Uncategorized
Commemorating Philip Roth means confronting his limitations head on
(JTA) — Next Sunday marks the 90th anniversary of Philip Roth’s birth. In celebration of the famed novelist’s work, a scholarly conference titled “Roth@90,” sponsored by the Philip Roth Society, will be held starting Wednesday at the Newark Public Library. That will be followed by a weekend of high-profile events — staged readings, panel discussions, a bus tour of Roth’s old Newark neighborhood — co-presented by the library and the New Jersey Performing Arts Center.
Exactly 10 years ago, we commemorated his 80th birthday in a similar fashion. Dozens of Roth scholars made learned presentations about his work, of which Roth attended exactly zero. Later that week, the author read aloud from his novel “Sabbath’s Theater” in front of hundreds of fans, friends and well wishers. The proceedings were televised on C-Span.
Roth was being acclaimed for having just wound down an exemplary career. With the exception of the Nobel Prize, what garland evaded him? Was there a high-culture literary platform where his name wasn’t a virtual watermark? Could he publish any novel without hundreds of reviews being written in newspapers across the world? Was there a serious fiction writer out there with greater renown?
So much has changed in the decade between the two conferences. To begin with, Roth died in 2018. In that same span, the country witnessed the election of Donald Trump and the fissure it exposed in society in general and the Jewish community in particular. America endured one convulsive racial reckoning after another. Finally, in October of 2017, the #MeToo movement gained massive public salience.
All of those events, along with digital media’s indomitable ascent, have combined to affect and reshape Roth’s literary legacy. That legacy is far less assured than all the (justified) praise and lionizing that will occur this week might suggest.
Let’s start with Jews. The Trump era yielded two seemingly irreconcilable data points. On the one hand, Jewish-Americans endured the Charlottesville riot, the Tree of Life synagogue attack and a stunning rise in antisemitic incidents. On the other, there was staunch support for Trump among Orthodox Jews and supporters of Israel’s right wing.
Leaving that conundrum for others to parse, I simply note that Orthodox Jews and right-wing Zionists are almost completely absent in Roth’s fiction. A young Roth wrote a sensitive portrait of Holocaust survivors who want to start a suburban yeshiva in “Eli the Fanatic.” He also sketched a militant religious-nationalist Zionist in “The Counterlife,” Mordecai Lippman, who, according to Roth biographer Blake Bailey (about whom more below), was based on Elyakim Haetzni, one of the so-called founding fathers of the settlement movement. In the same novel, a version of the narrator’s brother falls under the settlement leader’s sway.
And that’s it, across a half century of writing. For traditionalist Jewish readers, whose political and social influence in the United States and Israel is substantial and growing, Roth’s fiction is not a mirror, nor a signpost, nor a scroll upon which is inscribed some essential truth.
The Jews who populated his stories, the Jews he best understood, were of Ashkenazi descent, white, liberal, assimilated and secular. His courage was to valorize them over and against other Jews who viewed them as defective, lost or even as apostates. Thus Anne Frank in “The Ghost Writer” was portrayed as a patron saint of secular Judaism. Elsewhere, his stories abound in proud, professionally accomplished diaspora Jews. They rarely think about God. Synagogue attendance is reserved strictly for lifecycle events and High Holy Days, if that.
A novelist, of course, is not a political clairvoyant. However, the immediate future of Judaism is being greatly shaped by Jews whose population and influence are growing and whom Roth rarely portrayed. In this manner, another stellar writer like Cynthia Ozick — herself Orthodox and quite attuned to the mindset of her co-religionists — might fare better commercially and emerge as more relevant than her friend in the coming decades.
Roth didn’t just write about Jews. In my book “The Philip Roth We Don’t Know: Sex, Race and Autobiography,” I pointed out that depicting non-Jewish Black people was an unrecognized “obsessional theme” across his 28 novels and 25 short stories. Much to my dismay, I found Roth’s multi-decade treatment of his African and African-American characters often to be crude, thoughtless and sometimes racist.
Familiarize yourself with the degrading portraiture we receive of Black people in “The Great American Novel” (1973), or a short story like “On the Air” (1970), and you might reconsider what Roth was after in “The Human Stain,” in which an academic who is accused of racism turns out to be an African American who had been “passing” as white and Jewish. The book, the 2001 Pen/Faulkner Award winner, is often seen as a sensitive treatment of racial issues in America, and perhaps as the author’s attempt to extend the hand of friendship to another oppressed minority.
