Dartmouth College, regarding the “sauna scandal” surrounding Rabbi Jonathan Rosenblatt of the Riverdale Jewish Center.

She wrote, in part, “if bringing boys and young men with him into the sauna was perfectly acceptable, why was it kept hushed by leaders of the congregation?”

“Susannah’s letter was my inspiration,” Medoff explained. “She made a powerful point about enablers — those, including leaders of the congregation, who had long known about the rabbi’s activities but had not acted on them.

“We are seeking to give voice to the overwhelming majority of Jews who are upset” with reports of rabbis and others in leadership positions who violate the communal trust, said Heschel, one of the founders of the site.

She and Medoff formed a small committee, which also includes Thane Rosenbaum, an author and professor at NYU Law School, and Shulamit Magnus, a professor of modern Jewish history at Oberlin College. In an interview this week, they said they are determined to speak out — including naming names and citing specific failings — as part of a moral obligation not to stand idly by in the face of ethical violations.

Their declaration asserts that “concealing evidence of unethical behavior is itself unethical and antithetical to Jewish values” and that “the leaders of Jewish institutions and organizations should not receive excessive financial remuneration.”

“Shining light on issues in the dark has a way of changing the landscape,” Rosenbaum said. “Calling attention to misdeeds among Jewish leaders has its own value.”

Agreeing In Principle

Asked to respond to the declaration, the professional heads of three major Jewish organizations responded positively, if a bit defensively, in noting that their groups already comply to high ethical standards.

David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee, said his organization “welcomes any initiative designed to stress the ethical and moral imperatives of Jewish behavior, be it individual or organizational, and especially against the backdrop of distressing revelations” that have come to light in recent years.

“We take those imperatives very much to heart in how we conduct ourselves at AJC. That’s why we resonated to much of what this document aspires to, even if we might have some quibbles or questions here and there…”

Harris noted that AJC has a “constant set of checks and balances” between lay and staff, executive council leaders are subject to term limits, the president serves only one three-year term, and finances are subject to strict internal and external controls “aimed at maximum accountability and transparency.” He also noted that AJC has whistle-blowing and conflict-of-interest policies, as called for in the Declaration, as well as strict non-discrimination rules.

“That said,” Harris wrote in an email from overseas, “we shall always aspire to do even better,” well aware of the “sacred bond of trust” AJC is committed to uphold.

Jonathan Greenblatt, national director and CEO of the Anti-Defamation League since the summer, said in an interview that he understands the sense of urgency in the Declaration, given recent “challenges” in our community. But he expressed some concern that such basic principles of ethical behavior needed to be publicized in terms of adherence in the Jewish community.

“In principle I agree with the document,” he said, though he found some of the language ambiguous. “The act of re-stating some of these principles may have value in itself, reminding us of the importance of democracy, transparency and pluralism. I get that.”

Having served as special assistant to President Obama, dealing with issues of governance and best practice in the nonprofit world, Greenblatt noted that there is a wealth of material and a well-developed set of practices available to nonprofits on the issues raised in the declaration.

Beyond that, he observed that “we are the people of The Golden Rule, we live by 613 commandments, and ethics have been core to Jewish practice for millennia. So it is unfortunate that some of our leaders are not congruent with these practices,” adding that “ADL is at the front of the line” when it comes to setting and adhering to high ethical standards.

Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, said he, too, agreed in principle with most of the declaration, noting that organizations have differing compositions and agendas. Lay leaders of the conference are chosen by a highly representative group of members, he said, and though there have been no two-person elections since the days of Rabbi Alexander Schindler, more than three decades ago, “the process is completely open and everyone gets a hearing with the nominating committee.”

Hoenlein added that he hopes “the same process” of ethical behavior “apply to Jewish media,” which he said has been known to publish “deliberate distortions.”

(Speaking off the record, he mentioned one publication — not The Jewish Week — by name.)

It is too early to say whether or not substantive change will come about as a result of the declaration. But it was heartening to see that each of the three major leaders I reached out to for comment responded in a timely manner and had mostly positive things to say.

They took the statement seriously and sought to show how their organizations follow ethical guidelines.

What happens next?

