Connect with us

Uncategorized

Henry Rosovsky, refugee from the Nazis who shaped Harvard University, dies at 95

BOSTON (JTA) — When Harvard University’s rabbi first pushed to relocate the Hillel from the outskirts of campus to its center, Henry Rosovsky was initially skeptical.

“He was absolutely right. I was wrong,” Rosovsky told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency in 2017, at a 25th anniversary party for the Hillel building that bears his name: Rosovsky Hall.

The event was also a 90th birthday party for Rosovsky, an economist who almost all of his career at Harvard, spanning decades in which he influenced the school’s curriculum, led a committee charged with improving conditions for Black students and shepherded the flourishing of Jewish life on campus.

Rosovsky died Nov. 11 at his home in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where he lived and worked since joining the Harvard faculty in 1965. He was 95.

“His legacy continues to influence the experience of every person on our campus today,” Harvard President Lawrence Bacow, who is Jewish, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “With his passing, Harvard has lost one of its greatest champions and its finest citizens.”

At his funeral at Temple Israel of Boston, Rosovsky was remembered by family, colleagues and friends for his brilliance, witty humor, love of tennis and jazz, and his sage advice and mentorship.

His daughter, Leah Rosovsky, said her father took his greatest satisfaction in the role he played in establishing what is now Harvard’s African and African American Studies Program and recruiting its longtime chair, historian Henry Louis Gates Jr., who attended the funeral.

Born in a Jewish family on Sept. 1, 1927 in what is now Gdansk, Poland, Rosovsky immigrated to the United States with his parents and brother in 1940, after escaping the Nazis through France, Portugal, Spain and Belgium. He volunteered for the U.S. Army in World War II and also served in the Korean War, according to an obituary published by Harvard. After graduating from the College of William and Mary, he arrived at Harvard for the first time in 1949 to pursue a doctorate in economics.

In 1965, he returned as a professor of economics, with a specialty in Japanese and Asian economic development. He would stay at the university for the rest of his career, shaping not only the Ivy League college but Boston’s Jewish community.

As dean of Harvard’s College of Arts and Sciences from 1973 to 1991, Rosovsky led implementation of the school’s groundbreaking core curriculum. He also served two terms as Harvard’s acting president; was appointed a member of the Harvard Corporation, where he was the first Jew on the school’s governing body; and oversaw the establishment of Harvard’s Center for Jewish Studies.

In 1969, with student unrest spurring changes at many universities, Rosovsky led a committee to study the experience of Black students at Harvard. The resulting “Rosovsky report” urged the creation of a standalone department for African and African American studies and other steps to integrate and empower Black students. Rosovsky quit the committee after students were given equal say, a move that he said should have taken place only after careful study. He resumed his involvement shortly before his retirement in the 1990s, recruiting high-profile scholars including Gates to transform the department into an academic powerhouse.

Rosovsky’s 1990 book “The University: An Owner’s Manual,” exposed outsiders to the complex operations of a research university. But the former dean was equally helpful to university insiders, Bacow said, noting the time Rosovsky devoted to doling out advice to college presidents. Several of Harvard’s presidents, including Drew Gilpin Faust, Lawrence H. Summers and Neil Rudenstine, echoed that sentiment in published remarks at the celebration of his 90th birthday.

His reach extended beyond Harvard, too. As chair of the Boston Jewish federation’s strategic planning committee in the 1990s, Rosovsky shared his analytical expertise and his ability to bring people together to help chart a course for Boston’s Jewish community, according to Barry Shrage, who for decades led the Combined Jewish Philanthropies of Greater Boston.

“It was a turning point in terms of Jewish learning, adult Jewish education, building community at the grassroots and engaging synagogues,” Shrage told JTA in a conversation at the funeral. “It all emerged in the strategic plan.”

Shrage added, “He was a secular Jew but his Jewish identity deeply influenced his vision of the world.”

Rosovsky is survived by Nitza, his wife of 66 years and a former longtime curator of the Semitic Museum at Harvard; his children, Leah, Judy and Michael and their spouses; four grandchildren; and one great-granddaughter.

