Uncategorized
Letty Cottin Pogrebin wants Jews to own up to the corrosive power of shame
(JTA) — When a lawyer for Donald Trump asked E. Jean Carroll why she didn’t scream while allegedly being raped by Donald Trump, I thought of Letty Cottin Pogrebin. In her latest book, “Shanda: A Memoir of Shame and Secrecy,” she writes about being assaulted by a famous poet — and how the shadow of shame kept women like her silent about attacks on their own bodies.
That incident in 1962, she writes, was “fifty-eight years before the #MeToo movement provided the sisterhood and solidarity that made survivors of abuse and rape feel safe enough to tell their stories.”
Now 83, Pogrebin could have coasted with a memoir celebrating her six decades as a leading feminist: She co-founded Ms. magazine, its Foundation for Women and the National Women’s Political Caucus. She served as president of Americans for Peace Now and in 1982 blew the whistle on antisemitism in the feminist movement.
Instead, “Shanda” is about her immigrant Jewish family and the secrets they carried through their lives. First marriages that were kept hidden. An unacknowledged half-sister. Money problems and domestic abuse. An uncle banished for sharing family dirt in public.
“My mania around secrecy and shame was sparked in 1951 by the discovery that my parents had concealed from me the truth about their personal histories, and every member of my large extended family, on both sides, was in on it,” writes Pogrebin, now 83. “Their need to avoid scandal was so compelling that, once identified, it provided the lens through which I could see my family with fresh eyes, spotlight their fears, and, in so doing, illuminate my own.”
“Shanda” (the Yiddish word describes the kind of behavior that brings shame on an entire family or even a people) is also a portrait of immigrant New York Jews in the 20th century. As her father and mother father move up in the world and leave their Yiddish-speaking, Old World families behind for new lives in the Bronx and Queens, they stand in for a generation of Jews and new Americans “bent on saving face and determined to be, if not exemplary, at least impeccably respectable.”
Pogrebin and I spoke last week ahead of the Eight Over Eighty Gala on May 31, where she will be honored with a group that includes another Jewish feminist icon, the writer Erica Jong, and musician Eve Queler, who founded her own ensemble, the Opera Orchestra of New York, when she wasn’t being given chances to conduct in the male-dominated world of classical music. The gala is a fundraiser for the New Jewish Home, a healthcare nonprofit serving older New Yorkers.
Pogrebin and I spoke about shame and how it plays out in public and private, from rape accusations against a former president to her regrets over how she wrote about her own abortions to how the Bible justifies family trickery.
Our conversation was edited for length and clarity.
I found your book very moving because my parents’ generation, who like your family were middle-class Jews who grew up or lived in the New York metropolitan area, are also all gone now. Your book brought back to me that world of aunts and uncles and cousins, and kids like us who couldn’t imagine what kinds of secrets and traumas our parents and relatives were hiding. But you went back and asked all the questions that many of us are afraid to ask.
I can’t tell you how good writing it has been. I feel as though I have no weight on my back. And people who have read it gained such comfort from the normalization that happens when you read that others have been through what you’ve been through. And my family secrets are so varied — just one right after the other. The chameleon-like behavior of that generation — they became who they wanted to be through pretense or actual accomplishment.
In my mother’s case, pretense led the way. She went and got a studio photo that made it look like she graduated from high school when she didn’t. In the eighth grade, she went up to her uncle’s house in the north Bronx and had her dates pick her up there because of the shanda of where she lived on the Lower East Side with nine people in three rooms. She had to imagine herself the child of her uncle, who didn’t have an accent or had an accent but at least spoke English.
You describe yours as “an immigrant family torn between loyalty to their own kind and longing for American acceptance.”
There was the feeling that, “If only we could measure up, we would be real Americans.” My mother was a sewing machine operator who became a designer and figured out what American women wore when she came from rags and cardboard shoes, in steerage. So I admire them. As much as I was discomforted by the lies, I ended up having compassion for them.
