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
‘A collapse’: Number of Israelis who believe Trump prioritizes Israel’s security falls to new low, poll finds
(JTA) — The share of Israelis who believe that Israel’s security is a central consideration of President Donald Trump fell to a record low as Democratic support for Israel in the U.S. continued to decline, according to two new polls Tuesday.
A new poll from the Israel Democracy Institute found that, amid widening disagreements in Israel over U.S. efforts to broker a new nuclear deal with Iran, the share of Israelis who believe Trump prioritizes Israel’s security had seen a “collapse” from 44% in May to 28% in June, pollsters said.
The survey, which polled 603 Jewish respondents and 151 Arab respondents from June 28 to July 1, found that among Jewish respondents, the belief that Israel can fully rely on Trump has plummeted by 38 points between March and June 2026.
Just over one-third of Israelis said they believed Israel’s strategic security situation is better today than it was before the war with Iran. The margin of error was 3.57 percentage points.
Another survey released Tuesday, conducted by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research from June 11 to 17, added to a growing number of polls showing waning support for Israel among U.S. adults.
The AP poll, which surveyed 3,040 people, including 1,022 Jewish adults, found that 40% of U.S. adults believe America is “too supportive” of Israelis, while 39% believe the U.S. is “not supportive enough” of Palestinians. While the survey included a large sampling of Jewish adults to allow for more reliable estimates of their opinions, the survey was weighted to ensure their views weren’t overrepresented in the findings, the pollsters said.
Among Democrats, the poll found that 58% now say the U.S. is “too supportive” of Israelis, up from 45% in an AP-NORC poll in January 2024.
The share dropped among Republicans, of which just 21% said they believed the U.S. was “too supportive” of Israelis. The share of Republicans who say the U.S. is “not supportive enough” of Israel has shrunk from 39% to 15% since 2024.
It also found that a third of American Jewish adults believe that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza, while another 49% said that it has not.
Among U.S. adults overall, the poll found that about one-third believe Israel has committed genocide, including roughly half of Democrats.
The poll also found that the favorability of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani was split. It found that, among U.S. adults, 38% have an unfavorable view of Netanyahu, while just 28% of U.S. adults have an unfavorable opinion of Mamdani.
Among Jewish adults, about 6 in 10 view Netanyahu unfavorably, while just 39% view Mamdani negatively and 44% view the New York City mayor positively.
For the AP poll, the margin of error for adults overall was 2.8 percentage points, and the margin of error for Jewish adults was 5.0 percentage points.
The post ‘A collapse’: Number of Israelis who believe Trump prioritizes Israel’s security falls to new low, poll finds appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
The iconic crest worn by Messi and Argentina’s soccer team was designed by a Jewish superfan 50 years ag
(JTA) — BUENOS AIRES — Soccer fans around the world are familiar with the crest worn by Argentina and its star Lionel Messi: a vertical shield with laurel branches symbolizing victory and glory at the bottom and three stars at the top representing the team’s three World Cup titles.
But few are aware that the crest has its roots in Argentina’s close-knit world of Jewish sports clubs, where its designer developed his affinity for soccer.
Norberto “Toto” Rud was in his late 20s and a member of Club Náutico Hacoaj, a Jewish club, when he proposed the crest in 1976, drawing on the branding acumen and graphic design skills he would use throughout his career as a businessman and soccer aficionado in Buenos Aires.
Rud has long been credited with developing the crest after observing that while many European soccer teams wore distinctive emblems, his own beloved Argentina’s jerseys were notable only for their sky blue-and-white colors.
Watching international soccer in the era of black-and-white television, Rud noticed that supporters could instantly recognize teams such as West Germany by its eagle or the Soviet Union by its CCCP lettering, but Argentina could easily be confused with clubs wearing similar striped shirts. He concluded that the national team needed a visual identity equal to its footballing tradition.
Rud prepared approximately 20 design proposals and submitted them to the Argentine Football Association, in a proposal that reached its president and executive committee. The crest made its debut on Nov. 28, 1976, just days after it was approved, in a 0-0 friendly against the Soviet Union in Buenos Aires.
Fifty years later, the crest is basically unchanged and is one of the most widely worn team logos in the world, as Messi jerseys are popular across the globe.
“As a son and a member of the Jewish community and as an Argentinean, it’s a source of pride,” Toto Rud’s son Oliver Rud told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. He added, “Every time I see Argentina’s national team crest, it still amazes me.”
Toto Rud got to see Argentina wear his crest to two World Cup championships, in 1978 and 1986. But he did not live to see the third in 2022. He died in 2010 at age 61 and is buried in Buenos Aires’ La Tablada, Latin America’s largest Jewish cemetery.
Oliver Rud said his father’s mother came to Argentina from Ukraine, a common pathway for Jewish migrants in the first half of the 20th century. Toto Rud was born in March 1948 and was a longtime member of Hacoaj, where he played club soccer himself.
Founded in 1935 by Jewish immigrants to Buenos Aires, Club Náutico Hacoaj is a sports and cultural club with around 10,000 members and five facilities, one in Buenos Aires city and four in Tigre, a city in the north of the Buenos Aires province. Hacoaj, which means “strength” in Hebrew, has been the launch pad for a number of prominent Jewish athletes, including tennis star Diego Schwartzmann. Oliver Rud said a tree dedicated to his father is planted on Hacoaj’s sprawling campus.
