A Modern-Day “J’Accuse” in Springfield, Ohio

“Shimon ben Shatah used to say: Examine the witnesses thoroughly, and be careful in your words, lest through them they learn how to lie.”

—Pirkei Avot 1:9

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.”

—Rahm Emanuel

As a metaphorical starting place, I want the reader to imagine being at the 1945 Trinity nuclear weapon test. The Manhattan Project scientists are under tremendous pressure not only because the fate of Western civilization seems to rest on their shoulders, but because they are totally and uniquely alone; for, only they can see in their minds’ eyes what is about to happen for the first time. Dark, apocalyptic thoughts explode into consciousness under such pressures. The scientists take bets on whether “The Gadget” will ignite the atmosphere. How do you place your bet? 

For Jews, this situation shares similarity with the controversy emanating from Springfield, Ohio. The controversy has many facets. Most important, if less obvious, is the inevitable fission that takes place when two very different cultures are slammed into one another by outside forces. The “initiator,” so to speak, is a near instant 40% increase in population. Fission then triggers other reactions, including the community’s fiscal, social services, and even physical, infrastructures, burdened to the breaking point. When the bonds that hold a community together suddenly break, it releases tremendous energies. These breaking bonds cascade and magnify, the impact of which is felt far beyond ground zero. 

The details of what has happened to Springfield, following the arrival of a large number of Haitian migrants, are well documented elsewhere, so there is no need to rehash them here (simply Google the topic). I want to, rather, look at a subsequent chain reaction. That is, how this “crisis” has been “an opportunity” for some. Specifically: The scandal surrounding Cary Kozberg, the rabbi at Temple Sholom in Springfield. Immigrant German peddlers chartered the temple in 1866 as part of the Reform movement. It is the last of several synagogues in Springfield. Membership has dwindled from a peak of about 150 to 35 families, who meet (at least) weekly in an oversized building which heralds a richer past. My wife and I, both in our early sixties, are among the youngest members. Such is Jewish life in the rustbelt.

In the wake of the bruhaha over the Haitians in Springfield, Jewish media approached Rabbi Kozberg (hereafter, “Rabbi”) for an interview. Rabbi told me he was hesitant, because he’s not a resident of Springfield, and so not the best candidate to speak on the topic. (His position at Sholom is part-time, his retirement job, and he lives a good distance from Springfield.) But, as the only rabbi in the community he felt obligated. Andrew Lapin then interviewed Rabbi for the Jewish Telegraph Agency (JTA). The JTA interview was reprinted in the Dayton Jewish Observer (DJO). (Just 30 miles away, Dayton is the fourth-largest metropolis in Ohio.) Marshall Weiss, the DJO’s publisher and editor, then published excerpts from a discussion he had with Rabbi, the temple president, and others.

The proverbial stuff hit the fan. Hate mail filled Rabbi’s in-box, including from other rabbis. I heard from my sister, on the West Coast, that Rabbi was the subject of her rabbi’s denunciatory Rosh Hashana sermon. No doubt other rabbis have given similar sermons. Lashan hara is difficult to stem, even among rabbis.

The proverbial stuff hit the fan. The headline of a Haaretz essay screams that Rabbi is “odious” and “an utter waste of rabbinic protoplasm.” Most of the commenters concur, though one challenges the author for “factual flaws” and “propagandizing rhetoric,” but lacks specifics. As one might expect, hate mail filled Rabbi’s inbox, including from other rabbis. Lashan hara is indeed difficult to stem.

Everyone who reads the articles is horrified. Those who know Rabbi are taken aback by his portrayal in the JTA as a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde transmogrifying into a rabid racist, like the kindly man who trains dogs to kill black people in Samuel Fuller’s White Dog (1982). I am no apologist for Rabbi, nor will I interpret what he said. I wasn’t present at any of the interviews, and Rabbi is perfectly capable of explaining himself. The question is, however: How are readers to make sense of an article that initiated such a powerful chain reaction, triggering headlines not just in the Jewish press, or the local or national press, but the international press? 

Fortunately, there are models, shall we say, for explaining such powerful texts. I would like to briefly describe three. Critical Theory—the dominant model in academic humanities and social sciences for many decades now—teaches us that everything can be understood as a “text.” A fellow graduate student proposed the novel dissertation topic of “reading” newborns as texts. Every text, moreover, is a kind of palimpsest, a page or canvas on which there are two layers of text or imagery. Although the second layer obscures the first, if we know what to look for, we can find traces of the first layer. That first layer, Critical Theory tells us, always “inscribes” power. Birth of a Nation (1915) and Gone with the Wind (novel 1936, film 1939) are exemplars of American texts that inscribe white power over blacks.

Saul Alinsky (1909–1972) was a pioneer of radical rhetoric, providing keen insight into how to shape public discourse. Most famous is his Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals (1971). We don’t need to read all thirteen of his rules. Two are sufficient.

Rule no. 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. There is no defense. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”

Rule no. 13: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

I sent Marshall Weiss an email message expressing my concerns about the quality of Lapin’s journalism. In a response, Mr. Weiss made the following comment: “First rule of dealing with reporters: If you don’t want to be interviewed, say so, and don’t say anything else” (personal correspondence dated September 24, 2024, 1:33 pm). In other words, to be interviewed runs the risk of the adage, “If it bleeds, it leads.” Weiss, though, is telling us the press will inflict wounds if they think a story needs more blood. Credit where credit is due. Mr. Weiss gives us an honest appraisal of his own profession.