In fact, my best guess is that, as with many Jewish writers post-1967, Roth was shaken by the deterioration of the Black-Jewish alliance. His frustrations were reflected in prose that often referenced Black communities in his hometown of Newark but showed little curiosity about their lives or sympathy for their plight.
Obviously, this type of literary rendering of African Americans — or any minority group — is disturbing and dated. Insensitive racial representation inspires calls for publishers to drop authors. They disappear from high-school or college syllabi. This bodes ominously for the afterlives of the titans of post-World War II American fiction, including John Updike, Saul Bellow Bellow and Norman Mailer, all three of whom have been accused of being racially insensitive and worse.
Roth’s marketability also seems to be sailing into a squall regarding gender. As women began demanding an accounting of sexual abuse and misogyny within the media, entertainment and other industries, numerous think-pieces wondered how the author of “Portnoy’s Complaint” — whose libidinous narrator identifies most of the women in his life by debasing nicknames — would fare in such an environment. Would he — should he — be “canceled”?
The question is more complex than his admirers and detractors make it out to be. No doubt, many of Roth’s male characters mistreated women. Accusations of Roth himself doing the same exist, but they are fairly rare, unsubstantiated and contested. The dilemma for researchers is that Roth was a deeply auto-fictional writer. You sense his presence in his stories — especially when protagonists share much of his biography, including Nathan Zuckerman and Peter Tarnopol, and when characters are named “Philip Roth.”
It’s hard not to speculate about the relation between the author and the many misogynistic fellows who cut an erotic swath through his pages. There will, of course, be readers who give him the benefit of the doubt. They might observe that Roth’s toxic males provide evidence of women’s experiences that needs to be explored, not censored.
Not helping him cleanse his reputation were the numerous allegations of sexual misconduct leveled against his hand-picked biographer, Blake Bailey. The ructions engulfing Bailey came to dominate the discourse about Roth, leading to a peculiar cancellation by proxy.
The episode also revealed that Roth had instructed his estate to eventually destroy a massive trove of personal papers he entrusted to Bailey. This led Aimee Pozorski (co-editor of Philip Roth Studies), myself and 20 other Roth scholars to issue a statement reminding his executors that “scholarship can only be advanced when qualified researchers engage freely with essential sources.”
As if all these concerns weren’t enough, his grim prophecies about the demise of an audience for serious literature seem to be coming true. “The book,” Roth worried, “can’t compete with the screen.” Meanwhile, the English major is in a very bad way, and the institution of tenure is under siege. Professors (insufferable as we might be) teach the next generation who to read and how to read. Writers might not like them, but they need them.
Roth is also getting the scrutiny that he was at pains to avoid in his lifetime. His disregard for scholars who might be critical of him always struck me, one such scholar, as misguided. Instead, he surrounded himself with friends — friends who had preternatural access to major media platforms. These friends built upon his own interpretations of his own work. It doesn’t mean they lacked wisdom. It just means that when they talked about Roth, they talked about what Roth wanted them to talk about. To wit: Jewish Newark, his sundry interpretations of his life, his pesky ex-wives and lovers, the close-mindedness of his critics, and so forth.
I think, in this cultural moment, it’s prudent to confront Roth’s limitations head on and chart one’s own path through his fiction. I pitch him to my students as a writer with some racial, religious and sexual hang-ups — who among us is innocent of those charges? I also present him as a bearer of unique and meaningful insights. Let scholars (while they still exist) parade those insights into sunlight.
I’ve tried to illuminate that his fiction was preoccupied, for 50 years, by how individual and collective bodies (like the Jews) change. Transformation, metamorphosis, metempsychosis — his obsession with those themes, I’ve noticed in my classrooms, is shared by Gen Z. If the span between Roth@80 and Roth@90 has taught us anything, it is that Roth was right: Life is about radical, unpredictable flux. Now his own legacy is in flux. I wonder who will read Roth@100.
—
The post Commemorating Philip Roth means confronting his limitations head on appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
AUDIO: What does the Sydney attack mean for Jews in Australia?
ס׳איז לעצטנס אַרויסגעלאָזט געוואָרן אַ ראַדיאָ־אינטערוויו אויף ייִדיש וועגן דער שחיטה פֿון ייִדן דעם 14טן דעצעמבער, בעת אַ חנוכּה־פֿײַערונג אין באָנדי־ביטש, אויסטראַליע.
פֿופֿצן מענטשן זענען דערהרגעט געוואָרן אין דעם טעראָריסטישן אַטאַק, אַרײַנגערעכנט אַ 37־יאָריקן רבֿ און טאַטע פֿון פֿיר קינדער, ר׳ יעקבֿ לעוויטאַן, און אַ 10־יאָריק מיידעלע.
