One Jew’s Journey
Rabbi Gil Steinlauf ’91 returned to Princeton last year to lead the Center for Jewish Life. He found big changes — and big challenges
Mandelbaum lounge is exactly what any good gathering space should be, cozy and welcoming. Located on the first floor of Princeton’s Center for Jewish Life (CJL), on Washington Road, it has a sofa, two love seats, three upholstered chairs, and one upright piano. Light pours through a big bay window, across from a fireplace and a painting of Albert Einstein and Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, a rendering of their 1951 meeting in Princeton. Ben-Gurion hoped to convince Einstein to become Israel’s first president. Alas, he did not get his man, Einstein saying that he lacked “the natural aptitude and the experience to deal properly with people” in such a capacity.
At most any time of day, you will find the lounge (named for a prominent CJL benefactor, David Mandelbaum ’57, and his wife, Karen) teeming with students. For many of Princeton’s estimated 700 Jewish undergraduate and graduate students, it is a go-to meeting spot, adjacent to a University-run kosher kitchen that serves 42,000 meals a year. It’s a place that gladdens the heart of Rabbi Gil Steinlauf ’91, who returned to Princeton last summer to take over as executive director of CJL — a position that was accompanied by exhilarating upside as well as some daunting challenges.
Steinlauf sensed immediately how much the University had changed in his three decades away. He says he didn’t experience overt antisemitism as an undergraduate, but he was acutely aware of being “the Jewish kid” to his friends, and of the embedded culture of Protestant privilege that F. Scott Fitzgerald 1917 depicted in This Side of Paradise.
“[T]he pleasantest country club in America,” Fitzgerald called the University. Who would’ve imagined a couple of generations ago that Princeton, bastion of bluebloods, would join Yeshiva and Brandeis as one of the first three U.S. universities with a kosher kitchen?
“It’s extraordinary that [the CJL is flourishing] at a place like Princeton, which has such an unfortunate history not just toward the Jews, but to all previously marginalized communities,” Steinlauf says. “People of color have their own hell stories of what it was like being here, as well as anybody else who wasn’t white Anglo-Saxon Protestant. The entire culture of the University has shifted, dramatically.”
As CJL celebrates its 30th anniversary this year — and Hillel International, the largest Jewish campus organization in the world, observes its 75th anniversary on campus — Steinlauf is uplifted by the transformation he has seen at Princeton, but is also keenly aware of the rise of antisemitic incidents all over the globe and of the discord on his own campus, which has been roiled recently by sometimes vitriolic opposition from both pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist groups who have been sharply critical of some of CJL’s core beliefs and programming. Indeed, before Steinlauf got to his first Hanukkah on his return to campus, the Princeton Committee on Palestine (PCP) issued a letter to the student body calling for a boycott of Israel Tiger Trek, a trip co-sponsored by CJL that aims to connect students with Israel’s flourishing entrepreneurial culture. The PCP letter said Tiger Trek effectively legitimizes Israeli “apartheid” and fosters ties to companies that do business with the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
“If you go on Israel Tiger Trek, you are complicit in the occupation of Palestine,” the letter said.
Steinlauf responded with a strongly worded rebuttal, assailing the PCP letter for invoking longstanding antisemitic tropes and being “part of the broader antisemitic trend that singles out Israel, the world’s only Jewish nation, for condemnation. These tactics are not only divisive; they are also deeply painful for many in the Jewish community [and are] … out of line with the values of Princeton University.” Steinlauf went on to say that CJL emphatically supports Israel’s legitimacy “while also seeking a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that allows all residents of the region to live with dignity, security, opportunity, and freedom.”
Sitting in his well-ordered corner office of the second floor of CJL, Steinlauf seemed unfazed both by the tempest and the letter that was published in The Daily Princetonian excoriating his rebuttal, the 12 signees accusing him of spreading “an exclusionary, right-wing message that made it clear that Jews who are not sufficiently Zionist are not welcome within the CJL community.” He said he was impressed with the students’ passion and thoughtfulness and reached out to all of them, meeting several for coffee, lunch, or a campus walk, and came away encouraged, differences notwithstanding.
