Original Article: http://dartreview.com/archives/1998/01/21/letters_to_the_editor.php
Wednesday, January 21, 1998
The End of Dartmouth's Anti-Semitism?
Editors' Note: This letter was forwarded to the Dartmouth Review by the author and is dated November 17.
Dear President Freedman,
While you are correct to place Dartmouth in the category of anti-Semitic colleges down into — but certainly not beyond — the early 1950s, I think you fail to give credit to those who affected the change. As I'll explain, within the faculty, I would point to Fred Berthold among many; within the administration, President Dickey, Chaplain Unsworth, and others; and, on the Trustees, I would guess Nelson Rockefeller was a major player.
As you know, you are not the first Jewish president of Dartmouth, John Kemeny was, though you are the first practicing Jew to hold the position, and Michael Paley was by no means the first Hillel rabbi; indeed he is irrelevant to the process of change.
It was complete long before he got there. I think to point to the 1980s as the time of change is to err by twenty years or more and it is also to deny credit to the presidency in which the change took place, which was John Dickey's, so far as I can reckon.
Dartmouth had already decided to open the doors to Jews and to Judaism by the late 1950s; only because of such a decision was my appointment in 1964 possible, meaning, by 1963 a profound change was complete. Many Jewish professors were on the faculty before I got there, I would estimate no fewer than 30. That is why I think the process was well underway a good bit before my appointment, as the first Jewish scholar of Judaism at Dartmouth, in 1964-68; that was the work of Fred Berthold. And then there was never a break; beyond me came Steven T. Katz, for about ten years; then Arthur Hertzberg, and then the lesser lights still there.
These are a different indicator of normalization, for, in scholarship, they are really not very important people, therefore Dartmouth has normalized the study of Judaism, doesn't demand superstars, and is happy with rather ordinary types such as it has appointed.
In the beginning they would make a Judaism appointment only if they could get Abraham Heschel (language that was used just prior to my appointment!) The sign of normality is that a mediocre scholar teaches a routine subject. As to Hillel (with or without teaching), David Altshuler was paid by Dartmouth to teach Hebrew — the first director so far as I know — and there were other Hillel directors before Michael Paley.
When I came to Dartmouth, there were practicing Jews on the faculty, typified by Bernie Getz for religious Jews and Kal Silvert for secular ones; they stand for many articulate and forthright Jews at Dartmouth. I was treated as an asset, promoted into tenure after a year after I arrived as an assistant professor, and to keep me, they were ready to make me a full professor in 1967.
The Tucker Foundation, moreover, was most interested in serving Jewish studies via Judaism through that period. Dick Unsworth, then the director, could not have been more committed. The chairman of the Religion Department, Fred Berthold, was a key player through the 1950's and 1960's (and beyond) in making Jews welcome and wanted at Dartmouth.
That is why, not knowing what is in the archives, I should guess that the real shift took place in the movement from Hopkins to John Dickey.
Nelson Rockefeller was a major influence in that presidency, and I would not be at all surprised if he played a role in the decision, and it clearly was a decision, to abandon the anti-Semitic policy of Hopkins.
Since it was in that presidency that I was appointed and tenured, and since Dickey himself was succeded by a person known to be of Jewish origin, John Kemeny, we have to identify Dickey as the turning point. I don't know what was said or done to affect the change, I can point only to the timing of the changes. At any rate, Hopkins would not have appointed a professor (Jewish or otherwise) to teach about Judaism, and he certainly would not have appointed a Jew to do the work.
Whether persons identified as Jews (as distinct from persons of Jewish origin, e.g., by the Neuremberg laws) could get appointments in Hopkins time I don't know. I remember, when I came, being told that the first Jew (not apostate, like Rosenstock-Huessy) to be tenured at Dartmouth was a professor of math, but I don't remember his name; he was from the 1930s or early 1940s, I think. At any rate, the real changes took place in the 1950s, no later, and to them Michael Paley and you for that matter really are irrelevant. You are about two academic generations too late to matter.
Sincerely,
Dr. Jacob Neusner
Professor of Religion, Bard College
Distinguished Research Professor of Religious Studies, University of South Florida
Is Discrimination Dead?
To the Editors:
I am writing to you to express concern regarding Mr. Wallace-Wells' editorial entitled 'Walls of Semitism,' which appeared in the January 14 issue of The Dartmouth Review. As a member of the Dartmouth Jewish community, I agree with Mr. Wallace-Wells on one thing, namely that the focus of American Jews should not be on past discrimination. Generally speaking, Jews know more about the six years of destruction in Europe than they do about the five hundred years of thriving culture that came before. This is a mistake. Our religious and cultural history is filled with many more triumphs than pitfalls, and to focus primarily on destruction, is a disservice to the future of the Jewish community.
What I am concerned about, however, is Mr. Wallace-Wells' casual treatment of and his use of absolute terminology in statements such as, 'Jews in America were once discriminated against. They are not anymore.' I would advise Mr. Wallace-Wells to look beyond his current environment before making any such statements. Perhaps Jews are not discriminated against at Dartmouth, but this does not pertain to the American community at large.
I grew up in New York in a liberal and educated neighborhood. I have never seen an African American discriminated against. Does that mean I have the right to conclude that racism in America is dead? That would seem utterly ridiculous! Unfortunately, I was raised in an atypical American community in regard to racism. We know from media reports and academic surveys that racism is still very much alive, and to pronounce the contrary based on limited experience is a fallacy.
I am happy that Mr. Wallace-Wells has the opportunity to attend Dartmouth College, an academic institution where anti-Semitism seems nonexistent. However, Dartmouth is not representative of the whole of America; the ugly truth is that both the Ku Klux Klan and Neonazi groups have reported an increase in membership for 1997. If Mr. Wallace-Wells ever encounters either group, he can tell them that 'Jews in America were once discriminated against. They are not anymore.'
Sincerely,
Joie Jager-Hyman '00
I think my column was reflective of personal experience, and presented as such. I made no pretension of universal description. The Ku Klux Klan and neonazi groups you refer to are so universally detested, and so flippantly dismissed, that they do not represent a real political or ideological force.
—BCWW
Dartmouth's Next President
Editors' Note: The following letter was sent to Stephen Bosworth, Chairman of the Dartmouth Board of Trustees, and to the Dartmouth Review by the author.
Dear Mr. Bosworth,
Have you and the Board of Trustees informally decided to select a woman as Dartmouth's next president (thus assuring that the formal selection process will simply be cosmetic), and that practically speaking, no man need apply?
Beyond that, however, does an informal short list exist?
How does one go about applying to the Board for consideration as a candidate? What are the mechanics? Why all the secrecy?
The Dartmouth Alumni are entitled to participate fully in the selection process and not be presented with a fait accompli with an elitist take it or leave it attitude. Will you enlist their participation?
Failure to openly comply and clearly answer the above questions and respond to the comments means that you and the Board have failed in your fiduciary responsibility to the Dartmouth College community.
Yours very truly,
Fred Fuld, Jr. '40