דעם שמועס, פּראָדוצירט פֿון דער באָסטאָנער ראַדיאָ־פּראָגראַם „דאָס ייִדישע קול“, האָט דער דיקטאָר פֿון דער פּראָגראַם, מאיר דוד, געפֿירט מיטן מעלבורנער ייִדישיסט אַלעקס דאַפֿנער.
דאַפֿנער, אַ ייִדישע ראַדיאָ־פּערזענלעכקייט אין מעלבורן, אַנאַליזירט עטלעכע מעגלעכע סיבות וואָס האָבן מסתּמא אומדירעקט דערפֿירט צו דעם טעראָריסטישן אַטאַק. ער באַשרײַבט אויך די פּאָליטישע שטימונג אין לאַנד לגבי ישׂראל און דעם הײַנטיקן זיכערהייט־מצבֿ פֿאַר די אָרטיקע ייִדן.
The post AUDIO: What does the Sydney attack mean for Jews in Australia? appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
US Education Department’s New Database Reveals Qatar Ranks as Top Foreign Funder of American Universities
Qatar’s Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al-Thani speaks on the first day of the 23rd edition of the annual Doha Forum, in Doha, Qatar, Dec. 6, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa
Qatar is the single largest foreign source of funding to American colleges and universities, according to a newly launched public database from the US Department of Education that reveals the scope of overseas influence in US higher education.
The federal dashboard shows Qatar has provided $6.6 billion in gifts and contracts to US universities, more than any other foreign government or entity, outpacing the next highest contributions from Germany ($4.4 billion), England ($4.3 billion), China ($4.1 billion), Canada ($4 billion), and Saudi Arabia ($3.9 billion).
Of the schools that received money from Qatar, Cornell University topped the list with $2.3 billion, followed by Carnegie Mellon University ($1 billion), Texas A&M University ($992.8 million), and Georgetown University ($971.1 million).
The newly publicized figures come as universities nationwide face heightened scrutiny over campus antisemitism, anti-Israel activism, and academic priorities, prompting renewed concerns about foreign influence on American campuses.
US Education Secretary Linda McMahon unveiled the Foreign Gift and Contract transparency portal this week, saying the tool gives taxpayers, lawmakers, and students a clearer view of how billions of dollars from abroad flow into US universities. Under Section 117 of the Higher Education Act, federally funded institutions are legally required to disclose gifts and contracts from foreign sources worth $250,000 or more annually.
“America’s taxpayer funded colleges and universities have both a moral and legal obligation to be fully transparent with the US government and the American people about their foreign financial relationships,” McMahon said in a December statement announcing the formation of the database.
Supporters of the initiative argue the disclosures confirm longstanding concerns that potentially nefarious foreign financial ties may shape academic discourse, research priorities, and campus culture. Those concerns have intensified in the wake of controversies at elite universities over their handling of antisemitism and anti-Israel demonstrations amid the war in Gaza.
The presence of American universities in Qatar has long been controversial, with critics pointing out that the Qatari government has helped fund the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. Qatar also hosts several high-ranking Hamas leaders, who often live in luxury outside of Gaza. Some observers argue that the Islamic country curtails academic freedom of American universities.
While universities say the funds support scholarships, research partnerships, and international programs, many critics point to Qatar’s geopolitical record and its ties to Hamas as reason for increased skepticism.
Last month, the Middle East Forum published a report showing the children of the Qatari aristocracy are vastly overrepresented at the Northwestern University campus in Qatar, a fact that, according to the US-based think tank, undermines the school’s mission to foster academic excellence by acting in practice as a “pipeline” for the next generation of a foreign monarchy’s leadership class.
The Middle East Forum released a separate report in May exposing the extent of Qatar’s far-reaching financial entanglements within American institutions, shedding light on what experts described as a coordinated effort to influence US policy making and public opinion in Doha’s favor. The findings showed that Qatar has attempted to expand its soft power in the US by spending $33.4 billion on business and real estate projects, over $6 billion on universities, and $72 million on American lobbyists since 2012.
This effort has focused heavily on higher education.
Beyond the Education Department’s database, a recent report by the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP), for example, found that Qatar has funneled roughly $20 billion into American schools and universities over five decades as part of a coordinated, 100-year project to embed Muslim Brotherhood ideologies in the US.
