The first months after the October 7th pogrom in Israel saw the embryonic forms of an anti-Semitic response in the United States. In light of the violence to come, they seem quaint. College shmoes tore down hostage posters and made Hamas-friendly statements. Filmed and called out on social media, some apologized with varying levels of credibility. This first wave crested as Ivy League presidents testified before Congress, bobbed and weaved on pointed questions and soon some lost their jobs.
The apology literary genre faded as the pro-Hamas cohorts moved to direct action of building invasions, vandalism at college administrators’ homes, and of course the disruptive tentifada movement. They ain’t apologizing for nothing. However, the genre has now evolved from the poster rippers to businesses and institutions discovering that they face consequences for their anti-Israel actions.
The stakes are much higher in this new wave than when individuals dealt with the blowback. Reputational risk is enormous, through loss of donors and applicants at the university level, and customers, job applicants, and marketing partners for corporations. How effective are their apologies, or even non-apologies framed as statements, from a literary and communications perspective? Do they work as apologies or can they actually be counterproductive?
Apologies on the family plan
One high-visibility case this summer drew an apology from those serial apologizers, the Hadid family. In the fall, Gigi Hadid did some explaining after posting on Instagram that Israelis raped, abused, and tortured Palestinian prisoners, and did organ harvesting. She wrote, “I shared something that I did not fact check or deeply think about prior to reposting.” Then, in July, German sportswear conglomerate Adidas hired her sister Bella Hadid to promote the sneaker company’s SL72 shoes, launched in 1972, the same year that Palestinian “Black September” terrorists massacred 11 Israelis at the Munich Olympics. The Hadid and Munich witches’ brew blew up on Adidas so—cue the multiple apologies.
Here’s what adidas had to say, as reported in People:
“We are conscious that connections have been made to tragic historical events—though these are completely unintentional—and we apologize for any upset or distress caused,” adidas said in a statement shared with USA TODAY Sports on July 18. “As a result, we are revising the remainder of the campaign. We believe in sport as a unifying force around the world and will continue our efforts to champion diversity and equality in everything we do.”
“Completely unintentional”! From a company whose factories made munitions for the Nazi war machine in World War II? Does adidas not have historians on staff to monitor such reputational matters? The carefully written statement looks on the positive side, but I can’t tell what the impact will be other than “we’ll try not to inexplicably connect our products to terrorism.” Grade: D– for credibility, B for coughing up the appropriate buzz words in its forward-looking conclusion. Unlike, say, the Bud Light marketing fiasco, this controversy doesn’t appear to have dented adidas or the Hadids.
For her part, Bella Hadid came out swinging on Instagram, in a statement that, like Gigi’s earlier apology, reflects her own voice without PR filtering, as reported in People magazine:
For those of you that do not know my heart, I want to make sure you’re hearing directly from me about my recent campaign with adidas. I would never knowingly engage with any art or work that is linked to a horrific tragedy of any kind. In advance of the campaign release, I had no knowledge of the historical connection to the atrocious events in 1972. I am shocked, I am upset, and I am disappointed in the lack of sensitivity that went into this campaign. Had I been made aware, from the bottom of my heart, I would never have participated.”
Hadid continued, “My team should have known, adidas should have known and I should have done more research so that I too would have known and understood, and spoken up. As I always have, and always will, speak up for what I believe to be wrong. While everyone’s intentions were to make something positive, and bring people together through art, the collective lack of understanding from all parties undermined the process. I do not believe in hate in any form, including antisemitism. That will never waiver, and I stand by that statement to the fullest extent.”
Bella Hadid spreads the blame around, including herself, and she protests she would have never done the promotion if she had known about the 1972 unpleasantness. After what happened to Gigi, did Bella and her people not learn to get the background on such an explosive topic? Like Gigi, Bella blames a breakdown in fact-checking and research. I can believe that given her “bottom of my heart” statements—and I’ll believe it the next time the Hadids need to apologize, too. Grade: B+ for personality. Potential for brand damage: zero.