“Our students think about all the issues. It’s not just reactive,” Steinlauf says. “It’s not just the progressive idea du jour. There are extremely progressive students here, but there also are extremely thoughtful students.”
“Our students think about all the issues. It’s not just reactive. It’s not just the progressive idea du jour. There are extremely progressive students here, but there also are extremely thoughtful students.”
— Rabbi Gil Steinlauf ’91
Phil Steinlauf arrived at Princeton in the fall of 1987 from Jericho High School in New York, with no notion of becoming a rabbi. He signed up for Hebrew 101 and began attending Shabbat dinners on Friday nights in Stevenson Hall, a repurposed social club that housed Princeton’s kosher kitchen before CJL was built. His plan was to study Near Eastern history, but the more active he became in the University Jewish community, the more friends began telling him he would make a great rabbi. When he heard the same thing from Rabbi Edward Feld, then the head of Princeton’s Hillel chapter, that clinched it. Phil Steinlauf enrolled in rabbinical school, where he studied for six years and changed his name to Gil — the male equivalent of his great-grandmother’s name.
It means joy in Hebrew.
A youthful looking 53-year-old, Steinlauf has a salt-and-pepper beard and trim physique. He begins his days with meditation, and often with a four-mile run through campus or past Lake Carnegie, and can frequently be found talking with students, whether over a lunch at CJL, or at Small World Coffee on Nassau Street. His days are extremely different from those in his previous position, as rabbi of Congregation Kol Shalom in Rockville, Maryland. (Before that, Steinlauf led Adas Israel, a prominent conservative synagogue in Washington, D.C., where his congregants included Supreme Court justices Elena Kagan ’81 and the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg.) Bashert is a Yiddish word that means “it was meant to be.” It was bashert that called him to return to Princeton.
“I trace my own Jewish awakening to what Hillel at Princeton did for me, and now all these years later I get to work [here],” he says. “There’s something wonderful about that. It’s a spiritually fulfilling act for me to come back to this place and be able to play a role, together with the staff, to inspire our students to integrate a meaningful sense of Judaism and Jewish community heritage in their own identity.”
A number of Steinlauf’s friends and colleagues were surprised he would want to become a college rabbi, even at a prestigious institution where he had a strong connection. It was, by any measure, a brave career move, though not nearly as brave as the email he sent in the fall of 2014, telling the entire Adas Israel congregation that he was gay. He wrote about how much he loved his wife, Batya, who is also a rabbi and the mother of their three children, but he could no longer live a lie.
“Any scholar whose inside does not match his outside is no scholar,” Steinlauf wrote, quoting the Talmud. “Ultimately the dissonance between my inside and my outside became undeniable, then unwise, and finally intolerable.”
Synagogue leaders wholeheartedly supported — and even celebrated — Steinlauf’s courage.
As both a young undergraduate and a middle-aged rabbi, Steinlauf has always appreciated the pluralism that is at the core of Hillel International. Every Friday night, there are three separate Shabbat services at CJL for Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform students, and then they all get together in the dining room next to Mandelbaum Lounge. The CJL has a group of Jewish Latin students and Jewish Asian students. The organization has 80 student leaders and, according to the CJL, has engaged with 91% of Princeton students who identify as Jewish, an extraordinarily high percentage, according to Susannah Sagan, campus support director of Hillel International. Whether it’s Thursday Night Torah (yes, they call it TNT) or Koleinu, an a cappella group that performed at the White House during the 2022 holiday season, or an array of programs that take students abroad, CJL is deeply woven into the fabric of campus life.
“Princeton is a great place to be Jewish,” says Marni Blitz, senior program adviser at CJL.
Not all Jewish students at Princeton are so sanguine about CJL, however. Emanuelle Sippy ’25 is the president of the Alliance of Jewish Progressives (AJP), which she describes as “an anti-capitalist, anti-racist collective of non- and anti-Zionist Jewish students who stand in solidarity with Palestinians.” While acknowledging that CJL plays an important role in Jewish life on campus, Sippy says, “The CJL can be a very alienating and unwelcoming place for progressive, non- and anti-Zionist Jewish students. I often attend Conservative Shabbat services at CJL, but even in a space that is supposed to be ‘apolitical’ there is a presumption that everyone is Zionist,” adding that “it isn’t uncommon for people to acknowledge or mourn the killings of Israelis without any recognition of the loss of Palestinian lives.”