If what Critical Theory asserts is correct, that all texts attempt to aggregate power to the author or author’s group, then it must be equally true of Critical Theory texts, or texts by people schooled in Critical Theory. If we take Alinsky at face value, then honest public discourse in the pursuit of truth or for the good of the commonweal does not accrue power—which is all that matters. If what Weiss says is correct, then even well-intentioned public servants, broadly defined, are put into an inextricable bind. The press demands, hectors even, public servants to make themselves accountable to the people by giving interviews to the press, knowing full well it is a suicide mission. That is, the public servant submits to the interview knowing it subjects him or her to Alinky’s rules. Indeed, one of Springfield’s Haitian community leaders told Rabbi that he will no longer give interviews because he, too, is tired of being pilloried by the press.

Read through the lens of Critical Theory, Lapin’s article it is nothing but rules five and thirteen. Let’s consider just a few examples. Rabbi claims Trump did positive things for Jews. Indeed, a great many Jews consider moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem and the Abraham Accords monumental achievements; yet, Lapin does not follow up on Rabbi’s claims. Rather, Lapin writes that Rabbi is “out of step with the vast majority of Reform Jews” [sic].

So what if he is out of step? Maybe that puts Rabbi in good company. Galileo, Lincoln, Eisenstein, and the German Jews who fled before 1938 were all out of step with “the vast majority of” their contemporaries, but history proved them right. Rabbi also asserts that traditional Judaism teaches tzedakah is given in “concentric circles”; which is to say: Charity begins in the home. Rather than verify this claim in the Jewish legal or sacred literature, Lapin finds another rabbi to argue instead that we must “welcome the stranger.” I don’t see the two as mutually exclusive, but that’s not the point. Lapin is cherry-picking, thus pitting one rabbi against another to force the reader to choose sides rather than ponder the nuances of their arguments. Lapin’s Manicheanism explodes nuance.

Torah demands a great many things that are unpalatable to our modern, genteel sensibilities; that we must annihilate Amalek for starters. The Haitians, Lapin tells us, “…are in the country legally.” Again, so what? Foreign tourists are here legally. The 9/11 terrorists were here legally. Springfield Haitians have Temporary Protective Status (TPS). They have not been “vetted,” (i.e., their claims of persecution have not been adjudicated) by Immigration Services. People on the TPS program receive benefits that are denied to people who have been vetted and have Alien Residency. Is that fair? Effectively, the government is incentivizing not applying for Alien Residency. Lapin covers none of this. Instead, he robs the reader of the opportunity to engage complex, ambiguous, and discomforting questions with false equivalencies.

If we look at Weiss’ article, it is not surprising that some in Springfield are backing away from the press. As Erik Berne describes in his seminal book, Games People Play (1964), there are some “games” you cannot possibly win, or in which one may even hope for a draw. Talking to the press is, as Weiss himself indicates, one of those games. Berne says the only thing you can do is walk away from such games. At first, Weiss’ article seems a straightforward and evenhanded accounting of events. Then the article turns on the question of whether “…what Kozberg said in the JTA piece [is] racist.” Racism is like pornography: It is something we can all easily recognize—if only we could agree on a definition. We’ve all said stupid things (I certainly have), but that does not make us stupid. Like asking someone “When did you stop beating your mother?”, Weiss’ implicit question (“Is what the Rabbi said racist?”) is a game you cannot win (see rule no. 5). Weiss also uses inflammatory adjectives strategically to, e.g., attribute “disdain[fulness]” to Rabbi. Weiss combines inflammatory language with guilt by association. Thus, the Rabbi’s “staunch support… for current Republican policies and… Donald Trump for president” (my italics) is inculpative evidence of thought crimes. The question of justice in Judaism, however, turns not on our beliefs or things we say in any given moment, but our actions and continued pursuit of truth over a lifetime. Weiss makes no effort to explore the issues Rabbi raises or the validity of Rabbi’s claims. More to the point, although JTA and DJO are nominally “Jewish” publications, neither Weiss nor Lapin contextualize Rabbi’s statements within the rich legal and philosophical traditions that are the bedrock of Rabbinic Judaism.

In the name of full disclosure, I met Rabbi once about ten years ago. I found him refreshingly candid for a rabbi, and better read in Jewish literature than any other Reform rabbi I’ve met. Three years ago, my wife and I joined his congregation. His congregation is committed and vibrant. Indeed, compared to other mid-west communities, relatively large numbers regularly attend Rabbi’s Shabbat and other services. Politics is never discussed in the sanctuary, if anywhere in the building. Rabbi and I disagree on many things, but always in the spirit of “arguing for the sake of heaven.” And there’s the rub. Lapin and Weiss argue for the sake of scoring ideological points—at the cost of other people’s reputations. 

Tellingly, the surname Lapin derives from the French word lapereau, for rabbit; which is treif. I say this not simply because I enjoy the irony but to illustrate the most interesting aspect of Lapin’s article. His article is sadly symptomatic of not just the state of journalism, but the current socio-cultural stresses that are driving Jews, especially Reform Jews, to attack one another.

The current historical moment is a bit like watching Monty Python’s Life of Brian (1979). If our current enemies had half a brain they’d just sit back and watch us fight each other until we have no fight left for them. Which is pretty much what led to the catastrophic events that ended in the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E., and our subsequent millennia-long dislocation from our homeland.