Uncategorized
This Jewish studies professor won $60,000 on “Jeopardy!” — despite missing out on a question about Yom Kippur
(JTA) — The most notable message Melissa Klapper got during her four-night run this week on “Jeopardy!” didn’t come because the Jewish studies scholar was unable to answer a question about Yom Kippur. It also wasn’t an unkind note from a game-show stickler who believed she’d gotten credit for a wrong response.
Instead, it was an email from a past student who recognized herself in the story Klapper told as part of her self-introductory stage banter — a staple of the game show. Klapper, who teaches history at Rowan University in New Jersey, described accusing a student of having plagiarized her paper.
The student then replied, Klapper recalled, that she “didn’t know [it] was plagiarized when she bought it.” The anecdote yielded laughs from host Ken Jennings and the two co-contestants whom Klapper later defeated to notch her third win.
After the episode aired Wednesday night, Klapper heard from the former student, whose name she had previously forgotten.
“She watches ‘Jeopardy!’ and when she was watching that interview, she thought to herself, this is about me,” Klapper told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “And she wrote to me to apologize. She’s a teacher now and, I think, is more understanding of why what she did was really not good. And I really appreciated it. It was kind of brave of her to get in touch with me after all these years.”
The experience was a fitting highlight of Klapper’s run on the show, which ended Thursday with a third-place finish and total winnings of $60,100. She said it was her training as an educator — not her education in Modern Orthodox schools or her scholarship on Jewish women, immigrant children and more — that prepared her for success on the show.
“I’m up in front of people all the time,” said Klapper, who is active in the Association for Jewish Studies and whose most recent book, “Ballet Class: An American History,” was published in 2020. “I do not have stage fright.”
Klapper spoke with JTA about her Jewish background, her research interests and how her most religiously observant friends managed to watch her on TV.
This interview has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
JTA: First, I have to ask: Last night, did you end up with $1,800 on purpose? That’s a very Jewish number.
Klapper: No! That’s so funny. It didn’t even occur to me.
How are you feeling this morning? Any initial reflections on your appearance now that it’s over?
These shows were recorded in January, so I’ve had time to come to peace with what happened. I was disappointed not to win another game — or two. But Alec, the guy who won last night, was just unstoppable on the buzzer. Knowing the answers is not enough to do well in “Jeopardy!” You also have to have good hand-eye coordination, which I do not. I would say I knew the vast majority of answers but I often just could not get the buzzer in time. Once I knew I was going to be on the show, I did sort of sit at home and practice with a ballpoint pen, but it’s not the same.
I will say the fact that I couldn’t be fast enough to answer the Yom Kippur clue was pretty frustrating. [The clue was about a Jon Stewart quip about the Jewish day of atonement.] And I heard about that — I got a lot of fun teasing from some of my Jewish friends who were sending me helpful emails with links to the dictionary.com definition of Yom Kippur.
Can you share a little bit about your relationship with “Jeopardy!”, how you came to be on the show and your general reflection about your experience?
I grew up in a household where we watched “Jeopardy!” when I was kid. We had a “Jeopardy!” board game that I would play with my parents and my sister and I actually tried out for the teen tournament when I was in high school. Those were the days that you had to go in person, so my parents very kindly drove me into D.C. when we heard that there would be a tryout. I didn’t get past the first round — I didn’t know anything about sports, and I still don’t know that much, although I answered a surprising number of sports questions.
In the last few years I started to watch more regularly and it occurred to me, you know, I really think I could do OK on this show. I made it into the contestant pool the first time I took the online test, but I did not get called. The day after my 18 months [in the pool] ended, I started the process again, but I sort of assumed I would never hear from them again — especially because they asked you to write down dates when you can’t come and I had to write that I was not available during the semester — and, oh, also on Jewish holidays. But they called me for winter break.
They record five shows in a day, and all of mine were on one day. There’s about 10 minutes between shows when you change your top and can have a drink and then go right back onstage. It was just — really, it was all a blur. If you’d asked me at the beginning of this week what any of the categories were I would have been very hard-pressed to tell you.
