Uncategorized
Weinstein approached me ‘Jew to Jew’: Jodi Kantor opens up on the ‘She Said’ movie’s Jewish moments
(JTA) — When the New York Times journalist Jodi Kantor was reporting the 2017 Harvey Weinstein sexual assault story that earned her a Pulitzer prize, the powerful Hollywood producer and his team tried to influence her by using something they had in common: They are both Jewish.
“Weinstein put [Jewishness] on the table and seemed to expect that I was going to have some sort of tribal loyalty to him,” Kantor told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency on a video call from the New York Times newsroom. “And that was just not going to be the case.”
Now, that exchange has been immortalized in “She Said,” a new film adaptation of the nonfiction book of the same name by Kantor and her collaborator Megan Twohey that details their investigation into Weinstein’s conduct, which helped launch the #MeToo movement.
The film, directed by Maria Schrader with stars Zoe Kazan as Kantor and Carey Mulligan as Twohey, is an understated thriller that has drawn comparisons to “All the President’s Men” — and multiple subtle but powerful Jewish-themed subplots reveal the way Kantor’s Jewishness arose during and at times intersected with the investigation.
In one scene, the Kantor character notes that a Jewish member of Weinstein’s team tried to appeal to her “Jew to Jew.” In another, Kantor shares a moving moment with Weinstein’s longtime accountant, the child of Holocaust survivors, as they discuss the importance of speaking up about wrongdoing.
Kantor, 47, grew up between New York and New Jersey, the first grandchild of Holocaust survivors — born “almost 30 years to the day after my grandparents were liberated,” she notes. She calls her grandmother Hana Kantor, a 99-year-old Holocaust survivor, her “lodestar.” Kantor — who doesn’t often speak publicly about her personal life, including her Jewish background, which involved some education in Jewish schools — led a segment for CBS in May 2021 on her grandmother and their relationship. Before her journalism career, she spent a year in Israel on a Dorot Fellowship, working with Israeli and Palestinian organizations. She’s now a “proud member” of a Reform synagogue in Brooklyn.
Kantor spoke with JTA about the film’s Jewish threads, the portrayal of the New York Times newsroom and what Zoe Kazan’s performance captures about journalism.
This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity and length.
JTA: How did you feel having Zoe Kazan, who is not Jewish, play you? Kazan has played some notably Jewish characters before, for example in the HBO miniseries “The Plot Against America.”
JK: I feel Zoe’s performance is so sensitive and so layered. What I really appreciate about her performance is that she captures so many of the emotions I was feeling under the surface in the investigation. You know, when you’re a reporter and especially a reporter handling that sensitive a story, it’s your responsibility to present a really smooth professional exterior to the world. At the end of the investigation, I had the job of reading Harvey Weinstein some of the allegations and really confronting him. And in dealing with the victims, I wanted to be a rock for them and it was my job to get them to believe in the investigation. And so on the one hand, you have that smooth, professional exterior, but then below that, of course you’re feeling all the feelings. You’re feeling the power of the material, you’re feeling the urgency of getting the story, you’re feeling the fear that Weinstein could hurt somebody else. You’re feeling the loss that these women are expressing, including over their careers. And so I think Zoe’s performance just communicates that so beautifully.
What Zoe says about the character is that there are elements of me, there are elements of herself, and then there are elements of pure invention because she’s an artist, and that’s what she does.
I think the screenplay gets at a small but significant line of Jewish sub-drama that ran through the investigation. It went like this: Harvey Weinstein and his representatives were constantly trying to approach me as a Jew. And they’ve done this more recently, as well. There have been times when Harvey Weinstein was trying to approach me “Jew to Jew,” like almost in a tone of “you and I are the same, we understand each other.” We found dossiers later that they had compiled on me and it was clear that they knew that I was the grandchild of Holocaust survivors, and they tried to sort of deploy that. So speaking of keeping things under the surface, I privately thought that was offensive, that he was citing that. But your job as a reporter is to be completely professional. And I wasn’t looking to get into a fight with Weinstein. I just wanted to find out the truth and I actually wanted to be fair to the guy. Anyway, even as he was approaching me “Jew to Jew” in private, he was hiring Black Cube — sort of Israeli private intelligence agents — to try to dupe me. And they actually sent an agent to me, and she posed as a women’s rights advocate. And she was intimating that they were going to pay me a lot of money to appear at a conference in London. Luckily I shooed her away.
