Uncategorized
How Arnold Horween, an unsung Jewish Harvard hero, changed American sports
(JTA) — Decades before Sandy Koufax sat out the first game of the 1965 World Series because it fell on Yom Kippur, and 18 years before Greenberg chased Babe Ruth’s single-season home run record in the late 1930s, a college athlete made some overlooked Jewish sports history.
Arnold Horween, a burly Chicagoan, became the first Jewish captain of the Harvard University football team in 1920 — an achievement that sent ripples through American culture.
Horween, who would later play and coach in the early years of what would become the NFL, was born to Jewish immigrants from Ukraine. He became a star player at Harvard, helping the Crimson go undefeated in both 1919 and 1920 after returning from serving in World War I. (His brother Ralph also played at Harvard and in the NFL, and they were the first and only Jewish brothers to play in the NFL until Geoff and Mitchell Schwartz.)
But it was Horween’s unanimous selection as the team’s captain, and more importantly, his appointment in 1926 as the team’s coach, that would prove unprecedented.
“In American Jewish culture, the only thing greater than being the captain of the Harvard Crimson, the only higher station in American culture might have been the president, or the coach of Harvard, which he eventually becomes,” said Zev Eleff, the president of Gratz College and a scholar of American Jewish history.
Eleff explores Horween’s story and its impact in his recent book, “Dyed in Crimson: Football, Faith, and Remaking Harvard’s America,” released earlier this year. He traces the history of Harvard athletics in the early 1900s, exploring how Horween, along with Harvard’s first athletic director, Bill Bingham, altered the landscape of America’s most prestigious college.
Horween’s ascendance came at a time when Harvard instituted quotas to limit the number of Jewish and other minority students it accepted — a practice the school would employ throughout the 1920s and 30s. His story also took place amid a political landscape that featured the rise of Father Charles Coughlin, the antisemitic “radio priest,” and the reemergence of the Ku Klux Klan.
As Eleff underscores in the book, Horween did not fit the model of a “Boston Brahmin,” the class of elite, Christian, aspirationally manly men whose supremacy was unquestioned at Harvard Yard. Horween broke that mold, instead instilling a team culture where a love of the sport was almost as important as winning — the Ted Lasso effect, if you will.
“Dyed in Crimson” also uses early 20th century Harvard as an allegory for the broader theme of how sports can change society.
“The theme of the book, something that’s uniquely American, is how the periphery can influence the mainstream,” said Eleff. “How people on the sidelines can really make an influence.”
Eleff spoke to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency about how Horween’s story fits into the pantheon of Jewish American sports legends and what it says about Jews’ ability to succeed in America.
This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Let’s dig into Horween’s story. I liked the idea of him as like an earlier version of Koufax or a Greenberg, but to be honest, I had never heard of him. Why do you think his story isn’t as well known as other Jewish athletes?
I think it has everything to do with the emergence of Major League Baseball. College football was America’s sport in the 1910s and 1920s. It was a big money sport, when there was very little money outside of the New York Yankees. And I think that Horween’s star started to sort of decline with Harvard football, but also the emergence of other sports.
The other reason is because the idea of the Jewish ballplayer loomed large. The New York Giants, for decades, tried to identify a Jewish superstar. They actually passed on Greenberg. There was a thought after Greenberg that there was Jewish DNA for baseball, and the signing of Koufax was directly linked to this notion. It was this eugenics-like link that you need a Jewish ballplayer. For the Giants, it was ticket sales. So the commotion about Greenberg and Koufax is more about Jewish identity. And baseball is, as a professional sport in New York, Queens, Brooklyn, the Bronx, different than college football, particularly in New England at this time. Frankly, Jews lived near the Polo Grounds, they didn’t live near Harvard Yard.
Arnold Horween shown in The Baltimore Sun on November 16, 1927. (Wikimedia Commons)
For Horween, obviously he’s not at the level of a Greenberg or Koufax talent-wise, but he also didn’t seem to care as much personally about his Jewish identity. You write in the book that there were some Jews who took issue with the fact that Horween was not practicing, but there were also many Jews who were simply proud he was Jewish. What do you think about that dynamic?
There becomes a sort of disconnect between lived religion and the perception and what they come to represent — the mantle that they wear almost towers above the practice. Horween eschewed the opportunity to claim the mantle of Jewish leadership, Jewish celebrity. But we do see in its moment that he is the topic of rabbinic sermons, that The American Hebrew and other Jewish press are reporting on him. They are elated. In American Jewish culture, the only thing greater than being the captain of the Harvard Crimson — it’s hard for people to realize, but in the moment when they were part of the big three [alongside Princeton and Yale] — the only higher station in American culture might have been the president, or the coach of Harvard, which he eventually becomes.