“He didn’t set out to trumpet his own Jewish identity,” Rabbi Jonah Steinberg, Harvard Hillel’s executive director, told JTA in 2017 about Rosovsky. “By being very honestly who they are, they were an example to others.”


The post Henry Rosovsky, refugee from the Nazis who shaped Harvard University, dies at 95 appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Volatility, Hit Frequency, and RTP: Why the Number Casinos Advertise Is the Least Useful One

The return to player percentage looks clean as a casino data point. It gives players a neat number, usually around 94% to 97% for many online slots, and that number feels easy to compare. A 96.5% game appears better than a 95.2% game. The problem starts when players treat RTP as a forecast for their next 50 spins or one evening.

You may find the RTP listed on slot pages on a leading online casino in Ontario, but the number only tells part of the story. Two games can share the same RTP and create different sessions: one may return small wins often, while the other may drain a balance before one bonus round changes everything.

The RTP Trap

Return to player (RTP) measures the theoretical share of total wagers a game returns across a very large number of rounds. In plain terms, a 96% RTP slot returns about $96 for every $100 wagered in the long run. That does not mean one player who deposits $100 should expect $96 back.

The trap sits in the word “theoretical.” RTP comes from the game’s math model. It works across huge samples, not personal sessions. A player can finish far above that percentage, far below it, or with nothing left after a short run of poor results.

Is it useless then? No, RTP can still help. It gives a baseline cost of play. Lower-RTP games cost more on average than higher-RTP games. Still, once a game passes a reasonable threshold, the next question matters more: how does it distribute that return?

Hit Frequency: The Number That Shapes Session Feel

Hit frequency tells you how often a game produces a winning outcome. This often misleads players because any win can count. A spin that returns $0.10 on a $1 bet may still count as a hit, even though the player lost $0.90 in real terms.

A game can feel active because symbols connect often, sounds play, and the screen keeps celebrating small returns. The balance may still fall. In many modern slots, “win” does not always mean profit on the spin.

Hit frequency answers one practical question: how much silence can you tolerate? Some players dislike long dry spells. Others accept quieter sessions because they chase bonus rounds or larger payouts.

The educational site Get Gambling Facts gives a useful distinction: RTP concerns the percentage of money returned over time, while hit frequency concerns how often a machine stops on a winning combination.

Volatility: The Risk Label Players Need More Often

Volatility, also called variance, describes how unevenly a game pays. Low-volatility games tend to return smaller amounts more often. High-volatility games hold more value in rare events: bonus rounds, premium symbols, multipliers, or jackpots.

Here is where RTP becomes less useful on its own:

  • A 96% low-volatility slot may give modest returns and longer play from the same balance.
  • A 96% high-volatility slot may burn through funds quickly unless the player hits a strong feature.
  • A progressive jackpot game may look exciting, but it often places more value on rare top prizes.

The same RTP can hide very different risk profiles. Players who ignore volatility often blame the casino or the game when the session follows its math design.

Why the Same RTP Can Feel So Different

Picture two slots with 96% RTP. Slot A pays small wins on many spins, has a modest top prize, and rarely creates dramatic balance swings. Slot B pays less often but offers a large max win and volatile bonus rounds. The advertised return matches, but the experience does not.

Slot A may suit a player who wants a slower bankroll drop and more regular feedback. Slot B suits someone who accepts sharper losses in exchange for a shot at a heavier payout.

A Better Way to Read a Slot Page

Most slot pages give players more clues than they notice. The trick is to read the details together rather than chase the highest percentage.

Start with RTP. If two games look similar, the higher number has better long-term value. Then check volatility. If the game uses terms such as high, very high, or extreme variance, lower your bet size or expect shorter sessions. Next, look at the paytable. A huge max win usually means the game saves a lot of its value for rare outcomes.

A sensible pre-play check looks like this:

  • RTP: What is the average long-term return?
  • Volatility: How rough can the session become?
  • Hit frequency: How often will the game show any wins?
  • Paytable: Where does most value sit?

