RSS
Fashioning feminism: A photography exhibit explores the meaning of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s collars
(New York Jewish Week) – The first Jewish woman ever appointed to the Supreme Court, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was known for her trailblazing advocacy of gender equality, her impassioned dissenting opinions and for being a liberal icon.
But the Brooklyn native, who served on the court for 27 years until her death at age 87, was also known for her fashion — particularly, the collars she wore on top of her black robes. Many of her collars were trimmed with lace, others intricately woven with beads and jewels; some were fashioned out of neckties and seashells, while others were crochet. Each helped Ginsburg embrace a subtle, feminine statement about causes she cared about.
Now, three years after Ginsburg’s death on Erev Rosh Hashanah in 2020, photographs of 24 of the collars Ginsburg wore throughout her career are on display in a new exhibit, “RBG Collars: Photographs by Elinor Carucci,” that opened Friday at the Jewish Museum on the Upper East Side. The collars, photographed by Elinor Carucci, an Israeli photographer who has been living and working in New York since 1995, are a way of celebrating the trailblazing life and career of the Jewish justice, Carucci told the New York Jewish Week.
“I’ve never done something like this,“ said Carucci, who typically photographs people — and not objects — for publications like The New Yorker, the New York Times and New York Magazine. “The whole thing was intense, but really wonderful. It was such an honor, especially for someone that I admire so greatly. It feels like I got to document a little prism into her life.”
Ginsburg’s history with the decorative collars dates to 1993, when she was first appointed to the Supreme Court by President Bill Clinton. Alongside her colleague, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, they began wearing a version of a jabot — a lace ruffle fastened around the neck — showcasing subtle femininity to set themselves apart. Judge’s robes, after all, were designed for men, and allowed for a shirt collar and tie to peek through at the neck. As the story goes, the collars also kept them from looking washed out by their robes.
Over the years, however, Ginsburg explored options beyond the lace ruffle, and she utilized the subtlety of her collars to make statements about causes and people she cared about. One collar is made out of Hawaiian shells, gifted to Ginsburg by a third-year law student at the University of Hawai’i when Ginsburg was a justice-in-residence in 2017. Another is made out of four layers of jacquard fabric — one for each member of Ginsburg’s family, which included her late husband, Martin Ginsburg, who died in 2010, and their children Jane and James — with the words “It’s not sacrifice, it’s family,” stitched into the neckline. The phrase was one Marty Ginsburg told the New York Times when asked why he gave up his law career to move to Washington to support his wife.
A collar made out of shells and another made out of jacquard. The first was gifted to Ginsburg by a law student at the University of Hawai’i in 2017 and the second by her clerks in 2018. (Elinor Carucci)
Ginsburg often wore a black and gold jeweled collar, shining and armorlike, when she announced dissenting opinions. Similarly, she wore a yellow beaded and rose scalloped collar when she announced majority opinions.
As New York Times’ chief fashion critic Vanessa Friedman wrote in 2020 upon Ginsburg’s death, her collars “served as both semiology and semaphore: They signaled her positions before she even opened her mouth, and they represented her unique role as the second woman on the country’s highest court.”
“The idea was to claim what was a traditionally male uniform and unapologetically feminize it,” Friedman wrote. “That may seem innocuous, but it was in fact radical.”
Photographs of two of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s most iconic collars, “Majority” and “Dissent,” which she wore when announcing each respective opinion. (Elinor Carucci)
The idea to photograph the collars began as an assignment for Time Magazine, Carucci said.
In 2020, just one month after Ginsburg died, Carucci was sent to the Supreme Court, where the collars were being rolled out of Ginsburg’s chambers — which, as it happens, were no longer empty, as it was also Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s first day on the job. Today, some of the collars and other RGB memorabilia belong to a permanent exhibition in the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History.
Carrucci said she only had only six minutes to photograph each collar. “When I saw them, I started crying,” she told the New York Jewish Week. “I was already so emotional about her passing and what it meant. My husband was like, ‘Stop crying, we only have three minutes left.’”
The original article was so well received, it inspired to Carucci to put together a book of her photographs, alongside a brief history or anecdote of each collar. She enlisted writer and researcher Sara Bader (no relation) to work with her; the 222-page book, “The Collars of RBG: A Portrait of Justice” was released last month.
