Uncategorized
Commemorating Philip Roth means confronting his limitations head on
(JTA) — Next Sunday marks the 90th anniversary of Philip Roth’s birth. In celebration of the famed novelist’s work, a scholarly conference titled “Roth@90,” sponsored by the Philip Roth Society, will be held starting Wednesday at the Newark Public Library. That will be followed by a weekend of high-profile events — staged readings, panel discussions, a bus tour of Roth’s old Newark neighborhood — co-presented by the library and the New Jersey Performing Arts Center.
Exactly 10 years ago, we commemorated his 80th birthday in a similar fashion. Dozens of Roth scholars made learned presentations about his work, of which Roth attended exactly zero. Later that week, the author read aloud from his novel “Sabbath’s Theater” in front of hundreds of fans, friends and well wishers. The proceedings were televised on C-Span.
Roth was being acclaimed for having just wound down an exemplary career. With the exception of the Nobel Prize, what garland evaded him? Was there a high-culture literary platform where his name wasn’t a virtual watermark? Could he publish any novel without hundreds of reviews being written in newspapers across the world? Was there a serious fiction writer out there with greater renown?
So much has changed in the decade between the two conferences. To begin with, Roth died in 2018. In that same span, the country witnessed the election of Donald Trump and the fissure it exposed in society in general and the Jewish community in particular. America endured one convulsive racial reckoning after another. Finally, in October of 2017, the #MeToo movement gained massive public salience.
All of those events, along with digital media’s indomitable ascent, have combined to affect and reshape Roth’s literary legacy. That legacy is far less assured than all the (justified) praise and lionizing that will occur this week might suggest.
Let’s start with Jews. The Trump era yielded two seemingly irreconcilable data points. On the one hand, Jewish-Americans endured the Charlottesville riot, the Tree of Life synagogue attack and a stunning rise in antisemitic incidents. On the other, there was staunch support for Trump among Orthodox Jews and supporters of Israel’s right wing.
Leaving that conundrum for others to parse, I simply note that Orthodox Jews and right-wing Zionists are almost completely absent in Roth’s fiction. A young Roth wrote a sensitive portrait of Holocaust survivors who want to start a suburban yeshiva in “Eli the Fanatic.” He also sketched a militant religious-nationalist Zionist in “The Counterlife,” Mordecai Lippman, who, according to Roth biographer Blake Bailey (about whom more below), was based on Elyakim Haetzni, one of the so-called founding fathers of the settlement movement. In the same novel, a version of the narrator’s brother falls under the settlement leader’s sway.
And that’s it, across a half century of writing. For traditionalist Jewish readers, whose political and social influence in the United States and Israel is substantial and growing, Roth’s fiction is not a mirror, nor a signpost, nor a scroll upon which is inscribed some essential truth.
The Jews who populated his stories, the Jews he best understood, were of Ashkenazi descent, white, liberal, assimilated and secular. His courage was to valorize them over and against other Jews who viewed them as defective, lost or even as apostates. Thus Anne Frank in “The Ghost Writer” was portrayed as a patron saint of secular Judaism. Elsewhere, his stories abound in proud, professionally accomplished diaspora Jews. They rarely think about God. Synagogue attendance is reserved strictly for lifecycle events and High Holy Days, if that.
A novelist, of course, is not a political clairvoyant. However, the immediate future of Judaism is being greatly shaped by Jews whose population and influence are growing and whom Roth rarely portrayed. In this manner, another stellar writer like Cynthia Ozick — herself Orthodox and quite attuned to the mindset of her co-religionists — might fare better commercially and emerge as more relevant than her friend in the coming decades.
Roth didn’t just write about Jews. In my book “The Philip Roth We Don’t Know: Sex, Race and Autobiography,” I pointed out that depicting non-Jewish Black people was an unrecognized “obsessional theme” across his 28 novels and 25 short stories. Much to my dismay, I found Roth’s multi-decade treatment of his African and African-American characters often to be crude, thoughtless and sometimes racist.