To Conclude

Casinos advertise RTP because it looks objective, tidy, and easy to rank. Players should read it, but they should not give it more authority than it deserves. For long sessions, volatility may matter more than a small RTP difference. For comfort, hit frequency may explain the feel better than the payback rate.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Lahmeyer, pastor who says Antichrist will be Jewish, heads to Oklahoma GOP runoff

(JTA) — Jackson Lahmeyer, a pastor who supports Israel and believes the Antichrist will be Jewish, is headed to a runoff in his district’s Oklahoma congressional primary.

The Donald Trump-backed Lahmeyer will face off against Mark Tedford, a member of the state House of Representatives from Tulsa, in the August runoff to decide who will be the Republican candidate for Congress in Oklahoma’s 1st Congressional District.

The runoff will pit candidates with two very different approaches to politics, and Israel, against each other at a time when the Republican Party is divided on multiple lines. Lahmeyer is part of Trump’s MAGA movement, while Tedford is a more traditional conservative. Both men promote a hard line on immigration, but Lahmeyer’s rhetoric has been peppered with incendiary claims about efforts by Muslims to establish “sharia law” in the United States.

While both competitors are also evangelical Christians with training in ministry, Lahmeyer works as a pastor and preaches an end-times theology that includes an Antichrist with Jewish heritage. Lahmeyer is also a vocal supporter of Israel, in keeping with his Christian Nationalist outlook, while Tedford has made few if any public comments about Israel or the war in Gaza.

The two candidates pulled far ahead of the pack in Tuesday’s crowded primary, which attracted 11 candidates to fill an open seat. Tedford received 32.1% of the votes, and Lahmeyer drew 25.9%, according to the Oklahoma State Election Board.

Lahmeyer had been seen as a favorite, but his star fell in the days before the election amid revelations that he had been unfaithful to his wife. (He said the episode, which he confirmed, was a private matter and in the past, and Trump reaffirmed his endorsement following the revelation.)

Few if any of the nine candidates who did not make the runoff are part of the MAGA movement, suggesting that Tedford could see more of their supporters turn to him in November.

“We need everyone who came out today to keep fighting until we succeed,” Lahmeyer said in a statement to local media. “Let’s send a Trump-endorsed warrior to fight for Oklahoma values in Congress.”

The district is solidly red, virtually assuring the primary winner of victory in November. The Democratic candidate, John Croisant, is a Tulsa school board member who has not spoken publicly about Israel or Gaza, issues that are occupying some Democrats.

This article originally appeared on JTA.org.

The post Lahmeyer, pastor who says Antichrist will be Jewish, heads to Oklahoma GOP runoff appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Democratic socialist whose Israel criticism ignited Jewish leaders’ concern leads D.C. mayoral primary vote

(JTA) — A democratic socialist who has sharply criticized Israel and pledged to defend Jews from antisemitism is in the lead in Tuesday’s Democratic primary for mayor in Washington, D.C., poising the nation’s capital to elect a progressive leader.

Janeese Lewis George, a D.C. Council member, had received just over half of the 65% of votes that had been counted by Wednesday morning. Kenyan McDuffie, a moderate and former City Council member, was in a distant second place.

The election is D.C.’s first using ranked-choice voting, so it could take some time to reach a final tabulation and the results could change. Still, the early results have ignited optimism among Lewis George’s supporters — and concern among her critics, who include Jewish leaders in the city and beyond.

Some Jewish leaders have criticized Lewis George, who has accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza, for vowing if elected not to attend “events focused on obfuscating the realities of occupation or promoting Zionism and apartheid” or join “political junkets to Israel.” She made those promises in responses to a questionnaire from the Metro D.C. Democratic Socialists of America, which subsequently endorsed her.

The race set up a fight over the future of Washington, D.C., where the vast majority of voters are Democrats and the threat of President Donald Trump’s interference in city affairs loomed large over the ballot box. The winner is heavily favored to win the general election in November and succeed Democratic Mayor Muriel E. Bowser, who is retiring after 12 years in office.