It’s also a story of thwarted women, and all that lost potential of a generation in which few could contemplate a college degree or a career outside the home. Your mother worked for a time as a junior designer for Hattie Carnegie, a sort of Donna Karan of her day, but abandoned that after she met your dad and became, as you write, “Mrs. Jack Cottin.”
The powerlessness of women was complicated in the 1950s by the demands of the masculine Jewish ideal. So having a wife who didn’t work was proof that you were a man who could provide. As a result women sacrificed their own aspirations and passions. She protected her husband’s image by not pursuing her life outside the home. In a way my feminism is a positive, like a photograph, to the negative of my mother’s 1950s womanhood.
“I’m not an optimist. I call myself a ‘cockeyed strategist,” said Pogrebin, who has a home on the Upper West Side. (Mike Lovett)
You write that you “think of shame and secrecy as quintessentially Jewish issues.” What were the Jewish pressures that inspired your parents to tell so many stories that weren’t true?
Think about what we did. We hid behind our names. We changed our names. We sloughed off our accents. My mother learned to make My*T*Fine pudding instead of gefilte fish. Shame and secrecy have always been intrinsically Jewish to me, because of the “sha!” factor: At every supper party, there would be the moment when somebody would say, “Sha! We don’t talk about that!” So even though we talked about what felt like everything, there were things that couldn’t be touched: illness, the C-word [cancer]. If you wanted to make a shidduch [wedding match] with another family in the insular communities in which Jews lived, you couldn’t let it be known that there was cancer in the family, or mental illness.
While I was writing this memoir, I realized that the [Torah portion] I’m listening to one Shabbat morning is all about hiding. It is Jacob finding out that he didn’t marry Rachel, after all, but married somebody he didn’t love. All of the hiding that I took for granted in the Bible stories and I was raised on like mother’s milk was formative. They justified pretense, and they justified trickery. Rebecca lied to her husband and presented her younger son Jacob for the blessing because God told her, because it was for the greater good of the future the Jewish people.
I think Jews felt that same sort of way when it came to surviving. So we can get rid of our names. We wouldn’t have survived, whether we were hiding in a forest or behind a cabinet, a name or a passport, or [pushed into hiding] with [forced] conversions. Hiding was survival.
I was reading your book just as the E. Jean Carroll verdict came down, holding Donald Trump liable for sexually assaulting her during an encounter in the mid-’90s. You write how in 1962, when you were working as a book publicist, the hard-drinking Irish poet Brendan Behan (who died in 1964) tried to rape you in a hotel room and you didn’t report it. Like Carroll, you didn’t think that it was something that could be reported because the cost was too high.
Certainly in that era powerful men could get away with horrible behavior because of shanda reasons.
Carroll said in her court testimony, “It was shameful to go to the police.”
You know that it happened to so many others and nobody paid the price. The man’s reputation was intact and we kept our jobs because we sacrificed our dignity and our truth. I was in a career, and I really was supporting myself. I couldn’t afford to lose my job. I would have been pilloried for having gone to his hotel room, and nobody was there when he picked up an ashtray and threatened to break the window of the Chelsea Hotel unless I went up there with him.The cards were stacked against me.
In “Shanda,” you write about another kind of shame: The shame you now feel decades later about how you described the incident in your first book. You regret “how blithely I transformed an aggravated assault by a powerful man into a ‘sticky sexual encounter.’”
I wrote about the incident in such offhand terms, and wonder why. I wrote, basically, “Okay, girls, you’re gonna have to put up with this, but you’re gonna have to find your own magical sentence like I had with Behan” to get him to stop.
You write that you said, “You can’t do this to me! I’m a nice Jewish girl!” And that got him to back off.
Really painful.
I think that’s a powerful aspect of your book — how you look back at the ways you let down the movement or your family or friends and now regret. In 1991 you wrote a New York Times essay about an illegal abortion you had as a college senior in 1958, but not the second one you had only a few months later. While you were urging women to tell their stories of abortion, you note how a different shame kept you from telling the whole truth.