Familiarize yourself with the degrading portraiture we receive of Black people in “The Great American Novel” (1973), or a short story like “On the Air” (1970), and you might reconsider what Roth was after in “The Human Stain,” in which an academic who is accused of racism turns out to be an African American who had been “passing” as white and Jewish. The book, the 2001 Pen/Faulkner Award winner, is often seen as a sensitive treatment of racial issues in America, and perhaps as the author’s attempt to extend the hand of friendship to another oppressed minority.
In fact, my best guess is that, as with many Jewish writers post-1967, Roth was shaken by the deterioration of the Black-Jewish alliance. His frustrations were reflected in prose that often referenced Black communities in his hometown of Newark but showed little curiosity about their lives or sympathy for their plight.
Obviously, this type of literary rendering of African Americans — or any minority group — is disturbing and dated. Insensitive racial representation inspires calls for publishers to drop authors. They disappear from high-school or college syllabi. This bodes ominously for the afterlives of the titans of post-World War II American fiction, including John Updike, Saul Bellow Bellow and Norman Mailer, all three of whom have been accused of being racially insensitive and worse.
Roth’s marketability also seems to be sailing into a squall regarding gender. As women began demanding an accounting of sexual abuse and misogyny within the media, entertainment and other industries, numerous think-pieces wondered how the author of “Portnoy’s Complaint” — whose libidinous narrator identifies most of the women in his life by debasing nicknames — would fare in such an environment. Would he — should he — be “canceled”?
The question is more complex than his admirers and detractors make it out to be. No doubt, many of Roth’s male characters mistreated women. Accusations of Roth himself doing the same exist, but they are fairly rare, unsubstantiated and contested. The dilemma for researchers is that Roth was a deeply auto-fictional writer. You sense his presence in his stories — especially when protagonists share much of his biography, including Nathan Zuckerman and Peter Tarnopol, and when characters are named “Philip Roth.”
It’s hard not to speculate about the relation between the author and the many misogynistic fellows who cut an erotic swath through his pages. There will, of course, be readers who give him the benefit of the doubt. They might observe that Roth’s toxic males provide evidence of women’s experiences that needs to be explored, not censored.
Not helping him cleanse his reputation were the numerous allegations of sexual misconduct leveled against his hand-picked biographer, Blake Bailey. The ructions engulfing Bailey came to dominate the discourse about Roth, leading to a peculiar cancellation by proxy.
The episode also revealed that Roth had instructed his estate to eventually destroy a massive trove of personal papers he entrusted to Bailey. This led Aimee Pozorski (co-editor of Philip Roth Studies), myself and 20 other Roth scholars to issue a statement reminding his executors that “scholarship can only be advanced when qualified researchers engage freely with essential sources.”
As if all these concerns weren’t enough, his grim prophecies about the demise of an audience for serious literature seem to be coming true. “The book,” Roth worried, “can’t compete with the screen.” Meanwhile, the English major is in a very bad way, and the institution of tenure is under siege. Professors (insufferable as we might be) teach the next generation who to read and how to read. Writers might not like them, but they need them.
Roth is also getting the scrutiny that he was at pains to avoid in his lifetime. His disregard for scholars who might be critical of him always struck me, one such scholar, as misguided. Instead, he surrounded himself with friends — friends who had preternatural access to major media platforms. These friends built upon his own interpretations of his own work. It doesn’t mean they lacked wisdom. It just means that when they talked about Roth, they talked about what Roth wanted them to talk about. To wit: Jewish Newark, his sundry interpretations of his life, his pesky ex-wives and lovers, the close-mindedness of his critics, and so forth.
I think, in this cultural moment, it’s prudent to confront Roth’s limitations head on and chart one’s own path through his fiction. I pitch him to my students as a writer with some racial, religious and sexual hang-ups — who among us is innocent of those charges? I also present him as a bearer of unique and meaningful insights. Let scholars (while they still exist) parade those insights into sunlight.
I’ve tried to illuminate that his fiction was preoccupied, for 50 years, by how individual and collective bodies (like the Jews) change. Transformation, metamorphosis, metempsychosis — his obsession with those themes, I’ve noticed in my classrooms, is shared by Gen Z. If the span between Roth@80 and Roth@90 has taught us anything, it is that Roth was right: Life is about radical, unpredictable flux. Now his own legacy is in flux. I wonder who will read Roth@100.