To some degree I can’t explain why private Israeli intelligence agents were hired to try to dupe the Hebrew speaking, yeshiva-educated, granddaughter of Holocaust survivors. But it’s not my job to explain that! It’s their job to explain why they did that.
Then the theme reappeared with Irwin Reiter, Weinstein’s accountant of 30 years, who kind of became the Deep Throat of the investigation. I quickly figured out that Irwin and I were from the same small world. He was the child of survivors, and had also spent his summers at bungalow colonies in the Catskills just down the road from mine. I don’t bring up the Holocaust a lot. It’s a sacred matter for me, and I didn’t do it lightly. But once I discovered that we did in fact have this really powerful connection in our backgrounds, I did gently sound it with him – I felt that was sincere and real. Because he was making such a critical decision: Weinstein’s accountant of 30 years is still working for the guy by day and he’s meeting with me at night. And I felt like I did need to go to that place with him, saying, “Okay, Irwin, we both know that there are people who talk and there are people who don’t. And we both grew up around that mix of people and what do we think is the difference? And also if you know if you have the chance to act and intervene in a bad situation, are you going to take it?”
We didn’t talk a lot about it, because I raised it and he didn’t want to fully engage. But I always felt like that was under the surface of our conversations, and he made a very brave decision to help us.
That was a very powerful scene in the film, and it felt like a turning point in the movie that kind of got at the ethical core of what was motivating your character. Was that a scene that was important to you personally to include in the film?
What Megan and I want people to know overall is that a small number of brave sources can make an extraordinary difference. When you really look at the number of people who gave us the essential information about Weinstein, it’s a small conference room’s worth of people. Most of them are incredibly brave women, some of whom are depicted, I think, quite beautifully in the film. But there was also Irwin, Weinstein’s accountant of all these years, among them. It’s Megan and my job to build people’s confidence in telling the truth. And as we become custodians of this story for the long term, one of the things we really want people to know is that a tiny group of brave sources, sometimes one source, can make a massive difference. Look at the impact that these people had all around the world.
Did you feel the film captured the New York Times newsroom? There’s a kind of great reverence to the toughness and professionalism in the newspaper business that really came through.
Megan and I are so grateful for the sincerity and professionalism with which the journalism is displayed. There are a lot of on screen depictions of journalists in which we’re depicted as manipulative or doing things for the wrong reasons or sleeping with our sources!
We [as journalists] feel incredible drama in what we do every day. And we’re so grateful to the filmmakers for finding it and sharing it with people. And I know the New York Times can look intimidating or remote as an institution. I hope people really consider this an invitation into the building and into our meetings, and into our way of working and our value system.
And we’re also proud that it’s a vision of a really female New York Times, which was not traditionally the case at this institution for a long time. This is a book and a movie about women as narrators.
“Harvey Weinstein and his representatives were constantly trying to approach me as a Jew,” Kantor said. (The New York Times)
There have been comparisons made between this movie and “All the President’s Men.” One of the striking differences is that those journalists are two male bachelors running around D.C. And this film has scenes of motherhood, of the Shabbat table, of making lunches. What was it like seeing your personal lives reflected on screen?
It’s really true that the Weinstein investigation was kind of born in the crucible of motherhood and Megan and my attempt to combine work with parenting. On the one hand, it’s the most everyday thing in the world, but on the other hand, you don’t see it actually portrayed on screen that much. We’re really honored by the way that throughout the film you see motherhood and work mixing, I think in a way that is so natural despite our obviously pretty stressful circumstances.
I started out alone on the Weinstein investigation, and I called Megan because movie stars were telling me their secrets but they were very reluctant to go on the record. So I had gone some way in persuading and engaging them, but I was looking to make the absolute strongest case for them. So I called Megan. We had both done years of reporting on women and children. Mine involved the workplace more and hers involved sex crimes more, which is part of why everything melded together so well eventually. I wanted to talk to her about what she had said to female victims in the past. But when I reached her, I could hear that something was wrong. And she had just had a baby, and I had had postpartum depression myself. So we talked about it and I gave her the name of my doctor, who I had seen. Then she got treatment. And she not only gave very good advice on that [initial] phone call, but she joined me in the investigation.