Jewish girls could be, you know, plain or ordinary, but they had to be smart, and I had been stupid. I could out myself as one of the many millions of women who had an abortion but not as a Jewish girl who made the same mistake [of getting pregnant] twice.
The book was written before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. In the book you write powerfully about the shame, danger and loneliness among women when abortion was illegal, and now, after 50 years, it is happening again. Having been very much part of the generation of activists that saw Roe become the law of the land, how have you processed its demise?
Since the 1970s, we thought everything was happening in this proper linear way. We got legislation passed, we had litigation and we won, and we saw the percentage of women’s participation in the workplace all across professions and trades and everything else rise and rise. And then Ronald Reagan was elected and then there was the Moral Majority and then it was the Hyde Amendment [barring the use of federal funds to pay for abortion]. I was sideswiped because I think I was naive enough to imagine that once we articulated what feminism was driving at and why women’s rights were important, and how the economic reality of families and discrimination against women weren’t just women’s issues, people would internalize it and understand it and justice would be done.
In the case of Roe, we could not imagine that rights could ever be taken away. We didn’t do something that we should have done, which is to have outed ourselves in a big way. It’s not enough that abortion was legal. We allowed it to remain stigmatized. We allowed the right wing to create their own valence around it. That negated solidarity. If we had talked about abortion as healthcare, if we had had our stories published and created organizations around remembering what it was like and people telling their stories about when abortion was illegal and dangerous…. Instead we allowed the religious right to prioritize [fetal] cells over a woman’s life. We just were not truthful with each other, so we didn’t create solidarity.
Are you heartened by the backlash against restrictive new laws in red states or optimistic that the next wave of activism can reclaim the right to abortion?
I’m not an optimist. I call myself a “cockeyed strategist.” If you look at my long resume, it is all about organizing: Ms. magazine, feminist organizations, women’s foundations, Black-Jewish dialogues, Torah study groups and Palestinian-Jewish dialogues.
Number one, we have to own the data and reframe the narrative. We have to open channels for discussion for women who have either had one or know someone who has had one, even in religious Catholic families. The state-by-state strategy was really slow, but Ruth Bader Ginsburg wanted that. She almost didn’t get on the court because she didn’t like the nationwide, right-to-privacy strategy of Roe but instead wanted it won state by state, which would have required campaigns of acceptance and consciousness-raising.
So, the irony is she hasn’t lived to see that we’re going to have to do it her way.
You share a lot of family secrets in this book. Is this a book that you waited to write until, I’ll try to put this gently, most of the people had died?
I started this book when I was 78 years old, and there’s always a connection to my major birthdays. And turning 80 – you experience that number and it is so weird. It doesn’t describe me and it probably won’t describe you. I thought, this could well be my last book, so I needed to be completely transparent, put it all out there.
My mother and father and aunts and uncles were gone, but I have 24 cousins altogether. I went to my cousins, and told them I am going to write about the secret of your parents: It’s my uncle, but it’s your father. It’s your family story even though it’s my family, but it’s yours first. And every cousin, uniformly, said, “Are you kidding? You don’t even know the half of it,” and they’d tell me the whole story. I guess people want the truth out in the end.
Is that an aspect of getting older?
I think it’s a promise of liberation, which is what I have found. It’s this experience of being free from anything that I’ve hid. I don’t have to hide. Years ago, on our 35th wedding anniversary, we took our whole family to the Tenement Museum because we wanted them to see how far we’ve come in two generations.
