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
Four seasons in five sonnets
אָסיען
דאָס צאַרטע ביימל צערטלדיק
צעוויגט זיך אויפֿן ווינט
שוין לאַנג אין אירע בלעטעלעך
קיין זומערפֿרייד מער ניט גרינט
די בלעטלעך טאַנצן גאָלדענע
צום טאַקט פֿון לופֿט וואָס רינט
פֿון קאַנטן פֿון פֿאַרוואָלקנטע
מיט קילקייטס שטאַרן דין
די בלעטעלעך, די בלעטעלעך
זיי מאָנען גאָרניט כּלל
בלויז פֿאַרן סוף קאָקעטעלעך
זיי טענצלען מיט אַ שטראַל
אַזוי עס קלאַפּט אַ הערצעלע
וואָס ווערט פֿון אַלטקייט יונג
אַזוי דאָס לידל ס׳לעצטיקע
קלאָר לייגט זיך אויף דער צונג
און מיטן ווינטל פֿרישינקן
צעזינגט זיך פֿראַנק־און־פֿרײַ
בלײַב, וועלטל מײַנס, פאַֿרכּישופֿטע,
געזונט, אַדיאָ, גוד־בײַ
2021
•
ווינטער
ביים גיין פֿאַרביי דעם אַלטן וואַלד
דערשפּירסטו: אים איז ביטער קאַלט:
די צווײַגן ציטערן פֿאַר קעלט,
די שטאַמען בייגן זיך פֿאַרקוועלט.
און אַלע חיות פּלוצים אָפּ,
און פֿייגל אַלע ווי אָן קאָפּ.
מערניט א שפּערל שפּרינגט זיך דרייסט…
ווי קומט ער גאָר פֿון שטאָט? ווער ווייסט…
גיסטו דעם שפּערל גלײַך אַ וווּנק:
„דער וואַלד איז אַלט און דו ביסט יונג!“
נאָר ער גאָר מאַכט זיך קעלאָיאָד,
אויף דרערד אַלץ שפּרינגט ער, נישטערט דאָרט…
דו קלערסט בײַם גיין פֿאַרביי דעם וואַלד:
זאָל עקן זיך דער ווינטער באַלד!
2018
•
צישן סוף און אָנהייב
דו ווייסט, דער ווינטער וועט פֿאַרגיין
באַלד
און אַלץ באַנײַט זיך: פֿעלד. בוים, שטיין,
וואַלד
און ס׳נעמט אַלץ שפּיגלען זיך אין דיר —
בלום
און בין, און פֿייגל אָן אַ שיעור, —
קום,
שטיי אויף פֿון ווינטער דרעמל און
שײַן!
אַוועק עס וועט פֿון אונטער זון
פּײַן,
דײַן שמייכל ווידער — פֿרײַ און יונג
שפּרייט
די פליגל איבער קינד־און־קייט
ברייט,
דײַן גאָב איז גרויס, און מײַן געזאַנג —
קלאַנג
טויכט אויף, אין יעדן אות געפֿאַנגט —
דאַנק
2019
•
פֿרילינג
די צאַרטע גרינקייט
פֿון ערשטע בלעטלעך
קומט שטענדיק
ניט צו פֿרי,
ניט שפּעטלעך.
ס׳קומט תּמיד ממש
צו דער צײַט
און גרינג,
פֿון בייזע פֿרעסט
באַפרײַט
ס׳הייבט אָן
די גרויסע פֿרייד
צו שוועבן
ווײַל ס׳ווערט באַנײַט
דאָס גרינע לעבן
פֿאַרקוואַרטע ביימער
ווערן לײַט
2024
•
דער זומער איז אַן עקשן
דער זומער איז אַן עקשן, ער וויל ניט, וויל ניט קומען
הגם אויף בייטן וואַקסן צעקווייטיקט שוין די בלומען
הגם די ביימער אויכעט זיך שאָקלען שטאַרק צעגרינטע
דער זומער איז זיי חושד, וויל זיך פֿון דאַן אַהין טאָן
וואוהין אַהין? — טוסט פֿרעגן און ס׳ענטפֿערן די ווינטן:
צו סאַמע קוואַל פֿון רעגן, צום וויכערס אורקוואַל בלינדן…
דער זומער זיך פֿאַרטײַעט, ער וויל זיך ניט צעבליִען
פֿאַרציטערט מענטש און חיה באַלד גרייט פֿאַר אים זיך מיִען
נאָר ער טוט אַלץ זיך הײַען, מיט שטראַלן טוט ניט בריִען
דער פֿרילינג שוין פֿאַרבײַ איז און נאַט אײַך — אָסיען פֿריִער!