One of the parts of this book that I enjoyed learning about is the extent to which college football in the early 20th century was all about honor, masculinity, gentlemanliness. And at the time, that kind of stands in contrast to how Jews were viewed — that Jews were not masculine, Jews couldn’t fit into that mold of the “Harvard man.”
Being on the sports team, that was probably far beyond Jewish expectations. Not to say that Jews could not be athletic, but very often the varsity players weren’t picked for their talent but rather their surnames. What the sea change at Harvard is, [within] gentlemanly culture — in which “gentlemanly” is a Protestant, Christian masculinity — Horween is not Protestant. What allows him a pathway into that elite group is that drive to win. And as a player, he’s good luck. He never loses. He becomes a signature player for victory who even wins the Rose Bowl.
But as a coach, he subverts that. What he and Bill Bingham do is their campaign isn’t necessarily for winning, it’s for having fun, it’s for enjoying the game.
In the 1910s and 20s, college football was the peak of American sports, but that’s certainly not the case anymore. What do you think would be the modern comparison for someone like Horween?
Is Becky Hammon with the Spurs, the first woman [to act as] head coach in basketball, something like that? Or the very important discussions about people of color as coaches in the NFL? Sports and education are, for some reason or another, where change is made in American life. Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 ends, at least officially, segregation. Title IV, what is basically American law for anti-discrimination based on sex, is based on women’s college sports. You have the breaking down of color barriers and Jackie Robinson, Muhammad Ali and Vietnam. You have the first [openly] gay athletes, you have questions of breaking the glass ceiling for women and Serena Williams.
It’s absolutely 100% true that sports doesn’t matter. Who wins the World Series is of no great consequence to most people’s lives. Although it’s interesting, if you drive up I-95 on a Sunday, you will see that the bumper stickers and the flags change. There is some sort of passion, obviously, about sport. But it’s absolutely true that for some reason or another in the 20th century and 21st century in American sport, really important social and cultural decisions, and political decisions, are made in American sport.
Zev Eleff, president of Gratz College and author of “Dyed in Crimson.” (Courtesy)
Another main topic in the book is that the goal for immigrants, especially Jews, was Americanization, assimilation — that to become part of the mainstream was the marker of success. But that seems to be the case for Jews in a very different sense than it is for Catholics and for Blacks.
The major contribution of this book to American Jewish history beyond telling this story is to complicate notions of Americanization. Jews and Catholics in particular view Americanization very, very differently. The Catholic experience is to create parallel systems. If you’re a good Catholic boy with immense football talent, play for Notre Dame, play for Boston College. Don’t play for the Protestant mainstream. Cream them on the football field. Create parallel systems.
The Jewish experience is not so. Outside of Orthodox day schools in the early 20th century, it was anathema, it was considered almost heretical, for American Jews to [go] to private schools. To the contrary, the so-called golden citadels of the public schools — that is the agent of Americanization. Jews don’t establish their own educational systems. They somehow Americanize and acculturate into the mainstream. We don’t compete with Harvard, we get into Harvard.
Thinking about the antisemitism of that time — the quotas, Father Coughlin, all of that — how do you think that compares to what we’re seeing today?
Historians disagree about the 1920s. Was it a time of great prominence of American Jews? There was affluence in the roaring ’20s. There were institutions that were created, there was creativity, from the Orthodox and Mordecai Kaplan certainly, across the board, the Jewish Theological Seminary. American Judaism was at a certain high point in the 1920s. At the same time, there were quotas, and there was rising antisemitism. I think today we also have to deal with the tension of, on the one hand, there are great opportunities for Jews in the United States; at the same time, there is antisemitism. And so from the 1920s to the 2020s, 100 years later, you see a model for how to grapple with those tensions.
What do you hope, more than anything else, someone takes away or learns from your book?
It’s a book that begins like a punch line: a working class Protestant, a Catholic and a Jew walk into a football field. But it ends with something I think a lot more pronounced, which is, it’s a story about change. As a historian, I study change, particularly in American Judaism, broadly in American religion and Jewish Studies. Change is the best asset that a historian has to study. I wasn’t interested in just finding another Sandy Koufax story, replicating that story. This is a story that isn’t just about a Jew who happened for his moment to become quite successful and quite famous, or a Catholic or a former mill hand turned first athletic director in college history. It’s really about how people on the periphery influence the mainstream.