—
The post Letty Cottin Pogrebin wants Jews to own up to the corrosive power of shame appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Gal Gadot’s $1 Million Genesis Prize to Be Doubled to Help Israelis With Trauma Post-Oct. 7
Actor Gal Gadot gestures during the unveiling ceremony for her star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame in Los Angeles, California, US, March 18, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Mario Anzuoni
The Genesis Prize Foundation (GPF) and the Jewish Funders Network (JFN) launched on Sunday a $2 million matching grant program in honor of 2026 Genesis Prize Laureate Gal Gadot to help Israeli healing with emotional and physical trauma in the aftermath of the deadly terrorist attack in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, the subsequent Israel-Hamas war, and now the ongoing war with Iran.
The initiative was spearheaded by Gadot, who was announced as the recipient of this year’s $1 million Genesis Prize in November 2025. The Genesis Prize Foundation has committed $1 million to the prize award, and members of JFN and other donors are expected to contribute at least $1 million more through participation in the new matching program.
The $2 million will be given to Israeli NGOs, nonprofits, and professionals who are helping Israelis in their long-term recovery from trauma and mental health issues. Participating NGOs must first secure funding contributions from individual donors or foundations, and can then apply to have those gifts matched by The Genesis Prize Foundation.
“The program will prioritize initiatives that train and develop frontline professionals, strengthen retention, well-being, and resilience among caregivers, expand human capital in mental health and community care, and deploy innovative tools that support and scale professional services,” GPF and JFN announced. “Emphasis will be placed on sustainability and long-term impact rather than short-term interventions.”
“At a time when Israel’s caregivers are stretched beyond capacity, we must ensure that those who are helping others heal receive the support they need,” said JFN President and CEO Andres Spokoiny. “JFN is proud to steward this collaborative effort, and we call on donors and foundations to join us in meeting these critical needs.”
“In this moment, and in honoring Gal Gadot, the most urgent investment we can make is in Israel’s human infrastructure: the therapists, educators, and caregivers who sustain national resilience, helping communities heal from the trauma of Oct. 7 and the ongoing conflict with Iran and Hezbollah,” said Stan Polovets, co-founder and chairman of The Genesis Prize Foundation. “Working with Jewish Funders Network allows us to mobilize philanthropy in a thoughtful, collaborative, and lasting way.”
The annual Genesis Prize is given to individuals “for their professional excellence, significant impact in their fields, and dedication to Jewish values.” Gadot was named this year’s Genesis Prize Laureate in recognition of her strong support and advocacy for her home country of Israel amid the Israel-Hamas war.
“I am humbled to receive the Genesis Prize and to stand alongside the amazing laureates who came before me,” she said last year. “I am a proud Jew and a proud Israeli. I love my country and dedicate this award to the organizations who will help Israel heal and to those incredible people who serve on the front lines of compassion. Israel has endured unimaginable pain. Now we must begin to heal – to rebuild hearts, families, and communities.”
Uncategorized
Harvard’s Jewish Enrollment Drops to Pre-World War II Levels, New Report Shows
Demonstrators take part in an “Emergency Rally: Stand With Palestinians Under Siege in Gaza,” amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, Oct. 14, 2023. Photo: REUTERS/Brian Snyder
Jewish undergraduate enrollment at Harvard University has plummeted to lows not seen since the eve of World War II and the Holocaust, falling to just 7 percent, according to a new report issued by the Harvard Jewish Alumni Alliance (HJAA) that describes the statistic as an “anomaly.”
“We want to be direct about what this report does and does not claim,” HJAA said in a statement. “It does not assert that Harvard intentionally discriminates against Jewish applicants. What it finds is something more specific and, we believe, more actionable.”
The group went on to deny that declining Jewish enrollment at Harvard is alone the result of racial preferences in admissions — popularly known as “affirmative action” — which, in the name of “diversity,” affords preferential consideration to applicants whose academic achievement and standardized test scores fall outside the range of the typical elite students who schools like Harvard select for membership in the Ivy League.
In 2023, the US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Harvard University’s racial preferences in its admissions policy violated the Constitution for its discriminatory effect on Asian American enrollment.