It also has fueled a national discourse about the growing viability of far-left, anti-Israel politicians in local politics. Some have likened Lewis George to Zohran Mamdani, the democratic socialist elected mayor in New York City last year. A left-wing candidate is also poised to potentially become mayor of Los Angeles, while Chicago has had a progressive Democrat who is sharply critical of Israel since 2023.

The Wall Street Journal said ahead of the D.C. primary that the city was facing “a Mamdani moment” — a sharp critique from the paper’s conservative editorial board.

The leader of Our Revolution, a progressive group founded by Sen. Bernie Sanders, also embraced the comparison, telling USA Today that the success of left-wing candidates including Lewis George and Mamdani showed that voters want change.

Lewis George’s platform focuses largely on making D.C. more affordable. But controversy dogged her after her DSA questionnaire was published.

Ron Halber, head of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington, told The Washington Post that the questionnaire raised “a lot of concern about whether an administration of hers would be sensitive to the Jewish community or not.”

Lewis George said in the DSA questionnaire that she would continue to meet with people and organizations that do not share all her values and opinions. She referenced a meeting she attended that was hosted by the JCRC, saying she disagreed with the group’s “opposition to using the word ‘genocide’ to describe Israel’s actions in Gaza” as well as “their definition of anti-semitism that criminalizes dissent, and their attacks on activists” but could also see areas of shared interest.

“I went to the event to advocate for an end to ICE collaboration, seek allies in that effort, and build on our shared goal of ending the inhumane treatment of our neighbors who are being taken by ICE,” she said.

Lewis George was endorsed by the Jews United for Justice Campaign Fund, which says it promotes economic, social and racial justice. The group said in its endorsement announcement that Lewis George would “fight for our communities and our Jewish values.”

After blowback to the DSA questionnaire, Lewis George privately met with local rabbis and Jewish community leaders in March to hear their concerns, according to Jewish Insider. Shortly after, she said in a statement on her campaign website that her “support for Palestinian human rights” and her “commitment against antisemitism” were not in conflict.

She added, “To the Jewish community in DC: I will not be a mayor who includes or excludes you based on your opinions or feelings on matters here and across the world. I will always protect your freedom, safety, and sense of belonging.”

Lewis George also said she had visited synagogues since she was in middle school and frequently worked with Jewish organizations as a council member, including to obtain security grants for synagogues and schools.

She went on to list her credentials as a supporter of Palestinians, saying that she was among the first Council members to call for a ceasefire in Gaza and meet with George Washington University students advocating for a ceasefire.

The DSA strongly opposes the Israeli government and requires candidates to share their views on Israel to secure an endorsement. While the party remains controversial in the Democratic establishment, Democrats nationwide have shifted their sympathies away from Israel since 2023, with 65% saying their sympathies lie more with the Palestinians in a February Gallup poll.

McDuffie criticized Lewis George’s answers to the DSA questionnaire and said there was “no place in this city for shutting out any community,” according to Washington Jewish Week. But he has largely avoided weighing in on questions about Israel, telling Jewish Insider that it was not the mayor’s role to craft foreign policy.

The Middle East receded to the background in the closing days of the mayoral race, which focused heavily on high costs of living in the district and fighting the Trump administration. Lewis George and McDuffie both argued they were better equipped to block interference from the federal government, as National Guard troops continue to patrol the streets amid Trump’s crackdown on immigration and tens of thousands of residents have lost their government jobs.

Meanwhile, Trump threatened at the Oval Office on Thursday to “take back” Washington and “run it on the federal basis” if Lewis George won.

The Tuesday primary used ranked-choice voting, which allows voters to rank up to five candidates. If no candidate reaches 50%, the last-place finisher is removed and voters for that candidate have their votes distributed among their second choice candidates. The process continues until one candidate has a majority. This voting method means that a final tally of results can take days after polls close.

This article originally appeared on JTA.org.

The post Democratic socialist whose Israel criticism ignited Jewish leaders’ concern leads D.C. mayoral primary vote appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News