Uncategorized
The Quiet Antisemitism: My Experience as a Jewish College Professor
There are plenty of examples of blatant antisemitism and attacks on Jews that have occurred over the past 10 months. It seems that every day, we read about a synagogue being attacked, a Jewish student being spat on or assaulted, or the all too mainstream protester chants calling for Intifada or for Jews to go back to Poland — and the list goes on.
Perhaps less obvious — but more frequent — is the antisemitism that’s happening under the radar: things that are circumstantial and much harder to prove.
I’m not talking about Jewish writers having their lectures cancelled out of concern “for their safety” — it’s clear to everyone (except the organizers) where the motivation comes from.
No, this is the kind of discrimination that Black people and others experienced before the Civil Rights movement — and even after: being rejected as a tenant on a lease to an apartment, passed over for a job or promotion based on the color of their skin , or — as in my case — perhaps not having a contract renewed at a college after speaking out against their policies regarding “free speech.”
Do I have proof that me being Israeli or Jewish had anything to do with my dismissal?
Absolutely not.
But are the circumstances suspicious? Yes.
Two years ago, I accepted a Visiting Assistant Professorship in the English Department of a private Midwestern college in the United States. It was a one-year contract, and following the first year, the Chair of the Department notified me how much he appreciated my work — noting the anonymous student evaluations that gave me high marks, that a large number of students requested to take a second class with me, and that I helped raise the visibility of the college through public performances by my students. He also informed me that there was restructuring going on in the English Department, which would result in some of the classes I was teaching being offered only periodically.
In short, he asked me if I would be interested in remaining affiliated with the school, and return either every other semester, or, for instance, if another English teacher took a sabbatical. That suited me fine, as it allowed me to continue teaching, but also gave me time for my own creative endeavors back in Los Angeles, where I was commuting from every week.
On October 7, I was not teaching on campus. But like so many other colleges, a segment of the student population rose up to protest Israel. And even though I was a thousand miles away, I received an email from a student member of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) notifying all faculty that the group was calling for a one-day strike to protest, accompanied with a list of atrocities Israel had allegedly committed, even listing the bombing of the Al-Shifa hospital in Gaza two weeks earlier, which had already been attributed to a stray missile from Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
How was it possible for one student to access the entire faculty and student body to spew their propaganda?
I contacted the Provost and Dean of the college to inquire. She replied that this was a recent policy change put into place two years earlier to encourage freedom of expression. I asked how this policy might play out if I rebutted the student’s charges through the college-wide email system, only to have another student rebut my defense, and so on and so on?
She replied that if it got out of hand, the school would shut it down.
I replied that the situation had already gotten out of hand, and trusted I wouldn’t be receiving anymore emails from such organizations.
The student newspaper got wind of this, and contacted me for my opinion. Here’s what they wrote in their article:
Safdie, who is of Israeli and Syrian Jewish descent, found sections of the message antisemitic and questioned why he received the email. “I’m all for freedom of expression, but I’m not sure this decision was able to foresee such a situation where students might abuse the privilege and create a hostile work/study environment for other members of the community.”
Fast forward several months, when I returned to campus for the Spring semester. Within a week of arrival, I received an email from the new chair of the English Department (who was also the associate Dean of the Race and Ethnic Studies program). She wanted to set up a Zoom meeting with me — even though our offices were 10 feet apart.
In a carefully worded statement that sounded like it was crafted by an attorney, she got to the point. Although the college was extremely pleased with all the work that I’d done, and that all my students loved my teaching, the college was making budget cuts and were not going to be able to renew my contract.
When I tried to explain to her my prior arrangement with the previous Chair, she simply replied that she’d be happy to write me a letter of recommendation.
Something about the Zoom call and her demeanor felt suspicious.
On a whim, I did an Internet search on my new Chair.
The first thing that came up on her Twitter Feed was a statement on the masthead of a literary magazine she edited, condemning the alleged mass killing and displacement of Palestinians in the wake of Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attacks.
As I explored further, I discovered other parts of the statement:
The Israeli military—with the support of the U.S. government—has bombarded Palestinian civilians relentlessly, in violation of international law, and deprived Palestinians of food, water, fuel, and electricity.
And:
Because we work to “bring our readers into the living moment, not as tourists, but as engaged participants,” we believe that Palestinians need space to speak directly, whether from siege in Palestine or in diaspora. So too do others who bear witness to the ongoing settler-colonial violence in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.
Two days after the Zoom meeting, I figured I might as well take the Chair up on her offer to write me a letter-of-recommendation; it was March, and I could still apply to other universities for employment the following year. (Universities can be suspicious if you leave a position after just two years, so a letter would be crucial to securing a position.)