HJAA found a similar trend occurring at Yale University, which infamously adopted racial preferences under the leadership of President Kingman Brewster in the 1960s, despite growing evidence that the practice created an environment of academic maladjustment and racial division. This led to the creation of segregated programming and amenities for African Americans, as well as a summer remedial program for minority students — PROP (Pre-Orientation Program) — that was eventually rebranded in the late 1990s when its apparent subtext proved unpalatable to a new generation of students.
“Yale added 1,281 undergraduate seats in 2018. Hispanic, Asian, and Black enrollment all grew in absolute terms. Jewish enrollment fell by approximately 256 students,” the group stated. “The report tests seven structural explanations for this divergence, including geographic diversification, socioeconomic targeting, Asian enrollment growth, international expansion, and athletic recruitment, individually and in combination. None of them explains the gap.”
The first Jewish alumni association in the history of Harvard University, HJAA was formed in the fall of 2023 in response to Hamas’s Oct. 7 massacre across southern Israel and the wave of antisemitism around the world that it triggered. The following month, more than 1,200 of its members signed a letter which gave notice to then-Harvard president Claudine Gay that Jewish community members would no longer walk delicately around the college administration when it comes to the issue of campus antisemitism.
The HJAA report came after Harvard last year released a major report on campus antisemitism along with an apology from new campus president Alan Garber which acknowledged that school officials failed in critical ways to address the hatred to which Jewish students were subjected following Hamas’s Oct. 7 atrocities.
Recent political developments have caused some Jewish students affiliated with the Ivy League to temper their criticisms of elite higher education due to concerns that it validates US President Donald Trump’s coupling addressing campus antisemitism with pursuing higher education reform preferred by political conservatives. In pursuing his policy agenda, Trump has cconfiscated billions of dollars of taxpayer-funded research grants from private universities.
Just last month, The Algemeiner covered Harvard University student Sarah Silverman’s scolding Trump during a hearing on campus antisemitism held by the US Commission on Civil Rights. Screaming the entirety of her seven-minute statement, she at one point charged that “policy described as protecting Jewish students did not make me feel protected,” adding, “In a deeply troubling way, I felt blamed. I knew I had done nothing wrong, but when decisions are made in your name without ever speaking to you but are affecting your academic community in extremely negative ways, you begin to worry that others believed you asked for these actions.”
Nonetheless, HJAA is calling on Harvard to hold itself accountable, unfettered by politics and outside commentary.
“What we are asking of Harvard is straightforward: count, audit, and report. Harvard already tracks enrollment by race, gender, income, and first-generation status,” the group said. Its president, Adrian Ashekenazy added, “This report is not an accusation. It is an invitation to build the infrastructure that makes accountability possible.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
Uncategorized
Top Iran Official Larijani Was No ‘Pragmatist,’ His Death Strikes Major Blow to Regime: Analysts
Ali Larijani, top Iranian national security official and former chairman of the parliament of Iran, attends a press conference after meeting with Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri in Beirut, Lebanon, Nov. 15, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Thaier Al-Sudani
Israel’s announcement that it had killed de facto Iranian leader Ali Larijani was cast by some Western analysts on Tuesday as a blow to any remaining chance of a ceasefire, but Israeli officials and Iran watchers pushed back sharply, arguing Larijani was not a pragmatic off-ramp figure but a central architect of the regime’s wartime strategy and internal repression.
Meir Ben-Shabbat, Israel’s former national security adviser, described Larijani’s removal as a significant escalation in the campaign against Iran’s leadership, arguing it further erodes the regime’s ability to function at the highest level.
“It is not merely a symbolic step,” he told The Algemeiner. “Larijani was considered one of the most influential figures in the Islamic regime … shaping Iran’s military and political responses. His elimination intensifies the regime’s disarray.”
The killing will severely impede the regime’s efforts to recover, Ben-Shabbat said, forcing its senior figures to lower their profile even further.
Larijani’s elimination, alongside that of other senior Basij officials, “sends a sharp and clear message to regime opponents and protesters: The opportunity to bring about change is real, perhaps even just around the corner,” Ben-Shabbat said.