פֿאַרחושכט גרינע וועלדער מיט פּוסטע שטעט און שטעטלעך —
בײַ גרויע שטיינער עלנטע, נעפּלדיק פּאַנדעמלעך…
נאָר ער, ער מוז דאָך קומען, אָנקומען סוף־כּל־סוף און
צעקושן זיך מיט בלומען, אויסהיילן גרויל מיט האָפֿונג
ווײַל ניט אומזיסט די ביימער צעגרינטע זיך צעוויגן —
אָט־אָט מיט טויזנט חנען צעוויקלט זיך זײַן ניגון!..
דערווײַל זשע בלאָזן ווינטן, צעיושעט זיך דער רעגן
בעת דער פּאַנדעמער ווינטער וויל מערן זײַן פֿאַרמעגן
2020
•
פֿיר צײַטן פֿון אַ גאַנץ יאָר
ס׳טוט דער פֿרילינג אַלץ זיך בעטן
ביז אין ווינטער נעכט אין שפּעטע
„פֿעלט־וועלט־וואַלד, רק ניט פֿאַרגעסט מיך —
ס׳איז ניט סתּם וואָס כ׳הייס אויך — וועסנע!..“
און דער לאַנגער, כמורנער אָסיען —
רײַסט אַראָפּ אַלץ, דרעשעט, קאָסיעט…
מ׳רופֿט אים ניט אומזיסט אויך האַרבסט, —
ר׳סטראַשעט דעם ווינטער: ״אויך דו, שטאַרבסט!״
און דער שטרענגער, שאַרפֿער ווינטער
ווייסט שוין ניט וואו ר׳זאָל אַהינטער
צי פֿון וואַנעט ר׳זאָל אַרויסעט,
ווײַל ער האָט מער ניט קיין עתיד.
שיקט ער ליבע־בריוו דעם זומער,
נאָר פֿון היץ ווערט יענער — שטומער —
ביז די פֿייגל בויען נעסטן
לשם וועסנע, לשם וועסנע…
2017
•
פֿינעף סאָנעטן
1. און אפֿשר האׇט ער רעכט
און אפֿשר איז גערעכט דער מעכטיקער פּאָעט:
דער עכטיקער איז ער, די איבעריקע זאַנען
אַן ערבֿ־רבֿ פֿון שטיקלעך גראַפֿאָמאַנען
בעת ער באַשאַפֿט פֿון טאָיוּ־וואָיוּ אַ סאָנעט?
און אפשר האָט ער רעכט, דער מײַסטער פוֿן קופּלעט,
וואָס דויערט, ברויזט און קלינגט איבער אַ טויזנט ימען,
בלויז ער, רק ער אַליין לסוף געווינען וועט
די קרוין די איינציקע פֿון ליד דעם סאַמע־סאַמע?
נו יאָ, ווער ווייסט, ווער קאָן דאָס משפּטן אַצינד,
צווישן אַפּנים, מעגלעך, אפֿשר און מסתמא,
צי וועט דען איבערבלײַבן מיטן גײַסט פֿון ווינט
דער וועלטבאַשאַף פֿון ניסימדיקע גראַמען?
