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