After a week of email silence, the Chair wrote me back, saying that she wasn’t familiar with my teaching and requested to attend one of my classes to observe my skills. I invited her the following week to attend a class, which fit her schedule, but she did not show, and didn’t even write to give an explanation.
I followed up with an email to offer her another opportunity, followed by a second and third, but there was nothing but email silence.
I should also mention that, at the one faculty meeting we had, she stayed as far away from me as possible, and if I approached, she would quickly engage in discussion with another professor. The topic that day was adding a requirement for English Majors to take an anti-Racism class. One of the new offerings for the following year was focused on racism against Palestinians.
By the end of April, I decided to contact the Associate Dean of Humanities who oversaw the English Department, and sure enough, within an hour of my email, I finally received an email back from the Chair of the English Department, offering to attend my class, but letting me know that she was too busy to write me a letter of recommendation until the end of May — well past the end of the semester, and too late to help with a teaching application for the following year.
If there was ever a thought of going to the administration to complain about my treatment, that was quickly extinguished following an SJP demonstration that demanded that the college divest from Oracle. Apparently, Oracle’s website had stated support for Israel, and the Head of Financial Aid for the college felt the need to apologize for the school’s actions.
A response from the school’s administration read thus:“The business strategy or public statements from Oracle do not represent the viewpoints of the College. Due to the College’s contract with the business and the cost it took to make such major system changes, the College does not have any feasible or affordable alternative.
It also went on to assure protesters:
Less than 0.5 percent of the College’s investments are tied to Israeli companies and that none of these investments are directly held by the college.
As the semester ended, on another whim, I searched the Human Resources page of the college, and sure enough, there was a listing for a new English professor. The skills they were looking for were for someone who taught poetry as well as Race and Ethnic studies courses — none of which I was qualified to teach.
Was the college looking to shift away from courses like Screenwriting, Playwriting, and Non-Fiction — three popular courses I had taught that were always in high demand and had long waiting lists?
I guess I’ll never know.
Oren Safdie is a playwright and screenwriter.
The post The Quiet Antisemitism: My Experience as a Jewish College Professor first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
Uncategorized
Volatility, Hit Frequency, and RTP: Why the Number Casinos Advertise Is the Least Useful One
The return to player percentage looks clean as a casino data point. It gives players a neat number, usually around 94% to 97% for many online slots, and that number feels easy to compare. A 96.5% game appears better than a 95.2% game. The problem starts when players treat RTP as a forecast for their next 50 spins or one evening.
You may find the RTP listed on slot pages on a leading online casino in Ontario, but the number only tells part of the story. Two games can share the same RTP and create different sessions: one may return small wins often, while the other may drain a balance before one bonus round changes everything.
The RTP Trap
Return to player (RTP) measures the theoretical share of total wagers a game returns across a very large number of rounds. In plain terms, a 96% RTP slot returns about $96 for every $100 wagered in the long run. That does not mean one player who deposits $100 should expect $96 back.
The trap sits in the word “theoretical.” RTP comes from the game’s math model. It works across huge samples, not personal sessions. A player can finish far above that percentage, far below it, or with nothing left after a short run of poor results.
Is it useless then? No, RTP can still help. It gives a baseline cost of play. Lower-RTP games cost more on average than higher-RTP games. Still, once a game passes a reasonable threshold, the next question matters more: how does it distribute that return?
Hit Frequency: The Number That Shapes Session Feel
Hit frequency tells you how often a game produces a winning outcome. This often misleads players because any win can count. A spin that returns $0.10 on a $1 bet may still count as a hit, even though the player lost $0.90 in real terms.
A game can feel active because symbols connect often, sounds play, and the screen keeps celebrating small returns. The balance may still fall. In many modern slots, “win” does not always mean profit on the spin.
Hit frequency answers one practical question: how much silence can you tolerate? Some players dislike long dry spells. Others accept quieter sessions because they chase bonus rounds or larger payouts.
The educational site Get Gambling Facts gives a useful distinction: RTP concerns the percentage of money returned over time, while hit frequency concerns how often a machine stops on a winning combination.
Volatility: The Risk Label Players Need More Often
Volatility, also called variance, describes how unevenly a game pays. Low-volatility games tend to return smaller amounts more often. High-volatility games hold more value in rare events: bonus rounds, premium symbols, multipliers, or jackpots.
Here is where RTP becomes less useful on its own:
- A 96% low-volatility slot may give modest returns and longer play from the same balance.
- A 96% high-volatility slot may burn through funds quickly unless the player hits a strong feature.
