fbpx

July 6, 2011

Los Angeles Museum of the Holocaust Wins MUSE Media Awards

The new Los Angeles Museum of the Holocaust (LAMH) earned gold and silver MUSE awards in the annual competition of the American Association of Museums (AAM). 

The international AAM Media and Technology Committee announced the 41 winners for the 22nd annual MUSE competition from more than 200 media submissions utilizing games, videos, audio tours and Web sites.

For the category of Audio Tours & Podcasts, LAMH won a gold for its Spatial Audio Guide, which consists of an iPod Touch that visitors carry throughout the museum, allowing them to “have a private and contemplative experience worthy of the subject matter” the MUSE judges wrote in their award description.

The museum also received a silver award for the “18 Camps” presentation within Multimedia Installations, chosen by MUSE judges for “the degree to which it accomplishes its overall objective: a simple, smart and powerful presentation that brings all elements together brilliantly.” The 18 waist-high touch screens each describe a different concentration camp and are arranged to surround visitors so that they “have to become responsible for their own experience rather than remaining passive,” the museum’s executive director, Mark Rothman, said.

“We know from our visitors’ feedback that all of our exhibits are winners, and it’s just great to get some external feedback,” Rothman added.

Los Angeles Museum of the Holocaust Wins MUSE Media Awards Read More »

Opinion: Maybe San Francisco will wake Jews up

If San Francisco succeeds in banning circumcision, some good may come of it.

Let me explain. I am a passionate advocate of Jewish ritual circumcision — the ritual circumcision of 8-day-old Jewish boys. I am even an advocate of circumcision generally. I was recently in Africa — in Zimbabwe and Zambia — where I delivered mosquito nets and seeds to the poorest of Africa’s poor. I saw giant billboards there, as well as in neighboring Botswana, exhorting men to get circumcised. The World Health Organization estimates that male circumcision reduces the rate of heterosexually transmitted AIDS by about 60 percent.

As regards Jewish ritual circumcision, I can only say that I cried like a baby at the brit milah of my two sons. All I could think of was that I had been given the gift of transmitting Jewish identity in an unbroken chain that dates back to Abraham, 3,600 years ago.

I find the arguments of those who campaign against the brit milah either specious or ludicrous. The notion that some terrible, lasting pain is inflicted on the baby is over the top. The average time the baby cries is probably well under the time it cries — and far less frantic than — when tired or desiring milk. I fully understand the conflicted feelings of the mother, and I see no reason for her to be present.

Does the baby experience pain and discomfort afterward? Yes. But it is temporary, and the baby heals quickly.

The advantages wildly outweigh the momentary pain. The brit uniquely strengthens a Jew’s commitment to Judaism and instills in the family and the community a profound identification with the Jewish people and with nearly four millennia of world-changing values.

As for the argument that the foreskin is important, I can only say that in my most self-pitying moments I cannot recall lamenting not having foreskin. As I have told anti-circumcision activists on my radio show, you have to be pretty bored with life to be preoccupied with not having your foreskin.

One might add that the same people who are profoundly upset over the removal of foreskin rarely have a problem with the removal of a living human fetus. San Francisco considers protecting the human fetus religious fanaticism, but is seriously considering protecting a newborn’s foreskin.

So, then, given my profound support for circumcision, what good could possibly come from San Francisco passing a ban on it?

If the most left-wing major city in America starts arresting Jews who have their children circumcised in that city, some American Jews might awaken to the threat to Jews posed by the left. Obviously, San Francisco’s already-existing bans on toys in Happy Meals, on soda in city-owned places and on plastic bags, and the city’s proposed ban on the sale of pets, even goldfish, have not moved many Jews (and non-Jews) to begin wondering whether left-wing governance is dangerous. But perhaps a ban on circumcision will.

Of course, not everyone who is on the left — and certainly not the traditional liberal — is an enemy of the Jews. But, aside from Islamists, virtually all the enemies of the Jews are on the left.

The worldwide campaign to delegitimize Israel, i.e., to pave the way for moral acceptance of Israel’s destruction — is virtually all on the left. Universities in America and elsewhere in the Western world as well as the mainstream news media outlets around the globe are all dominated by the left, and they drum into their students’ and readers’ and listeners’ and viewers’ minds that Israel is one of the worst societies on earth.

Yet, most American Jews still walk around thinking that Christians and the right are their enemies when, in fact, they are the best friends Jews have in the world today. From the present conservative Canadian government, which is probably the most vocal pro-Israel country in the world today, to every major right-wing talk host in America (including the pro-Jewish and pro-Israel Glenn Beck, who has been libeled as an anti-Semite), to the leader of Holland’s right-wing party and member of the Dutch parliament, Geert Wilders (one of the most eloquent pro-Israel voices in Europe today), to conservative writer Kevin Myers, the most pro-Israel columnist in Ireland, to the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page — the right is where our friends are.

