In a recent column, Laurence White wrote of Obama's Court Jews: the Rise of J Street. Therein, White defined his terms: "Court Jews were so named because they were Jews who did favors for noblemen in exchange for prestige, social influence, and various privileges not available to other Jews. They were often more concerned with preserving their status and fortunes then in promoting the welfare of their less fortunate (Jews)...in order to achieve personal advantage." This column, damning in its own right of J Street, brought to mind the sorry state of our national federation-owned organization, and one of the causes of its disappearance as a relevant and critical organization.
First, let me be clear -- there have been a number of federation lay and professional leaders whose support for UJC over the past few years arose from a sincere belief that their actions could right the listing ship. They hoped they would be listened to. They eventually came to understand that their support was interpreted by some in UJC lay and professional leadership as a blank check to do as they pleased without regard for the owners' interests or needs (except as these UJC leaders misperceived these interests or needs). Some believe that total deference to leaders is the price we pay for electing them -- they haven't read Pirke Avot. However, they and others -- the "enablers" as I termed them, the "Court Jews" as White would define them -- chose to support policies they knew to be wrong, knew to be harmful to UJC and, thereby to federations, even their own, either because it was "easier" or because they sensed that if they marched in total obsequity, their own opportunities of institutional advancement would be enhanced. They should look carefully at themselves in the mirror.
Many friends advised me since this Blog began to sha, to be silent as to the abuses I observed. That it "would be better for (me) and (my) reputation" and, apparently, my "future" within UJC if I "just went along." I was reminded by a terrific leader of the message of Ki Teitzei as I interpreted it two weeks ago -- that in the face of indifference, we are not allowed to be indifferent, particularly as to matters of principle and conscience.
Our organizations -- be they UJC, our federations, JDC, JAFI, ORT, JCPA, Hadassah, you name them -- do not succeed when those who aspire to lead "go along to get along," as so many do. They succeed when women and men act on their principles rather than upon their ambitions. The best may be when ambition and principle coincide not as a rationalization but as a reality.
Kathy and Jerry will have to sort that out if UJC is to succeed as it must.
Rwexler
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
As you were there at the outset Richard, perhaps you can enlighten all as to how in the original founding discussions board members (appointed as individuals) were to reconcile there fiduciary responsibility to the organization while serving the interests of local Federations. Either UJC must be a total captive of its membership (who must send their best and brightest to represent them) or should have the independence to nominate its leadership and "lead" or attempt to do so as it sees fit. Isthere a true middle ground?
Dear "Anonymous,"
A serious question deserves an answer in its own Post.
Dear Anonymous,
This question has vexed UJC since its inception. It is a true example of Circular Cause and Consequence logic. It is a logical fallacy where the consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause. It is exemplified in the question, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"
Circular cause and consequence is often confused with Mutually Contradictory statements, such as the famous "Catch-22", in which two mutually exclusive statements seem to send the reader back and forth in a cycle. Circular reasoning however is a problem of finding the 'root cause' however (e.g. which came first) which is not the basis of the Catch-22.
Having said all of that - the question itself may be a colossal waste of time. We answered this question in all of our Jewish Communities many, many years ago.
The historic question was in essence are we a Federation of Jewish Philanthropies or a Federation of Jewish Philanthropists. We may have begun as a Federation of Philanthropies, i.e. the JCC and the JFS will run one unified campaign, act as a central address, and centrally plan for maximum benefit to the Community. (Please note: not dissimilar to UJA itself).
But the Board is made up of Philanthropists, no the board is made up of representatives of each of the Philanthropies (the beneficiary agencies), no the board is made up of the philanthropists, no the philanthropies, and ad infinitum.
No it isn’t. The board is made up of those who respect the history and purpose of the constituents and act on behalf of unity of the philanthropists and the constituent philanthropies. And therefore we work truly on behalf of the Jewish People through its organized Jewish Community.
No one questions the President of the JCC’s fiduciary duty when she sits on the board of a Federation. She wears both kipot with respectful tension. Yes, she has to look out for the needs of her agency and be a forceful advocate, and she has to look out for the unity of the entire community. She knows that the strength of our Federation is that we come together as a unified family and that her agency will benefit by that unified action. She understands that we are in that life boat together. We are a Federation of Jewish Philanthropies and of Jewish Philanthropists and they can never be mutually exclusive. Sort of like Dodge of the old west – we check our guns at the door. We recognize that our individual fiduciary duty is best served by our collective survival and flourishing.
We were work for unity of purpose respecting our beneficiary constituency and respecting our donor’s needs. If we alienate one - we will alienate the other. If we will be United – and I needlessly remind us that that is our First Name – we will work for unity every single day of our United Jewish Communities existence.
We do this in every real Federation in North America and we do it well every single day.
All UJC must do is act the same way.
Bruce A. Arbit
Post a Comment