טאָ וואָס זשע דען? — מערניט, אַ שטילער עפּיטאַף:
אין ליד זײַנס חנדלט זיך אויך פּראָסטער ערבֿ־רבֿ
2017
•
2. „לידער, לידער, לידערליי“
אַ לידער־קלעטער, צי אַ לידער־פֿלי
צו־מאָל אין שפּעטסטער שפּעט
ווען ס׳ווערט שוין גראָד גאַנצפֿרי
צו־מאָל אינמיטן גאַנג פֿון גיכן טאָג
וואָס זשאַלעוועט אַ גלעט
קיין צײַט ער ניט פֿאַרמאָגט
אַ ליד אַ וווּנדער, צי אַ ליד אַ וווּנד
אַ פלֿאַם אַ קוועלכל וועקט
אַ הימל גרייכט צום גרונד
אַ לידער־אָטעם, צי אַ לידער־גרוס
אין יעדן וואָרט עס שטעקט
די מעגלעכקייט פֿון מוז
אַ ליד־געזאַנג, צי גאָר אַ ליד־געשריי
פֿון טיפֿער פֿרייד, פון וויי
2018
•
3. אַ ליבע־גרוס
דער ווינטער ווי קאַלט ר׳זאָל ניט ווערן
די וויוגע די בייזע, דער פֿראָסט —
זיי וועלן ניט קענען צעשטערן
די ליכט וואָס צו מיר דו דערטראָגסט
די שטערן, קאָן דאַכטן, געהערן
ניט מיר און ניט דיר, און פֿאַרדראָס
וויל אונדזער ממשות פֿאַרשטערן
און פֿאָרט ס׳איז פֿאַר דיר — יעדער אות
וואָס כ׳טו פֿון מײַן האַרצן אויסשרײַבן
מיט זוניקן שטראַל אויפּֿן שניי
און כ׳ווייס אַז די אויפֿשריפֿט וועט בלײַבן
וועט אויסשטיין דעם גרעסטן זאַוויי
דער ווינטער אַלץ שאַרפֿער און שאַרפֿער
נאָר אים איבערלעבן באַדאַרף מען.
2019
•
4. ביימער
דערהערן דעם זיכּרון פֿון די ביימער
וואָס שטייען וואַך יאָרהונדערטער, צי מער
און בלײַבן דאָ מיט זיי איינער אַליינער
כּל־זמן עס קומט ניט קיינער ניט אַהער
זיך שאָקלענדיק צום טאַקט פֿון זייער תּפֿילה
דערשפּירן יעדן רינג און רונג אין זיי
מיט יעדן שאָרך און בייג פֿון צווײַגן פֿילע
מיט פֿרייד פֿון פֿרילינג און מיט אָסיען־וויי
מיט אומגעהײַער זאַפֿטיקייט פֿון גרינקייט
אום רײַפֿן זומער ווען אַלץ זשומט און בליט…
אום פֿראָסטיק קאַלטן ווינטער מיט זײַן פֿלינקײַט —
צעכראַסטעטעטע זיי שטייען אויפֿן ווינט
דערהערן דעם זיכּרון פֿון געדויער
פֿון קיוּם און פֿון ווידערקום ביסט לאָער
2022
•
5. פּאַנטאַריישיתדיקס
.
שוין צײַט דו זאָלסט וויסן דער טאָג איז פֿאַרבײַ
דער אָוונט איז יונג נאָך, די נאַכט איז נאָך פֿרײַ
די שטערן נאָך שלאָפֿן, דער ווינט איז נאָך לינד
די בערן פאַֿרשלאָפֿן דעם ווינטער געשווינד
און אַלץ וואָס קאָן טרעפֿן, וועט טרעפֿן געוויס:
דער בונד ווערן לויז און דער גזר ווערן ברית
דער אומרו פֿון אָנמאַכט וועט דויערן לאַנג
בעת דו טוסט צעוויקלען דײַן ניגון און קלאַנג
געשוועסטער, געברידער — געמיינזאַמע לײַט —
די זון גייט באַלד אונטער פֿון יעטווידער זײַט
זי בעט זיך פּאַטעטיש: פֿאַרגעסט זשע מיך ניט
די האָפֿענונג לעצטע צום אין־סוף דערפליט
נאָר אַלץ וואָס וועט ווערן, וועט גרייכן דעם צוועק
בעת גלגל החוזר זיך דרייט אָן אַן עק
2026
The post Four seasons in five sonnets appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
My university is enabling the Trump administration’s worst fallacies on antisemitism
The Department of Justice has filed its second lawsuit of the year alleging rampant antisemitism at UCLA, where I teach.