For all these reasons, there is this still, small voice inside me that hopes that if San Francisco bans circumcision, a few more Jews will put two and two together and begin to realize that this is merely one more expression of the threat the left in America and elsewhere poses to the Jewish people.

What will it take for this generation of Jewish leftists to realize what Arthur Koestler, perhaps the most prominent Jewish leftist of a previous generation, came to realize — that leftism is “the god that failed”? A San Francisco ban on the oldest practice of the Jewish people? The City of Berkeley declaring Marines “unwelcome intruders”? PETA arguing that there is no moral difference between barbecuing chickens and cremating Jews? The ostracizing of the Jewish state from the world community by institutions dominated by the left?

Whatever it takes, the sooner the better.

Opinion: Maybe San Francisco will wake Jews up Read More »

Gina Nahai: What Remains

We were exchanging “memorable aunt” stories, and my friend, who’s a trial attorney, had a clear lead over all the rest of us. In part, that’s because she’s a comedic actor who missed her calling and became a trial attorney instead, so she wasn’t just narrating, but also performing the part of her favorite aunt. But even without the advantage in delivery, my friend’s aunt had a genuine edge over everyone else’s — which is saying a lot, given that these were some phenomenal characters we were talking about. You couldn’t dream them up or forget them easily or help thinking what a shame it was that they all lived and died without being memorialized in some grand, black and white, “All right, Mr. DeMille, I’m ready for my close-up” film.

There was, for example, the homely young girl with the bad stutter and crossed eyes who, tired of being laughed at and told she’d never find a husband, sent her brothers out to grab some unsuspecting young man off the street and bring him home to what turned out to be his wedding. He was sitting in a theater on a Friday afternoon, watching a movie, when the brothers went in and “invited” him to follow them. They had picked him out of the crowd of moviegoers because he had blue eyes, but then they discovered that he had the added advantage of not understanding a word of Persian: He was a Pole, hiding in Iran during World War II. At the entrance to the house where the brothers had taken him, he found himself surrounded by a few hundred cheering, ululating women who tossed sugared almonds at him while a complete stranger in a white wedding gown threw herself into his arms and pledged eternal love. By the time he figured out what had happened to him, he had been married 60 years and raised five blue-eyed sons with his not-so-pretty wife.

And there was the tall, robust woman with great ambition and little conscience who kept marrying rich men, then “losing” them in freak poisoning accidents. Around Tehran when I was growing up, she was known as the Black Widow, knew it, and didn’t mind at all.

And then there was my lawyer friend’s great-aunt, now long dead, who started out smart and educated and very beautiful, married a rich, good-looking man, bore three ravishing daughters, and promptly lost her mind. She had moved with her husband to Hamburg, Germany, and there she lived until the very end, even after he died and the daughters moved away. She had a little apartment with a spare bedroom that contained her deceased husband’s bed, clothes and personal belongings, and that she kept sealed year-round, opened only when a very important guest came to visit and then, just to give a short, “don’t touch anything” tour. She wore red dresses and red hats at home, spoke in librettos and sang opera at dinner. Every Shabbat, she bought a raw chicken from the corner butcher shop, stuck a fork in it, and held it over the flame of her gas stove until it was charred on the outside and still bleeding inside — her idea of good, wholesome, home-cooking.

Now I don’t know if it’s just me, or if most people revel in the notion of such extraordinary creatures existing within the folds and wrinkles of our ordinary lives. I realize, of course, that what we hear or remember of them — the surprise wedding, the serendipitous arsenic, the red dress and red hat and the fork stuck in the raw chicken — is a sliver of an otherwise epic, multifaceted tale. It’s not fair, not something any of us would wish for ourselves — for everything we have ever done or felt or wished to be reduced to a single story, and for that story to become our legacy. And yet, it’s also true that without those odd, perhaps even misperceived, traits, without those radical deviations from the customary, there wouldn’t be much to remember any of us by.

What would Queen Vashti be but another forgotten wife if she hadn’t been crazy enough to say no to the king? Did she know, when she did it, that that’s what the world would remember her for? And if she did, would she still have said no?