When the English department invited Mohammed El-Kurd, a prominent Palestinian poet and writer, to deliver a lecture in February, it brought the fissures between progressive, pro-Palestinian Jews and the CJL into stark relief. El-Kurd has referred to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) as the “Apartheid Defense League” and likened the Israeli occupation of Palestine to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In a statement to The Daily Princetonian before the talk, Steinlauf wrote that “there are many speakers who advocate for the Palestinian cause without using the incendiary and hateful language about Jewish people that Mr. El-Kurd uses.” During a Q&A session following the lecture, Chabad Rabbi Eitan Webb shouted, “I would like to thank you very much for giving a master class on how to be an antisemite.”
The comment was followed by a brief chant of “Free Palestine!” Sippy later told The Daily Princetonian that AJP was “disappointed by the disruptive conduct of some members of the Jewish community, who do not speak for all Jews on this campus.”
Through most of its first two centuries, Princeton experienced no debates about Judaism, for good reason: There were no Jews on campus. While the preamble to the 1748 charter called for no religious discrimination, four of the seven founding trustees were Presbyterian ministers. For well over 200 years, every president of Princeton was a Protestant clergyman, or the son of one, according to Abigail Klionsky ’14, whose senior thesis explored the history of Jewish student life on campus. James McCosh, Princeton’s president from 1869 to 1888, once wrote, “Withdraw Christianity from our colleges, and we have taken away one of the vital forces which have given life and body to our higher education.” Princeton continued to have mandatory Sunday morning chapel attendance until 1964; Harvard made its chapel attendance voluntary in 1886.
Mordecai Myers 1812 was among the the first Jewish students to matriculate at Princeton. It wasn’t until 1915, when the Jewish population on campus reached 50, that the first Shabbat service took place. The number of Jewish students eventually reached 200, but for decades did not budge from there, raising suspicions of a quota, official or otherwise — a notion that Radcliffe Heermance, the University’s longtime director of admission, vehemently denied.
“We’ve never had a quota system, we don’t have a quota system, we will never have a quota system,” he told The Daily Princetonian in 1948.
(University president John Grier Hibben 1882 did not bolster Heermance’s position in an exchange he had with Robert Hutchins, president of the University of Chicago in the early 1930s — a conversation brought to light by Steven L. Buenning ’71, whose thesis was a biography of Hibben. Hutchins asked Hibben how many Jewish students there were at Princeton. “About 200,” Hibben said. Then Hutchins asked how many Jewish students there were the year before. “About 200,” Hibben said. And the year before that? “About 200.” Hutchins commented that this seemed odd and Hibben said he really couldn’t account for it, until Mrs. Hibben interjected, “Jack Hibben, I don’t see how you can sit there and lie to this young man. You know very well that you and Dean Eisenhart get together every year and fix the quota.”)
Nowhere were Princeton’s inhospitable ways towards Jewish students more apparent than in the eating clubs, the sociocultural epicenter of student life for more than a century. In an annual Princeton rite of spring, students apply for admission to one of the clubs through a process known as bicker. Each club had its own image and cachet to uphold, and if you were genetically blessed or supremely athletic or were otherwise deemed worthy of membership in one of the elite eating clubs, you had effectively won the orange-and-black lottery. If you were not deemed worthy and considered “unclubbable,” then you were essentially a social pariah. Clubs insisted there was no systemic antisemitism, but that contention was exposed in the infamous “Dirty Bicker” of 1958, when 23 students were deemed unclubbable — and 15 of them were Jewish. The New York Times and other major news media outlets covered the story, and the ensuing firestorm did not cast the University in the best light. From that low, Jewish student life gradually improved, particularly with the 1964 repeal of the chapel requirement and the school opening its door to women five years later. Hillel programming became more robust, and the stigma of being a Jewish student at Princeton began to diminish. In 1984, a Princeton Hillel panel drafted a proposal to build a Center for Jewish Life. The idea was endorsed by President William G. Bowen *58 and was approved by the University in 1988. Construction was originally set to be funded with a $750,000 gift from securities trader Ivan Boesky, before Boesky was found guilty of insider trading and fined $100 million. Other funding was secured and the building, with input from a student committee that included Phil Steinlauf, was designed by architect Robert A.M. Stern. It opened its doors at 70 Washington Road — site of the old Prospect Club — in 1993.