The suit is a repetition of the same old string of allegations that President Donald Trump’s administration first made in the summer of 2025, when it froze $584 million in research funds and then tried to extract an additional $1.2 billion from UCLA. Those assertions are based on a mix of self-reporting and hearsay, assembled to make the case that the UCLA campus is awash in antisemitism.
A small number of the allegations I know or believe to be true. But the overarching claim made in the federal complaint is so partisan and partial as to be comical.
The new suit alleges that UCLA tolerated antisemitic expression and acts on campus — especially at a short-lived pro-Palestinian encampment that took place in April 2024.
It accuses UCLA of tolerating an “appalling hostile educational environment against its Jewish and Israeli students.” The fact that UCLA’s chancellor, Julio Frenk, has made the fight against antisemitism one of the pillars of his administration — and makes constant reference to the recent recommendations of a campus Initiative to Combat Antisemitism — seems not to have registered. The feds are clearly suffering from a bit of UCLA Derangement Syndrome.
This latest federal suit against UCLA succumbs to the Trumpian instinct to alter the facts to fit one’s political proclivities. In this worldview, every instance of support for Palestinians or criticism of Israel is cast as antisemitic; there can be no legitimate form of pro-Palestinian expression.
Even more remarkably, there can be no admission that the greatest display of violence that unfolded on our campus amid pro-Palestinian protests was not against pro-Israel students. Instead, it was perpetrated by pro-Israeli hooligans against the pro-Palestinian encampment activists on the evening of April 30, 2024.
Yet true to form, the complaint describes the events of that night as a battle between equals: “the occupiers and counter-protestors attacked each other with pepper spray, blunt objects, and even fireworks.” In fact, what took place was a vicious assault by one group against another — those in the encampment — that went on for more than four hours without police intervention.
This reshaping of truths seen as inconvenient betrays a tendency by Trump and his associates to adopt an exceptionally narrow lens of observation that allows for shameful distortion and denial. That tendency showed up in a farcically named 2025 executive order, “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,” which sought to erase any trace of racial prejudice from the annals of this country. And it continues to be present in Trump’s astounding revisionist account of January 6, 2021, which casts the violent insurrectionists as American heroes betrayed by their country.
Sadly the Justice Department’s misrepresentations in its latest complaint are founded not only on Trumpian denialism, but also on UCLA’s own antisemitism initiatives.
Both the taskforce and a subsequent action group charged with investigating on-campus antisemitism have advanced a decontextualized and one-sided story of what took place at UCLA. They have failed to acknowledge the relational nature of anti-Israeli and anti-Palestinian expression; blurred the distinction between hate speech and legitimate, albeit harsh, political expression; and left the concerns of the pro-Palestine side almost entirely unrecognized.
Paradoxically, the singular focus on antisemitism dilutes the very effort to combat it by ignoring the wider ecosystem of hate in which antisemitism operates.
I know members of the taskforce and the action group, as well as Chancellor Frenk. They are colleagues and friends of mine. But I disagree with the way they have gone about the work of combatting antisemitism at UCLA.
To begin with, none of the six UCLA scholars who hold chairs in Jewish studies and whose work touches on antisemitism — myself included — were part of the taskforce that issued its report, or the action group that followed in its wake. Some were initially invited to be part of the taskforce but chose to step down because they did not feel in sync with its direction.
Why?