Maybe it’s wishful thinking — that I’ll be remembered at all — but I’ve always wondered which crazy, off-the-wall act will end up defining me to my grandchildren. My husband worries that it will be my habit of writing in my car when I have two offices — one at home and another at work — plus a house that’s pretty empty these days, in which to write. My kids think it’s my tendency to love my iPad the way normal people love their pets. I wouldn’t mind either one of those; I’m sure it could be worse. But these days, having reached midlife and then some, I find that the question has taken on a much greater weight: If there was one moment that, if witnessed by others, would become my story, one choice that came with a stamp this will be what your children will remember you for, would I dare commit it at all? Would I do as I would have done if I believed I was invisible? Would I know how to choose between what remains — a name, a memory, a sketch of a woman’s unflinching wrist as she flicks a drop of poison into her unsuspecting husband’s glass — and what I hope to gain in the moment?

I’ll never know what the inner lives of any of my friends’ and my own eccentric aunts and uncles and close and distant friends really were like. I’m willing to allow for the possibility that the surprise bride didn’t, in fact, have a happy marriage, and that the Black Widow of Tehran’s high society enjoyed every one of her ill-gotten rials. I would like to believe that, given the choice, I would opt for the difficult life and the gleaming legacy over the good life and the dark, damning story. I would like to, yes; but I hope I’ll never be given that notice, never see the stamp on the back of the little step, the quiet word, the otherwise ordinary moment in a very ordinary day.

Gina Nahai: What Remains Read More »

Opinion: The meaning of death

“I hope you die and never come back!” the woman screamed at her husband as he left for work. Although the couple loved each other, it didn’t stop them from having the occasional quarrel. That morning’s quarrel, however, was worse than usual.

As fate would have it, the man never made it to work. He died of a heart attack shortly after leaving the house. We’ll never know if the argument contributed to his death, but it doesn’t matter. The woman, widowed now for 10 years, lives with the regret that she and her husband gave such ridiculous importance to their disagreements.

She now knows, all too well, that the nastiest disagreement is utterly insignificant when compared with the awesome finality of death.

I came across this story in a manuscript for a new book written by my friend Rabbi Benjamin Blech, with the working title “Why We Shouldn’t Fear Death.” The book is full of these little stories and anecdotes, mixed in with the spiritual musings of one of the leading lights of Modern Orthodoxy.

Blech himself spent many months fearing death after a routine doctor visit in February 2010. “There is no known cure,” his doctor told him, after announcing he had a rare fatal disease called cardiac amyloidosis. Amyloids are proteins that can attack different parts of the body. If they invade the brain, the result is Alzheimer’s. Blech’s problem is in his heart. The amyloids are hardening the heart muscle, making it more difficult for the blood to be pumped to the rest of the body.

For nearly four decades, as a community rabbi, Blech would counsel and comfort congregants as they approached death. Now he had to do it for himself. He wasn’t sure how. He found something on Google that suggested he had six months to live. He went to two specialists who were more careful with their prognosis: Intensive research is being done on the disease, they told him, but no one can predict what the lifespan will be.

So Blech is banking on meds, prayers and attitude.

It’s the attitude part that’s been the biggest challenge. After many months of “just being scared,” he decided to start writing again. Only this time, instead of working on a book (he has published 12 books on various Jewish themes), he wrote short columns for Aish.com. The reason was simple: If he doesn’t know how long he has to live, better not start a book he can’t finish.

Then, four months ago, Passover came.

“It was like a fire came over me,” he told me last week at a café in the neighborhood where he lives with his wife on the Upper West Side. Blech might be 77, but he has the face of a bright-eyed child who sees his first rainbow. He seems to always be amazed.

“I got this incredible urge to write a book about death,” he said. “To dive into it and see what would happen.”

Right after Passover, still unsure of how much longer he had to live, he sat down to write. The words just poured out. He finished the book in two months.

The result is an intelligent and soulful exploration of the unknowable. Blech doesn’t try to conquer death or “spin” it or sugarcoat it. He’s amazed by death, but not fazed by it. He looks it squarely in the eye, turns it around, peels back the layers, and, ultimately, infuses it with meaning.

Blech finds meaning in death by discerning divine meaning in life. If God is eternal, and we are created in God’s image, then we share in that eternity. Our physical bodies might die, but our little piece of God — our individual souls — never die.

Our souls live on in everything we have done in this life, in every person we have touched, every word we have shared, every song we have sung. Living with that awareness helps us fulfill our purpose in life.

Rabbi Blech says he doesn’t fear death, and I believe him. Many years ago, my rabbi, Manis Friedman, asked me if I knew what people feared most. I mentioned the obvious: Loss of health? Loss of livelihood? Death?

“No,” he said. “The biggest fear people have is that their life has no meaning.”