The Talmud contains thousands of pages of rabbinic text that amount to debate over theological issues — machloket leshem shamayim in Hebrew. The literal translation is “disagreeing for the sake of heaven.”
“The thing about these arguments is that they are done respectfully, civilly. They are done with love,” Steinlauf says. “Different rabbis have different perspectives. This rabbi might make sense in this generation, but this disagreeing rabbi might make sense to another generation. That’s the nature of the Jewish tradition. Our entire identity is heterogeneous in terms of embracing partial truths on all sides. We actually have the potential, as a Jewish community at a world-class Ivy League university, to lift up this very Jewish gift to Princeton and the wider world — this Jewish approach to embracing difference, celebrating difference, leaning into it courageously.
“That’s the goal — lean into it. Work with the energy of that. This is a fact of life. This is the world we live in ... . The Torah says we are supposed to be a light to the nations. This is one of the ways in which we can be.”
Keeping the light burning in the current sociopolitical climate is not always easy. According to data gathered by the ADL, there were 2,717 antisemitic incidents in the U.S. in 2021, a 34% increase from 2020, and the most ever recorded since the ADL began tracking such incidents in 1979. Holocaust deniers and conspiracy theorists have won elections and used their platform to spew misinformation and rail about an evil, omnipotent global cabal of Jews, all of it inflamed by social media, which Steinlauf calls “the perfect match for the powder keg of hate.” When CJL formed a search committee to replace Rabbi Julie Roth h’21, an immensely popular leader over her 17 years, one of the key characteristics it was seeking in a rabbi was one who could be a comforter and unifier in these polarizing times. Julie Levey ’24, current CJL student president, says there was a “collective sigh of relief” among committee members after they came upon Steinlauf’s application. Here was a Princeton alum, affable and erudite, a natural teacher with an inclusive approach and a broad appeal. Virtually every week at Shabbat service, Steinlauf will share a simcha moment — Hebrew for “festive occasion.”
“His simcha moment is the present. It’s getting to spend Shabbat with all of us,” Levey says. “He has impressed me and everyone else with his extensive passion for Jewish leadership and his commitment to allow all of us to be our best selves.” While “everyone” may not include members of the Princeton Committee on Palestine or the AJP, Steinlauf is philosophically open to discussion and debate and continuing to argue for the sake of heaven. Nothing good happens when emotions run so hot that dialogue is shut down altogether.
Rabbi Justin David, dean of the rabbinical school at Hebrew College in Newton, Massachusetts, is one of Steinlauf’s closest friends. “A lot of people seek deeper understanding,” David says. “But Gil seeks to translate that deeper understanding into ways of being — study, prayer, community engagement, helping people — through which people change their lives.”
To Steinlauf, the best response to hate is to seek the good in people, to not give in to despair. If he finds himself needing a psychological boost, Steinlauf will walk downstairs from his office at 70 Washington Road, 100 yards from the eating clubs on Prospect Avenue that for decades shunned Jews. He will venture into Mandelbaum Lounge and take in the energy and entropy, the spectacle of a room full of Jewish students sharing space and a sense of belonging. It will make him feel very good.
Wayne Coffey is a freelance journalist and author of more than 30 books. He lives in Sleepy Hollow, New York.
12 Responses
Walter Weber ’81
1 Year AgoOn Bravery and Fidelity
I generally enjoyed the charming feature on Rabbi Gil Steinlauf ’91, now head of Princeton’s Center for Jewish Life (“One Jew’s Journey,” May issue). One passage, however, struck me as jarring. Calling it a “brave” move, the article recounts that Steinlauf sent an email “telling the entire Adas Israel congregation that he was gay. He wrote about how much he loved his wife, Batya, who is also a rabbi and the mother of their three children, but he could no longer live a lie.”