—
The post Commemorating Philip Roth means confronting his limitations head on appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Pennsylvania’s Jewish governor, Josh Shapiro, faces Trump-backed challenger in reelection bid
(JTA) — The stage is officially set for Pennsylvania’s Jewish governor, Josh Shapiro, to vie for reelection against GOP opponent Stacy Garrity in November.
The matchup comes as no surprise, as the two candidates won their respective primaries uncontested on Tuesday.
Shapiro is seen as the strong favorite to win. But Garrity, who is popular among Republicans and endorsed by President Donald Trump, could mount a competitive challenge. She became the only person to earn more votes than Shapiro in Pennsylvania history when she was reelected as state treasurer in 2024.
The matchup could pose a hurdle for Shapiro’s potential 2028 presidential ambitions even if Garrity loses in November. A hard-fought race in a purple state will allow Republicans to test attack strategies against Shapiro.
Shapiro is a pro-Israel Democrat in a party where supporting Israel is an increasing liability. Garrity, too, has gone to bat for Israel. As state treasurer, she has more than tripled Pennsylvania’s investment in Israel bonds. She invested $20 million following Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel, and another $25 million in July 2025.
“Israel is our greatest ally in the Middle East, and I will continue to stand by them in their fight to achieve peace,” Garrity said when announcing the $25 million investment last year.
“Israel bonds are a smart, dependable investment with a proven track record — and it’s especially important to show our support at a time when Israelis and Jews — both abroad and here in the United States — continue to face horrific acts of antisemitism,” she wrote. “I’m proud to announce this significant new investment, continuing the strong relationship between Pennsylvania, Israel, and the Jewish Community.”
Garrity is embracing her endorsement from Trump, whom she has said she believes won in her state and nationally in 2020, when President Joe Biden prevailed.
Garrity’s early attacks on Shapiro have implicated his record on Jewish issues. Last year, she took a shot at Shapiro in response to an article by politically conservative website the Washington Free Beacon. In the story, a group of Philadelphia parents said Shapiro had “completely ignored” their pleas for help addressing antisemitism in public schools during the war in Gaza.
“I know Josh Shapiro understands the evils of antisemitism — he’s lived it,” Garrity wrote on X. “That’s why it’s painful to see him turn away from Jewish parents begging for help as their kids face N*zi salutes and teachers praising Hamas.”
Shapiro’s team denied that the governor had neglected parental concerns. He is widely regarded as being outspoken against antisemitism, and has maintained a pro-Israel outlook that includes support for U.S. military aid to Israel. The man who confessed to committing an arson attack on Shapiro’s residence in 2025 said he thought Shapiro was contributing to violence against the Palestinian people.
The post Pennsylvania’s Jewish governor, Josh Shapiro, faces Trump-backed challenger in reelection bid appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Massie Ousted From Congress, Makes Antisemitic Jab in Concession Speech
US Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) leaves a meeting of the House Republican Conference in the US Capitol on Wednesday, June 4, 2025. Photo: Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect
US Rep. Thomas Massie was defeated in Tuesday’s Republican primary by Trump-backed challenger Ed Gallrein in a closely watched race in Kentucky widely viewed as a referendum on party loyalty and US support for Israel.
In his concession remarks, Massie drew immediate attention when he said he had to “find Ed Gallrein in Tel Aviv” to concede, a remark widely interpreted as a reference to what he and his supporters have described as substantial pro-Israel backing for Gallrein’s campaign.
“I would’ve come out sooner, but I had to call my opponent and concede. And it took a while to find Ed Gallrein in Tel Aviv,” Massie said.
Gallrein, a retired Navy SEAL and political newcomer, garnered approximately 54.9 percent of the vote compared to Massie’s 45.1 percent, emerging victorious by nearly a 10-point margin. With the defeat, Massie will depart Congress at the conclusion of his 7th term.
Gallrein was endorsed by US President Donald Trump and benefited from significant support from pro-Israel donors and aligned advocacy networks. The race attracted national attention, with Trump-aligned groups and conservative super PACs spending roughly $19 million in support of Gallrein’s campaign. For many observers, Gallrein’s victory underscores both Trump’s continued influence in Republican primaries and the party’s generally unified stance on Israel policy.