Carucci said one of the most surprising aspects of the project was how relatable and universal the collars are, despite belonging to one of the most recognizable women in the country. “Firstly, I appreciate that it’s not about the body,” she said. “Many times, as women, we feel that we can send messages by how we present ourselves. A lot of the time, it’s related to our bodies and our body types and it gets complicated. With these, they’re not related to the body.”
“Also, what I like is that almost every woman could wear these,” she added. “They are very ‘of the people.’ They’re accessible. The lace looks like something my grandma used to wear. They are the collection of a woman — something we could all have.”
At the Jewish Museum, the photographs of the collars are displayed alongside Judaica, amulets, necklaces and pendants in the museum’s collection. Although the collars themselves aren’t particularly Jewish, by interspersing the photographs with jewelry over the centuries, curator Shira Backer aims to showcase how Ginsburg’s accessories are part of a long tradition of Jewish tradition and adornment.
Ginsburg, according to a press release about the exhibit, “understood how adornment — particularly jewelry, given its close association with the body and its ability to express individuality in settings where possibilities for self-expression are limited — can communicate beauty and power, joy and defiance, optimism and resolve.”
“RBG Collars: Photographs by Elinor Carucci” will be on view at the Jewish Museum through May 2024. The photographs are also on display at the Edwynn Houk Gallery, which has represented Carucci’s work for the last two decades, through Feb. 10.
—
The post Fashioning feminism: A photography exhibit explores the meaning of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s collars appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
RSS
US Backs Israel’s Ban on UNRWA Gaza Aid Operations at World Court
A truck, marked with United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) logo, crosses into Egypt from Gaza, at the Rafah border crossing between Egypt and the Gaza Strip, during a temporary truce between Hamas and Israel, in Rafah, Egypt, Nov. 27, 2023. Photo: REUTERS/Amr Abdallah Dalsh
Israel cannot be forced to allow the UN Palestinian refugee agency UNRWA to operate in Gaza, the United States said on Wednesday at a World Court hearing in The Hague.
Israel last year passed a law that banned UNRWA from operating in the country, as it said the organization had employed members of Hamas who took part in the attacks on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
The UN said in August that nine UNRWA staff may have been involved in the assault and had been fired. Another Hamas commander, confirmed by UNRWA as one of its employees, was killed in Gaza in October, according to Israel.
Beyond the Israeli government, research organizations and media outlets have publicized findings showing numerous UNRWA-employed staff, including teachers and school principals, are active Hamas members, some of whom were directly involved in the Palestinian terrorist group’s Oct. 7 massacre across southern Israel, while many others openly celebrated it.
The United Nations General Assembly in December asked the UN’s top court to give an advisory opinion on Israel’s obligations to facilitate aid to Palestinians that is delivered by states and international groups, including the United Nations.
At the third day of hearings on the matter, the US said Israel had the right to determine which organizations could provide basic needs to the population of the Palestinian territories.
“An occupational power retains a margin of appreciation concerning which relief schemes to permit,” US State Department legal adviser Joshua Simmons said.
“Even if an organization offering relief is an impartial humanitarian organization, and even if it is a major actor, occupation law does not compel an occupational power to allow and facilitate that specific actor’s relief operations.”
Simmons also stressed the “serious concerns” Israel has about UNRWA‘s impartiality.
UN and Palestinian representatives at the opening of hearings on Monday had accused Israel of breaking international law by refusing to let aid into Gaza.
Since March 2, Israel has completely cut off all supplies to the 2.3 million residents of the Gaza Strip, and food stockpiled during a ceasefire at the start of the year has all but run out. Experts and Israeli officials have long that Hamas steals much of the aid to fuel its terrorist operations and sells some of the remainder to Gaza’s civilian population at an increased price.
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar said in Jerusalem on Monday that Israel had submitted its position in writing to the hearings, which he described as a “circus.”
The post US Backs Israel’s Ban on UNRWA Gaza Aid Operations at World Court first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Yom HaShoah and Harvard’s Complete Refusal to Address Hatred and Attacks on Jews
April 20, 2025, Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University and Harvard Square scenes with students and pedestrians. Photo: Kenneth Martin/ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect.