You got some clues that seemed ready-made for a Jewish contestant such as one about Philip Roth’s “Portnoy’s Complaint” and another about Jack Antonoff, the Jewish musician and producer. What is your Jewish background like and were there moments where you felt like that gave you some kind of advantage?
Now I live in Lower Merion, Pennsylvania, which has a large observant Jewish community. My husband and I belong to a Modern Orthodox synagogue and we are involved in a partnership minyan, Lechu Neranena.
I went to Jewish day school my whole life, kindergarten through 12th grade, first at Akiba Academy of Dallas and then Bais Yaakov of Baltimore, which was the only girls high school and where I got a very solid education and was encouraged to pursue my intellectual ambitions. I went to Israel right after high school before I started college. So I have a very intensive Jewish educational background, and throughout my education and all the schools that I went to, I found a lot of encouragement for my innate nerdiness.
So I’m not sure I could draw a direct line, but what I will say is that in the Jewish educational environment I grew up in, matched by an extremely Jewish traditional home, there was just a huge, enormous value on reading and books and learning, and I think that makes a difference.
I will say I don’t think I knew about Jack Antonoff because he’s Jewish — I knew him because of Taylor Swift.
Were there Jewish highlights of your experience, either on the show or behind the scenes?
They do not pay for you to go out to L.A. You’re responsible for your own travel, but they do provide lunch. I asked if it would be possible to get me a kosher lunch, and they immediately said yes, which I appreciated. There was no question or back and forth about it. I got a salad with a ton of protein that could take me through the day.
And then this is a little funny, but I have friends from across the spectrum of Jewish practice, or lack thereof. Some of my more traditionally observant friends don’t own TVs and wouldn’t have TVs in their houses — but they have been watching the show on YouTube every day because they have no other way to watch.
Your scholarship in American history and Jewish studies has been wide-ranging, and you’ve written books about American Jewish women’s activism, American Jewish girlhood and, most recently, ballet. How did your work as a scholar and a teacher prepare you for your appearance or dovetail with it?
I’m a teacher. I’m up in front of people all the time. I do not have stage fright. I give a lot of public talks of various kinds, in academic venues or community settings. And so I did not have any problems speaking or talking to Ken [Jennings] during the short interview period — that is not a problem for me. And for some contestants, it really is. They’re not used to just speaking in public at all like that. My professional background prepared me very well.
I have to ask about the big controversy. [Some viewers believed Klapper offered “Gregor” rather than “McGregor” as the response to a clue about the actor Ewan McGregor.] What did you make of that, and what do you think it means for the “Jeopardy!” viewership to have such intensity of passion that they referee a professionally refereed show?
First, it’s not a controversy. It’s clear to everyone that I said McGregor on stage, including to my co-contestants who have spoken about this. There should not have been and there should not be any controversy.
That said, I don’t personally sort of participate in any kind of fandom, so the way that this sort of took off is a little alien to me. But I know not just in the “Jeopardy!” community people are really, I guess, just very invested. It’s hard for me to explain.
Has the response been hard for you?
I’m sure that everyone who appears on “Jeopardy!” gets some nasty emails because unfortunately fandom can be vicious and I’m very easy to find. But I do know that women who are on “Jeopardy!”, especially women who do well, really can be targeted. And I do think that is part of what happened. Some of the — most of the emails I got from strangers were extremely nice and positive and, you know, full of good wishes. And I appreciated that, but I also got some really misogynistic, nasty gendered messages.
It’s disappointing because in my mind the “Jeopardy!” community is one of the last nice spaces that exists. I’ve talked about that with other contestants over the years, who have said it’s a congenial space. And I’ve asked them — and now I’ll ask you — what do you think the Jewish community can learn from the “Jeopardy!” community?
As a historian, it’s sort of not in my nature to comment on the contemporary Jewish community. I do think there are shared values around knowledge and education.
I do think there’s a nice community of contestants. Even though we were all each other’s competitors, everybody was just really friendly and encouraging. It’d be nice if all communities would just be like that.