Leave aside the question how “brave” it is to make an announcement that will almost universally and predictably be lauded as courageous and honest in elite contemporary society. Leave aside the morality of homosexual practices. My question is this: How is it “brave” to announce that you have decided to embrace your sexual desires, when that entails divorcing your wife and the mother of your children?
For purposes of the question I raise, it would not matter if Steinlauf had announced he was “gay” or if he had announced he had one or more female paramours and decided he could no longer “live a lie” about them. The fact is that every human being faces temptations — e.g., over sexual desire, money, or power — to betray one’s duties to others. Yielding to those temptations, or embracing them as one’s identity, is not brave. Fidelity and sacrifice — doing what you are obliged to do regardless of how much or how little pleasure it brings — is true heroism.
Norman Ravitch *62
1 Year AgoRedirecting Advocacy
Letters concerning the right-wing Israeli government’s policies towards the West Bank populations have made me laugh and also cry. There is nothing new about ethnic conflict, just look at Russia vs. Ukraine, and the semi-permanent hostilities among the various ethnic groups in the Balkans, as comparable to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which never ends. The parties in these conflicts will never on their own come to a settlement, but as in the Balkans and elsewhere the intervention of great powers can do more. The great powers can find a solution and enforce it, and the conflicting parties may not like the solution but eventually they will learn to go along with it. On their own the bitterness, sometimes religious, sometimes historical, sometimes cultural will never without outside force allow a settlement. Instead of writing letters attacking this rabbi and that organization, it would be more helpful to write letters to governments outside the area of conflict to urge their intervention. Integral nationalism leads to Fascism and war, moderate nationalism, generous nationalism can lead to peace. In America we see what intransigence has led to and we seek, not too hopefully, a solution; no foreign power will intervene unfortunately to save us. But perhaps we can save ourselves by saving others.
Herbert Kaufmann ’55
1 Year AgoChapel Attendance Options in the 1950s
The excellent article in the May issue “One Jew’s Journey” contains a factual error about chapel attendance. It says “Princeton continued to have mandatory Sunday morning chapel attendance until 1964.” When I was an undergraduate, only freshmen and sophomores were required to have attendance at some sort of a religious exercise, and that for only half the weeks of each semester. I attended the chapel some Sundays and some weeks went to the Hillel Foundation on Friday evening in Murray Dodge. One could go to church in town as well. We had to sign attendance cards. Personally, having been brought up without any religious education, I found the services I attended to be worthwhile and never considered the requirement a burden. However, I did not continue attendance into my junior and senior years.
Michael Goldstein ’69
1 Year AgoCommitting to a Diversity of Views on Israel
Gil Steinlauf ’91 (“One Jew’s Journey,” May issue) sounds like someone I could like as a person, and I appreciate his thoughts about Jewish commitment to diversity of views and civil debate. If I were at Princeton today, however, it would be hard to use the Center for Jewish Life to explore my relation to my heritage.
The question of support for the current State of Israel deeply divides Jews in the U.S. I read both the Princeton Committee on Palestine’s call for a boycott of Israel Tiger Trek and Rabbi Steinlauf’s response. I am baffled by his premise that one cannot denounce the Israeli government’s lethal repression of those resisting occupiers, including children, without crossing “a line by engaging in age-old, classic antisemitic references to child killing.” And I am angered by being told, once again, that it is antisemitic to be among those who see a state created by European Jews on others’ expropriated territory as colonial.
Not that his views are any more fringe these days than my own. And I am not saying that the head of CJL should not hold them. But to politicize that institution by vehemently committing it to one side of a heated controversy and calling the other side antisemitic seems to contradict the rabbi’s statements about the Jewish tradition of finding truth through respectfully embracing different views. And it certainly brands the center as a place that I probably could not comfortably enter, much less affiliate with.
