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