Rutgers feeds the alligator
The dilemma of university administrators anxious to balance concern for Jewish students with genuflections to disruptive campus Hamas supporters and their faculty fanboys burst into flames at Rutgers University-New Brunswick in late May. Chancellor Christopher J. Molloy and Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor for Research and Academic Affairs Francine Conway started with a statement on May 26 with the headline “Speaking Out Against Acts of Anti-Semitism.” It forcefully addresses violence against Jews head-on:
We are saddened by and greatly concerned about the sharp rise in hostile sentiments and anti-Semitic violence in the United States. Recent incidents of hate directed toward Jewish members of our community again remind us of what history has to teach us. Tragically, in the last century alone, acts of prejudice and hatred left unaddressed have served as the foundation for many atrocities against targeted groups around the world. If you have been adversely impacted by anti-Semitic or any other discriminatory incidents in our community, please do not hesitate to reach out to our counseling and other support services on campus. Our behavioral health team stands ready to support you through these challenging times. In addition, our Student Affairs Office is already working in close partnership with leaders of the Rutgers Jewish community, and meetings have been held with students to assess and respond to their needs. If you are aware of hate incidents on campuses or places that have been made unsafe due to expressed bigotry and other unacceptable and insensitive acts, please report them using the bias reporting system.
Although we face many challenges and may have differing perspectives, we must condemn acts of violence and all forms of bigotry. We will continually strive to realize the aspiration embodied in President Holloway’s articulation of a vision for Rutgers as a ‘beloved community’—a community where we welcome and affirm humanity and find strength in our diversity.
The statement could be a model for outlining the problem and posing responses—not the kind of blunt arrest-and-expel response that might have an actual impact, but it shows that Jew-hatred is (or was) on Rutgers’ radar screen. While not an apology, it rates an A for timeliness and clarity, and an A for impact in contrast to supine administrators who dare not speak out.
Then they blew the gesture when faced with a demand from the Rutgers Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) for an apology because the statement did not denounce Israel’s actions in Gaza. According to the Jewish Journal, “Rutgers SJP also accused the university of trivializing racism by also including condemnations of hatred against Asians, Hindus, Muslims and Indigenous peoples in their statement and criticized the university for not mentioning Palestinians.” (It should be noted the statement didn’t mention Uigurs, Tibetans, Copts, or Yazidis, but who cares about their struggles for survival?)
SJP’s bottom line:
“We therefore demand an apology from Chancellor Molloy and Provost Conway for dismissing the voices and visibility of Palestinians and allies.”
And that they got with a groveling apology on May 27. Rather than ignoring the demand, Rutgers folded faster than a defective tent on the university lawn (bold added):
We are writing today as a follow-up to the message sent on Wednesday, May 26th to the university community. We understand that intent and impact are two different things, and while the intent of our message was to affirm that Rutgers–New Brunswick is a place where all identities can feel validated and supported, the impact of the message fell short of that intention. In hindsight, it is clear to us that the message failed to communicate support for our Palestinian community members. We sincerely apologize for the hurt that this message has caused.
Rutgers University–New Brunswick is a community that is enriched by our vibrant diversity. However, our diversity must be supported by equity, inclusion, antiracism, and the condemnation of all forms of bigotry and hatred, including anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. As we grow in our personal and institutional understanding, we will take the lesson learned here to heart, and pledge our commitment to doing better. We will work to regain your trust, and make sure that our communications going forward are much more sensitive.
The apology earned scorn from Jewish groups. The Jewish Journal roundup ran this statement:
Associate Dean and Director of Global Social Action Agenda at the Simon Wiesenthal Center Rabbi Abraham Cooper told the Journal that the apology was a “complete and utter disgrace.” “That’s not leadership; that’s appeasement of people who support the destruction of the state of Israel. It’s an appeasement of all of those forces that have embraced the Hamas talking points.”
Then the apology statement came down and a May 29 statement from President Jonathan Holloway went up:
Rutgers deplores hatred and bigotry in all forms. We have not, nor would we ever, apologize for standing against anti-Semitism.
Neither hatred nor bigotry has a place at Rutgers, nor should they have a place anywhere in the world. At Rutgers we believe that anti-Semitism, anti-Hinduism, Islamophobia and all forms of racism, intolerance and xenophobia are unacceptable wherever and whenever they occur.
