OUR COMMUNITY
continued from page 17
18 | MARCH 23 • 2023
ON THE COVER
for the yearbook page be punished. Harding
referred the matter to Theodore Roosevelt
Jr., who was the acting secretary of the Navy
at the time. Roosevelt severely and publicly
rebuked Olmsted.
The rebuke stated in part: “You have been
guilty of an action which casts grave doubt
as to your … qualifications essential to an
officer in the U.S. Navy.
”
At the core of the issue was a question
that stirred an immense debate: Was
Kaplan’s treatment in the yearbook rooted
in antisemitism?
Rear Adm. Wilson, superintendent of the
Academy, characterized Olmsted’s actions
as nothing more than a prank. He described
Olmsted’s behavior as a “lowdown dirty
trick” but did not believe it was antisemitic
in nature. Wilson believed that the with-
drawal of Olmsted’s letter of commendation
was “sufficient punishment.
”
Similarly, it’s worth noting that, despite
his reprimand, Theodore Roosevelt Jr.
did not believe this was a case of antisem-
itism. Following his rebuke, Roosevelt
made the following statement: “I am con-
vinced that no [racial] motive was behind
the incident.” This statement is significant
for it helped frame the controversy as to
what degree antisemitism played in the
incident.
BLATANT ANTISEMITISM?
Many people at the time, however, took an
opposing view and insisted that Kaplan was
victimized simply because he was Jewish.
Additionally, many newspapers headlined
the incident as antisemitic.
The Long Beach (California) Press-
Telegram, for instance, wrote that Kaplan’s
slight was “aimed at him solely because he
is a Jew.
”
Some Jewish war veterans were outraged
and expressed their concern about how
“wounded ex-servicemen of the Jewish
faith” would react upon hearing that Jews
such as Kaplan were being “stigmatized
because of their religion.
”
A leading Jewish newspaper, the
American Israelite (of Cincinnati), noted that
there was antisemitism at both West Point
and Annapolis and discouraged Jewish men
from attending these institutions.
Congressman Isaac Siegel of New York,
who was aware of the difficulties that
Kaplan endured during his four years at
the Academy, declared that Kaplan was
cheated out of the number one spot of
the class. Rear Adm. Albert Mumma — a
contemporary of Kaplan — claimed that
Kaplan would have stood “number one in
the class of 1922 had it not been for prej-
udice.”
Some newspapers, however, such as
the (Columbus) Ohio Jewish Chronicle,
Pittsburgh’s Jewish Criterion and Boston’s
Jewish Advocate, did not believe the parody
of Kaplan was motivated by antisemitism.
The Detroit Jewish Chronicle, in a June 23,
1922, editorial, did acknowledge that Kaplan
was a victim of antisemitism but did not
view antisemitism as endemic in America.
The editorial stated, “The Kaplan incident is
to be greatly regretted, but it is not at all to
be interpreted as a sign of the times.
”
QUESTIONS OF MOTIVE
But if it wasn’t antisemitism, what was it?
What other factors could have led to Kaplan
being victimized?
Some speculated that Kaplan may have
been targeted due to jealousy. Recall,
Kaplan was a top student in the class.
In a similar vein, others have speculated
that Kaplan was targeted because he was a
“grind,
” a term used to describe a student
who is overzealous towards his studies at
the expense of participating in extracur-
ricular activities. Another consideration is
that Kaplan was targeted because he was
unpopular and had an allegedly unpleasant
demeanor.
Although a century has elapsed, the exact
explanation for Kaplan’s classmates vilifying
him remains elusive.
In the midst of this controversy, the story
took an unexpected turn. Navy investigators
revealed a damning and surprising finding
that Kaplan reportedly claimed to have
“no religion” at the time he enrolled in the
Naval Academy. (It also remains possible
that a clerical error resulted in the “no
religion” designation.) It was reported by
the Navy that of the nine Jewish graduates
in the class of 1922, eight self-identified as
Jews on a registration card completed at the
time of enrollment.
As a result of Kaplan’s suggesting he had
“no religion,” he again was vilified, this
time by American Jews who considered
him to be disloyal.
This revelation renewed attention to the
age-old question: Are Jews a race, a religion
or a nationality?
The issue was addressed by Charles
Joseph, the editor of Pittsburgh's Jewish
Criterion. In a syndicated column in the
Detroit Jewish Chronicle, he emphasized that
a Jew who denies or hides his religion is not
wanted by Jews or Christians.
A Detroiter responded to Joseph in a
letter urging him to reject the notion that
a Jew is exclusively a Jew vis-a-vis religion
and objecting to the columnist’s “failure
to distinguishing between nationality and
religion.
”
Joseph replied to the Detroiter: “
A Jew
without religion is a menace to their own
people.
”
Rabbi Leo Franklin of Temple Beth El
had a monthly column in the Detroit Jewish
Chronicle. He devoted his Sept. 1, 1922,
column to the debate surrounding Jewish
identity that was raised by the Kaplan inci-
dent. He wrote that a Jew without religion is
not a Jew.
He also noted that Reform Judaism
opposed Jewish nationalism and political
Zionism. Franklin elaborated that the oppo-
sition to these movements were due to their
failure to embrace “religion in the slightest.
”
For many years, Rabbi Franklin was an
ardent anti-Zionist. He later shed his oppo-
sition to Zionism after the founding of the
Jewish State of Israel in 1948.
Kaplan soon began to lose Jewish sup-
port. The American Israelite wrote that since
Kaplan abandoned his religion “any sympa-
thy given him is undeserved.
”
Rabbi Leo M. Franklin
RABBI LEO M. FRANKLIN ARCHIVES