On that basis, I can see how Rabbi Blech has lost his fear of death. His diagnosis, he says, was “God’s way of telling me to write this book, to complete my mission. I would never have written a book about death otherwise.”

He’s right. Blech is too sweet and optimistic a man to think of writing a book about death. Ironically, it was the hardening of a muscle in his heart that led him eventually to take a hard and honest look at this most difficult of subjects.

By transforming a fatal diagnosis into a moment of purpose, Rabbi Blech has re-energized his life. Now, because his condition has “not worsened,” he’s wondering if there is still more he can do to fulfill his mission on earth. He’s looking for another sign from God.

In the meantime, one thing you can bet he won’t do is argue with his wife.

Opinion: The meaning of death Read More »

Goodbye, California

The scariest conversation I’ve had recently was with a college counselor at a local high school.

She said she has to tell parents and students that acceptance to the California State University (Cal State) system is no longer a sure thing. What’s more, the once near-certain transfer from a community college to a University of California (UC) is no longer so automatic.

At the root of the problem is money. The schools can’t expand to fill the demand; in fact, they are shrinking. Classes have been cut. Foreign and out-of-state students who can pay full fare get greater priority than ever before. What used to be assured for students looking to better themselves and contribute to society is now, in some cases, a long shot.

And it’s only going to get worse.

The state budget that Gov. Jerry Brown and the Democrat-led legislature passed on June 28 will take $650 million each from the Cal State and the UC systems. Those cuts come after a decade of reductions that began under Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who slashed UC budgets some 20 percent.

The education cuts are among many tough choices Brown and the legislature made, including cuts in mental health, elderly, low-income and handicapped services, in an attempt to close a $26.6 billion state budget deficit.

As a result, education officials predict a shortening of the academic year, reduced ability to attract and retain top professors and researchers, an increase in the cost of community colleges, layoffs at universities that employ thousands of Californians, and tuition hikes approaching 20 percent.

Let’s be very, very clear about what is happening on our watch. We, the current generation of Californians, are overseeing the decay and degradation of the greatest gift the previous generation has bequeathed us: our system of public higher education.

What’s worse, we are robbing future generations of the opportunities we had, and in the process, we are taking a wrecking ball to our state.

Democrats and Republicans can argue ad nauseam about how to solve California’s budget deficit. But there is no serious partisan disagreement over this fundamental fact: You cannot have a great state without a great public education system.

Just think of our own little world, our own community. In so many cases, it was access to inexpensive, excellent public schools and universities that enabled many of us in the community to evolve from our grandparents’ struggling roots to become a professional and entrepreneurial class. The University of California turned out to be one of the greatest Jewish institutions the world has ever known. How much wealth, achievement and success can be traced back to its campuses?

“It was accessible to anybody who earned it,” Zev Yaroslavky, the Los Angeles County Supervisor — and UCLA grad — told me over the phone last week. “All they needed was the intellectual capacity and the drive to succeed.”

The true tragedy is that the next generation of worthy students simply won’t have the same opportunities. But they aren’t the only ones who will pay a price: We all will.

Universities are society’s economic engines, sure. But perhaps the public universities’ greater value is the values they stand for: that anyone who works hard enough can succeed. Trample on the path to affordable, excellent education, and you trample on hope.

Reading the Internet and listening to talk radio, you get the impression that the people to blame for these deficits are the students themselves — who have the temerity to expect the same quality of education their parents were offered — or those fat pensions UC executives and employees get.

I do think that in an era of tight money, until we get our house in order, some cuts, pension reform and some hikes are necessary. Share the wealth, share the pain.

But what seems to be happening in this round of budget “compromise” is just the pain part.

For instance, Yaroslavsky pointed out that under Schwarzenegger the state revoked its taxes on luxury items like yachts and private airplanes. The new budget retains those tax breaks.

Are taxes on Gulfstream Vs enough to close the gap? No. But the refusal to increase, or even extend, any tax revenue, even among the richest among us, sends a clear message — let the burden fall on those who are least able to fight back.

Raising these questions inevitably brings accusations of class warfare, but it’s hard not to think that the war started a while ago, and only one side is fighting.

In the end, though, we all lose.

“If these are the values of our state today,” Yaroslavsky said, “shame on all of us.”

Then again, maybe he’s overreacting. Maybe I am, too. Maybe higher learning is overrated. After all, the governor, the legislators and most voters all have college educations — and look what a mess we’ve made of this great state.

Goodbye, California Read More »

The Education of LAUSD’s Steve Zimmer

It’s been dark for almost five hours, the city has slowed, and even the 101 Freeway is sparse and quiet. Steve Zimmer has just wrapped his last appointment, but rushing home seems foolish when a rare sit-down dinner is an option. Most days Zimmer hardly notices how alone he is, because he never stops working.