If the public signs on to the statement in impressive numbers; if more organizations review and respond — publicly or internally — to the principles set forth; if the committee that launched the initiative follows through and names those who do not meet their standards (as well as those who do); and if all of this activity leads to more reflection and discussion, positive change could take place.

It’s a long shot to disrupt a communal culture, but if our Jewish institutions want to remain relevant in the 21st century, they’d best be responsive to the voices of those who care most.

The declaration can be found at www.jewishleadershipethics.org.

Gary@jewishweek.org
 

Ethics, Jewish ethics

Our Newsletters, Your Inbox

ADD YOUR COMMENT

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Comment Guidelines

The Jewish Week feels comments create a valuable conversation and wants to feature your thoughts on our website. To make everyone feel welcome, we won't publish comments that are profane, irrelevant, promotional or make personal attacks.

Comments

Four of the signatories to the "New Blueprint," Rabbi Ellen Lippman, Rabbi Paula Marcus, Rabbi Rolado J. Matalon, and Rabbi Gordon Tucker have reportedly donated to "Rabbis for Human Rights (RHR)."
See:

http://rhr.org.il/eng/rhr-donors/

RHR, on January 15, 2013 was one of the sponsors of an Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) event at the First Congregational United Church of Christ in Washington, DC.

“ISNA rather slyly only generally 'rejects' ... violent acts: its officials ... will not label either as terrorist organizations, but instead refers to HAMAS favorably as the 'democratically-elected Palestinian government.' ISNA studiously ignores the HAMAS Charter, a virulently anti-Semitic tract which states that, 'Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it' and the fact that violent jihad is a core principal of HAMAS and Hezbollah.... ISNA's support of HAMAS is not merely financial, but the group was also a vocal supporter of HAMAS leader Mousa Abu Marzook, using the pages of its magazine, Islamic Horizons, to both whitewash HAMAS' bloody history and engage in thinly veiled anti-Semitism.”

(http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=6178)

RHR has received funding from European Governments, Churches, The Ford Foundation and The New Israel Fund. According to NGO Monitor, RHR received NIS 337,046 from foreign governmental bodies in the first quarter of 2015.

http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/rabbis_for_human_rights

"In response to the 2009 Gaza war, RHR launched a website, together with Adalah, ACRI, B’Tselem, Bimkom, Gisha, Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, Yesh Din, and others, that collected low-level soldier testimonies accusing Israel of war crimes and violating international law." (NGO Monitor).

http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/rabbis_for_human_rights

The signatures of supporters of Rabbis for Human Rights on "The New Blueprint" diminishes it.

So let me see. If a Muslim commits an act of terror, we are told by the left (and your paper has never protested) that his religion has nothing to do with it. Moreover, other Muslims cannot be blamed for the act of an individual. But if a RABBI does something, well now, the same leftwingers now tell us, THAT is something all Jews must beat their collective chests for. Because THAT indicates something rotten at the core, and THAT cannot be read as the action of an individual. Muslims, no. Jews, yes. Riiiiigggghhhht.

I leave aside the inconvenient truth that 98% of the people who signed this little exercise in futility all share the same political bent. Which means its as important to me as a source of ethics as the GOP political platform would be to the Jewish Week.

The signatories are to be commended for this important statement. But there is something just a little bit precious about Susannah Heschel presuming to lecture anyone on ethics. The Jewish Week might want to investigate the hushed up scandal she was involved in Dartmouth (hint: professors hacking into each-other's e-mail accounts is generally frowned upon). In general, she is probably the most widely reviled person in Jewish studies, seen as grandiose, selfish, and vindictive. The statement discredits itself for her name being attached to it.

Have you or any of these characters you quote ever heard of the Torah? Mussar? How far have you strayed that a discussion of ethics and moral ignores the universally recognized preeminent authority and in fact source of ethics and morality- THE TORAH!?
One would think he was reading an article about a group of Neanderthals groping around trying to figure how to better themselves not JEWS for heavens sake!

Where/how do I sign?

How about the "conservative rabbi" make reform/cons etc REAL ORTHODOX JUDAISM for a start? That IS the start.

Very PC. Why not spend as much energy and time in areas that are much more problematic.