You teach women’s and gender studies. You mentioned one big gender dynamic related to being a “Jeopardy!” contestant. Were there others, or other connections to your scholarship, that jumped out during your time as a contestant?
Not so much gender, but my current research project is about American Jewish women who traveled abroad between the Civil War and World War II. It’s a research interest — I noticed as I was working on all my other projects that the Jewish girls and women I was writing about traveled a lot, way more than you would expect for the late 1800s and early 1900s — but it’s also because I love to travel myself. And that’s another way to learn. There were definitely questions on “Jeopardy!” that I knew because I’ve been there — like about the sculpture in the harbor in Copenhagen of the Little Mermaid. I thought: I’ve been there and I’ve seen that.
So you like traveling and you just won a little over $60,000. Do you have any specific plans for the winnings?
Well, first, I’ll have to deal with the IRS. I’m involved with a bunch of different charities and so I will certainly be giving some of this money to them. And my husband and I already have our big trip for the year planned in May — to the north of England, to Newcastle and Hadrian’s Wall — and so we are going to upgrade some parts of that experience a little bit.
And then let’s go back to the student who reached out to you. What do make of that?
Whatever they’re teaching, teachers really matter, for better or for worse, and that’s where my real impact is. I teach a lot of students a lot of different things and I really value my relationship with them. And as it says in Proverbs, right, I have learned a lot from my students, just like I hope they learned from me. Seeing how excited some of my students have been this week, I do think that, in a way, being on “Jeopardy!” was sort of part of my teaching practice and that it just shows, again, this value of education and knowledge. Yes, it’s trivia, but still it just makes you a better-rounded person. And it was nice to be able to demonstrate that.
—
The post This Jewish studies professor won $60,000 on “Jeopardy!” — despite missing out on a question about Yom Kippur appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Prized Sketchbook at Palace of Versailles Was Stolen by Nazis During WWII, Investigation Reveals
The Palace of Versailles. Photo: Sandrine Marty / Hans Lucas via Reuters Connect
The Palace of Versailles said it will conduct further research into the origins of a sketchbook owned by French painter Jacques-Louis David after a recent investigation revealed that it was stolen by the Nazis during World War II before joining France’s national collection.
Radio France said on Monday that it launched an investigation into the provenance of the prized sketchbook after being contacted by a descendant of its original owner. The broadcaster said just “a few weeks” later, it had compiled enough evidence to support the descendant’s claim about the sketchbook being looted by the Nazis during the war.
The evidence relies on public data accessible online, such as diplomatic archives and the French Holocaust Memorial’s database of Nazi-stolen property. France’s Ministry of Culture admitted that both the ministry and the Palace of Versailles did not know the sketchbook was stolen by Nazis during World War II, but they vowed to “continue research on this notebook and have discussions with the descendants of the owners.”
The Ministry of Culture told Radio France that in the Palace of Versailles, a team of three people are “actively working and reviewing works in the collections to verify their provenance” but the team “had not yet examined this notebook.”
A relative of the sketchbook’s original owner took Radio France he was shocked when he discovered by chance that the Nazi-looted sketchbook was a part of the collection at Versailles. “It’s a key work by David, and the Palace of Versailles does a lot of publicity around these notebooks … So, I’m very surprised that there isn’t more research into their provenance,” he said. “At the moment, there are 100 police officers looking for jewels stolen from the Louvre while to return the works stolen – and there are many at the Louvre and other museums – I find that the means are very, very low.”
The sketchbook dates back to 1790 and includes drawings, sketches, and notes related to one of David’s most famous works, “The Tennis Court Oath” (1790), a painting about the French Revolution that was never finished. The painting belongs to the Palace of Versailles but is currently on display in the Louvre as part of its limited time exhibition that celebrates the 200th anniversary of David’s death. The sketchbook is not part of the exhibit.