On this wintry night earlier this year, the then-18-month veteran of the Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education is coming off a 14-hour day, a zigzag tour of schools from West Hollywood to the Elysian Valley, from parent meetings on the Westside to policy meetings downtown, home to Hollywood to walk his blind Chihuahua-pug mix and is about to wind down — finally — with dinner and a very necessary nightcap in Echo Park. By this point, Zimmer is hungry, tired and melancholy, so once he’s decided upon the kitschy French bistro Taix on Sunset Boulvard, he pops in a Leonard Cohen CD and sinks into the driver’s seat of his LAUSD-owned Prius.

Hallelujah…

“So you know that everybody covers ‘Hallelujah,’ but this version, this live version is just … unbelievable,” he says. “The instrumentation is very different than his studio albums. I didn’t realize how Jewish-influenced his music was until I heard this. It almost has a klezmer-y feel.”

Zimmer moves to another favorite, Beck, whose album “Sea Change” he calls “the breakup album.” “It rips your heart out,” he says, explaining that he listened to it on loop for months after a six-year relationship ended recently. At 41, he has never married, but he says his last breakup felt like a divorce.

“I’ve been good — or at least passable — at a lot of things in my life,” Zimmer tells me. “I haven’t been as good at relationships. An artist can’t help being an artist — in the same sense that I can’t help what I do. It’s a focus thing.

“I don’t know how to do things any other way. It’s a complicated balancing act to have two passions. It takes a very, very special person to be willing to be part of a balancing act.”

Steve Zimmer speaking at Venice High School about LAUSD’s “We Build” school construction and renovation program.

But if Zimmer thinks his schedule reflects any sort of work/life balance whatsoever, he’s either incredibly un-self-aware or in denial. Most days he’s so entrenched — between developing and arguing policy downtown and visiting with parents, students and administrators at any of the 99 school sites in his district, which runs from East Hollywood to the ocean, north to the Valley and south to Westchester (“It’s f—-ing enormous!”) — there really is no distinction between Zimmer’s work life and personal life. Given the constant state of crisis in today’s public schools, every school board member must take the job seriously, but, for Zimmer, it is an up-all-night, high-octane, high-stress, the-world-rests-on-your-shoulders kind of job. He gives it everything, with a self-sacrifice that borders on masochism.

You might call Zimmer a modern-day Don Quixote, a man on a deeply personal but quite possibly futile quest to revitalize public education during one of the most fraught periods in American schools’ history — and in a landscape packed with counter forces so dizzying it makes La Mancha look like a playground. Is he mad? Maybe. And yet, there can be reason in madness. Zimmer is the kind of hero you want to see succeed — affable, passionate, intense and charismatic —  and he approaches almost everything except politics with romantic brio.

Like any good literary character, Zimmer faces tough obstacles and has some tragic flaws. He took a huge pay cut to sit on the board full time, leaving his $90,000-per-year teacher’s salary for an annual income of about $50,000. “I don’t say this lightly, but financially, this has ruined me,” he says.

The parallel between his life and the central dilemma facing LAUSD is striking: Just a few months ago, due to California’s budget crisis, LAUSD faced a $408 million deficit for the 2011-2012 school year, effectively threatening the jobs of about 4,000 teachers, and, as a result, the education of approximately 640,000 students.

The crisis was mitigated in late June when LAUSD passed a budget combining state revenues, givebacks from the unions and from the California Workers’ Compensation reserve, as well as a one-time stimulus from the federal government’s Education Jobs Bill. But even that wasn’t enough; this month, 3,000 LAUSD employees face layoffs, though a pending labor deal with the unions mandating furlough days may prove a saving grace for at least half of those jobs.

Zimmer is part of a board trying to steer a ship under siege and, every day, has to contend with numerous angry forces. But, for Zimmer, that seems to fade into the background when he’s face to face with the city’s most vulnerable. He is known for his devotion to at-risk students, the impoverished and gang-prone, those most susceptible to drug addictions or lives of crime.

His altruistic spirit, while admirable, has also earned him criticism; he’s been accused of putting the needs of his Eastside constituents before the concerns of his more affluent constituents on the Westside. Indeed, dividing his focus is a struggle both internally and externally, but Zimmer maintains that his bottom line is to ensure equal opportunities for all students, irrespective of where they land on the socioeconomic continuum.

To bridge the education gap between the haves and the have-nots, he says, is “the civil-rights struggle of our day.”