Massie, long one of the most independent voices in the House Republican Conference, had frequently broken with GOP leadership on foreign policy issues, including US military aid to Israel, funding for the Iron Dome missile defense system, and the Iran war. Massie also drew criticism from pro-Israel groups for opposing aid packages, skipping Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to Congress, and accusing Israel of targeting civilian infrastructure during military operations in Gaza and Lebanon while omitting that terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah embed military infrastructure within civilian areas.
Beyond issues of foreign policy, Massie also drew sharp criticism from Trump after he co-sponsored and pushed for legislation to release the Justice Department’s files related to the late financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein alongside prominent House Democrats, leading the president to frame Massie as a party disruptor and disloyal Republican.
The race unfolded amid growing tensions within the Republican Party over antisemitism, foreign policy, and support for Israel. Though older Republican voters continue to support Israel in substantial numbers, a growing number of polls indicate that younger Republican voters are far more skeptical of the US-Israel alliance, with many wanting to end aid to Israel and cease foreign military campaigns. Critics accused Massie of amplifying antisemitic rhetoric within segments of the Republican coalition by engaging in certain behaviors, such as making repeated appearances on the podcast of Tucker Carlson, a political pundit frequently accused by critics of promoting antisemitism.
In the days leading up to the election, Massie faced mounting criticism over a series of remarks and associations that Jewish organizations and pro-Israel activists condemned as antisemitic.
On Friday, he declared the election “a referendum on whether Israel gets to buy seats in Congress.”
Over the weekend, he invited antisemitic social media personality Ryan Matta to his home for a meet-and-greet event. He posed for a photo with Matta wearing a shirt emblazoned with the phrase “American Reich,” a direct reference to the Nazi regime. Massie has not commented on the incident or distanced himself from Matta.
Massie also came under fire over an advertisement released by a pro-Massie super PAC targeting billionaire Republican donor Paul Singer, a prominent Jewish supporter of pro-Israel causes who has backed efforts to defeat the incumbent. The ad characterized Singer as a “pro-trans billionaire” and displayed a rainbow-colored Star of David behind his image — imagery critics condemned as antisemitic.
Further, on Sunday, Massie lambasted the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC), an organization that aims to increase the number of Jews within the Republican Party, accusing the group of using Gallrein as a “puppet” and claiming they are “running his race.”
Gallrein campaigned on a platform aligned closely with Trump’s foreign policy approach, emphasizing continued US security assistance to Israel and a more traditional Republican posture on Middle East policy. His campaign was boosted by outside groups and donors supportive of a strongly pro-Israel agenda.
The outcome reinforced the increasingly narrow political space within the GOP for lawmakers who break with Trump and the party’s dominant pro-Israel posture.
Once known for his libertarian-leaning independence, Massie increasingly found himself isolated as GOP voters and donors coalesced around candidates aligned with both Trump and pro-Israel priorities. The race also reflects a broader trend in Republican primaries, where alignment with Trump and with pro-Israel policy positions has become a key predictor for viability in many competitive districts.
In a statement, the RJC congratulated Gallrein and accused Massie of “trafficking in antisemitism and bottom-of-the-barrel nativism at a time when Jew-hatred is on the rise,” calling Massie’s conduct “wildly unacceptable and outrageous from an elected member of Congress.”
Uncategorized
Jewish Groups Call on US Congress to Combat Union Antisemitism in Health Care
Anti-Israel demonstration at Johns Hopkins University, which has one of the best medical schools in the world, in Baltimore, Maryland, US, April 30, 2024. Photo: Robyn Stevens Brody/SIPA USA via Reuters Connect
Jewish community advocates on Wednesday called on the US Congress to use its lawmaking power to stop health care unions from spreading antisemitism in the workplace through anti-Zionist advocacy, arguing unions have wasted resources and countenanced flagrant discrimination of Jews throughout the field of medicine.
Addressing the House Education and Workforce Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions, lawyers, health workers, and civil rights activists shared a stream of claims alleging that union bosses have effectively converted labor unions into political action committees for the anti-Zionist movement. The consequence, they argued, has been to embolden those who mistreat Jews as a “proxy” for Israel, leading to incidents of bigotry which would be decried were they perpetrated against other minority groups.