German Nazi soldiers stole an entire library, including David’s sketchbook, from Professor Lereboullet in July 1940 when they occupied his home. Lereboullet’s daughter Odile reported the theft in November 1945 to the Commission for Art Recovery (CRA), a French public body responsible for recovering and returning looted pieces of art to their rightful owners or their heirs. She never received a response from the CRA. The sketchbook reappeared in January 1943, when it was sold at auction by the Karl & Faber art gallery in Munich, Germany. It came into the possession of German Jewish art dealer and art historian Otto Wertheimer. A former German professor of art history and curator at the National Museum in Berlin, Wertheimer himself fled Nazi persecution and settled in Paris in 1944. He became a well-known art dealer who provided museums with masterpieces and missing pieces of European art. He sold the David sketchbook to the Palace of Versailles in 1951.
The Palace of Versailles has previously returned only one Nazi-looted item to its original owners: a small Louis XVI era writing table that was returned in 1999.
Uncategorized
Israeli Singer Noa Kirel Blasts Anti-Israel Boycotts of Eurovision Contest: ‘Letting Politics Ruin the Celebration’
Noa Kirel performing “Unicorn” for Israel at the first semifinal at the 2023 Eurovision Song Contest. Photo: ESC/Sarah Louise Bennett
Israeli pop star Noa Kirel lambasted the countries that have decided to boycott the 2026 Eurovision Song Contest because of Israel’s participation, defended her country’s involvement in the competition.
On Wednesday, Iceland joined Ireland, Spain, Slovenia, and The Netherlands in announcing that it will pull out from next year’s Eurovision in protest of Israel’s participation due to its military actions in the Gaza Strip during its war against Hamas terrorists. The war started after Hamas-led terrorists carried out a deadly massacre in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
Ireland, Spain, Slovenia, and The Netherlands made their announcement last week after the European Broadcasting Union, which organizes the competition, decided to allow Israel to participate in the song contest.
Kirel, who represented Israel in the 2023 Eurovision and finished in third place, told the BBC podcast “The World Tonight” on Wednesday she was “deeply disappointed” that countries have decided to withdraw from the 2026 Eurovision, set to take place in Vienna, Austria, in May. She spoke to the podcast before news broke about Iceland’s withdrawal.
“Eurovision is a bridge, not a wall, and the heart of this competition is to connect hearts through music,” she said. “Unfortunately, some countries are letting politics ruin the celebration. Israel has not violated any rules of the Eurovision. Israel is a peace-seeking nation.”
Kirel also clarified key details about the deadly Hamas-led terrorist attack in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, which launched the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza. “On Oct. 7, Israel did not attack anyone,” the singer noted. “Israel was brutally attacked in a way unseen before. Entire families were murdered, including children. Civilians were kidnapped. Israel defended itself like any other nation would do and those countries are choosing to see the opposite, to ignore the reality. And to boycott Israel – that is antisemitism. I think boycotting Israel on political fronts – it’s not just an injury to us; it’s an injury to everything that Eurovision represents.”
Kirel further noted that claims about Israel manipulating votes during the 2025 Eurovision are total “nonsense” and added, “Instead of searching for excuses for [Israel’s] success, let’s focus on music.”
Wednesday was the deadline for countries to confirm whether they will join the 2026 Eurovision or withdraw without being penalized. Eurovision Director Martin Green said, “We respect the decision of all broadcasters who have chosen not to participate in next year’s Eurovision Song Contest and hope to welcome them back soon.”
Iceland’s national broadcaster RÚV said it believes Israel’s participation in the Eurovision has “created disunity among both members of the European Broadcasting Union and the general public.”
“There is no peace or joy connected to this contest as things stand now. On that basis, first and foremost, we are stepping back while the situation is as it is,” added RÚV Director-General Stefan Eiriksson.
Israel has won the Eurovision Song Contest four times, most recently in 2018, and came second in last year’s contest.
Uncategorized
Columbia University Antisemitism Task Force Calls for Viewpoint Diversity on Israel, Zionism
Students walk on campus at Columbia University in New York City, US, Sept. 2, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ryan Murphy
Columbia University’s Antisemitism Task Force on Tuesday implored the school to foster “intellectual diversity” with respect to the subjects of Zionism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, concluding its fourth and final report on the origins of antisemitism on the campus.