- A progressive jackpot game may look exciting, but it often places more value on rare top prizes.
The same RTP can hide very different risk profiles. Players who ignore volatility often blame the casino or the game when the session follows its math design.
Why the Same RTP Can Feel So Different
Picture two slots with 96% RTP. Slot A pays small wins on many spins, has a modest top prize, and rarely creates dramatic balance swings. Slot B pays less often but offers a large max win and volatile bonus rounds. The advertised return matches, but the experience does not.
Slot A may suit a player who wants a slower bankroll drop and more regular feedback. Slot B suits someone who accepts sharper losses in exchange for a shot at a heavier payout.
A Better Way to Read a Slot Page
Most slot pages give players more clues than they notice. The trick is to read the details together rather than chase the highest percentage.
Start with RTP. If two games look similar, the higher number has better long-term value. Then check volatility. If the game uses terms such as high, very high, or extreme variance, lower your bet size or expect shorter sessions. Next, look at the paytable. A huge max win usually means the game saves a lot of its value for rare outcomes.
A sensible pre-play check looks like this:
- RTP: What is the average long-term return?
- Volatility: How rough can the session become?
- Hit frequency: How often will the game show any wins?
- Paytable: Where does most value sit?
To Conclude
Casinos advertise RTP because it looks objective, tidy, and easy to rank. Players should read it, but they should not give it more authority than it deserves. For long sessions, volatility may matter more than a small RTP difference. For comfort, hit frequency may explain the feel better than the payback rate.
Uncategorized
Lahmeyer, pastor who says Antichrist will be Jewish, heads to Oklahoma GOP runoff
(JTA) — Jackson Lahmeyer, a pastor who supports Israel and believes the Antichrist will be Jewish, is headed to a runoff in his district’s Oklahoma congressional primary.
The Donald Trump-backed Lahmeyer will face off against Mark Tedford, a member of the state House of Representatives from Tulsa, in the August runoff to decide who will be the Republican candidate for Congress in Oklahoma’s 1st Congressional District.
The runoff will pit candidates with two very different approaches to politics, and Israel, against each other at a time when the Republican Party is divided on multiple lines. Lahmeyer is part of Trump’s MAGA movement, while Tedford is a more traditional conservative. Both men promote a hard line on immigration, but Lahmeyer’s rhetoric has been peppered with incendiary claims about efforts by Muslims to establish “sharia law” in the United States.
While both competitors are also evangelical Christians with training in ministry, Lahmeyer works as a pastor and preaches an end-times theology that includes an Antichrist with Jewish heritage. Lahmeyer is also a vocal supporter of Israel, in keeping with his Christian Nationalist outlook, while Tedford has made few if any public comments about Israel or the war in Gaza.
The two candidates pulled far ahead of the pack in Tuesday’s crowded primary, which attracted 11 candidates to fill an open seat. Tedford received 32.1% of the votes, and Lahmeyer drew 25.9%, according to the Oklahoma State Election Board.
Lahmeyer had been seen as a favorite, but his star fell in the days before the election amid revelations that he had been unfaithful to his wife. (He said the episode, which he confirmed, was a private matter and in the past, and Trump reaffirmed his endorsement following the revelation.)
Few if any of the nine candidates who did not make the runoff are part of the MAGA movement, suggesting that Tedford could see more of their supporters turn to him in November.
“We need everyone who came out today to keep fighting until we succeed,” Lahmeyer said in a statement to local media. “Let’s send a Trump-endorsed warrior to fight for Oklahoma values in Congress.”
The district is solidly red, virtually assuring the primary winner of victory in November. The Democratic candidate, John Croisant, is a Tulsa school board member who has not spoken publicly about Israel or Gaza, issues that are occupying some Democrats.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Lahmeyer, pastor who says Antichrist will be Jewish, heads to Oklahoma GOP runoff appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Democratic socialist whose Israel criticism ignited Jewish leaders’ concern leads D.C. mayoral primary vote
(JTA) — A democratic socialist who has sharply criticized Israel and pledged to defend Jews from antisemitism is in the lead in Tuesday’s Democratic primary for mayor in Washington, D.C., poising the nation’s capital to elect a progressive leader.
Janeese Lewis George, a D.C. Council member, had received just over half of the 65% of votes that had been counted by Wednesday morning. Kenyan McDuffie, a moderate and former City Council member, was in a distant second place.
The election is D.C.’s first using ranked-choice voting, so it could take some time to reach a final tabulation and the results could change. Still, the early results have ignited optimism among Lewis George’s supporters — and concern among her critics, who include Jewish leaders in the city and beyond.