—
The post How Arnold Horween, an unsung Jewish Harvard hero, changed American sports appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Jewish Sites in New York City Struck With Antisemitic Graffiti as Police Report Jews Targeted in 60% of Hate Crimes
Members of the Rego Park Jewish Center flanking swastika graffiti that was sprayed on the building on Sunday, May 3, 2026. Photo: Screenshot
Jewish residents of the Queens borough of New York City were outraged on Monday following an overnight spree of vandalism which left at least four Jewish properties — private homes and synagogues — marked with the swastika and other antisemitic graffiti.
The incidents were discovered as the New York City Police Department (NYPD) released its latest figures showing that Jews continued to be the target of the majority of all hate crimes across the five boroughs last month, despite comprising a small fraction of the total population.
The perpetrators of the latest wave of vandalism struck the Rego Park Jewish Center, the Congregation Machane Chodosh, as well as two private homes late Sunday night, according to local lawmakers and Jewish leaders. Police are still searching for the suspects. At least one lead has surfaced so far in the form of surveillance footage taken by the Rego Park Jewish Center near the site of one of the crimes.
The suspects allegedly responsible for drawing swastikas outside of the Rego Park Jewish Center. pic.twitter.com/VJBGzI4EgZ
— Dean_Moses (@Dean_Moses) May 4, 2026
Meanwhile, the graffiti remains a scourge on the buildings — appearing in one case next to a memorial to German Jews who survived Kristallnacht, a November 1938 pogrom when Nazi paramilitary forces launched a coordinated nationwide attack on the German Jewish community. The vandals left no doubt regarding their allusion to that period, graffitiing “Heil Hitler” at the Rego Park location.
“When rabbis and congregants arrive to pray this morning, they expected to be met with their usual loving community. When a family woke up, they were prepared to begin an otherwise normal week. Instead, they were me with terrifying signals of hatred and threats of violence,” New York City Council Speaker Julie Menin said in a social media post which addressed the incidents. “With antisemitism on the rise here and across the globe, we will always stand up for our Jewish community and fight back against hate.”
Multiple synagogues and private homes in Queens were vandalized overnight with swastikas and other antisemitic graffiti. @Lynn4NYC, @PhilWongNYC and I are at one of the sites, Congregation Machane Chodosh, in Forest Hills now.
When rabbis and congregants arrived to pray this… pic.twitter.com/s38TXvFHQt
— Speaker Julie Menin (@SpeakerMenin) May 4, 2026
Mark Treyger, CEO of the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York, noted on social media that one of the targeted sites houses a pre-K program for young children.
“This is not normal, and we need city leaders to act NOW,” he posted.
The vandalism was discovered as the New York City Police Department (NYPD) reported on Monday the surge in antisemitic hate crimes across the city had continued unabated.
According to the newly released data, Jews were targeted in 60 percent of all confirmed hate crimes last month, despite making up just 10 percent of the city’s population.
In April, the police confirmed 30 antisemitic incidents out of 50 total hate crimes in the city. As for all reported/suspected hate crimes, 38 out of the total of 65 targeted Jews.
The NYPD had previously reported suspected, but unconfirmed, hate crime incidents. In February, the police began reporting confirmed incidents instead. And then after receiving scrutiny, the department began reporting both suspected and confirmed hate crimes in March.
Regardless of the methodology, the majority of all hate crimes in New York City this year have targeted Jews, especially the Orthodox community, continuing a surge in antisemitism that has swept the city after the start of the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza in October 2023.
In just eight days between the end of October and the beginning of November 2024, for example, three Hasidim, including children, were brutally assaulted in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn. In one instance, an Orthodox man was accosted by two assailants, one masked, who “chased and beat him” after he refused to surrender his cellphone in compliance with what appeared to have been an attempted robbery. In another incident, an African American male smacked a 13-year-old Jewish boy who was commuting to school on his bike in the heavily Jewish neighborhood. Less than a week earlier, an assailant slashed a visibly Jewish man in the face as he was walking in Brooklyn.
In November, just days after the election of Zohran Mamdani as mayor of New York City, hundreds of people amassed outside a prominent synagogue and clamored for violence against Jews.
“We don’t want no Zionists here!” the group chanted in intervals while waving the Palestinian flag outside the Park East Synagogue in the Upper East Side section of the borough of Manhattan. “Resistance, you make us proud, take another settler out.”
Mamdani has dismantled key parts of the civil rights architecture his predecessor built to combat antisemitism in the city. Former Mayor Eric Adams adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, enforced a ban on awarding government money to adherents of the movement to boycott Israel, and established as a governing principle the idea that Zionism is central to Jewish peoplehood even as it remains a target of antisemitic activism.