At 8 a.m. on a Wednesday, Zimmer picks me up 20 minutes late for a parent meeting at Rosewood Elementary School, where he’ll discuss the district’s plans to build a new middle school in West Hollywood (currently, the closest option is in Hollywood, a long commute for parents). Zimmer wears a suit that looks a little baggy on his medium build, the business attire an odd contrast with his laid-back style. He has beady but piercing blue eyes and is markedly bald in front; a perpetually furrowed brow gives him a scowling look.

“So, this is a train wreck of lateness this morning,” he apologizes before adjusting his tie and checking his BlackBerry. “But there will be food and coffee.”

Before he was elected to a three-year term on the board in 2009, Zimmer taught for 17 years. He came to Los Angeles as a Teach for America trainee in 1992, and, by fall, was placed at John Marshall High School teaching English as a second language. Marshall transformed Zimmer; the Los Feliz school is a Title I school, with nearly 70 percent of students qualifying for the free or reduced-fee lunch program. At Marshall, he realized his students needed more than what the classroom offered, so he created an intervention-counseling program and became a community activist, campaigning for immigrant rights and bilingual education. Public education, he came to believe, is the best and only hope for creating stability in marginalized communities.

At West Hollywood’s Rosewood, 25 parents have gathered inside a small auditorium for a meeting about a new middle school added onto the nearby Laurel Elementary School campus last fall. “We want middle school to be something you’re excited about, not something you’re scared of,” Zimmer says to mild chuckles. Laurel opened to sixth-graders in fall 2010; 160 students are registered for grades 6-8 for the coming school year.

“You get to have a major role in how this school is shaped. You get to build it,” he tells them. When he’s done with his shpiel, parents ask about class size, curriculum and what the cafeteria will serve. Zimmer doesn’t have all the answers but tells them classes will start small. “I wouldn’t be broadcasting this out,” he warns.

“And the new superintendent is on board with this?” one woman asks, referring to John Deasy, who would take over for LAUSD’s veteran innovator Ramon Cortines in April 2011.

“He will be,” Zimmer says with surprising confidence for someone who was the sole board member to oppose Deasy’s confirmation as superintendent last January. “He should be,” Zimmer corrects himself, “because if we do this right, we’re going to retain the ADA [average daily attendance] of the middle-school students we’ve been losing to charters for years.”

Before Zimmer helped open the new middle school, only 11 students from the greater West Hollywood area attended an LAUSD middle school. The resulting loss in funds to the district was enormous because LAUSD receives approximately $5,800 from the state per student enrolled. Next calendar year, Zimmer estimates the district will have lost 83,000 students to charter schools. Do the math, and the total losses amount to more than $480 million, a substantially larger sum than LAUSD’s total deficit.

At a town hall meeting at Walgrove Elementary in Venice in June, Zimmer found himself in the awkward position of defending district plans to parcel out Walgrove land to a charter school (LAUSD is required by law to provide space for charters). The meeting was attended by Tanya Anton, author of “GoMamaGuide,” a detailed guidebook to Los Angeles schools. Anton makes a living advising families about their public school options. In the last election, she supported Zimmer’s opponent, Mike Stryer, a business executive-turned-Fairfax High School teacher, but she said she is heartened by Zimmer’s willingness to engage in dialogue.

“My issue with Steve is that I feel he’s conflicted, because he was paid for by UTLA money,” Anton said, referring to the teachers’ union, United Teachers Los Angeles, which donated an estimated $300,000 to Zimmer’s 2008 campaign. “I just don’t know how effective he can be. I see his passion. I honor his commitment to the disenfranchised. I just don’t know if he can take care of business and get things done.”

Because he is a former teacher, Zimmer’s allegiance to unions is philosophical and fundamental; he believes public workers’ rights should be protected. But Zimmer’s union association has also become an image problem as one of public education’s fiercest current battles pits a civic-led reform movement against teachers’ unions. Fed up with dismal graduation rates and low test scores — in LAUSD, approximately 50 percent of students graduate high school, and only about 10 percent go on to college — teachers’ unions have come to represent what many believe is an intolerable status quo, one that protects poorly performing teachers. The notion that if students are failing, bad teachers are to blame, has been reinforced in mainstream culture by popular polemics such as Davis Guggenheim’s documentary “Waiting for Superman.”

The assumption that Zimmer parrots union party line is problematic, but it’s also not entirely true. In fact, Zimmer nearly derailed his union base within the first weeks of his term, when, in July 2009, he voted for Public School Choice. The measure created a mechanism by which all new LAUSD schools are automatically put out to bid, so charters can apply to operate these schools. Zimmer came on board when, as a compromise, an addendum included failing schools in the conversion program. To date, however, only one charter operator, Green Dot, has ever applied to take over an LAUSD failing school.