“The issue is not whether health care workers may hold political views,” Deena Margolies, litigation staff attorney for the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, told the committee. “The problem arises when health care unions use their authority and resources to promote antisemitic campaigns outside their labor mission. Jewish and Israeli health care professionals are then placed in an impossible position: The union that is supposed to represent them is also helping to create the hostile work environment they must endure.”
Anti-Zionist union activity even affects patient care, Margolies added, noting that some mental health practitioners now offer services which they say can “decolonize” patients of pro-Zionist viewpoints. The enterprise is predicated on the idea that Zionism, which an overwhelming majority of Jews say is central to Jewish identity, is a pathology.
“Congress can and should act,” she said.
Dr. Jacob Agronin, a cardiology fellow at Temple University Hospital, told Congress that Jewish workers should have the right to permanently suspend payment of union dues.
“What I would hope for is the option for those that disagree with this union on a fundamental level not be compelled to pay dues to this union,” Agronin said. “I think it’s absurd that the union can call for blatant discrimination against Israeli colleagues and then compel those same colleagues to pay them.”
The Algemeiner has reported extensively on how a wave of antisemitism swept health care following Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel. So widespread was the problem that it became the subject of a 2025 study which found that 62.8 percent of Jewish health care professionals employed by campus-based medical center reported experiencing antisemitism, a far higher rate than those working in private practice and community hospitals. Fueling the rise in hate, the study noted, were repeated failures of DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) initiatives to educate workers about antisemitism, increasing the likelihood of antisemitic discrimination.
Months earlier, the StandWithUs Data & Analytics Department found through its own survey that nearly 40 percent of Jewish American health care professionals have encountered antisemitism in the workplace, either as witnesses or victims. A substantial number of the 645 Jewish health workers who responded to its questions also said they were subject to “social and professional isolation,” and 26.4 percent felt “unsafe or threatened.”
Outside the US, the crisis of antisemitism in health care has manifested in medical settings around the world, including in South America, Australia, and across Europe.
As for union antisemitism, the subject continues to be a focus of Jewish civil rights activism.
Earlier this month, the Brandeis Center filed a civil rights complaint alleging that the National Education Association proliferated antisemitism across its interstate network of chapters, offices, and K-12 schools by systemically enacting policies which resulted in Jews being blocked from promotions, mentorship opportunities, and participation in social justice initiatives. The disturbing document went further, arguing that antisemitic discrimination at the NEA is more than an invisible, bureaucratic force which disappears Jews from governance roles. According to the complaint, it is a force applied by anti-Zionists who lead mobs against Jewish delegates attending union conferences; perpetrate acts of physical intimidation; and delete guidance on teaching students about the Holocaust from official documents.
“The NEA’s conduct is both completely illegal and morally unjustifiable,” Brandeis Center chairman and founder Kenneth Marcus said in a statement announcing the action. “This is exactly the type of discrimination against which Title VII was designed to protect.”
In New York City, the federal government is investigating reports that members of the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) are procuring students for membership in anti-Zionist study groups teaching that Israelis are “genocidal white supremacists” and that Hamas terrorists are “martyrs.” The initiative there is funded by a nonprofit titled “Rethinking Schools,” which itself has been a recipient of exorbitant financial gifts from the NEA.
Meanwhile, students at Columbia University recently escalated their fight against a graduate workers union dominated by anti-Israel advocates by filing a federal complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
The students allege that the bosses who run Student Workers of Columbia (SWC), an affiliate of United Auto Workers (UAW), devote more energy and resources to pursuing “radical policy proposals” than improving occupational conditions. In collective bargaining negotiations, it allegedly pressures the university to adopt the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel and to enact other measures, such as ending its partnership with the New York City Police Department (NYPD) and closing a dual-degree program with Tel Aviv University.
“All of this adds up to a union that is out of control, and I note that they don’t have an agenda against the mullahs in Iran, against the dictator who runs Turkey, against the Chinese communists who oppress their citizens or the North Koreans. But they have an agenda against Israel, the one democracy in the Middle East,” Glenn Taubman, staff attorney for the National Right to Work Foundation (NRTW), told The Algemeiner during an interview at the time.
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.