COMMUNITY VIEWS
In Whose Hands Will Memory
Of The Holocaust Rest?
Schoenfeld has chosen some of the
abriel Schoenfeld, a senior
most
egregious examples of misappro-
editor of Commentary in his
priation
of the Holocaust. Based on
June edition article
those,
he
assaults the idea of special pro-
"Auschwitz and the Profes-
grams
for
the study of the Holocaust,
sors," might have posed some signifi-
specifically,
the new Ph.D. program at
cant and generative questions for the
Clark University headed by
study of the Holocaust.
Deborah Dwork.
Unfortunately, his annoy-
Each of us involved with
ing, very selective use of "evi-
Holocaust studies worry
dence" to make his case,
interminably about such
ignores any substantive or
travesties as Schoenfeld men-
informed analysis of Holocaust
tions. Schoenfeld's proposal,
studies. He warns about the
closing Holocaust studies
"naturalizing" of the Holo-
programs, is a classic case of
caust, turning it into just
wanting
to throw the baby
another academic subject;
out with the bathwater: The
about the creation of "Holo-
SIDNEY
answer to abuses of common
caustology," and the making of
BOLKOSKY
sense, sensitivity and good
careers.
Special to
academic research is not the
All these are valid worries.
The Jewish News abandonment of the project.
But in this bitter and unin-
Instead, we should keep the
formed article, he fails to cite
caveats drawn from them constantly in
the best of the Holocaust scholars,
focus and speak and write as honestly
teachers and writers — Lawrence
and clearly as possible.
Langer, Geoffrey Hartman, Raul
There is no point in arguing the case
Hilberg, Richard Rubenstein, Michael
for
Holocaust studies. It has become a
Berenbaum, Christopher Browning,
respectable
part of history and literature
John Roth, Peter Hayes, Martin Gilbert
curricula,
taught
in interdisciplinary
and Primo Levi, to name only a few
ways, with caution and constant aware-
And although Schoenfeld cites Saul
ness of the pitfalls that loom every step
Friedlaender, one of the most respected
of the way.
and thorough scholars in the field, he
Schoenfeld deplores the proliferation
clumsily seems to suggest that Fried-
of
university
courses and programs, yet
laender is "simply spreading jargon, ide-
says not a word about the explosion of
ology, and distortions both monstrous
popular presentations that distort, senti-
and trivial."
mentalize and even romanticize the
Sidney Bolkosky is a professor of histo- Holocaust. Such productions range in
quality and seriousness from the film
ry and director of the honors program at
Schindler's List (mentioned once) to the
the University of Michigan-Dearborn.
II
LETTERS
sands of Detroit alumni who have
become the leaders of the Jewish com-
munity. The program is based on inten-
sive volunteer adviser involvement with
groups of approximately 40 members.
Community service, Judaic content,
leadership training, athletic and social
activities are the cornerstones of
BBYO's success. These groups are
supervised by a full-time professional
staff: This intensive involvement of the
youth groups is BBYO's heritage for 75
years.
B'nai B'rith International funds
BBYO approximately $4 million per
year nationally. The local BBYO pro-
gram receives approximately 50 percent
of its funds from B'nai B'rith, 25 per-
cent from Federation and 25 percent
from local fund raising, as stated by
Arnie Weiner in the article.
Federation's criteria for funding all
7/24
1998
30 Detroit Jewish News
beneficiary agencies is many faceted: an
active and involved board of directors,
professional staff supervision, program-
ming and activities that are beneficial to
the community, cooperation with other
Federation agencies and fiscal responsi-
bility that is reviewed annually. If the
above criteria is achieved, then funding
may be made available after a systematic
review of the process.
I hope other youth groups will quali-
fy for funding based on the above crite-
ria and community cooperation exhibit-
ed by BBYO. The Federation's success,
this year, provided an additional
$50,000 to youth groups. I hope all
qualified youth groups will benefit in
the future.
