Thursday, September 10, 2020

OUT OF STEP??

 JFNA distributed an important albeit opaque notice to its members and constituencies over the signatures of Chair Mark Wilf and the JFNA Domestic Affairs Committee Chair:

"This morning The New York Times published an ad (attached) with a letter signed by 600 Jewish organizations -- including six Federations – in support of Black Lives Matter. The ad was timed to coincide with the March on Washington which will take place both virtually and in person over the next two days.  We wanted to provide you some background information in the event you are asked for comment by stakeholders or the media. 

The sign-on letter was circulated two months ago.  Though it was clearly an open letter, there was no announced intention at the time to purchase ads in major publications.  JCPA sent the letter out to JCRCs encouraging them to sign.  We believed – and still do – that our work on these issues is better focused around the substantive, targeted efforts on which we have embarked.  That approach was set forth in this op-ed “On Racial Justice, We can All Do Better”.   

  

This year’s March on Washington is a combination of a virtual event created by the NAACP in collaboration with National Action Network, Urban League, and others set to unveil a “a bold National Black agenda” and an in person march led by the Rev. Al Sharpton's National Action Network. We are not participating in this march, but are honoring the legacy of Dr. King in other ways, including through our policy advocacy.

 

We know that each Federation has taken important steps to fight racial discrimination and support racial justice in your communities.  At JFNA, we have devoted more resources to helping all our Federations respond to the important issues raised in the aftermath of the death of George Floyd, to guaranteeing that all communities benefit from the important public programs and funding sources we support, and to working diligently to ensure that our communal institutions reflect our own Jewish diversity, including Jews of Color.  

 

Today is the 57th anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington, where Rev. Martin L. King gave his “I Have a Dream speech” to a crowd of more than 250,000 people.  As we enter this Shabbat, in this powerful month of Elul, we prepare our souls and spirits for the High Holiday season.  Let us all pray that we may be a part of the healing process for those who still lack full access to the opportunities and protections that society has to offer."

This admonition, if that is what the letter was meant to be, requires a real ability top read between the lines -- something I and you frequently have to do when it comes to Jewish inter-agency matters. So, that's what I am engaged in here -- I assume someone(s) will corrrect me if I am wrong. And this Post is not about the substance of JCPA's decision to join in/on the Virtual March on Washington as others have already done so -- e.g., Tablet's Leil Leibovitz in his vitriolic column: The Mind-Bendingly Insane, Completely Craven, Uttely Unconscionable Redemptiomn of Al Sharpton. https:www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/al-sharpton-jonathan-greenblatt-adl)

Then, on 1 September, the ADL, one of the other organizational supporters of the March, as The Jewish Weereported:

"'We’re witnessing an increasing politicization of this violence,' Alex Friedfeld, an investigative researcher at the ADL's Center on Extremism, told JTA. 'Rather than standing together as protesters and saying we will not condone the use of violence, people are blaming the other side for what happened. Rather than condemning the cycle, they’re perpetuating it. When you view everything though the lens of almost-life-or-death struggles, committing an act of violence no longer seems as unreasonable.JCPA'S failure to coordinate with the federations' umbrella body on policy and support at this important moment isn't surprising; the public affairs body has, as has been pointed out on these pages before, operated on an agenda of its own apparently without regard to those of the communities which provide the bulk of its funding. That has to stop; or the funding should stop.'" 

Confused? I am. 

If JCPA's lay and professional leaders believe that they are an organization that can exist independent of its funders, then b'hatzlacha and good-by. 

It is past time for JFNA, as the federations' representative, if not their leader, to undertake an independent review of JFNA's work, focus and purposes. It appears clear that. such a review cannot be entrusted to JCPA itself. Both the federations and JCPA should want alignment on the broad social issues and policies that confront the Jewish community; and there must be a way to achieve the alignment so that our system speaks with one voice. 

That alignment will not be achieved unless JFNA, as the representative of the primary funders of the JCPA  (as locally, in almost all instances, federations are the primary funders of local CRCs) is willing to assert itself -- something the organization has failed to do over its two decades. A letter is a start; but only a start. Now...action is needed.

Action would be a fine way to start the New Year.

Rwexler


 

2 comments:

Bob Hyfler said...

A friendly caution.Most CRC's are not only Federation funded but operate (some more autonomous than others) as a standing committee of their Federation. And while undoubtedly some (in communities of all sizes) have particular beefs with JCPA, others are quite satisfied, even proud, of the role their national agency plays. A JFNA review of JCPA would open up a hornet's nest of conflicts, played out often on the local Federation level. This would hardly be a good strategic move for JFNA. As the great Rob Reiner taught us, "Never fight a land war in Asia".
A shana tova umetuka to you and all!

Anonymous said...

JCPA is done. There are too many orgs including the Conference of Presidents that have long lost their relevancd and clearly do not speak for the Jewish community. We don’t need misguided bully pulpits. We need to look to our strongest leaders to lead with action not statement after statement.