I like the second sentence about never apologizing for standing against anti-Semitism. That shows some backbone in reiterating the first statement. Still, Rutgers gets an F for the apology that negated its statement of the day before; the apology showed that pro-Hamas groups get the heckler’s veto over any statement that doesn’t reflect its thinking. On the other hand, Rutgers’ apology wins an A+ for humbly submitting to SJP and vowing to “doing better” and being “much more sensitive and balanced.” President Holloway’s subsequent message was the icing on the apologetic cake. SJP couldn’t ask for more than that, and I’m sure Rutgers’ messages since then are exquisitely sensitive. Doomed defendants at Stalinist show trials in the 1930s could not show more terrified deference.
Did the apology calm down protests at Rutgers? No, protestors got back to business when class was back in session in August. Student newspaper The Targum reported that “Build Up Resistance Now (B.U.R.N.) took to the Busch Student Center during New Student Orientation (NSO) with chants, noisemakers, and a sign reading ‘Rutgers can’t stop student power’ in response to a protest-related exercise introduced during this year’s orientation programming.”
Doomed defendants at Stalinist show trials in the 1930s could not show more terrified deference.
A statement from B.U.R.N. helpfully defined its gripe and agenda:
According to a press release detailing the event, one of the protestors said, “Students are encouraged to compromise, but how can there be a ‘compromise’ over something like a genocide? This isn’t about apartments and student centers. We don’t want to have a debate about whether or not Rutgers should be involved in dropping bombs on the Gaza Strip. We want it to stop completely.”
According to The Targum, organizers of the event then responded:
On the same day, incoming students who were involved in the NSO program received an email from program leaders issuing an apology for the event, which was referred to as “anti-Semitic rhetoric which is abhorrent and has no place on our campus” in the message. The email notes that the demonstration is currently under investigation.
Will Rutgers win back donors who started withholding donations even last fall? That’s for the alumni relations office to decide. The downward spiral will continue in New Brunswick.
A statement with ramifications
The case of New Paltz (NY) Deputy Mayor Alexandria Wojcik is instructive. Unlike past apologies and their aftermath, Wojcik’s story shows a direct line from statements to apology to political repercussions. Mid Hudson News has covered the story in depth, which began just after Rutgers launched its apology for being overly concerned about anti-Semitism.
In a statement issued on Tuesday, the Jewish Congregation of New Paltz [JCNP], saying in part, that Wojcik shared posts on social media that use the phrase “geopolitical interests of Zionism,” which, according to the congregation, “alludes to baseless conspiracy theories rooted in centuries-old anti-Semitic tropes.” [Rabbi Adam Cerino-Jones] said, “These kinds of ideas have no foundation in reality and are used to scapegoat and discriminate against Jewish people.”
The congregation also stated that Wojcik repeatedly use[d] the word “intifada” which is a cause for concern. Intifada, according to the Jewish group, is a call to arms seeking an uprising against Jews. “Her language unnecessarily raises the temperature in our community, endangering Jews in the New Paltz area and putting our synagogue at risk,” the statement said. “In other words: her language makes our families less safe.”
Mid Hudson News then added a response from Wojcik:
Addressing the tone of her posts that offended Rabbi Cerino-Jones and the congregation, Wojcik said, “It is unacceptable for any New Paltzian, for anyone, to feel unsafe. My entire life I’ve strived daily to be always anti-antisemitic, anti-racist, anti-hate, anti-bigotry, in all that I do. I am sorry to learn that, unfortunately, some of my work has not landed the way I had intended. I sincerely appreciate JCNP for letting me know that is the case.”
Wojcik’s comments, while not an apology, are still baffling. If some of her work “has not landed the way I had intended,” then what was her intent, then? She gets a B+ for saying something, and, as we’ll soon see, backing them up with a pledge of action.
That’s because Wojcik’s statement had ramifications after the apology. In August, Mid Hudson News reported she had “been found guilty by members of the Ulster County Democratic Committee Ethics jury after a complaint was filed by her fellow Dems over the use of racist or anti-Semitic language on social media… Wojcik said her posts had been misinterpreted.”