Last week Israel commemorated Yom HaShoah, the country’s Holocaust Remembrance Day.
As I stood at silent attention along with an entire country, listening to the one minute long commemorative siren and thinking of the role the Holocaust has played in our collective past, I couldn’t help but hear its haunting echoes in our present.
Harvard University recently filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, purportedly in defense of “academic freedom.” The specific “freedom” Harvard is defending is to harass, intimidate, and physically assault Jewish students with impunity, and in violation of Title VI of the Federal Civil Rights Act. Harvard now claims that the White House’s actions violate the university’s First Amendment rights. They do not.
A quick note: at RealityCheck we encourage our readers to support (and oppose) policies, rather than people. How one feels about any politician (including President Trump) should be irrelevant to one’s opinion on the safety of Jewish students, and the proper enforcement of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Here’s what you need to know to build your own, well-informed opinion.
Since October 7, 2023, Harvard University has been host to more than a year and a half of attacks on Jewish students, including: physical assaults, vandalism, harassment, demonstrations, divestment resolutions, classroom disruptions, calls for “intifada” and other death threats, and a disgraced university president who infamously testified before Congress that calling for the genocide of Jews might not be antisemitic because, “it depends on the context.”
The Trump administration has demanded that Harvard University comply with a list of requirements to ensure basic safety and equal protection for all students on campus, including: banning masks by protesters, cooperating with law enforcement, reviewing disciplinary policies, increasing accountability by those responsible for student safety, and an end to so-called “Diversity Equity and Inclusion” (DEI) programs, which for years have been used to limit Jewish and Asian admissions to Harvard (and which have been rejected by the United States Supreme Court).
Upon Harvard’s refusal to comply with its demands, the administration made good on a threat to pull $2 billion in Federal funding, with the promise of more cuts to come, as well as a request that the IRS consider revoking the university’s tax exempt status.
In its lawsuit, Harvard claims it has a First Amendment right to refuse the White House’s Title VI demands. It does not.
As a general matter, the First Amendment guarantees the right to all manner of abhorrent personal expression, including: racism, obscenity, outright lies, victim blaming and victim shaming, and even the right to oppose basic American values. However, nothing in the US Constitution obligates the American people to pay for such activities.
More specifically, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act requires that, “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
In this case, Jewish students at Harvard most certainly suffered exclusion, and were most certainly denied the benefits of a safe education, at an institution that is Federally funded to the tune of billions of US taxpayer dollars.
Harvard has objected not only that the funding cuts are illegal under the First Amendment, but also immoral because they will impact a variety of research programs that provide positive benefits to the world, including in fields like health care. Yet a long line of Supreme Court cases, following the 1974 precedent of Bob Jones University v. Johnson, disagree. These cases hold that, by choosing to violate the Civil Rights Act, a university endangers Federal funding for all of its programs, and that it is absolutely appropriate for the Federal government to use such funding as leverage to ensure compliance. In effect, the Supreme Court’s view is that it is the university, and not the White House, that is endangering its own programs: by permitting racism within its ranks, in violation of Federal funding rules.
Harvard does have a potentially successful argument that the White House did not follow certain procedural requirements, such as providing notice and an administrative hearing. However, even if successful, this argument will not prevent Federal funding cuts, but will merely require the White House to fulfill the mechanical requirements before moving forward.
Harvard’s campus newspaper has touted an open letter signed by some 100 Jewish students objecting to the White House’s demands, claiming that President Trump is causing more harm than good. However, those 100 signatures comprise only 4.6% of Harvard’s approximately 2,300 Jewish students. In other words, over 95% of Harvard’s Jewish population did not sign the letter, including students such as Shabbos Kestenbaum, who is pursuing one of several ongoing Title VI lawsuits against the university, and students like Yoav Segev and Moshe Y. Dembitzer, who were recently a part of related suits.
The case has been set for oral arguments on July 21 before US District Court Judge Allison Burroughs, an Obama appointee, who previously ruled in favor of Harvard’s racially motivated admissions policies. Judge Burroughs’ decision was subsequently overruled by the Supreme Court.
