Can Jews agree to disagree? Leaders gather in New York in search of ‘viewpoint diversity.’

(JTA) — Right here’s a narrative I not too long ago shared on Fb: I used to be paddling my inflatable kayak on a lake within the Berkshires. Granted, it isn’t the sleekest or coolest-looking conveyance, but it surely will get the job finished and it suits within the trunk of my automobile. At one level I handed two guys in a really beautiful canoe. One of many guys says to me, “That appears like enjoyable!” And I say, “And you’ve got a stupendous boat,” which it was. After which the man within the stern of the boat says, “It’s much more costly than yours.”

His response type of shocked me: Why was he speaking in regards to the worth of our boats? Had my clunky kayak offended his sensibilities in some way? 

My Fb mates largely agreed with my preliminary response: The man was a jerk. However then a number of folks weighed in with an alternate interpretation: The man was really making enjoyable of himself for spending a lot on a canoe. One good friend, a Jewish educator, channeled the man’s considering this manner: “Our boat may be lovely, as you say, however I’m unsure it’s value it, contemplating we may very well be getting lots of enjoyable from rowing in a kayak like yours and would have spent quite a bit much less cash to do it.”

True or not, I really like that interpretation. It jogs my memory of one thing from Pirke Avot, the Mishnah’s compilation of moral ideas: “Choose to the aspect of advantage.” (1:6) That’s, in life and dialog, give the opposite individual the advantage of the doubt. What number of conversations slip off the rails as a result of we assume the worst of the opposite individual?

The story was contemporary in my thoughts once I attended an invitation-only occasion Tuesday on “viewpoint range,” placed on by the Maimonides Fund. The day-long seminar introduced leaders of varied Jewish organizations collectively to debate our society’s incapacity to have interaction in what the keynote speaker, NYU social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, describes as  “constructive disagreement.” In Haidt’s 2018 ebook “The Coddling of the American Thoughts,” he and coauthor Greg Lukianoff dissect a “callout tradition” wherein “anybody may be publicly shamed for saying one thing well-intentioned that another person interprets uncharitably.”

As a result of Haidt’s ebook is usually in regards to the school campus, I assumed the day would possibly form up as an assault on “wokeism.” However the audio system and attendees have been various, and liberals and conservatives alike fretted in regards to the demise of civility and tolerance of their polarized worlds. A Jewish training skilled stated she is cautious about mentioning Israel in entrance of donors, lots of whom deal with any criticism of Israeli coverage as “anti-Israel.” And the chief of a right-leaning assume tank complained a couple of left-leaning Jewish “monolith” that dismisses the views of Jewish conservatives or considers them in some way “un-Jewish.” 

A substantial variety of folks spoke about what they characterised as self-censorship, fearing the results they or colleagues would possibly face in the event that they utter an ill-considered thought — or if their opinions diverge from rising small-o orthodoxies on gender, race, politics and, as soon as once more, Israel. (I agreed to Chatham Home Guidelines, which suggests I may characterize our conversations however not quote or establish contributors.) 

After the occasion, Mark Charendoff, president of the Maimonides Fund, stated he and his colleagues — Ariella Saperstein, program officer for Maimonides, and Rabbi David Wolpe of Los Angeles’ Sinai Temple put a lot of this system collectively — had been serious about these points for some time. “It appears to us that it’s simply change into harder to have a few of these conversations,” Charendoff advised me. “It began off with Israel — what are you allowed to precise concerning Israel, after which, you realize, politics in America has change into clearly a dividing line. And it doesn’t appear to have gotten any higher.”

Though few if any members of Gen Z have been collaborating within the convening, the group born after 1995 appeared to be on lots of people’s minds. That’s partly due to Haidt’s framing of the difficulty; in his ebook, he dates strict campus speech codes and polarizing identification politics to the arrival of Gen Z on school campuses. A pacesetter of a secular Jewish group that works with younger folks stated she is usually underneath stress from Gen Z-ers to take an organizational stand on hot-button points, when her mission is to encourage participation from a politically various inhabitants. 

On the flip aspect, a pacesetter working with the identical cohort stated Gen Z-ers complain that they have been “lied to” about Israel by their Jewish elders, and that their very own ambivalent or anti-Zionist viewpoints are shunned in Jewish areas. Certainly, a number of contributors defended “purple traces,” saying viewpoint range doesn’t imply “something goes.” As one fundraising government advised the room, “In relation to Israel, the very last thing I would like is nuance.”

After I introduced this up with Charendoff, he stated, “One-hundred % I wish to hear from younger people who find themselves uncomfortable with Zionism, as a result of I wish to perceive why, and I feel our younger individuals are good and passionate. That doesn’t imply … that we’ve to be fully impartial to who the convener of a dialogue is and what their motivations are.”

At instances I misplaced observe of who’s responsible for constricted speech and cancel tradition, particularly on school campuses. Is it the scholar governments at liberal universities that block campus Jewish golf equipment from organizing as a result of their assist for Israel made different college students uncomfortable? Or is it the Jewish teams that insist campuses that permit harsh criticism of Israel are making Jewish college students really feel unsafe?

I additionally thought in regards to the worth of “viewpoint range” if one aspect or the opposite is enjoying quick and unfastened with the information, or refusing to argue in good religion. Haidt warns towards the tendency to “inflate the horrors of a speaker’s phrases far past what the speaker would possibly really say” — he calls this “catastrophizing” — however how will we reply to precise catastrophes? Viewpoint range could seem a luxurious in debating, say, the local weather disaster or threats to democracy. 

Nonetheless, the overall thrust of the day was encouraging folks to do their half in reducing the temperature in Jewish circles: to induce ideological opposites to hear to at least one one other with extra generosity of spirit, to imagine one of the best of others and to contemplate the chance that they might really be improper a couple of given subject. As a result of when all of it comes right down to it, we’re all in the identical boat.

is editor in chief of the New York Jewish Week and senior editor of the Jewish Telegraphic Company. He beforehand served as JTA’s editor in chief and as editor in chief and CEO of the New Jersey Jewish Information. @SilowCarroll

The views and opinions expressed on this article are these of the writer and don’t essentially replicate the views of JTA or its mother or father firm, 70 Faces Media.