Israel said it also killed Gholamreza Soleimani, the head of Iran’s Basij paramilitary force which is affiliated with the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The news of both killings was later confirmed by the regime in Tehran.
At the time of his death, Larijani had been overseeing multiple overlapping crises that defined Iran’s wartime posture.
The Iranian hardliner was deeply involved in shaping the country’s response to joint US-Israeli strikes, advocating for a long campaign and widening the conflict across the region, including pressure on Gulf states and maritime routes such as the Strait of Hormuz.
At the same time, Larijani was grappling with fallout from a surge of domestic unrest, which was met with a sweeping crackdown in January, killing tens of thousands of anti-regime protesters.
He was also managing Iran’s nuclear file, including stalled indirect talks with Washington that had already been thrown into disarray by the fighting. He previously played a central role in shepherding the Obama-led 2015 nuclear agreement between Iran and world powers — a deal later abandoned by US President Donald Trump.
Trained in Western philosophy, Larijani had close personal ties to the US, and his daughter, Fatemeh, lived and worked there as a doctor for more than a decade. Earlier on Monday, Larijani referred to the US as the “Great Satan” when he condemned the UAE and other Islamic countries for abandoning Iran.
“You know that America is not loyal and that Israel is your enemy,” Larijani said, arguing that “the unity of the Islamic ummah, if realized with full strength, can guarantee security, progress. and independence for all Islamic countries.”
“Iran continues on the path of resistance against the ‘Great Satan’ and the ‘Little Satan,’” he added, referring to the US and Israel, respectively.
Nevertheless, much of Western media has cast Larijani in more nuanced terms, often describing him as a pragmatic conservative or potential interlocutor with the West who could have played a role in future diplomacy.
The Guardian, citing a Middle East analyst, reported that Larijani was seen as a potential channel for any future diplomacy, someone who could have been tasked with advancing ceasefire discussions or follow-up talks with Washington.
“Larijani would have been the man to get that job done,” the newspaper cited Ellie Geranmayeh, an Iran expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations, as saying. She added that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s focus was on “on blocking Trump’s pathways” to ending the war.
Ron Malley, the former US special envoy for Iran, went further, describing him as “one of the smarter, maybe ‘pragmatic’ members of the leadership,” a figure some diplomats saw as capable of reengaging on nuclear talks.
BBC veteran correspondent John Simpson came under fire for casting Larijani as “clever and reasonable.”
“I’ve met Ali Larijani several times over the years. Yes, he was a top figure in a nasty regime,” Simpson wrote on X. “But he always seemed clever and reasonable – the kind of person you might want to negotiate a peace deal with.”
“Is it a good idea for Israel to take out people like him?” the journalist added.
Sima Shine, head of the Iran program at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, rejected portrayals of Larijani as a pragmatic counterweight within the regime, calling such characterizations “wishful” external projections to find a moderate figure inside the regime who could “take Iran on a different course.” She pointed instead to his record during the regime’s brutal crackdown on protesters earlier this year, saying “he was very much involved in the oppression of the Iranian people in January.”
Larijani was instrumental in reinforcing the regime’s strict religious and social controls, reshaping state broadcasting into a vehicle for official propaganda and targeting any reformist voices.
“He was nominated by [former Supreme Leader Ali] Khamenei to lead this operation not because he was a pragmatist, but because he could be counted on to stand fast and strong vis-à-vis the US and Israel,” she said on a call with reporters on Tuesday.
At the same time, Shine warned against assuming that removing senior figures would translate into a strategic breakthrough. “We’ve never succeeded in toppling a regime,” she said. “One cannot count on elimination as the main tool to a change of regime.”
Iran’s leadership, Shine continued, is “a system, not a person,” a structure built not only on senior officials but on institutions, coercive power, and a residual support base of “some millions that are still supporting the regime.”