I think the theme is responsibility. Our relationship was forged in a sense of shared responsibility, primarily for the work – once we began to understand the truths about Weinstein, we couldn’t allow ourselves to fail. But also Megan was learning to shoulder the responsibility of being a parent, and I had two kids. And so we started this joint dialogue that was mostly about work, but also about motherhood. And I think throughout the film and throughout the real investigation, we felt those themes melding. It’s totally true that my daughter Tali was asking me about what I was doing. It’s very hard to keep secrets from your kid in a New York City apartment, even though I didn’t tell her everything. And Megan and I would go from discussing really critical matters with the investigation to talking about her daughter’s evolving nap schedule. It really felt like we had to get the story and get home to the kids.
And also, we were reporting on our own cohort. A lot of Weinstein victims were and are women in their 40s. And so even though we were very professional with this and we tried to be very professional with the sources, there was an aspect of looking in the mirror. For example, with Laura Madden, who was so brave about going on the record, it was conversations with her own teenage daughters that helped her make her decision.
We didn’t write about this in our book because it was hard to mix the motherhood stuff with this sort of serious reporter-detective story and all the important facts. And we didn’t want to talk about ourselves too much in the book. But the filmmakers captured something that I think is very true. It feels particular to us but also universal. When Zoe [Kazan] is pushing a stroller and taking a phone call at the same time, I suspect lots of people will identify with that. And what I also really like is the grace and dignity with which that’s portrayed.
It must have been surreal, seeing a Hollywood movie about your investigation of Hollywood.
I think part of the power of the film is that it returns the Weinstein investigation to the producer’s medium, but on vastly different terms, with the women in charge. Megan and I are particularly moved by the portrayals of Zelda Perkins, Laura Madden and Rowena Chiu — these former Weinstein assistants are in many ways at the core of the story. They’re everyday people who made the incredibly brave decision to help us, in spite of everything from breast cancer to legal barriers.
Working with the filmmakers was really interesting. They were really committed to the integrity of the story, and they asked a ton of questions, both large and small. Ranging from the really big things about the investigation to these tiny details. Like in the scene where we go to Gwyneth Paltrow’s house and Megan and I discover we’re practically wearing the same dress — those were the actual white dresses that we wore that day. We had to send them in an envelope to the costume department, and they copied the dresses in Zoe and Carey’s sizes and that’s what they’re wearing. There was a strand of extreme fidelity, but they needed some artistic license because it’s a movie. And the movie plays out in the key of emotion.
—
The post Weinstein approached me ‘Jew to Jew’: Jodi Kantor opens up on the ‘She Said’ movie’s Jewish moments appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Trump Administration Launches New Probes Into Discrimination at Harvard After Suing School Over Antisemitism
US President Donald Trump delivers an address to the nation from the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House in Washington, DC, USA on Dec. 17, 2025. Photo: Reuters Connect
The US government has launched two new investigations into campus antisemitism and racial preferences — popularly known as “affirmative action” — at Harvard University, continuing the Trump administration’s legal barrage against the institution for allegedly not adhering to federal civil rights laws.
“Harvard University should know better. Its name will always be tied to the landmark Supreme Court case that found sweeping racial discrimination in admissions and the campus has been in the spotlight for tolerating egregious antisemitic harassment for years now,” US Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said in a statement on Monday announcing the federal actions. “No one — not even Harvard — is above the law. If Harvard continues to stonewall as we try to verify its basic compliance with antidiscrimination statutes, we will vigorously hold them to account to ensure students’ rights are protected.”
This week’s newly announced inquiries will be led by the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR).
In a press release, the department said Harvard has “refused” to cooperate with OCR’s attempts to verify that it no longer confers admission based in part on racial identity, as stipulated by a 2023 US Supreme Court ruling which said that the enterprise is unconstitutional.