Because that direction was grounded in a flawed equation of antisemitism with anti-Zionist and anti-Israel expression.
The UCLA action group’s most recent recommendations call for the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, which largely advances this understanding. The recommendations give lip service to the assertion that not all criticism of Israel is antisemitic, but neither the taskforce nor the action group has ever indicated when, if ever, criticism of Israel is not anti-Israel — a category so capacious as to leave little room for criticism of any sort.
An additional concern: many of the recent action group recommendations focus on “time, place, and manner” restrictions on campus debate. While ostensibly intended to promote a safe campus environment, in practice they seem to be largely aimed at inhibiting pro-Palestinian forms of expression.
What about an alternative strategy that leverages what we do best at universities: education?
Restricting conversation has never led to positive social change. What could is a major new educational effort devoted to a multi-disciplinary analysis of antisemitism, perhaps alongside Islamophobia. The university could investigate more deeply the interconnected nature of hate in our time by supporting research efforts like those of the UCLA Initiative to Study Hate — which, full disclosure, I direct.
A more expansive tack like this stands a better chance of being effective in bringing various campus stakeholders, including students, into the fight against identity-based hate — which includes but is not restricted to antisemitism. That, rather than narrowing space for free speech, should be the goal.
Unfortunately, our own campus’ efforts to combat antisemitism move in another direction, a choice the Trump administration is working hard to reinforce with their ill-intentioned weaponization of antisemitism. I fear that UCLA will suffer for this — and that, at the end of the day, little will be done to reduce hatred and prejudice against Jews.
The post My university is enabling the Trump administration’s worst fallacies on antisemitism appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
How ‘Hacks’ botched its Yiddish line
In the most recent episode of HBO Max’s critically acclaimed comedy-drama Hacks, Robbie Hoffman, who plays Randi, an ex-Hasidic assistant to agents who represent stand-up comedian Deborah Vance (Jean Smart), says a line in Yiddish. Unfortunately, as any fluent Yiddish speaker will confirm, it’s grammatically incorrect.
In the episode, “The Garden” — referring to Madison Square Garden — Vance’s nemesis Bob Lipka (played by Tony Goldwyn) manages to ruin the comedian’s dream performance at the renowned venue. Luckily, her crew succeeds at securing their boss a stage in Central Park (albeit with free tickets) but they have only a couple of days to convince people to fill the seats. They spread out into the streets of New York City handing out fliers, desperate to get people to come to the ad hoc performance.
Randi does her part by returning to her former community — an apparently Hasidic neighborhood in Brooklyn — and hands out fliers to the pious passers-by. Since Haredi Jews eschew secular performances of any kind, Randi’s attempts are sure to be futile but it’s a funny scene, so I get it.
Yet, when Randi tries to convince them in Yiddish to “come see Deborah Vance in Central Park,” the verb she uses is grammatically incorrect. For you grammar nerds out there, here’s what the error was: Instead of using the command form, “kumt zen Deborah Vance,” “come see Deborah Vance,” she uses the infinitive, “kumen tsu zen Deborah Vance.”
It’s as if she were to say, in English: “To come to see Deborah Vance.”
Surprisingly, as was reported in Alma, Hoffman had called her mother Connie, who, she says, actually writes plays in Yiddish, to run the line by her. If her mother is indeed a fluent Yiddish speaker, we can only conclude that she may have mis-heard the sentence.
Unfortunately, badly translated or mispronounced Yiddish lines are all too common in TV series and films, from the 1992 film A Stranger Among Us with Melanie Griffith to the 2019 mini-series Unorthodox. Interestingly, the Israeli show Shtisel, produced in Israel, did a much better job of getting the Yiddish right.
In any case, the correct way for professional studios to get lines translated into a foreign language is not to wing it, but to hire a professional interpreter who can actually come onto the set and rehearse the lines with the actor. It may raise production costs a bit but at least then, the Yiddish dialogue will sound authentic.
The post How ‘Hacks’ botched its Yiddish line appeared first on The Forward.