“The connection between Jewish identity and the Land of Israel is not political preference but religious and cultural foundation extending back millennia,” Adams said in one of his final communications as mayor. “The practical consequence of anti-Zionist rhetoric is the dehumanization of Zionists (the vast majority of Jewish people) and the dehumanization of all Jewish people. When Zionism itself is characterized as racist or illegitimate, Jewish people become targets for hostility and violence. This dynamic helps explain why attacks on Israel’s legitimacy correlate with increased antisemitic incidents in the diaspora, targeting all Jewish people regardless of their politics.”
The change in New York City’s climate since Mamdani’s election is palpable, Jewish advocacy groups have said. One his first day in office in January, he voided the city government’s adoption of the IHRA definition, lifted the ban on contracts with companies boycotting Israel, and modified key provisions of an executive order directing law enforcement to monitor anti-Israel protests held near synagogues.
“Mayor Mamdani pledged to build an inclusive New York and combat all forms of hate, including antisemitism,” a coalition of leading Jewish groups said in a statement addressing the new administration. “But when the new administration hit reset on many of Mayor Adams’ executive orders, it reversed … significant protections against antisemitism.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
Uncategorized
Venice Biennale Jury Resigns Amid Israel, Russia Controversy; Organizers Announce New Awards, Ceremony
A poster for the 61st Venice Biennale running from May 9 to November 22. Photo: IMAGO/Frank Ossenbrink via Reuters Connect
The jury for the 2026 Venice Biennale announced their resignation mere days before the 61st edition of the show is set to open to the public on May 9.
The move comes after the five members of the jury, which selects the winners for the exhibition’s top prizes, said on April 22 that they would not consider giving awards to artists from countries accused by the International Criminal Court (ICC) of crimes against humanity, which include Israel and Russia. Both countries are participating in this year’s Venice Biennale, a fact that has caused controversy in light of the Israel-Hamas war and the Russia-Ukraine war.
The ICC issued an arrest warrant in 2023 for Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has been accused of war crimes in Ukraine, and an arrest warrant in 2024 for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu due to his country’s military actions in the Gaza Strip during its war against Hamas terrorists. Israel, which launched its military campaign in response to Hamas’s invasion and massacre of Israelis on Oct. 7, 2023, has strongly denied the ICC’s allegations, with officials saying the Israeli military has gone to unprecedented lengths to try and avoid civilian casualties.
“As of April 30, 2026, we, the international jury selected by Koyo Kouoh, artistic director of the 61st edition of La Biennale di Venezia ‘In Minor Keys,’ have resigned,” the jurors said in a released statement. “We do so in acknowledgment of our Statement of Intention issued on 22 April 2026.” No further information was provided regarding the resignation.
The Venice Biennale did not respond to The Algemeiner‘s request for comment about the decision but acknowledged the jury’s resignation in a released statement on April 30. Organizers announced in a separate statement that the event’s awards ceremony will be moved from May 9 to Nov. 22, which is the last day of the show. The decision to reschedule the awards ceremony was made in light of the jury’s resignation “as well as the exceptional nature of the current international geopolitical situation,” the Venice Biennale said.
The jury for the Venice Biennale typically selects the winners for the highly coveted Golden and Silver Lion prizes. With no jury this year, the Venice Biennale said it will instead establish two “Visitors’ Lions” awards. Visitors will be able to vote for “the Best Participant in the 61st Exhibition ‘In Minor Keys’ by Koyo Kouoh” and “the Best National Participation in the 61st Exhibition.”
Each Venice Biennale ticket holder who visited both of the exhibition’s venues during this year’s show will be eligible to cast one vote for each of the two new awards. All participants n the 2026 Venice Biennale, including those from Israel, will be eligible for the Visitors’ Lion award for Best National Participation “following the principle of inclusion and equal treatment among all participants.”
“This is consistent with the founding spirit of La Biennale, based on openness, dialogue, and the rejection of any form of closure or censorship,” organizers said. “La Biennale seeks to be — and must remain — a place of truce in the name of art, culture, and artistic freedom.”
An open letter calling for Israel to be banned from the 61st Venice Biennale exhibition was published in March and signed by 178 Biennale participants. Romanian artist Belu-Simion Fainaru is representing Israel in this year’s show and recently criticized the jury’s April 22 decision not to consider awarding artists from the country.