Len Brillson ’67
1 Year AgoMeeting My Wife at Princeton Before Women Were Admitted
In response to “One Jew’s Journey” (May issue), the article reminded me of how special the Chapel Rule was to me and my family. The Chapel Rule resulted in my meeting my wife (now of 55 years), Janice. The Chapel Rule lasted until the end of my freshman year, the spring of ’64. Women had not yet been admitted. It was by chance that I met Janice at Murray-Dodge one Friday night in late spring. The rabbi had organized a visit by a group of high school Jewish women including Janice from West Orange, New Jersey, for Friday night services. I had one more chapel attendance left to do that freshman year but there were still one or two Fridays to go in the semester, and I was debating whether to take in a movie at McCarter that night instead. Lucky for me (and my whole family) that I decided to complete my last chapel rule attendance that night!
David N. Young ’62
1 Year AgoChapel Requirement in the 1960s
Although the chapel attendance requirement lasted until 1964, when I was an undergraduate from 1958 to 1962, we were not required to attend Christian services in the University Chapel. I regularly attended Jewish Hillel services in Murray-Dodge. I would add that a number of non-Jewish students also attended, obviating their Sunday morning chapel requirement.
Thomas Tonon *71
1 Year AgoWhy Did Einstein Refuse the Presidency of Israel?
The article “One Jew’s Journey” starts with a comment that David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel, met with Einstein in Princeton, hoping to convince the venerable scientist to be the president of Israel. Einstein refused, and the quotes below might give us clues on why he refused.
In a Dec. 4, 1948, letter to The New York Times, Einstein, along with 28 other prominent members of the Jewish community, wrote that the then-current Israeli political party, the Freedom Party, led by Menachem Begin, was “a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties.”
“It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughout the world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Begin’s political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents,” the letter continued.
Referring to the massacre of Arabs by Jews in the village of Deir Yassin, the letter said “the [Jewish] terrorists, far from being ashamed of their act, were proud of this massacre, publicized it widely. … The Deir Yassin incident exemplifies the character and actions of the Freedom Party.”
Further describing the Freedom Party, the letter stated it includes “an admixture of ultranationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority” and that it bore the “unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, and British alike), and misrepresentation are means, and a ‘Leader State’ is the goal.”
The letter ended by saying that America should turn its back on Begin and not support “this latest manifestation of fascism.”
But there’s much more. Ten years prior to this letter, Einstein declared at New York's Commodore Hotel that a Jewish state with borders and an army to protect those borders ran counter to “the essential nature of Judaism.” Also, in 1946 he told the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry on the Palestinian issue, “I cannot understand why it [a Jewish State] is needed. It is connected with narrow-minded and economic obstacles. I believe it is bad.”
In a 1938 speech, Einstein said, “I should much rather see reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish state.”
And in a quote dating back to the late 1920s Einstein declared, “Should we be unable to find a way to honest cooperation and honest pacts with the Arabs, then we have learned absolutely nothing during our two thousand years of suffering and deserve all that will come to us.”
Many of these and other quotes can be found in the book, Einstein on Israel and Zionism: His Provocative Ideas About the Middle East, by Fred Jerome.
Does Rabbi Gil Steinlauf believe it’s antisemitic to single out Israel because it’s the only Jewish state? If so, does he also believe that Einstein was a Jew hater, and would he assign the same description to one who verbalized the same sentiments as did Einstein in the above quotes?
From current events in Israel, many of us believe the nature of the Jewish government in Israel hasn’t changed much from Einstein’s time. That’s simply because, as a political entity, Zionism is a form of fascism, and no political party of Israel can ever be truly democratic if it furthers Zionist ideals.
David Zielenziger ’74
1 Year AgoAn Omitted Milestone in Kosher Dining
I just read the Rabbi Gil Steinlauf ’91 story and found a huge omission: How about the creation of the kosher dining room at 83 Stevenson that I and a lot of my ’74 classmates organized?
We got President Robert Goheen ’40 *48’s backing, worked with Provost William Bowen *58 and DFS, and got the former club at 83 Prospect Ave. for a site to be added to existing Stevenson Hall at 91 Prospect (now moved!). We started it in 1972. Bowen also asked us to raise funds from alums and organizations. We raised a few thousand, but the big boost came from an Orthodox Jewish group, the National Council of Young Israel, which donated $100,000.