“For Hacoaj, it is a tremendous source of pride that one of our members was the creator of the Argentine Football Association’s crest,” the club’s president, Osvaldo Ofman, told JTA. “His design not only represents the jersey of the Argentina national team, the reigning World Cup champions, but also gives us the feeling that a small part of Hacoaj and the Jewish community lives on in an emblem recognized around the world.”
Now, Argentina will face off in the Round of 16 against Egypt, whose coach Hossam Hassan waved a Palestinian flag after defeating Australia in a 4-2 shootout on Friday. Footage of him walking across the field with the flag while chants of “Free, free Palestine” were heard quickly went viral. In a post-match interview, Hassan said his “heart and soul” were with the Palestinian people and dedicated the win to both Egyptians and Palestinians.
Tuesday’s match represents something of a de facto Israeli-Palestinian showdown in a tournament in which neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians are playing. In addition to the show of support for the Palestinians from Egypt, the Argentine government staunchly supports Israel, which Messi, a Catholic, has visited. And a recent poll by an Israeli magazine found that Argentina was the clear favorite among Israeli World Cup viewers, named by 38% of respondents as the team they hope wins the tournament.
The knockout game comes a decade after Messi ignited a backlash in Egypt after announcing on an Egyptian television program that he was donating his shoes to a charity in Cairo. Presenters on the TV show accused Messi of being Jewish and aligned with Israel, which he had visited three years earlier.
“I know he’s Jewish, he donated to Israel and visited the Wailing Wall and whatever,” then-Egyptian Football Federation spokesman Azmi Mogahed phoned in to say. “We don’t need his shoes and Egypt’s poor don’t need help from someone with Jewish or Zionist citizenship.” Mogahed died in 2020.
Messi, who plays for Inter Miami during the regular season, is 39 and is widely expected not to play in another World Cup after this one, meaning that an Argentina loss could be his last game in international competition.
For Oliver Rud, the game will be an opportunity to reflect not only on Messi’s contributions but on his father’s, as well.
“Every time I see Argentina’s national team crest, it still amazes me,” he said. “In fact, my brother Guido and I were just talking about it the other day — how incredible it is to think that Toto designed the crest for the national team some 50 years ago. It’s really extraordinary. Every time I see the crest, I feel a little piece of him in my heart. It’s a beautiful way to remember him.”
The post The iconic crest worn by Messi and Argentina’s soccer team was designed by a Jewish superfan 50 years ag appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Abdul El-Sayed has refused super PAC funding. An anti-AIPAC PAC says it will spend for him, anyway
(JTA) — A super PAC formed to counter the influence of pro-Israel political action committees confirmed that it will boost Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan’s Democratic U.S. Senate primary, despite the candidate’s pledge to refuse all super PAC funding.
A spokesperson for American Priorities PAC, the anti-AIPAC PAC, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency on Tuesday that its vow two days earlier to “do whatever it takes” to help El-Sayed “means spending.”
The move would put El-Sayed, who has mounted an popular insurgent campaign for a seat viewed as a must-win for Democrats, in the company of other progressives this election cycle who specifically railed against pro-Israel super PACs when swearing off corporate funding — while also benefiting from spending by the newly created pro-Palestinian super PAC.
Super PACs have no limits on fundraising but by law are prohibited from directly coordinating with a campaign — so American Priorities could theoretically raise money to run ads and other get-out-the-vote operations to boost El-Sayed without his consent.
El-Sayed has yet to comment publicly on American Priorities’ plans.
A physician and former county health director, El-Sayed is scheduled to debate his opponent, U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens, on Tuesday night in Grand Rapids. A third candidate, state Sen. Mallory McMorrow, dropped out of the race over the weekend, which American Priorities said motivated its pledge to help El-Sayed. The primary is set for Aug. 4.
El-Sayed has made refusing PAC money a key element of his platform. “Money out of politics” forms part of the slogan that brands many of his yard signs. A new ad released by his campaign on June 30 claimed he was “the only candidate for Senate” who has taken “No Corporate PAC Money.”
The American Priorities spokesperson did not immediately respond to a follow-up to clarify what El-Sayed’s anti-PAC pledge would mean for the group’s spending plans. Requests for comment to the El-Sayed and Stevens campaigns also were not immediately returned.
Stevens, a pro-Israel moderate who has welcomed PAC support, has so far had at least $10 million in AIPAC-affiliated funding directed to boost her campaign, according to Federal Election Commission data. AIPAC-affiliated ads for her have trumpeted policies, including proposed restrictions on immigration enforcement, that AIPAC-funded ads in different races this year have lambasted.
American Priorities has complicated the narrative for the progressive wave of the 2026 primary cycle, which has made pro-Palestinian causes and opposition to corporate funding twin priorities while treating AIPAC as a particular bogeyman.
American Priorities also spent to help democratic socialists Claire Valdez and Darializa Avila Chevalier in their successful primary runs for New York congressional seats last month, even as Valdez pledged to “end Citizens United,” the 2010 Supreme Court decision that allowed unlimited political spending by corporations and unions, and Avila Chevalier called to “abolish Super PACs.”
The spending allowed the candidates’ opponents to accuse them of hypocrisy but failed to derail their success at the ballot box. American Priorities also spent heavily in favor of Adam Hamawy, a doctor who served in Gaza who won his crowded New Jersey congressional primary in June.
The post Abdul El-Sayed has refused super PAC funding. An anti-AIPAC PAC says it will spend for him, anyway appeared first on The Forward.