The 200-page report, unveiled in Washington, DC to members of Congress, chronicled a 50-year effort by Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups to embed themselves in American academia, civil society, and government agencies, exposing what ISGAP called the Brotherhood’s “civilization jihad” strategy, while maintaining an agenda fundamentally at odds with liberal democratic values.
Activists and US lawmakers say the scale of Qatari funding raises legitimate questions about whether foreign donors are influencing Middle East studies programs, faculty hiring, and student activism, even if indirectly.
The new database builds upon a broader effort by the Trump administration to rein in antagonistic foreign influence on American universities.
“Protecting American educational, cultural, and national security interests requires transparency regarding foreign funds flowing to American higher education and research institutions,” US President Donald Trump said in April.
Uncategorized
Candace Owens Posts Kanye West’s Notorious ‘Death Con 3 on Jewish People’ Tweet, Calls It a ‘Vibe’
Right-wing political commentator Candace Owens speaks during an event held by national conservative political movement ‘Turning Point’, in Detroit, Michigan, US, June 14, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Rebecca Cook
Candace Owens on Wednesday posted a screenshot of Kanye West’s notorious “Death Con 3 on Jewish People” tweet from 2022, calling it a “whole vibe.”
In October 2022, West, the rapper who now goes by Ye, posted on X, “I’m a bit sleepy tonight but when I wake up I’m going death con 3 on JEWISH PEOPLE. The funny thing us I actually can’t be Anti Semitic because black people are actually Jew also. You guys have toyed with me and tried to black ball anyone whoever opposes your agenda [sic].”
There was swift backlash to the post, which was widely perceived as antisemitic. West followed up the tweet with a series of interviews in which he made antisemitic comments such as “Every human being has value that they brought to the table, especially Hitler.” West, speaking in the voice of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, also said, “We have to control the history books, we have to control the banks, and we have to go and kill people.” He later released a song titled “Heil Hitler” in February 2025.
Owens, a popular far-right podcaster, re-upped the initial “death con 3” post this week, writing along with it: “Intercepted an email chain from the Daily Wire, further illuminating their deranged plot against me. After 2 years of dealing with this s–t I just want to respectfully submit that this tweet is a whole vibe. And I’m not sleepy. So I will be responding thoroughly to the DW on today’s show.”
Intercepted an email chain from the Daily Wire, further illuminating their deranged plot against me. After 2 years of dealing with this shit I just want to respectfully submit that this tweet is a whole vibe.
And I’m not sleepy. So I will be responding thoroughly to the DW on… pic.twitter.com/qkCX2p0aQ0
— Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO) January 7, 2026
The apparent cause of the post was Owens’ escalating feud with Ben Shapiro’s Daily Wire, a conservative media company for which she used to work until she was fired last year.
Since then, Owens has intensified her rhetoric against Jews and Israel, even admitting in November that she has become “obsessed” with Jews.
In June, she suggested that then New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani was an Israeli plant, that Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel was lying about being in the Holocaust, and that Israel is the “master of the universe” that plants characters into stories so that it can control them.
In January, Owens attacked the Babylon Bee — a conservative Christian satire organization — for making a joke about her fixation on Jews.
“It’s just very obvious they are worshipping Israel,” Owens said. “That they base their jokes on people who don’t worship Israel and ‘Bibi’ Netanyahu.” She also referred to the Babylon Bee as the “Zionist Bee” and the “Babylonian Talmudic Bee.”
Last July, Owens claimed that the Star of David originated from an evil, child-sacrificing, pagan deity and has only become associated with Judaism within the past few hundred years.
In a June episode, Owens argued that “it seems like our country [the US] is being held hostage by Israel.” She lamented, “I’m going to get in so much trouble for that. I don’t care.”
In the same episode, Owens claimed US Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) was “wading into some dangerous waters” when, during an interview with host Tucker Carlson, he spoke about how effective the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is at lobbying members of Congress and suggested the group should have to register as a foreign agent that is acting on behalf of Israel.
The reason it was dangerous, Owens said, was because “we know there was once a president that wanted to make AIPAC register, and he ended up shot … so Thomas Massie better be careful.”
Owens was referencing the fact that former US President John F. Kennedy wanted the American Zionist Council, a lobby group, to register as a foreign agent.
However, there is no evidence the group had anything to do with Kennedy’s assassination.
AIPAC is a lobbying group comprised of American citizens that seeks to foster bipartisan support for the US-Israel alliance.
Weeks later, Owens promoted a series of talking points downplaying the atrocities of the Holocaust and said experiments by Nazi doctor Joseph Mengele performed on Jews during World War II sounded “like bizarre propaganda.”