We held a dedication party on a Sunday night, the beginning of Hanukkah in 1972 ... and Provost Bowen was there. Then we ate dinner! The University’s backing (aid from DFS, etc.) was outstanding!
Abby Klionsky ’14 interviewed me extensively for her thesis and I met her at Reunions and the “100 years of Jewish students” conclave a few years ago.
Larry Hill ’63
1 Year AgoClarifying Compulsory Chapel Attendance
There was no compulsory Sunday morning chapel requirement when I was an undergraduate in 1963. As as I recall, the requirement was that as freshmen only, we were to attend a certain number of religious services (10, I think). I did my attendance at Hillel, which was located at the small campus theater. I certainly never attended a religious service in the University Chapel.
Editor’s note: According to the PAW archives, compulsory chapel was not completely eliminated until June 1964, and religious services for Jewish students, like the ones mentioned above, began as early as the 1910s.
Richard M. Waugaman ’70
1 Year AgoDiversity of Opinion on Israel’s Policies
Wonderful article. These are challenging times for tolerating diversity of opinion about the State of Israel. We need to recognize that American Jews increasingly criticize Netanyahu’s current far-right government. It is disappointing that there is not more vocal criticism of his government’s policies toward the Palestinians. Jewish ideals demand better. Yes, antisemites may criticize Israel, but enough with the false syllogism that insists all critics of Israeli policies are antisemites.
Gerald S. Golden ’57
1 Year AgoProspect Club’s Welcoming History
The article about Rabbi Gil Steinlauf ’91 pointed out the delicious fact that the Center for Jewish Life is located where Prospect Club once stood. In the 1950s Prospect, with its open admission policy, was a club that provided a warm, welcoming and intellectually stimulating atmosphere for Jews. It also was a haven for Catholics and Evangelicals, many of whom, like Jews, were deemed to be “unclubbable” or, to use the cruel vernacular of the day, “undesirable.” We members of Prospect knew that the club would be the first to go out of business when the University moved to a residential college system but that was all right as it represented social evolution on the part of the school. It is good to see that 70 Washington Road is being put to good use.
Seth Akabas ’78
1 Year AgoAntisemitism, Quotas, and the Need for CJL
In an otherwise excellent and balanced piece “One Jew’s Journey” on Rabbi Gil Steinlauf ’91 and the Princeton CJL, two modest supplements provide context.
Objections to the speaker Mohammed El-Kurd went beyond the described El-Kurd references “to the [Jewish] Anti-Defamation League” (which pre-dates Israel) “as the ‘Apartheid Defense League’” and his comparison of Israel to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine (even though Israel has offered in writing plans in 1967, 2000, and 2008 to withdraw from all or almost all disputed territories, all of which have been rejected by Palestinian leadership without any meaningful counter), and were to his prior hateful, racist statements, deploying age-old antisemitic lies, that Israelis “harvest organs of the martyred [Palestinians],” have an “unquenchable thirst for Palestinian blood,” are “genocidal,” denying the facts of Jewish connection to Israel as “fictional indigenity [sic]”, and justifying his denial in overt racist terms: “How are Israelis gonna say they’re indigenous to Palestine but can’t walk outside without getting sunburned?”
Also, the reduction of Jewish admissions in the 1920s and decades after were more malicious than implied by the dean of admission’s denial and the Princeton president’s wife’s admission as to quotas. Correspondence published in Jerome Karabel’s 2005 book The Chosen shows the Princeton secretary issued an appeal to alumni to “tip us off to any Hebrew candidates” for otherwise the “Hebrew question will become serious,” and from a Princeton trustee to a Harvard Board member explaining Princeton’s “somewhat arbitrary basis for selection . . . which permits racial moulding . . . and . . . consequently no Jew question at Princeton,” after which the Harvard Board member wrote about avoiding a “Jewish inundation.”
Demonstrating an ongoing, visceral hatred of Jews, a tiny tip of an iceberg of antisemitism, which has endured for three millennia, provides context to the need for the CJL.