Some Jewish leaders have criticized Lewis George, who has accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza, for vowing if elected not to attend “events focused on obfuscating the realities of occupation or promoting Zionism and apartheid” or join “political junkets to Israel.” She made those promises in responses to a questionnaire from the Metro D.C. Democratic Socialists of America, which subsequently endorsed her.
The race set up a fight over the future of Washington, D.C., where the vast majority of voters are Democrats and the threat of President Donald Trump’s interference in city affairs loomed large over the ballot box. The winner is heavily favored to win the general election in November and succeed Democratic Mayor Muriel E. Bowser, who is retiring after 12 years in office.
It also has fueled a national discourse about the growing viability of far-left, anti-Israel politicians in local politics. Some have likened Lewis George to Zohran Mamdani, the democratic socialist elected mayor in New York City last year. A left-wing candidate is also poised to potentially become mayor of Los Angeles, while Chicago has had a progressive Democrat who is sharply critical of Israel since 2023.
The Wall Street Journal said ahead of the D.C. primary that the city was facing “a Mamdani moment” — a sharp critique from the paper’s conservative editorial board.
The leader of Our Revolution, a progressive group founded by Sen. Bernie Sanders, also embraced the comparison, telling USA Today that the success of left-wing candidates including Lewis George and Mamdani showed that voters want change.
Lewis George’s platform focuses largely on making D.C. more affordable. But controversy dogged her after her DSA questionnaire was published.
Ron Halber, head of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington, told The Washington Post that the questionnaire raised “a lot of concern about whether an administration of hers would be sensitive to the Jewish community or not.”
Lewis George said in the DSA questionnaire that she would continue to meet with people and organizations that do not share all her values and opinions. She referenced a meeting she attended that was hosted by the JCRC, saying she disagreed with the group’s “opposition to using the word ‘genocide’ to describe Israel’s actions in Gaza” as well as “their definition of anti-semitism that criminalizes dissent, and their attacks on activists” but could also see areas of shared interest.
“I went to the event to advocate for an end to ICE collaboration, seek allies in that effort, and build on our shared goal of ending the inhumane treatment of our neighbors who are being taken by ICE,” she said.
Lewis George was endorsed by the Jews United for Justice Campaign Fund, which says it promotes economic, social and racial justice. The group said in its endorsement announcement that Lewis George would “fight for our communities and our Jewish values.”
After blowback to the DSA questionnaire, Lewis George privately met with local rabbis and Jewish community leaders in March to hear their concerns, according to Jewish Insider. Shortly after, she said in a statement on her campaign website that her “support for Palestinian human rights” and her “commitment against antisemitism” were not in conflict.
She added, “To the Jewish community in DC: I will not be a mayor who includes or excludes you based on your opinions or feelings on matters here and across the world. I will always protect your freedom, safety, and sense of belonging.”
Lewis George also said she had visited synagogues since she was in middle school and frequently worked with Jewish organizations as a council member, including to obtain security grants for synagogues and schools.
She went on to list her credentials as a supporter of Palestinians, saying that she was among the first Council members to call for a ceasefire in Gaza and meet with George Washington University students advocating for a ceasefire.
The DSA strongly opposes the Israeli government and requires candidates to share their views on Israel to secure an endorsement. While the party remains controversial in the Democratic establishment, Democrats nationwide have shifted their sympathies away from Israel since 2023, with 65% saying their sympathies lie more with the Palestinians in a February Gallup poll.
McDuffie criticized Lewis George’s answers to the DSA questionnaire and said there was “no place in this city for shutting out any community,” according to Washington Jewish Week. But he has largely avoided weighing in on questions about Israel, telling Jewish Insider that it was not the mayor’s role to craft foreign policy.
The Middle East receded to the background in the closing days of the mayoral race, which focused heavily on high costs of living in the district and fighting the Trump administration. Lewis George and McDuffie both argued they were better equipped to block interference from the federal government, as National Guard troops continue to patrol the streets amid Trump’s crackdown on immigration and tens of thousands of residents have lost their government jobs.
Meanwhile, Trump threatened at the Oval Office on Thursday to “take back” Washington and “run it on the federal basis” if Lewis George won.
The Tuesday primary used ranked-choice voting, which allows voters to rank up to five candidates. If no candidate reaches 50%, the last-place finisher is removed and voters for that candidate have their votes distributed among their second choice candidates. The process continues until one candidate has a majority. This voting method means that a final tally of results can take days after polls close.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Democratic socialist whose Israel criticism ignited Jewish leaders’ concern leads D.C. mayoral primary vote appeared first on The Forward.