The teacher’s union vehemently opposed Public School Choice, largely because most charters are not unionized, and every takeover means more job losses for teachers and other school staff. A.J. Duffy, immediate past president of UTLA, referred to Public School Choice as “an unmitigated disaster” and called it a “misstep” on Zimmer’s part to lend his vote.

“Having said that, I’m a realist,” Duffy added. “And when we support a candidate for school board, we don’t buy them. They don’t belong to us. Overall, Steve has been very good about pushing a progressive teacher-driven agenda.”

Zimmer defends his support of Public School Choice as a political compromise.

“Public School Choice is a better process for restarting schools than anything the federal government has come up with. But for new schools? I’ll regret forever that I voted for that,” he said. He believes the admissions process by which charters operate, as well as the disproportionately low attention given to special-needs programs, work against the core value of public education — to serve all students.

Maria Elena Durazo, head of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO, admitted Zimmer has “butted heads with official union leadership — on a number of occasions.”

“He’s not a blind follower,” Durazo said. “But he believes in the fundamental value of a strong labor movement, that it is essential to a democratic society. He represents true human values; a janitor losing his or her job is not just a number to him — that’s a human being.”

The problem Zimmer faces, though, is that what matters most to him is not necessarily what matters most to everyone else. “Certainly I think about kids first, but not kids only,” he says. “Because to get kids to graduation requires adults that are well trained, performing well, and well supported.”

Zimmer was born on the Upper West Side of Manhattan to a middle-class family. His mother taught middle school, and his father taught business at Newark College. When Zimmer was 5, his father lost his job and purchased a blueprinting business in Bridgeport, Conn., moving the family from Jewish Mecca to a place where the boy would become the only Jew in school.

“I got beat up because of it,” he says. “I remember one time when we were doing a Christmas project, one of the kids asked, ‘Why doesn’t he have to do it?’ And my teacher said, ‘Oh, he’s not like us. He’s different, he’s Jewish.’ ” The family’s religious practice was even more alienating, as they kept a strict kosher home and attended a Conservative shul every Shabbat.  Did this make him resent Judaism?

The Education of LAUSD’s Steve Zimmer Read More »

Sleep-deprived dad and “Barefoot Intactivist” spar over circumcision science

Gordon Haber says he’s tired of the intactivists’ “bullsh*t.”

For those of you not following the ongoing debate over circumcision, intactivists are anti-circumcision activists. They often talk about being in favor of “genital integrity” or describe themselves as human rights activists, and some have been agitating for legislation outlawing male circumcision for decades.

In May, San Francisco announced that a measure aiming to ban the procedure in the city for all boys under 18 for any reason other than a medical emergency had qualified for the November 2011 ballot—which turned what had been an uncomfortable (but mostly private) conversation into a very public fight over foreskins.

This fight has taken root in the Jewish community, and more than a few writers from the tribe have weighed in with their takes. (Last week’s contributions: Jay Michaelson offered a modest, carefully considered and somewhat biblical proposal to the medical/ethical/religious circumcision question in the Forward and Eli Ungar-Sargon, whose documentary “Cut” took a hard, Jewish look at circumcision, interviewed a prominent intactivist on Jewschool.)

And then there’s Haber, a writer who has published work in a number of publications, including a few Jewish ones. He recently started his own skirmish with an article for the online magazine Killing the Buddha. Not content with the media’s coverage of the discussion around circumcision, Haber, who had recently had a Jewish ritual circumcision—a bris—for his own son, decided to try to “[parse] the claims of both sides and [evaluate] the science.”

“I suppose I should have known better,” the new father writes, “but, as I mentioned, I was sleep-deprived.”

And though Haber starts off by acknowledging his ambivalence—and later unaease—about the decision to circumcise his newborn son, by the article’s end it’s clear which side he’s on. Haber grants that intactivists, though they may resemble conspiracy theorists like truthers and birthers, “are actually performing a public service by making their opponents defend a procedure that, for decades, most Americans have accepted without question.”

But that’s about all the credit he’ll give them. Consider Haber’s last two paragraphs:

What, though, are we to make of the ones attempting, through various forms of quackery, to “restore” their foreskins? Some may snigger, but I find something pitiable in the “tugging devices” and “taping methods,” which can’t be comfortable and can take years. Instead of accepting themselves as they are, these men are obsessed with how they feel they should be—to they point where some undergo “foreskin restoration surgery,” once again putting the most sensitive part of their anatomy under the knife.