David L Bittker
BBYO Board of Directors
ffnai B'rith International
Board of Governors
work of artists like Judy Chicago. They
share an appeal to a mass audience, a
self-indulgence and allure for the rawest
of emotional sympathies, sometimes
subtly but always assertively.
They represent the antithesis of the
academic phenomenon Schoenfeld
ineptly describes, presenting a far more
disturbing prospect for distortions of
remembrance of the Holocaust than
university programs or concentrations.
Schoenfeld ignores the enormous
corpus of scholarship that has never
been a prisoner of academic trends or
fads —scholarship whose writing is
lucid and illuminating.
As distressing as the article, fast on
its heels came the debacle over the
appointment of John K
Roth as director of the Cen-
ter for Advanced Holocaust
Studies at the U.S. Holo-
caust Memorial Museum.
In the midst of the debate,
George Will who, like
Schoenfeld, seems relatively
uninformed about the
Holocaust, referred to the
Commentary piece as if it
came from some knowl-
edgeable authority on the
subject.
Partly based on this
pseudo-authoritative source,
Will railed, in his customarily rancorous
style, against John Roth. But it was the
Jewish Forward's Ira Stoll who lashed
out at Roth's candidacy. He took his cue
from Morton Klein, director of the
Zionist Organization of America, who
accused Roth of comparing Israel to
Nazi Germany and German Jews in the
1930s to Palestinian Arabs in the 1980s.
Roth, in a 1988 op-ed piece for the
L.A. Times, referred to the extreme
rightist Molodet Party's insistence that
all the Arabs in Israel be deported. He
compared that proposal to the German
legislation of 1937-38 to deport Jews
from Germany.
Since the article commemorated the
anniversary of the pogrom, Roth noted
that the latter ultimately led to the
Kristalnacht. For this piece and two
others even older, a campaign of vilifica-
tion of one of the finest and most
humane Holocaust scholars was
launched. It included the voices of two
congressmen and the head of the ADL.
It was light on academics, almost all of
whom vociferously proclaimed their
approval of Roth.
Although he was reconfirmed by the
museum committee, John Roth
declined the position and the crusade
against him does not bode well for the
future of Holocaust studies or the
nature of remembrance.
Ira Stoll phoned a number of univer-
sity people who had signed a petition at
a conference in England supporting
Roth. In each instance, he seems to
have misquoted his respondents and/or
distorted what they had to say.
Each one attested in the strongest
possible terms to the quality of charac-
ter of John Roth; each contended that
Roth was a highly competent scholar
and moral human being.
But Stoll chose to omit those testi-
monials and used the briefest of sen-
tences while giving copious space to
Roth's detractors.
Anyone who knows John Roth,
however, believes him to
be among the most hon-_,
(—\
orable and humane
scholars in the field.
There is simply no evi-
dence that Stoll or Klein
or Will or the other crit-
ics have bothered to look
at the written work of
the man they set out to
remove — more than 20
books written or co-
authored by John Roth.(—
(The ZOA had staff
members scour Roth's
work and they found
several brief reviews by him in Continu-
um but did not refer to any of his sub-
stantive books or articles.)
They are works that grapple with the
myriad of problems that beset the field
of Holocaust studies. Each of those
books conveys the concept of the "sanc` —`
tity of life;" a concept that emerges
from painfully meticulous research and
thought.
The combination of these two
episodes — the Commentary article and
the imputation of John Roth — raises
troubling questions. When the Forward
wrote that "It's one thing to make these
kinds of statements [that Professor Rot
made as a scholar], it's quite another to
do so as an employee of the Holocaust
Museum." But the position in question
is purportedly a scholarly position.
Did the Forward perhaps unwittingly
give its own political game away here?
Does such a position demand a litmus
test of political loyalty? No one yet has
impugned Roth's scholarship or criti-
cized his books — perhaps no one ready
them.
In whose hands will the memory of
the Holocaust rest? Politicos? Bureau-
crats? Journalists? Filmmakers? Museum
curators? Or historians and scholars like
John Roth? ❑