As previously reported by The Algemeiner, Columbia University was, until the enactment of recent reforms, the face of anti-Jewish hatred in higher education in the aftermath of the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel. Dozens of reported antisemitic incidents transpired on its grounds, including a student’s proclaiming that Zionist Jews deserve to be murdered and are lucky he is not doing so himself and the participation of administrative officials, outraged at the notion that Jews organized to resist anti-Zionism, in a group chat in which each member took turns sharing antisemitic tropes which described Jews as privileged and grafting.
In its report, the Columbia Task Force on Antisemitism cited ideological conformity — as well as professors’ discussing the Middle East as would politicians framing a narrative which aims for accessibility and the swaying of democratic opinion — as an outsized contributor to the climate which yielded the slew of outrages.
“The [Columbia Faculty Handbook] is clear that [professors] should stick to the subject matter of the course and avoid political advocacy in the classroom,” the report said. “We heard from many students that an academic perspective that treats Zionism as legitimate is underrepresented in Columbia’s course offerings, compared to a perspective that treats it as illegitimate. The university should work quickly to add more intellectual diversity to these offerings.”
The task force also said that it is the university’s responsibility to reconcile viewpoint diversity —which may give voice to ideas which some deem offensive — with an American culture which prizes unfettered free speech, meritocracy, social equality, and racial and ethnic plurality, all at once. The university must not censor ideas, the report said, but it also cannot facilitate discrimination — which the American government, responding to popular outrage over racism perpetrated against African Americans, proscribed by passing the Civil Rights Act in 1964. In the 60 years since the law’s passage, lawmakers and the courts have affirmed the law’s applicability to other protected groups, including, women, sexual minorities, the Jewish people, and, among many others, Arab Muslims.
“When faculty members publish books, studies, articles, or other academic work, drawing on their expertise and using the methodologies of their disciplines, this work generally should be protected, even if it offends other members of our community, so long as it does not violate antidiscrimination laws,” the report continued. “We recommend seeking ways to comply with antidiscrimination laws that do not limit offensive speech. In some cases, for example, the university may be able to respond to offensive speech by condemning it instead of limiting it.”
It added, “Admittedly, condemning speech might at times be in tension with a commitment to institutional neutrality. Yet, when a university is faced with a choice between limiting speech, on the one hand, or condemning it, on the other, the latter strikes us as a less restrictive response.”
Even as it pursues a policy of “no orthodoxies,” the university must also protect itself from “outside influence” which may, for political purposes, demand its adoption of a particular viewpoint, the report continued. Donors, federal and state governments, or American voters, whose agents of action are their representatives in government, all “present challenges to academic freedom.”
In a statement, Columbia University president Claire Shipman thanked the task force for its work and said the university will “work on” translating its recommendations into policy.
“The work of this task force has been an essential part of the university’s efforts to address the challenges faced by our Jewish students, faculty, and staff,” Shipman said. “We have also been working this semester to focus on discrimination and hate more broadly on our campuses — which has long been a strong recommendation of the task force. All of this work must become part of our DNA.”
As previously reported by The Algemeiner, Columbia University agreed in July to pay over $200 million to settle claims that it exposed Jewish students, faculty, and staff to antisemitic discrimination and harassment — a deal which secured the release of billions of dollars in federal grants the Trump administration had impounded to pressure the institution to address the issue.
Claiming a generational achievement for the conservative movement, which has argued for years that progressive bias in higher education is the cause of anti-Zionist antisemitism on college campuses, US Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said the agreement included Columbia’s pledging to “discipline student offenders for severe disruptions of campus operations” and “eliminate race preferences from their hiring and admission practices and [diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI] programs that distribute benefits and advantages based on race” — which, if true, could mark the opening of a new era in American higher education.
“Columbia’s reforms are a roadmap for elite universities that wish to retain the confidence of the American public by renting their commitment to truth-seeking, merit, and civil debate,” McMahon added. “I believe they will ripple across the higher education sector and change the course of campus culture for years to come.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.