“OCR will investigate whether Harvard continues to use illegal race-based preferences in admissions despite the Supreme Court’s definitive ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard,” the department said in Tuesday’s statement. “OCR will also investigate alleged ongoing antisemitic harassment on Harvard’s campus and the institution’s purported failure to protect Jewish students. The Trump administration will evaluate both complaints and, if continued discrimination is found, take action to hold Harvard accountable for any illegal policies or actions.”
Writing to The Harvard Crimson, the university’s campus newspaper, Harvard said the racial preferences investigation is “the government’s latest retaliatory” move “against [the school] for its refusal to surrender our independence and constitutional rights.”
McMahon announced the probes just three days after the Trump administration filed a lawsuit in federal court in Massachusetts arguing that Harvard ignored antisemitism while extreme anti-Zionist activists subjected Jewish students to harassment and discrimination in violation of civil rights laws as well as the institution’s own purported commitment to anti-racism.
The complaint demanded the recovery of millions of dollars in taxpayer-funded grants and other federal support Harvard received during the years in which it allegedly neglected to correct the hostile campus environment.
The lawsuit marked a shift in the Trump administration’s previous strategy of confiscating Harvard’s federal money and then defending the action in court. That policy has yielded mixed results, making a strong political statement while leaving Harvard strong enough to mobilize its GDP-sized wealth to sidestep the worst potential consequences by issuing bonds or bringing the matter before judges who have been sympathetic to their case.
As previously reported, by The Algemeiner, US federal judge Allison Burroughs ruled in September that Trump acted unconstitutionally when his administration impounded more than $2 billion in research grants from Harvard, charging that he had “used antisemitism as a smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically motivated assault on this country’s premier universities.” Burroughs went on to argue that the federal government violated Harvard’s free speech rights under the US Constitution’s First Amendment.
The Trump administration maintains that pervasive antisemitism has been a major issue at Harvard,
“Harvard has been and remains deliberately indifferent to what its own Presidential Task Force on Combating Antisemitism and Anti-Israel Bias deemed the ‘exclusion of Israeli or Zionist students from social spaces and extracurricular activities,’” US Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon argued in Friday’s filing. “Harvard has failed to enforce its rules or meaningfully discipline the mobs that occupy its buildings and terrorize its Jewish and Israeli students. Harvard instead rewarded students who assaulted, harassed, or intimidated their Jewish and Israeli peers.”
In a statement, Harvard contested the government’s account of the facts, saying it “deeply cares about members of our Jewish and Israeli community and remains committed to ensuring they are embraced, respected, and can thrive on our campus.” It also argued that it enacted “substantive, proactive steps to address the root causes of antisemitism and actively enforces anti-harassment and anti-discrimination rules and policies on campus.”
As previously reported by The Algemeiner, Harvard’s Presidential Task Force on Combating Antisemitism acknowledged that the university administration’s handling of campus antisemitism fell well below its obligations under both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its own nondiscrimination policies.
Jewish members of the Harvard community have expressed concern about the climate on campus.
Last week, a new report issued by the Harvard Jewish Alumni Alliance (HJAA) revealed Jewish undergraduate enrollment at the university has plummeted to lows not seen since the eve of World War II and the Holocaust, falling to just 7 percent.
While the report denied that declining Jewish enrollment at Harvard is alone the result of racial preferences in admissions — which, in the name of “diversity,” affords preferential consideration to applicants whose academic achievement and standardized test scores fall outside the range of the typical elite students who schools like Harvard select for membership in the Ivy League — it found a similar trend occurring at Yale University.
Yale infamously adopted racial preferences under the leadership of President Kingman Brewster in the 1960s, despite growing evidence that the practice created an environment of academic maladjustment and racial division. This led to the creation of segregated programming and amenities for African Americans, as well as a summer remedial program for minority students — PROP (Pre-Orientation Program) — that was eventually rebranded in the late 1990s when its apparent subtext proved unpalatable to a new generation of students.
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
Uncategorized
Gavin Newsom Backtracks on ‘Apartheid’ Comments, Says He’s ‘Proud to Support’ Israel but Opposes Netanyahu
California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks on Aug. 14, 2025. Photo: Mike Blake via Reuters Connect
California Gov. Gavin Newsom has expressed regret about recent comments characterizing Israel’s treatment of Palestinians as an example of “apartheid,” while reaffirming his concern for the country’s trajectory under its current leadership.