The article reports (bold added):
The committee did conclude, however, that “no evidence that Wojcik was personally racist or anti-Semitic or had ever expressed or held such views.”
Wojcik has been instructed by the ethics jury to continue making reparations to those she offended through her actions.
When asked about the ethics complaint and findings of the committee, Deputy Mayor Wojcik said “After witnesses and parties agreed that the ethics process would be confidential, the complainants seem to have forgotten the fundamental findings of the jury: I did not violate the Ulster County Democratic Committee bylaws, and the parties need to find common ground on our own time. My lines are open. I look forward to meeting with folks from the Jewish Congregation of New Paltz later this month, and hope to see all concerned about this topic at many phonebanks and canvass launches so together we can ensure actual fascists don’t come into power.”
I expect Wojcik will find an attentive audience at the synagogue, which is part of the Reconstructionist movement and describes itself as “a vibrant, egalitarian and intergenerational community, open to all Jews (by birth and by affiliation): singles, families, LGBTQ, interracial, interfaith couples and families.” If her statement and subsequent appearance before the “ethics jury” result in an honest exchange of ideas and insights, then I’ll judge her statement successful in impact far beyond anything adidas or Rutgers posted. I hope for the best for Wojcik and JCNP.
Powerhouse Books: Zionist-adjacent is too much
The most recent institutional apology came from the murky matter of the cancellation of a discussion of the new book Tablets Shattered: The End of an American Jewish Century and the Future of Jewish Life by Joshua Leifer. Set to take place at Powerhouse Arena in Brooklyn, the event teamed progressive journalist Leifer with Rabbi Andy Bachman in conversation. All systems were go until, well, somehow the event got cancelled because somebody involved at the store unmasked Bachman’s nefarious Zionist leanings and cancelled the event, leaving participants hanging around in front of the bookstore.
According to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency,
[Daniel] Power, the bookstore owner, agreed that the cancellation was wrong, and said he was not informed of the decision before it happened. He described the cancellation as the work of a rogue employee, whom he declined to identify. Initially, in a post on X, Power said Leifer’s publicist had canceled the event after speaking with the employee.
A week later Leifer and Bachman held the event at the Center for New Jewish Culture (in the building that once housed the Union Temple) in Brooklyn, pulling in an audience of 300, as the book’s sales pushed it high on various Amazon lists.
The episode becomes relevant because Power posted a long statement on Instagram clarifying the sequence of events and how it contradicts everything a bookstore should be. His conclusion:
This incident does not define us. Opening our spaces, our minds, and our hearts to people of different religions, races, and cultures is not just a Powerhouse value. It is a New York value, an American value, and a humanistic value, plain and simple. There is always more work to be done, and we hope you will stand alongside us in disavowing all forms of othering, intolerance, and prejudice as we fight to uphold our fundamental principles of extending acceptance, dignity, and respect to everyone. We ask that you please recognize our genuine dismay over what transpired and accept our most heartfelt apologies for any harm that it has caused.
Power gets high marks for an A-level explanation, after the initial confusion about what happened. I’m now following Powerhouse on Twitter and, like many others, am highly curious about Leifer’s book—the event cancellation shows, once again, how the Streisand Effect of unintended consequences works. Power’s closing caps the statement well and apologizes. The statement is broadly based without getting into the politics of Zionism and opposition to it. I’m eager to see how Powerhouse might build on this unintended notoriety to bring in more feather-ruffling authors and moderators. In doing so, he could make lemonade out of what initially was a tall stack of lemons. Literary value: high. Impact: Exceptional.
Where we are now
A year after 10/7, the name and shame process still plays out, but, at the poster defilement level, that’s satisfying but strategically pointless. That’s shoveling sand at the beach. The center of gravity of violent protests has created a new dynamic that requires more Krav Maga, anti-mask legislation and fearless frat bros. Institutional apologies will still happen, but the worst offenders will never apologize because in their minds their actions are always justified—until an apology is part of a felony plea deal. Nothing will change them until they face serious consequences. Based on the state of university administrators, Hamas (now Hezbollah) supporters still have a permanent free pass and nothing to worry about.