To get an idea of how Harvard’s lawsuit is likely to play out, either at the trial level or eventually on appeal, one may look to the ongoing case of Gartenberg v Cooper Union, the New York college where students attempted to hide in a library while under violent, antisemitic attack, just weeks after the massacre of October 7. In February, Judge John P. Cronan vigorously denied the college’s motion to dismiss stating, “The Court is dismayed by Cooper Union’s suggestion that the Jewish students should have hidden upstairs or left the building, or that locking the library doors was enough to discharge its obligations under Title VI. These events took place in 2023—not 1943—and Title VI places responsibility on colleges and universities to protect their Jewish students from harassment, not on those students to hide themselves away in a proverbial attic or attempt to escape from a place they have a right to be.”
I could not have said it better myself, and so I won’t attempt to: these events took place in 2023 — not 1943.
Excluding Jews from academic life through violence and intimidation, all while cloaked in the garment of arrogant moralizing, was one of the most notable hallmarks of early Nazi Germany, long before such exclusion became codified into Nazi law. Whether history will repeat itself depends on what America does next.
This year, on Yom HaShoah, “never again” must mean now.
Daniel Pomerantz is the CEO of RealityCheck, an organization dedicated to deepening public conversation through robust research studies and public speaking.
The post Yom HaShoah and Harvard’s Complete Refusal to Address Hatred and Attacks on Jews first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
My Journey at LinkedIn: Censorship, Silence, and the Cost of Speaking Up for Israel
In this photo illustration a LinkedIn logo is seen displayed on a smartphone screen with a computer keyboard in the background in Athens, Greece on January 10, 2022. Photo: by Nikolas Kokovlis/NurPhoto/Reuters
Since 2012, I have been an active member of LinkedIn. Like many professionals around the world, I saw it as a place to connect, grow, and engage with a global network. For years, that vision held true. LinkedIn was a space for ideas, innovation, and respectful dialogue.
But everything changed after the 2014 Gaza War.
The platform slowly transformed. Political discourse became more prevalent — and with it, a rising tide of anti-Israel rhetoric and antisemitism. The successful spread of Pallywood-style propaganda seeped into what was once a neutral professional environment. I began to see not just criticism of Israeli policy, but open hatred of Jews, Israelis, and Zionists.
As the founder of the NGO Time To Stand Up For Israel, I took to LinkedIn with purpose. For years, I posted three times a day — informing, educating, and reporting, often in a journalistic tone. My goal was simple: to share facts, tell stories, and create awareness. And for a while, it worked.
Until it didn’t.
Without warning, my account was deleted — silenced through mass reporting and doxing campaigns that targeted pro-Israel voices. I was not alone. Other voices supporting Israel — Jewish users, Israeli professionals, and Zionist advocates — were censored, shut down, or swept off the platform.
No appeal. No explanation. No justice.
In my case, I did contact LinkedIn — and to their credit, they responded. But they absolutely refuse to tell me why my account had been flagged or disabled. I had no chance to even have a discussion — let alone see — what content they said violated their terms of service.
My account was eventually restored, but then I ran into the same problems again. And once again, I could not have any access to LinkedIn’s decision-making or their justification for removing content.
LinkedIn, a company now owned by Microsoft, has made itself nearly untouchable. There is no easily accessible help desk. They demand highly confidential documents like a passport copy just to consider reinstatement. And even then, there’s often silence.
Meanwhile, antisemitic hate thrives. I have personally seen posts that glorify Hitler, that mock the Holocaust, that spew vile messages like — and many of these posts remain unchallenged and unremoved.
Why? Because LinkedIn is too big, too powerful, too shielded. Today, LinkedIn boasts over 1.2 billion users and monetizes its platform with high-priced subscriptions and services. Yet with all this power comes an absence of responsibility.
Many people remain largely unaware of LinkedIn’s selective censorship, its opaque processes, and its AI-driven responses that leave users powerless. Real people lose their livelihoods, businesses, and professional networks overnight — without explanation, and often without recourse.
We were told that LinkedIn was a place for professionals. For connection. For opportunity. But if speaking up for Israel gets you banned, while celebrating Hitler gets you likes, what kind of platform is this really?
And more importantly — when does it stop?
Sabine Sterk is the CEO of Time To Stand Up For Israel.
The post My Journey at LinkedIn: Censorship, Silence, and the Cost of Speaking Up for Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login