In an interview with Politico published on Tuesday, Newsom said he regretted suggesting earlier this month that it was “appropriate” to describe Israel as an “apartheid state” during an event to promote his new memoir.
Newsom was asked in his latest interview if he “regretted” using the term “apartheid” to describe Israel.
“I do in this context. I said it, and I referenced why I used it — a Tom Friedman article [in the New York Times] — in that same sentence where Tom used it in the context of the direction that Bibi is going,” Newsom said, using the nickname for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
For clarification, Newsom was then asked if Israel is currently not an apartheid state
“Correct. And that is a legitimate concern I have, that I share with Tom — that that direction, if that vision and that direction of the far right that Bibi is indulging, that if they see the full annexation of the West Bank, then that’s not something — that’s a word you may hear others use,” the governor responded.
Newsom also reiterated his support for Israel when pushed to say if he considered himself a Zionist but noted he strongly opposed Netanyahu’s leadership.
“Do I consider myself Zionist? I revere the state of Israel,” Newsom said. “I’m proud to support the state of Israel. I deeply, deeply oppose Bibi Netanyahu’s leadership, his opposition to the two-state solution and deeply oppose how he is indulging the far-right as it relates to what’s going on in the West Bank.”
Newsom’s comments came after he said during a book event in Los Angeles earlier this month that recent policies pursued by Israel’s current government have made the term “apartheid” increasingly common in international discourse. While framing his comments as reluctant, the Democratic governor argued that the trajectory of Israeli leadership left the United States with “no choice” but to reconsider aspects of its longstanding support such as providing military aid.
“I mean, Friedman and others are talking about it appropriately – sort of an apartheid state,” Newsom said. “It breaks my heart because the current leadership in Israel is walking us down that path where I don’t think you have a choice but to have that consideration.”
The comment sparked immediate backlash from pro-Israel advocates and some political leaders who characterized the label as misleading and unfair to a democratic US ally.
Israel, a key US partner in the Middle East, has long rejected comparisons to apartheid, arguing that such claims ignore the country’s democratic institutions and the equal rights afforded to its Arab citizens. Officials also contend that security measures in the West Bank, where the Palestinian Authority exercises limited self-governance, are driven by real threats rather than systemic discrimination.
Critics point to growing Israeli settlements in the West Bank as an example of Israel encroaching on the territory of a potential future Palestinian state.
Much of the international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal under international law.
Israel disputes this claim, however, citing historical and biblical ties to the area. It says the settlements provide strategic depth and security. Defenders of Israel also note that, while about one-fifth of the country’s population is Arab and enjoys equal rights, Palestinian law forbids selling any land to Israelis.
Newsom’s comments come at a time when US policy toward Israel is becoming an increasingly central debate within the Democratic Party, particularly among figures such as Newsom seen as potential contenders in the 2028 presidential race.
The Democratic Party’s traditional position has emphasized strong support for Israel’s security and its status as a key democratic ally. However, in the two years following Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel, amid the ensuing war in Gaza, a growing number of left-wing voices within the party have pushed for more vocal criticism of Israeli government policies and the country’s status as a US ally.
This evolution reflects broader shifts among Democratic voters, with recent polling showing younger and more progressive constituents expressing greater skepticism of pro-Israel policies, while establishment figures continue to stress the importance of the US-Israel alliance.
Uncategorized
How our Yiddish group uses the Forverts podcast to learn the language
When the Iowa City Yiddish Group began meeting at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, I was one of the absolute beginners. Six years later, I lead the enthusiastic group of some 12-15 retirees and produce lesson plans for each class that incorporate a variety of activities to promote listening and Yiddish speaking skills.
Each class draws from printed, auditory, and visual texts: songs, excerpts from interviews in the Wexler Oral History Project at the Yiddish Book Center, advertisements in old issues of Der Forverts, poems, folk tales, film clips, and the like. For each text, I design activities to promote comprehension, get students interacting with the text and with each other, and learn a bit of grammar, much as I did for many years when I taught Spanish to college students.