But this is the fringe of the fringe. For the rest of us—the concerned expectant parents, the sleep-deprived new fathers and mothers—here, then, is my advice. Jews and Muslims should do it if they like, and everybody should use anesthetic. However, since the procedure can never be entirely painless, I wouldn’t blame any parent for leaving it out—or on. That’s why if one day my boy is blessed with a son of his own, I hope I will remember to butt out. And until they can come up with some real arguments, intactivists should do the same.

In short, Haber tells intactivists to butt out.

No surprise, then, that Haber’s piece quickly provoked responses from across the spectrum. Last week KTB published a 545-word letter from The Barefoot Intactivist, a New-York Based vocal opponent of infant circumcision (of the religious or medicalized varieties) alongside an even longer response from Haber.

But the anti-circ writer couldn’t let Haber have the last word, especially not after “one of Haber’s supporters goaded [him]” into responding. (Apparently Haber’s comment, that Barefoot Intactivist either “has some issues with reading comprehension” or is “batshit crazy” wasn’t enough to elicit a retort.)

Whatever the impetus, Barefoot Intactivist hammered out a 5,000-word response—complete with video and photographic illustrations—and posted it on what appears to be a blog created for this express purpose.

At the tail end of his long entry, Barefoot Intactivist recommends to Haber a few books “any one of [which] would have saved your son,” and notes that all of the intactivist writers—David Gollaher (historian of medicine and science), Leonard Glick (cultural anthropologist), Paul Fleiss (pediatrician), Ronald Goldman (psychologist)—are all Jews.

What Barefoot Intactivist didn’t mention is that three of the four—Glick, Fleiss and Goldman—all signed a “Message to Jewish Americans on Circumcision” last month that lamented “statements and tactics by individuals opposed to circumcision that are insensitive and even offensive to many Jews.”

The statement rejected these tactics, but did not name them. But when asked if the attempt being made in San Francisco to ban circumcision of male minors without regard for religious belief would qualify as “insensitive and even offensive to many Jews,” Goldman, the statement’s primary author, said that he and his co-signers was “intended to refer to anything and everything that is insensitive or offensive to the Jewish community.”

Goldman also said that the aim of those who signed that statement was not to ban the practice, but to educate people about what they feel are the harms of circumcision.

(Goldman also took issue with the media—“Generally speaking,” he said, “media coverage of circumcision tends to ignore one of our main points that we’re trying to get across, which is that circumcision is very harmful”—which sounds remarkably similar to the feeling that inspired Haber to start writing about the science of circumcision in the first place.)

And if even the most prominent Jewish intactivists are not supporting the effort to enact an outright ban in San Francisco, favoring education and questioning, then it would seem that the Jews Barefoot Intactivist cites would actually not find much that is objectionable in Haber’s original conclusion—even if they would almost certainly take issue with his assessment of the science and with the personal choice he made for his son.

So what is this fight about again?

Oh, right: Science. And a ballot measure that aims to institute a blanket ban on circumcision—which, for those keeping track, the San Francisco City Attorney said last week might be found unconstitutional.

A tentative court date has been set for July 28, and if the measure survives judicial scrutiny, the election will take place in November. But the scientific debate—well, that’ll probably go on for some time.

Sleep-deprived dad and “Barefoot Intactivist” spar over circumcision science Read More »

Netanyahu orders pro-Palestinian ‘fly-in’ activists be stopped

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered the country’s security services to prevent pro-Palestinian fly-in activists from entering the country.

“Every country has the right to prevent the entry of provocateurs into its borders,” Netanyahu said Wednesday at Ben Gurion Airport during a meeting with security services officials.

He told the officials to “act with determination, while trying to avoid unnecessary friction” with the hundreds of pro-Palestinian activists who reportedly are planning to fly to Israel’s international airport to protest the country’s policies toward the Palestinians.

Activists hope the “fly-in,” scheduled for July 8, will disrupt airport operations, including departing and arriving flights. Most of the activists are from Europe, according to reports.

The activists plan to declare “Palestine” as their destination once they land in Israel, according to reports. They face being denied entry to Israel and deportation. They reportedly will demonstrate if denied entry.

Hundreds of additional police and Border Guard officers have been stationed at the airport in preparation for the fly-in, Ynet reported.

Israel often prevents international activists it believes are planning disruptive demonstrations to enter the country

The activists who are allowed in to the country plan to tour Jerusalem, Ramallah, Bethlehem, and the Jordan Valley, and to take part in solidarity activities with the Palestinians, as part of the Welcome Palestine event sponsored by 40 pro-Palestinian groups.

Netanyahu orders pro-Palestinian ‘fly-in’ activists be stopped Read More »