Because of backlash over Russia’s participation, the Venice Biennale announced on April 28 that the Russian Pavilion in this year’s show will be only open to the public during the four-day preview. The European Union has already decided to withdraw $2.3 million in funding from the Venice Biennale because of Russia’s inclusion this year.
Uncategorized
All Major Jewish Organizations in Norway Criticize Holocaust Center for Repeatedly ‘Relativizing the Holocaust’
A drone view of the “Arbeit macht frei” gate at the former Auschwitz concentration camp ahead of the 80th anniversary of its liberation, Oswiecim, Poland, Jan. 10, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Kacper Pempel
Representatives from the largest Jewish organizations in Norway collectively published an open letter on Monday that accused the Norwegian Center for Studies of Holocaust and Religious Minorities (HL-Center) of repeatedly “relativizing the Holocaust.”
The open letter, which addressed the board and director of the HL-Center, accused the institution of using the Holocaust “in direct or indirect connection with the wars in the Middle East and other historical events.” The signatories noted that for “several years” there have been “repeated incidents” of the institution promoting “Holocaust revitalization.”
“When the Holocaust is systematically placed in parallel with other conflicts, there is a risk of relativizing its unique historical status. Over time, we have come to view this not as isolated judgments, but as a pattern,” wrote those representing the majority of Jewish life in Norway. They called on the HL-Center to “exercise far greater scholarly and institutional caution in how the Holocaust is discussed and contextualized.”
On April 30, the HL-Center hosted an event that drew parallels between the Holocaust and the Palestinian “Nakba” and how “they have functioned as competing cultural traumas.” “Nakba,” the Arabic term for “catastrophe,” is used by Palestinians and anti-Israel activists to refer to the establishment of the modern state of Israel in 1948.
Israel’s Embassy in Norway said the center’s decision to host the event was a “grotesque distortion of Holocaust memory.”
The open letter on Monday mentioned the April 30 event and also expressed concerns by Norway’s Jewish community about an upcoming event on June 3, titled “Holocaust Memorial after Gaza,” which will discuss Holocaust remembrance in relation to contemporary politics, specifically the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza.
“We wish to emphasize that it is both legitimate and necessary to acknowledge the suffering of civilians in armed conflicts, including the experiences of Palestinians after 1948,” Jewish community leaders wrote in the open letter, before noting “this is a subject that can be addressed without bringing the Holocaust into it.”
“A more natural parallel would be the consequences for the more than 1 million Jews who suffered in, and were forced to flee from, Arab countries after the establishment of Israel,” they added. “It is essential to maintain that the Holocaust represents a historical event without parallel: an industrial, ideologically driven genocide whose aim was the total extermination of the Jewish people.”
The letter was signed by B’nai B’rith Norway Lodge, The National Council for Jewish Communities in Norway, Kos & Kaos The Nordic Jewish Network, Chabad Lubavitch of Norway, Det Mosaiske Trossamfund (congregation) in Oslo, The Jewish Community of Trondheim, and The Jewish Community of Bergen, as well as The Jewish Community of Norway.
The groups asked the HL-Center board to issue a clarification about its role and mandate, “particularly with regard to comparisons between the Holocaust and contemporary conflicts.” They also want the center to establish clear guidelines about how its leadership and events will reflect “ongoing political conflicts,” most likely referring to the Israel-Hamas war.
“We expect the board to take this communication seriously. Our goal is to ensure that the HL Center remains a unifying and academically credible institution — also for the Jewish minority it was founded to protect and serve,” they noted. “We also wish to remind you of several previous communications concerning this matter, including the open letter from descendants of Holocaust victims and B’nai B’rith’s thorough report on the shortcomings we are again raising here. None of these has been answered in a satisfactory manner.”
Representatives from Norway’s major Jewish organizations said they previously reached out to the board of the HL-Center with their concerns regarding Holocaust trivialization, the director’s public statements, the center’s role in political conflicts, and how “Holocaust memory has been connected to contemporary wars during central commemorative events” at the center. Their concerns “appear to have led to little change,” they noted.
“The center has a particular responsibility to preserve the memory of the millions of Jews who were murdered, and to ensure that this memory is not relativized or instrumentalized for political purposes,” they added, after pointing out that the institution was established partially with funds from a restitution settlement following the liquidation of Jewish property during the Holocaust.
“The point is not to preclude criticism of Israeli policy, but to make clear how easily such parallels can contribute to trivializing the particular character of the Holocaust, and that such rhetoric can contribute to increased antisemitism,” the open letter pointed out.
Norway is a part of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). According to the IHRA definition of antisemitism, drawing a comparison between Israel and the Nazis is a contemporary example of antisemitism.