When I discovered that the Forverts had introduced a podcast intended for intermediate-level students, Yiddish with Rukhl, I knew I could use it to help the group learn.
One of the challenges of working with authentic texts — that is, texts produced by native speakers for native speakers, not for language learners — is that they are often frustratingly difficult for students. In addition, there are particular challenges with texts that students listen to rather than read or view, since listening happens in real time with no way to pause to look up a word or ask a question, nor can listeners rely on visual elements (as one could do with a film) to get clues to meaning. But Yiddish with Rukhl avoids those issues.
The format is straightforward: In each episode, editor Rukhl Schaechter reads two articles on a topic clearly at a relatively slow pace. Because the articles were previously published in the Forverts, I could use the audio recording and printed texts in tandem, which our group particularly appreciates.
A frequent topic of conversation among language teachers is how to come up with class activities that can bridge the gap between students’ comprehension levels and texts that the students would struggle to understand on their own. This is especially true for authentic texts, but also applies to any text students find somewhat difficult. With the first podcast episode, devoted to coffee, I created activities for the first half of the first article, Di kave-hoypshtot fun der velt (“The Coffee Capital of the World”) by Leyzer Burko.
This was my lesson plan:
- I started with a pre-listening activity, whose purpose was to introduce students to the themes of the audio text so that some of the information they would then hear would already be familiar to them. In this case, I wrote some open-ended questions to get the students talking (oyf yidish) about their feelings about coffee as children, their current coffee-drinking routines, and what the term kave-kultur means to them. The Iowa City Yiddish group is made up of smart people, and they had a lot to say about coffee culture in Europe, both past and present, that they then heard in the podcast.
- Then, I played five minutes of the podcast, which corresponded to the first half of the article. Depending on the platform one chooses (Spotify, Apple Podcasts, etc.), you can modify the playback speed, which can be helpful if a group finds the pace too fast. Although the students had the printed text in front of them, I asked them to close their eyes and focus just on comprehension. A quick self-assessment revealed that most understood 70-80%, which I consider ideal for learning.
- I played the recording again, and this time asked the students to follow along in their printed texts and circle words they did not know.
- We then read the text aloud, stopping at words that needed explanation. Each time I asked someone who already knew the word to derklern oyf yidish; that is, explain the meaning of the word without recourse to English. Paraphrasing, or using language you know to explain something you do not have the words for yet, is a skill that language learners at all levels need, and it is also a way for me to conduct as much of the class as possible in Yiddish.
- Finally, I used the printed text to teach grammar. Our group has never warmed to learning grammatical patterns in isolation, so I have turned instead to teaching such topics as inflection of nouns and pronouns, word order, and separable-prefix verbs by showing students how they work in texts to make meaning. This activity is the only one we did in Yiddish; the rest of the class was conducted almost entirely in Yiddish.
When we worked on Zikhrones fun an unterban-pasazhir (“Memories of a Subway Passenger”) by Rukhl Schaechter, I opted to focus exclusively on listening comprehension. Rather than activities based on the printed text (lesson plan steps 3, 4 and 5), I designed a series of collaborative listening activities. The narrative structure of the article was a good match for collaborative listening, because events in chronological sequence are often easier to understand and remember.
After a couple of pre-listening activities to orient students to the content of what they were about to hear, they focused on understanding as much as they could while listening to the audio of the article.
I then divided them into breakout rooms, where their task was to collaboratively create a list in simple Yiddish of the pieces of information they had understood in the six-minute article. We then got back together and I played the audio again with the goal that they would confirm their comprehension, notice and understand what their group mates had contributed, and pick up additional new pieces of information. They then returned to their breakout groups to expand on what they had written earlier. The final step was to return to the whole group once again and combine the groups’ lists to recreate as full a picture as possible of the content of the article.
The members of the Iowa City Yiddish group have expressed enthusiasm for working with the podcasts, and I plan to design lessons for more of them over the coming months. The relatable topics, appropriate difficulty level, and clear audio quality make them ideal for a community Yiddish group.
The post How our Yiddish group uses the Forverts podcast to learn the language appeared first on The Forward.