EDITORIAL

Jewish Advocates
And Michigan

On a night when most of our collective
thinking was tuned to the U.S. Senate
chambers in Washington, D.C., leaders
from Jewish communities and political of-
fices across the state turned out at the
University Club in East Lansing.
They were there to mark the first an-
niversary of the Michigan Jewish Con-
ference, keynoted with a speech made by
Governor John Engler. Of course, there
was plenty of shmoozing and networking.
The governor gave a good speech, saying he
was tuned into the needs of the state's Jew-
ish community and that he was listening to
what those communities were saying.
Perhaps the most important aspect of
this function was the ability for Jewish
leadership in places like Muskegon and
Jackson and Saginaw to see that there are
people just like them with concerns and

solutions. It was also important for them to

see that their Jewish world doesn't always
have to defer to Detroit. Conference direc-
tor Caryn Nessel, president Ralph Gerson
and its board are working to empower the
smaller Jewish communities.
On a cold, blustery night in Michigan,
over drinks and cheese with the governor
and many legislators as witness, the Jew-
ish Conference came together as a tangible
advocacy force. It didn't take long for most
to forget about the Senate vote on Judge
Clarence Thomas in Washington. Instead,
conversations centered on Midland and
South Haven and Grand Rapids. When the
more sensational news comes and goes,
people in Flint and Ann Arbor and Bay
City are still going to need to know how
they can better connect with Detroit and
Lansing and others.

Doubting Thomas
And The U.S. Senate

The Senate hearings on Professor Anita
Hill's charges against Judge Clarence
Thomas set a new low for a forum for a
Supreme Court nominee. They were tit-
illating and absorbing, at times wholly in-
credible.
These were the first R-rated Supreme
Court nominee hearings, and they made
one wonder what had happened to the
Senate as an institution of reputed probity,
and to the nation as a whole.

By the time they were over, the hearings
had degenerated into irksome, sanc-
timonious partisanship, and the alleged
quest for truth had descended into a nasty
character attack' n Professor Hill.
In fact, the entire episode had turned into
a "he said, she said" confrontation about
sexual harassment, with no possible
shades of truth allowed between the tales
told by the judge and the professor. The
senators, who often professed their dislike
of the proceedings, pursued their quarry
with glee; the public, which often professed
its disgust with the hearings, was glued to
its televisions or radios as if this was the
World Series or Watergate redux.
Are there lessons to be learned from this
sordid episode other than that titillation
and scandal always carry the day more
than substance in our nation?
One basic conclusion is that the hearings
lost their sense of purpose. How else can
one explain why a Supreme Court nomina-
tion seemed to turn on whether or not
Judge Thomas discussed breast sizes with
women in his office?
During the earlier hearings, the nominee
studiously had avoided discussing his
views on legal issues. Once the Thomas
nomination became an exercise in personal
anecdotes about his rise from poverty to

6

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1991

power, the gate was opened for his nomina-
tion to hinge on other aspects of his per-
sonal life, including the sort alleged by
Professor Hill.
Perhaps the White House will have se-
cond thoughts in the future about trying to
sell a Supreme Court nominee on the
strength of his personal Horatio Alger-like
success rather than his interpretation of
the Constitution and its current applica-
tion.
We regret that Judge Thomas chose to in-
itiate racism into the debate. The issue
Professor Hill raised was one of gender, not
race. To inject race into the hearings was to
exploit the color of one's skin, and only
served to confuse the issues.
Yet, some benefits may reap from the
hearings. The White House may decide to
base high court nominations on judicial
and intellectual merit. The Senate may
revamp its hearings on nominees. Interest
groups of all stripes may elevate their
lobbying for — or against — a nominee to a
higher, less personal level.
And men and women throughout the
country — whether or not they believe the
charges against Judge Thomas — may
have a heightened perception of sexual
harassment and a new determination to
eliminate it not only from the work place,
but from all aspects of American life.
But, the Supreme Court may suffer the
most. After the shambles of the Thomas
hearings, who in his right mind would be
willing to be nominated to the court, an in-
stitution that was intended to be above the
fray of politics. The most qualified judges
and legal experts may reject a nomination,
fearing that the most intimate aspects of
their lives are fair game for Capitol Hill.
If so, it will be a giant loss for the court
and an even greater loss for the country.

TOW WE Zrate,
z (4L x- RAYS
3rn. ER UNXICIA0
FOSTORiNG iN
ZHE LEMMA
t6TME

LETTERS

Project JOIN
And Priorities

Your heading over Barbara
Hubert's letter in the Sept. 27
issue reads: "Project JOIN
and Rejection." It should have
read: "Project JOIN and Non-
acceptance." This may seem
like a distinction without a
difference, but in fact, it is the
most important element in
the issue addressed by Mrs.
Hubert and by Albert Ascher,
whom she criticizes.
The limit on the number of
applicants accepted by Project
JOIN is not the result of an
administrative decision by
Mr. Ascher. It is the result of
a policy decision which places
a limit on the number of peo-
ple who may be accepted. The
policy (as all policies should
be) is determined by represen-
tatives of the community, not
by the director of the agency.
Mr. Ascher is to be corn-
mended for having brought to
the community's attention (in
your issue of Aug. 30) the
serious problems it will be
facing in the future if it does
not now face up to the need
for more and better profes-
sional training. He cites Pro-
ject JOIN as one of the best
programs ever designed to
meet this need.
However, he also points out
that: "The model clearly
works, but the program is too
small to have a major im-
pact."
Which brings us back to
Mrs. Hubert's letter. I share
her disappointment in her
daughter's non-acceptance.
One should not have to be in
the upper 5 or 10 percent
academically in order to be
given the opportunity to train
for communal service. More-
over, school grades do not
necessarily guarantee profes-
sional excellence.
However, when openings
are limited, administrators

have little choice but to use
academic achievement as the
major criterion.
While I think Mrs. Hubert
has been unjustly critical of
Mr. Ascher, we should be
grateful to her for having
raised the issue. Training pro-
grams like Project JOIN are
so vital for the future survival
of the American Jewish com-
munity that there ought to be
no limitation on the number
of qualified candidates who
can be accepted.
The problem is not really
one of budgets — the amount
of money involved is
ridiculously small compared
to the potential benefits. The
problem is in the communi-
ty's failure to recognize the
seriousness of the situation
and our failure to provide pro-
grams sufficiently large-size
to deal with it adequately.

Irwin Shaw
West Bloomfield

Why The Silence
On Rev. Sharpton?

I am one of thousands of
students at the University of
Michigan, and one of hun-
dreds frustrated and angered
by the lack of formal opposi-
tion to the arrival of Reverend
Al Sharpton on this campus
at the end of this month.
I am furious that my tuition
money is being paid to Al
Sharpton. I am furious that
the University of Michigan
would give money to a man
that inspires to shout slogans
like "Hitler didn't do his job"
(Forward, Oct. 4). I am furious
that a man who 73 percent of
blacks believe is the most
harmful person or institution
to race relations in New York
(Washington Post, Sept. 5) was
even invited to my school in
the first place. Most of all, I
am furious that no group,
Continued on Page 22

